Australia - the aftermath of the Ashes

[Furball]

Well, Johnson's efforts in/against England (bar Perth) probably come as close as a bowler could to lose his team a game. Hasn't he bowled some utter rubbish in conditions suiting bowlers.. Pakistan at Leeds from earlier this year comes to mind. The thing about bowlers is.. they can be terrible and still end up averaging 30 or thereabouts by picking up some cheap wickets/tailenders when they've already done a lot of damage to their team's cause.

That's being lazy and assuming that English conditions should automatically suit all fast bowlers.

In England, you don't get anywhere near the bounce and carry you get in Australia, and in some instances, South Africa. English conditions suit bowlers who can get it pitched up and nibble the ball around off the seam or get the ball to swing. Neither of those are strengths of Johnson. English conditions simply don't suit his style of bowling.

 

[zaremba]

That's being lazy and assuming that English conditions should automatically suit all fast bowlers.

In England, you don't get anywhere near the bounce and carry you get in Australia, and in some instances, South Africa. English conditions suit bowlers who can get it pitched up and nibble the ball around off the seam or get the ball to swing. Neither of those are strengths of Johnson. English conditions simply don't suit his style of bowling.

TBF, vcs no more stereotyped English conditions as being bowler-friendly than he did Australian conditions. That said, I agree with the rest of what you've written.

 

[stephen]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but am honestly nothing short of surprised at the backing Steve Smith has received in this and some other related threads.

He is the classical bits and pieces player and is an utter waste of space in a test match. Sure, he might develop one of his traits to test level and then selecting him would make sense. But how can he develop them being in the test side is beyond me. 3 of the next 4 series Australia are playing are against Sri Lanka, South Africa, and India. They will absolutely pummel the kind of mediocrity that Smith brings to test match cricket. Can you imagine the glee Sangakkara or Sehwag will feel when Smith is twirling the ball in his hand trying to appear like Warne. Steyn just might burst out in laughter when he sees Smith bringing his bat down from 3rd slip at Durban.

Like any self respecting test side, the focus should be on specialists with good fundamentals, rather than on medicority in the name of 'talent'.

FTR I was never an advocate of picking Smith. I did however want to see North go and so was glad when he did. Now that Smith has been picked though I do want to see him get a run of 5-10 tests to try and see him develop. If he is good enough after that keep him, if not send him back to the shield.

The other young names that I mentioned not only are very talented, but also happen to be some of the best performing players in shield cricket at the moment. Maddison is obviously not ready for international honours just yet, but if he keeps up his current form for another year or two then he certainly might be. Similarly Lynn is at the same stage in his career. Very promising and scoring big runs in the shield, but not yet ready for the international stage. In a year or two though if they keep performing then why not give them a run. Almost all of the 26-27 year old batsmen (with the exception of Marsh) have really gone off the boil in the last few years it seems.

The "pick the younger bloke" theory is correct only when both players are playing to equal standards. All of the players I listed are performing very well. And I don't think that we should be bringing them in now, but phasing them in over a four year period. If that means debuting players in the middle of a South Africa series then so be it.

 

[vcs]

That's being lazy and assuming that English conditions should automatically suit all fast bowlers.

In England, you don't get anywhere near the bounce and carry you get in Australia, and in some instances, South Africa. English conditions suit bowlers who can get it pitched up and nibble the ball around off the seam or get the ball to swing. Neither of those are strengths of Johnson. English conditions simply don't suit his style of bowling.

Was total crap in Brisbane as well bowling to a 220+ run lead. I know it was a flat wicket, but still..

 

[Uppercut]

His numbers seem to give the eternal impression of flattering him. I'm aware that I'm sounding pretty irrational here, but I get the feeling many people are a bit dubious of whether the pluses outweigh the minuses with him. As good as the recent Perth spell was (it was ATG quality), it just leaves you with even more questions.. why does a Test class bowler find it so hard to understand and control what he is capable of, and atleast produce it on a semi-regular basis?

I think playing in a broadly unsuccessful side harnesses that impression more than anything Johnson does himself. It's not usual to have prolonged discussions on the weaknesses of a winning team- the fact that Stuart Broad having a very poor year has gone completely under the radar demonstrates that. It's easy to get the impression that Johnson is worse than he is because Australia keep losing and as a result people are talking about his weaknesses so often.

But the point is that it's just an impression. Johnson is, on the whole, pretty good, and his record shows that.

 

[smash84]

I think playing in a broadly unsuccessful side harnesses that impression more than anything Johnson does himself. It's not usual to have prolonged discussions on the weaknesses of a winning team- the fact that Stuart Broad having a very poor year has gone completely under the radar demonstrates that. It's easy to get the impression that Johnson is worse than he is because Australia keep losing and as a result people are talking about his weaknesses so often.

But the point is that it's just an impression. Johnson is, on the whole, pretty good, and his record shows that.

Agreed.

Can you imagine the glee Sangakkara or Sehwag will feel when Smith is twirling the ball in his hand trying to appear like Warne. Steyn just might burst out in laughter when he sees Smith bringing his bat down from 3rd slip at Durban.

 

[vcs]

I think playing in a broadly unsuccessful side harnesses that impression more than anything Johnson does himself. It's not usual to have prolonged discussions on the weaknesses of a winning team- the fact that Stuart Broad having a very poor year has gone completely under the radar demonstrates that. It's easy to get the impression that Johnson is worse than he is because Australia keep losing and as a result people are talking about his weaknesses so often.

But the point is that it's just an impression. Johnson is, on the whole, pretty good, and his record shows that.

Yeah, that's fair enough. Probably would make a gun 3rd bowler, if Australia could find a really good new-ball pair.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

One thing about Clarke that hasn't been metioned (if it has i apologise) is that he had a very good record record when following on from the platform layed by Ponting and co. Since Ponting's form has dropped off and the pressure has mounted on the side Clarke has become virtually impotent.

It reminds me of England after Gooch retired, we had then a very inexperienced side with one class act and 2 very useful players in Smith, Atherton and Stewart. Smith instead of becoming the leader of the batting unit just totally crumbled under weight of expectation and lost the plot and his place sooner than anyone could have imagined.

Has Clarke done something similar?

There are obviously other examples you could use but the Smith one has always struck me as surprising as he lost all ability to play pace bowling in much the same way as Clarke is struggling against spin now which were both players strongpoints for many years.

 

[Spark]

TBF I wouldn't say he's lost his ability against spin. Made 80 vs. Swann on a spitting pitch not too long back didn't he?

What it is fair to say is that by the time of second dig Melbourne his confidence had been fairly well shattered.

I don't see Clarke's dropping of form being related so much to Ponting's as it has to his shift up the order.

His last 20 knocks at #5 read:

1, 136, 29, 103*, 93, 3, 0, 41, 71, 61*, 11, 25, 38*, 37, 3, 21, 166, 168, 28, 63

Since then...

47, 12, 3, 77, 14, 4, 14, 3, 8, 2, 80, 4, 20, 20, 13.

 

[smash84]

TBF I wouldn't say he's lost his ability against spin. Made 80 vs. Swann on a spitting pitch not too long back didn't he?

What it is fair to say is that by the time of second dig Melbourne his confidence had been fairly well shattered.

that is a fair point.

 

[TumTum]

Why? If you're continually picking for the future you'll always miss out on the present. What happens in four years - do the players we've picked specifically for their ability to still be playing in four years get dropped in their prime because they won't be playing in another four years?

Australian cricket needs to get rid of its Ashes-centric attitude and pick the best team to win each Test match regardless of the age of the players and regardless of the position Australia are on the Ashes cycle. People are trying to get far too funky with all this succession planning discussion - selection should be a lot simpler than that. Pick the best team for each game and the rest will sort itself out. Having young players exposed while older, better players are left out not only cheapens the baggy green and Test cricket as a whole but does more harm than good to the players in question and the system as a whole. Eventually the idea that the best way to get into the team is to look like you might be able to do something rather than actually doing it sets in and you end up with a whole team full of Callum Fergusons.



Indeed.



No, that's ridiculous. Hazelwood and Starc aren't even among the best five bowlers from their state at the moment and having them exposed in humiliating defeats at Test level is not going to do anyone any good. Australian fans need to give themselves their best chance to win every Test in front of them and stop the obsession with a) the Ashes and b) accepting nothing less than being the best team in the world and taking stupid risks which are ridiculously unlikely to come off in desperate attempts to get there.


If the choice is between him and someone five years younger, pick the better player.

No.

Yes.

Which means a bowling attack "rebuilding" phase will undoubtedly happen every 2 years...

 

[Spark]

I mean look at the ball he got out to. I would hazard that 12 months ago Clarke would be well down the pitch and at least defending it easily if not better.

 

[Prince EWS]

Which means a bowling attack "rebuilding" phase will undoubtedly happen every 2 years...

If you work your system right and the players keep coming through there won't even be a rebuilding phase; you'll just keep picking your best bowlers and they'll keep producing.

 

[Furball]

If you work your system right and the players keep coming through there won't even be a rebuilding phase; you'll just keep picking your best bowlers and they'll keep producing.

Still rebuilding to an extent though. If you have a phenominally talented group of players who are all roughly the same age (let's call them Khawaja, Hughes and Smith for argument's sake), then in 10 or 15 years time you're going to have to replace half your batting lineup within quite a short space of time when they retire/decline. Even if you've got another bunch of youngsters tearing up Shield and County cricket, that's no guarantee that they'll all progress into the Test side and immediately make an impact. It's still a rebuilding phase whilst the new kids on the block get used to the increased demands international cricket places on you.

 

[TumTum]

If you work your system right and the players keep coming through there won't even be a rebuilding phase; you'll just keep picking your best bowlers and they'll keep producing.

Isn't picking new bowlers considered rebuilding the attack? Even if let's say they are all good and perform, they have their different styles which our team will constantly have to adjust.

Anyways all I want is a settled side, I hate all these bowling selection conundrums.

 

[NUFAN]

Picking new bowlers is not always considered rebuilding, it's also considered ****ing up. A case in point being Beer.

 

[Julian87]

Without going into who should be dropped and why...I think there's a few players on the domestic circuit who should be in the reckoning a lot moreso than they are currently. They are:

Cameron White - He's someone who I reckon has grown and is forever maturing as a cricketer. He's not the most classical batsman and his record isn't brilliant but I look past that. Now this is where all the cw heroes dismiss certain points but I can't go past his international career thus far. He struggled in ODIs when used as an all rounder. Then about 2 years ago he was thrust into the top order (where he is not suited) and came on in leaps and bounds when Australia really needed him. His batting has improved markedly pretty obviously. He is still not considered by many. Perfect example is the 'A' game where he started his second innings shakily and everyone on here bagged him stating it's why he's not a test player...100 odd runs later and he was the absolute standout in that game besides Steve O'Keefe. The bloke is just a bit of a winner IMO. His fielding is brilliant too, which goes without saying and if he becomes a permanent fixture he's the obvious choice as captain.

Clint McKay - The forgotten man. Has performed pretty well at all levels. He moves the ball off the seam and bowls upright from a decent height. Always does well for Victoria and can bowl tightly if need be. Big fan of Copeland and Cameron but McKay has been doing pretty well for a while now.

Dan Christian - Not the ull deal yet so shouldn't be in test squads just yet. But he's rapidly improving and is a match winner. He's a really good batsman and his stats are getting better, The main problem is he has to do a bit much for South Australia at this point. His bowling isn't great but he often takes vital wickets and he has a lot of cricket ahead of him. Reminds me a lot of a young Greg Blewett but a bit more aggressive.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I do love the fact that the only guy who did manage a ton in that game gets glossed over, while others (commentators, posters, selectors) point at Smith and Hughes' (especially) efforts in the same match.

 

[Jono]

The Ashes | Cricket | How a perfect storm formed over SCG

Lol'ed at "Too metrosexual"

 

[vic_orthdox]

Apologies to the poster who did all the work, but looking at a post on another forum (BF) which we can't link to, he's detailed all the stats of guys over the past three seasons of Shield cricket, including this one.

Batsmen
Hodge: 1079 @ 63.47, 100x3, 50x5
Khawaja: 1821 @ 60.70, 100x6, 50x8
Rogers: 1880 @ 60.65, 100x7, 50x7
Klinger: 2320 @ 55.24, 100x6, 50x11
Hughes: 1962 @ 54.50, 100x7, 50x8
Cosgrove: 1324 @ 50.92, 100x6, 50x4
Smith: 1036 @ 49.33, 100x4, 50x2
Marsh: 1058 @ 48.09, 100x2, 50x8
White: 905 @ 47.63, 100x2, 50x6
Hussey: 1893 @ 47.33, 100x5, 50x10
McDonald: 1161 @ 44.65, 100x5, 50x4
Lynn: 681 @ 45.40, 100x2, 50x2
Ferguson: 981 @ 44.59, 4x100, 3x50
Cowan: 1121 @ 43.12, 100x3, 50x4

Spinners:
O'Keefe: 27 @ 23.96 (252 @ 50.40, 50x2)
Doherty: 24 @ 30.08
Krezja: 29 @ 30.31
Hauritz: 35 @ 30.66
North: 20 @ 34.60
McGain: 32 @ 35.03
Smith: 33 @ 42.36
Bailey: 17 @ 43.88
Beer: 11 @ 44.18
Holland: 25 @ 52.84

Quicks
Copeland: 60 @ 18.17
Faulkner: 27 @ 21.52
Duffield: 18 @ 22.17
Swan: 83 @ 22.99
Butterworth: 70 @ 23.04
Hastings: 63 @ 23.60
Hopes: 53 @ 23.79
McKay: 60 @ 23.80
Geeves: 57 @ 24.86
Magoffin: 69 @ 24.96
McDonald: 61 @ 25.61
Cameron: 30 @ 26.60
Hazlewood: 13 @ 28.54
Cutting: 55 @ 28.73
George: 73 @ 28.86
Walter: 30 @ 30.43
Starc: 25 @ 34.24

Keepers
Nevill: 444 @ 63.43, 100x2, 50x1
Wade: 1521 @ 43.46, 100x2, 50x11
Hartley: 1614 @ 40.35, 100x4, 50x9
Manou: 990 @ 36.67, 100x3, 50x4
Ronchi: 1141 @ 32.60, 100x3, 50x2
Paine: 816 @ 31.38, 50x7
6. T.Paine TAS 26 15 28 2 816 74 31.38 0 7 54 3