*Official* Fourth Test at the MCG

[Jarquis]

It's nice being able to enjoy cricket again, even if only for 2 days... well, 2 sessions really

 

[steds]

I think a fully fit Bres in good rhythm is easily capable of 90 MPH on this track.

There is no evidence at all from Bresnan's career to support this. He's never been a 90 mph bowler. Especially not since his elbow injury.

 

[MW1304]

There is no evidence at all from Bresnan's career to support this. He's never been a 90 mph bowler. Especially not since his elbow injury.

Nah he was our quickest bowler in the 10/11 tour, pushed 90 mph occasionally. Since his first (elbow?) injury he hasn't been able to recover that ability.

 

[Prince EWS]

I remember him bowling low 140s at his absolute quickest; that's just shy of 90mph.

 

[steds]

I remember him being an 85-88 man at his peak. Don't ever recall him hitting 90 though.

 

[91Jmay]

I would certainly let him go back to Yorkshire and get fully fit/play some CC and let someone else have a bowl against Sri Lanka, think that will be best for all parties.

 

[Prince EWS]

I would certainly let him go back to Yorkshire and get fully fit/play some CC and let someone else have a bowl against Sri Lanka, think that will be best for all parties.

I actually really hope Onions plays against Sri Lanka. I'm not really a big fan so that may shock some, but you'd certainly be hard pressed to mount a case for him not deserving it, and if had a crack and didn't look the part then England fans could move on from that particular gripe. If he cements a spot then England have two huge Test series over the next two summers in conditions that should suit him against India and then Australia.

 

[Tangles]

Hopefully Lyon can see Rad to his 50. Any more than that is a bonus. His innings was good to watch with all the others struggling with the pitch.

Conn is already talking about Rad at 6 for Sydney. This is the only downside to his batting form. George doesn't have it and Watson loses his value when he can't bowl but I can't see them changing 2 of the top 6, even if we lose. My pick would be Hughes as I don't see much future in North but North has the most runs on the board. Faulkner would just be picked to be funky like he was in England.

Going to be interesting to see how England bat with a chance of victory around. Recent form suggests they will fold though. A chase over 250 in the last innings could be ugly on this pitch.

 

[Prince EWS]

Conn is already talking about Rad at 6 for Sydney.

Unless this meant Hughes batting three and Watson batting seven then I can't see it being anything other than a waste of a spot.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah Onions should be given the chance as I haven't seen a young seamer really do anything to deserve a call up yet.

 

[Tangles]

He mentioned Faulkner in the next line so presumably he's over the hand injury.

 

[Prince EWS]

He mentioned Faulkner in the next line so presumably he's over the hand injury.

Yes, exactly my point. Unless Watson's not fit to bowl then Faulkner should not be anywhere near the side. I think that if you decided Watson was no longer worth his place as a specialist top order batsman and was now selected purely as a middle order allrounder, you could mount a good case for Haddin batting at six ahead of him, but Watson having scored two tons in his last five Tests means he's not going anywhere IMO. Bailey is increasingly looking like a flop but he's still a much better batsman than Faulkner whose bowling would offer nothing as part of a six man attack.

 

[Tangles]

Conn seems to be going with the assumptions that Watson won't be fit to bowl and that Harris won't be selected either. So Faulkner would be a 5th bowler to help share the workload. I wouldn't pick him anyway (Faulkner) but if Harris is replaced then you already have freshened up the attack and have less need of the 5th bowler. Particularly one who causes a batting order change of Rad at 6.

My preference would be George out and a batter in with Harris playing unless he can't. Just give him till the 11th hour again. People seem to be assuming he can't play back to back. Let him decide.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Watson's not fit to bowl then picking Faulkner would be fair enough. Definitely not the way I'd go at all, but it'd be understandable.

 

[steds]

Right, I'm going to spit it out. The whole Shane Watson thing - I don't get it. Any of it. The noises are that he's only still in the side because of his bowling, but that's a negligible contribution. He's bowling 14 overs a Test during these back to back Ashes series, and has taken 6 wickets. Yeah, it's been nice and tight but, to a large degree, England have let that happen. There's not even been a modicum of intent there against him. I mean, it's easy to bowl 7 economical overs an innings if they're not looking to attack you. But is it really enough to be the sole justification for keeping him around? It's not as if you're all that desperate for a five man attack. Lyon has proved himself more than capable of at least holding up an end, if you need to dry up runs.

 

[karan316]

Martin Crowe: Graeme Swann and the fear of success | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

This is rubbish from Crowe. The first line is shocking,"Another one bites the dust." He is indirectly referring to Trott who left due to depression, don't think such things should be written so easily. And the whole article is just an assumption of what "he feels" about Swann's retirement. Ridiculous. Not reading anything from Crowe from here on.

 

[91Jmay]

He has scored two hundreds fairly recently though. You can't really drop him after those, despite to me him not being a good enough bat at Test level. If he is still average in the next 5-10 tests Australia play then you sling him but whilst he is scoring runs he should stay in.

 

[Maximas]

Watson's value with the ball is more than what the figures may suggest, his pressure building actually does lead to wickets for other bowlers, or at least it allows Clarke to control the speed of the game. Also, his wickets are generally top order wickets, and he breaks partnerships, he takes really important wickets, with our fast bowlers either playing a lot of tests in a row or being young and getting injured having him available to bowl in the case of an injury or to allow the pacers a rest is also important.

While the batting is consistently disappointing his form has been somewhat reasonable of late, and if we could find a decent no 3 he'd slot in nicely at no 6

 

[Prince EWS]

Right, I'm going to spit it out. The whole Shane Watson thing - I don't get it. Any of it. The noises are that he's only still in the side because of his bowling, but that's a negligible contribution. He's bowling 14 overs a Test during these back to back Ashes series, and has taken 6 wickets. Yeah, it's been nice and tight but, to a large degree, England have let that happen. There's not even been a modicum of intent there against him. I mean, it's easy to bowl 7 economical overs an innings if they're not looking to attack you. But is it really enough to be the sole justification for keeping him around? It's not as if you're all that desperate for a five man attack. Lyon has proved himself more than capable of at least holding up an end, if you need to dry up runs.

The best explanation is that the "only still in the side for his bowling" thing just isn't true. If it was he'd be batting six or seven and bowling more than he is. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that he's picked as a batsman, and he's not even the worst batsman in the side. I think sometimes it's got to a point where he'd be a 50/50 selection if not for his bowling and that his bowling has got him over the line with just those couple of extra selection points, ahead of a batsman who'd perhaps offer very similar if not outright better returns, but that's it. He hasn't really been quite good enough as a specialist batsman all the time but there's usually been someone even worse than him in the side so - especially when you add in his bowling - he hasn't been the one under pressure.

I think a lot of the fans tolerate his existence more because of his bowling and would be calling for his axing a little louder if he didn't provide it, but Lehmann's a big fan and I think he'd be in the side anyway. If his batting declined further or he he'd recorded ducks where his last two tons have been I think he'd be out on his arse regardless of his bowling, especially if Australia hadn't gone on to win three straight, so he's still being selected as a batsman first. His bowling just provides him with an edge if his selection becomes line ball.

In saying that, I do think you've glossed over the role his bowling plays a bit. The fact that Faulkner is in the squad suggests that if Watson couldn't bowl Australia would re-adjust their balance to incorporate a different five man attack, and regardless of how little intent England have had against him, he's been an important part of several of the bowling plans Clarke has implemented. He played a big part in setting Cook up early in his innings in England for example, and he's allowed Lyon to play a more attacking role at times. The fact that England refuse to attack him makes him valuable within itself, whether it's because of the standard of his bowling or England's mindset when facing it is immaterial to an extent.

 

[Tangles]

When he is scoring runs his bowling is useful. When he isn't scoring runs then its a waste of a spot for sure. The problem is the selectors have a love affair with him and his potential. Batting him at 3 entrenches him even further into the team. If he hits a run of bad form or the usual injuries you have to mess with your top order to change it.

I wanted him gone after India but with 2 centuries in the Ashes he is set for life now. I really don't get it either. Part of it must be that they have invested do much time into him that they won't give up on him. Someone will have to absolutely smash it domestically with bat and ball to dislodge him now.