England disintegrating like in 2013-14 Ashes - Johnson

[Woodster]

In terms of career numbers, sure. But right now, he's bowling as well as anyone. Every England batsman has looked like **** against him so far. When the reputed weak link in a bowling attack is sending down world-class stuff, well good luck planning for that and then getting out there and executing said plan.

He's bowling very well, I think you think I'm trying to take credit away from him by saying we're not playing him well and making him look better than he is. Maybe there is a bit of that. We need to find some way to put pressure back on him, our top order really don;t look like they've tried much at this stage, his bowling has improved that much that you can't just sit in and wait for a bad ball because he really hasn't given many in this series and he has looked a real threat.

 

[JRC67]

Last time out we looked like we just didn't fancy facing the Australian quicks and Johnson in particular. So far this time around they have at least looked they are trying to fight it out and have won a few sessions. Some of the stories around the cricket have been a bit ridiculous. Player pours pint over team mate doesn't really seem big news, it happens at most rugby, cricket and football clubs once in a while.

In these conditions Australia currently have better batsmen and bowlers, so they were always likely to win. You can only really make a strong case for 2 or 3 England players in a combined team.

Lyon has become a very good spin bowler and the idea that he is there to be smashed around is not realistic. Yes we could do with getting a few more singles, but I'd rather battle it out than collapse in an I'll conceived effort to smash him out of the ground.

Bowling wise most of our main bowlers have gone at 3 an over or less. They let themselves down bowling a foot short on the first day of the second test. The fact they haven't let the Australian batsmen really getting away from them says they are at least battling.

They might disintegrate at some point over the next 3 tests, but so far they haven't. With the manpower available a 5 0 drubbing looks likely, but hopefully they can at least look like they are trying. Hopefully we can at least take all 5 tests to a fifth day and if you're competing you always stand a chance of sneaking home in one or two of the remaining fixtures.

 

[Gob]

It isn't a great attack though, which is the whole point.

They look pretty great to me unless you are talking about a fifth option.

 

[Burgey]

It isn't a great attack though, which is the whole point.

It actually is atm because it’s operating so well as a unit. As TC said, the fact the blokes are prepared to bowl dry and go for less rpo than usual means they’re prepared to do what it takes as a pack. There’s no Victorian medium pacer as third seamer this time, and Lyon is many times the bowler he was four years ago. There’s no let up. That’s what’s making it great.

 

[Furball]

England aren't failing because they're letting the Aussies **** them. They're failing because the Aussie bowling attack is better than they are. You had every pundit worth their salt saying this is a better attack than the group who whacked a better team 5-0 three years ago , a bloke with 150 Tests and million runs who looks clueless and one of the best bats in the world having to battle his knackers off to survive past 50 and their best player playing for a club in NZ. You think guys at their level don't have a gameplan or haven't once thought "Ohhh, we need to break up his rhythm! Of course!"?

It's Test cricket. It's hard. A lot of what they're doing is working, they were right in the game after the Aussies batted in Brisbane and until day 5 in Adelaide. They're not hopeless and barely surviving, just not been good enough against a great attack.

They'd be wrong then.

Johnson and Harris >>>>> 2017 vintage.

I don't agree with Johnson in the slightest. A good England side went to Australia last time and fell apart. This is an unsettled England side that isn't particularly good who are being beaten by a side more at home at and better equipped to deal with the conditions.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah agree with that. This feels nothing like four years ago. While we could have performed better in each one, it’s not ended with me disgusted at what we’ve shown. Just disappointed. Burgey was chatting with me during Adelaide last time asking ‘what the **** has happened to these guys’ and I was shell shocked. Here it’s just that we have been second best.

Don’t think we will lose 5-0 tbh

 

[Burgey]

You can operate as a great attack without a great bowler or bowlers. England 2005 a good example. This Australian attack is operating on a similar basis - no let up, everyone doing their job. Lacks the pure explosiveness of Johnson and Harris 13/14, but the third and fourth bowlers this series are better than last time by a fair margin.

 

[adub]

It is a great attack for these conditions. Sure the 13/14 version MJ and Rhino were way more than any two of our current pace trio, but Siddle was a clear step down in danger and this year's Lyno is light years away from the early model.

So on balance I reckon it balances out and there is sfa to separate both attacks as a complete unit. (Barring the 5th option).

If England had found a way to negotiate MJ and Rhino they would have been able to get back into the game. Against this attack there's just not the same option. The four bowlers all pose a serious threat, you can't get 'in' and get away when the opening bowlers are resting.

And that's all before you acknowledge that Starc and Haze have only shown glimpses of their best. If those two get it right in the same spell they'd make a mess of better opposition than this.

Both sides have massive issues with their batting, but England's are going to be more exposed in these conditions against such a well balanced attack for these pitches. Throwing a bunch of lefties at Lyon is just the tipping point that brings the whole thing crashing down.

Australia's attack stays fit and we don't roll out roady roads and 5-0 is pretty much baked in. This attack is too complete and England's batting too weak to even bag a draw without a massive amount of help from the home side.

 

[stephen]

Yep. I don't think I've ever seen an attack as good as ours at the moment. I've obviously seen attacks with better bowlers in it plenty of times but I've never before seen an attack where there is no obvious scoring option for batsmen.

Starc is probably the guy to go after since he is the most erratic. But the problem with going after Starc is that he's bowling at 150kph and does a bit with the ball.

Hazlewood has been nowhere near his best but he's still been very good. Cummins has looked unplayable at times. And Lyon has been dominating the batters like no finger spinner I've ever seen in Australia.

When there are no obvious weak links in an attack the mental pressure gets very tough. You don't know where your next runs are going to come from, you begin to think more about survival than scoring and when that happens you get out.

And England aren't exactly fielding Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hutton as their top order. They have a badly out of form Cook, an unproven Stoneman, a pretty but ineffective Vince and Root (who is a damn fine batsman until he's in the 70s). With Ali batting above Bairstow and Malan in there, the top 7 doesn't give you a lot of confidence. Against a 70% Hazlewood, an erratic Starc, Cummins and god-mode Lyon the English batting simply doesn't have the firepower to post the big scores that they need to to win tests here.

 

[Furball]

You can operate as a great attack without a great bowler or bowlers. England 2005 a good example. This Australian attack is operating on a similar basis - no let up, everyone doing their job. Lacks the pure explosiveness of Johnson and Harris 13/14, but the third and fourth bowlers this series are better than last time by a fair margin.

I'm not convinced by Starc in this regard tbh.

If I was making a composite attack I'd go for Harris, Johnson, Cummins and 2017 Lyon. If I was picking one attack I'd go with the 2013/14 attack because I think the gulf between Harris and Johnson and the rest of the bowlers in both attacks is enormous (save possibly Cummins).

Johnson and Harris also wrecked a far better batting lineup in 2013/14.

 

[adub]

If I was going for a composite attack I'd go for McGrath, Lillee and Harris. Rhino was just that ****ing good. (although tbf I'd actually go for Davo but damn it's a close run thing)

 

[Gob]

Brett Lee tbh

 

[quincywagstaff]

While obviously an excellent attack, I think the Australian bowlers are getting overrated and overhyped a bit, especially Starc. With the way some talk about him as a Test bowler you’d think he’d have the equivalent record of what he has in ODIs but in fact his current Test average is 27.5.

As he’s shown in this series, he’s usually very patchy as a Test bowler and can mix an excellent spell and a very wasteful spell within the same day. Only the Sri Lankan tour have we ever seen him be an A-grade strike bowler throughout a Test series.

As I said on the podcast, Lyon’s been the key factor in the success of the bowling attack. He’s been a strike and stock bowler (like Warne was so often) so that some ordinary new ball spells and patchy performances by Hazlewood and Starc haven’t really mattered. It’s a remarkable turnaround from 12 months ago.

 

[TheJediBrah]

While obviously an excellent attack, I think the Australian bowlers are getting overrated and overhyped a bit, especially Starc. With the way some talk about him as a Test bowler you’d think he’d have the equivalent record of what he has in ODIs but in fact his current Test average is 27.5.

As he’s shown in this series, he’s usually very patchy as a Test bowler and can mix an excellent spell and a very wasteful spell within the same day. Only the Sri Lankan tour have we ever seen him be an A-grade strike bowler throughout a Test series.

As I said on the podcast, Lyon’s been the key factor in the success of the bowling attack. He’s been a strike and stock bowler (like Warne was so often) so that some ordinary new ball spells and patchy performances by Hazlewood and Starc haven’t really mattered. It’s a remarkable turnaround from 12 months ago.

27.5 flatters him too. He is very lucky to be a sub-30 averaging bowler IMO.

I mean the guy has a lower career bowling average than Jimmy Anderson, and this is despite playing on Australian roads when Jimmy plays in England.

But there is no way Starc is as good a Test bowler as Jimmy Anderson. I think he gets gifted a lot of wickets and bowls tailenders out a lot which helps.

 

[adub]

I don't think you'll get many people here arguing against the idea that Starc is no.3 quick in this attack despite what the selectors might think. But that doesn't mean he isn't becoming a very good test bowler. Not great, and certainly not a patch on the white ball weapon he is, but more than worth selection in most actual test teams in history. For instance would have walked into every test side of the McWarne era, would have made Lillian Thompson sides even more devastating, and England probably would have lost the last Ashes 7-0 if 2017 Starc was bowling rather than 2013 Siddle. Even some of the great WI sides would have been stronger with some Starceh when then couldn't play 4 out of the superstars.

It's easy to knock a bloke for getting tail enders, but a guy like Starc who can destroy a tail in a single spell is not to be sneezed at. Pissing off 8-11 for sfa has been the difference between winning or not winning so many times in Test history. Even if he never took a top order wicket, being able to consistently blast out the tail is valuable in and of itself. In the last two years he's been very good in Asia which is something not a lot of quicks can claim. So yeah he can be a bit inconsistent, but he's not really ever dire, just meh. But when he gets it right he's a wicket taker.

In England yeah Anderson >>>>>>>>> Starc. But I don't think that holds true anywhere much else. He's going at more than 4 wickets per match and his strike rate is well inside the top 50 of bowlers with more than 20 Test poles and 11th of the guys with more than 100. That's some pretty serious weaponry for a guy most Australians would consider not quite as good as Cummins and Haze when they are at their best. If anything his strike rate indicates his average is a bit inflated by being a bit erratic at times and giving away four balls. But he complements the other three so well. Sometimes getting batsmen playing a few more shots is what gets the wicket.

 

[TNT]

Would England pick Starc if he was available to them, what about india or NZ would they pick him if he was available to them?.

 

[stephen]

Would England pick Starc if he was available to them, what about india or NZ would they pick him if he was available to them?.

Anderson is the only quick that England would pick over Starc IMO.

Starc would walk into any side in the world. Who wouldn't take a 150kph left arm quick? Even South Africa would make room for him IMO. Because despite his erratic-at-times bowling he takes a crap ton of wickets all around the world at a pretty good average. He's the ideal 3rd seamer.

 

[adub]

Anderson is the only quick that England would pick over Starc IMO.

Starc would walk into any side in the world. Who wouldn't take a 150kph left arm quick? Even South Africa would make room for him IMO. Because despite his erratic-at-times bowling he takes a crap ton of wickets all around the world at a pretty good average. He's the ideal 3rd seamer.

Probably selling Broad a bit short there. Outside of England you'd have Starc in front of Anderson, but Broad would always be one of the first two quicks picked. Anderson, Broad, Starc looks a lot more threatening than anything they have been able to field in a long time.

And no question Starc would waltz into the current SA team with guys like Steyn and Philander missing for a while now. If those two and Rabada were all fit maybe Starc wouldn't be an automatic pick, but would play before Morkel almost all of the time and none of those three are getting any younger.

Starc would be the 2nd best quick India or NZ ever produced.

 

[morgieb]

Probably selling Broad a bit short there. Outside of England you'd have Starc in front of Anderson, but Broad would always be one of the first two quicks picked. Anderson, Broad, Starc looks a lot more threatening than anything they have been able to field in a long time.

And no question Starc would waltz into the current SA team with guys like Steyn and Philander missing for a while now. If those two and Rabada were all fit maybe Starc wouldn't be an automatic pick, but would play before Morkel almost all of the time and none of those three are getting any younger.

Starc would be the 2nd best quick India or NZ ever produced.

Not for the Kiwis he wouldn't. He's surely not better than Bond or Cowie.

 

[cnerd123]

If Steyn/Rabada/Morkel/Philander are all fit I don't think Starc gets a game, and he might struggle to break through Southee/Boult/Wagner simply because of the loyalty the selectors have shown those 3 and how they've formed into a decent unit together, but he gets into every other side in the world pretty comfortably.