England disintegrating like in 2013-14 Ashes - Johnson

[Gob]

Hahah Starc's taken a lot of crap wickets. He's bowled more junk than some bowlers have in their careers.

Rate him on his ceiling sure but at the moment the only times he's bowled really well other than the Lankan series can be counted on one hand. Saying he could make the SA full strength side or that he's better than Anderson/Broad is rubbish.

He's a pretty good bowler who has a tendency to bowl rubbish. Nothing more as of now.

Case of people not understanding Starc's mode of operation here. Bowls full (fuller than most given his height) and also drops in quite a few short balls. When you do that you are always going to slip one too full which will get driven in or one too short where the the batsman will capitalize. Pretty sure he can hold the length back if he wants but he would not take any where near the same amount of wickets. As it is the only team that he will fail to make is South Africa and that is if they are playing at home, Has everyone fit and only playing three fast bowlers.

I think this Aussie side will get hammered after this Ashes. Who do you play next, S. Africa? One-sided series against a garbage England flatters to deceive.

More likely for India. SA-Aust will be very closely fought if the quicks stay fit from either side. Aust haven't lost a series over there since the apartheid era and they have taken far worse teams.

 

[Gob]

The real issue for England is the 6 players are probably the only ones remotely of test quality at the moment and 3 are in the final stages of their careers. Australia are currently a team whose bowling is on the up. They also have an exceptional batsman in Smith and a couple of decent batsmen in the squad.

I wouldn't say we are rubbish but we also aren't the best team in the world.

England kind of beat South Africa 3-1 or something right? Sure there was Stokes but still

 

[JRC67]

England kind of beat South Africa 3-1 or something right? Sure there was Stokes but still

Yes but ultimately very few players really contributed and it was in home conditions. We aren't rubbish but you can't rely on 50% of a team only and hope to be best in the world. Really good players have different players making a big impact on series because players do go in and out of form.

 

[wpdavid]

England kind of beat South Africa 3-1 or something right? Sure there was Stokes but still

Who made a massive difference, tbf, especially to the batting. As did Roland-Jones to the bowling, not least due to his happy knack of removing Amla cheaply on numerous occasions.

But the weaknesses were always visible - Cook not what he was, ditto Broad, and nobody doing a job at 2, 3 or 5. Bairstow and Ali's effectiveness has been hindered by batting a place higher without Stokes in the side, which we always knew would be a problem. Beyond that, Anderson's a bit like Murali - wonderful bowler whose skill set has rarely translated well in Australia. All of which is why some of us reckon this is the weakest England side we've seen in Australia. That doesn't make Aus a poor side imo, but people shouldn't blame someone for focusing more on the capability of their own side that that of their opponents. Not that you were personally, afaiaa.

 

[Daemon]

SA were also missing players tbf. Steyn and AB weren't there throughout. Faf missing in the first test. Philander and Rabada missed a game each.

 

[JRC67]

Who made a massive difference, tbf, especially to the batting. As did Roland-Jones to the bowling, not least due to his happy knack of removing Amla cheaply on numerous occasions.

But the weaknesses were always visible - Cook not what he was, ditto Broad, and nobody doing a job at 2, 3 or 5. Bairstow and Ali's effectiveness has been hindered by batting a place higher without Stokes in the side, which we always knew would be a problem. Beyond that, Anderson's a bit like Murali - wonderful bowler whose skill set has rarely translated well in Australia. All of which is why some of us reckon this is the weakest England side we've seen in Australia. That doesn't make Aus a poor side imo, but people shouldn't blame someone for focusing more on the capability of their own side that that of their opponents. Not that you were personally, afaiaa.

The strange decision for me has been the order of Ali and Bairstow. Ali always feels like a natural 7 and he's scored well there, scoring 3 of his 5 100s. Bairstow is more of a 6, although so is Stokes. Stokes has developed more as a batsman and I suspect will end up at 5. Hopefully they'll reverse Ali and Bairstow for the rest of the series.

 

[wpdavid]

SA were also missing players tbf. Steyn and AB weren't there throughout. Faf missing in the first test. Philander and Rabada missed a game each.

Plus they had lost Abbott since the win in Aus.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Think Johnson is wrong, we disintegrated last time with a good side and a batting line up that was basically solid. This time we have one of the worst batting line ups in memory and are coming up short. Nothing we didn't expect, they aren't disintegrating, they just aren't good enough.

 

[Groundking]

Jesus ****ing christ some of the nonsense that has been spouted about Philander in here is ridiculous, they guy is straight up ****ing amazing and walks into every team in the world, arguably as their best bowler too.

Anyway in regards to the Aussie bowlers, really really not convinced on Starc or Hazlewood at the minute, I know start was pretty great in sub continent recently, but this series he's been pretty crap IMO, and if wasn't for Cummins and Lyon looking like they could get a wicket ever ball, and Hazlewood just trying to keep things dry I don't think Starc would have gotten anywhere near as many wickets as he has. Also our batting is dogshit, Cook has a well known technical fault that the Aussie attack is perfect for exploiting, and is in crap form, Root's good until the 70's and then ****s it off, Moeen is never going to find any consistency being moved around all the time, and I'm sorry but Bairstow really isn't all that, one year averaging 58.8 does not make one a legitimately good batsmen when the rest of his career he averages ~30. We then have Stokes who's MIA because of his idiocy, and a bunch of clowns who'd struggle in the first class set ups of Aus, SA and India, let alone make it a a test batsman.

 

[Gnske]

As long as that team isn't at Adelaide in 2012

 

[Starfighter]

and a bunch of clowns who'd struggle in the first class set ups of Aus, SA and India, let alone make it a a test batsman.

Vince struggles in England's FC set up. Also, India? Yes there are some good batsmen, and it would be hard for a player coming from England to succeed because conditions, but let's not pretend that it is a better quality competition than England's when Axar Patel averages 48.

 

[oblongballs]

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

Great bowling attacks are what Windies had throughout much of the 70s and 80, what Pakistan ahd in the late 80s and much of the 90s, what Australia had throughout the 90s and early 00s.

This is not a great attack.

It is good, effective, skilled but far from great. In 2 or so years when the faster men have reached their peaks, it could be a great attack.

 

[Starfighter]

It is definitely more a potential great attack. Especially if Patto is ever fit, although I suspect he's played his last test. I think I'd call it very good at the moment, but I wouldn't put it higher than SA's at the moment, although they've had fitness issues too.

 

[Second Spitter]

It is definitely more a potential great attack. Especially if Patto is ever fit, although I suspect he's played his last test. I think I'd call it very good at the moment, but I wouldn't put it higher than SA's at the moment, although they've had fitness issues too.

Would Patto have been selected even if fit? I personally would, but the selectors reluctance to view Cummins and to a less extent Starc as all-rounders is troubling.

 

[Starfighter]

Would Patto have been selected even if fit?

Probably not. More I'd like to shoehorn him in, as I think he's the best and scariest of the four when fully fit and firing.

Their first class figures tell the story: Cummins 27.03 (Only 17 matches. Should go down as he plays more), Starc 26.05, Hazlewood 24.78, Pattinson 22.01​

He seems to have another level which the other three don't have so far.

 

[Furball]

Or he's padded his first class figures by not playing Tests for the last 3 years.

 

[Spark]

Those FC figures were also padded by averaging about seven against Div 2 earlier this year.

 

[theegyptian]

Those FC figures were also padded by averaging about seven against Div 2 earlier this year.

Div 2 isn't quite as bad as it's made out to be.

Fwiw I thought Pattinson was very good in that spell for Notts and based on what I've seen he'd be the best of the Australian bowlers in English conditions.

Two others of the current Aus team were in div 2 this past year and weren't so successful.

Lyon for instance 6 wickets @ 67
Bancroft over two years 877 runs @ 33.73

Bancroft looked out of his depth for most of his stay at Gloucestershire. Was only in his last game where he got 206* and 72 where he pushed his average out of the low twenties.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I see division 2 as being slip between two imaginary division, the first of which has yo-yo teams like Notts, Worcs, Sussex and a team who shouldn't have even been there (Durham) and your division two proper which consists of your Leicestershires, Gloucestershires, Derbyshires and Glamorgans, your proper wanky clubs stuffed full of kolpaks and second rate Aussies.

 

[Stefan9]

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.

He is not benching any of kg,Steyn,philander or morkel. Not close to them.