Australians have alot to say now that they're winning ? - Tony Cozier

[subshakerz]

No sugar coating, just say plainly you think i am biased & go your merry way.

If it isn't clear that Johnson has gotten over this little Ashes blimp since the he took 5 for in Headingley. I really don't know what you are anyone else who thinks otherwise has been watching.

He looked pretty ordinary the next test. And if the pace trio had been improving test by test they should have had an even better performance than against SA in SA and completely smoked England. They didn't, they clearly have a long way to develop before they can be worldbeaters.

 

[aussie]

He looked pretty ordinary the next test.

And he was better in the first test vs WI. Thats how Johnson bowls, he doesn't bring McGrath type conistency to his bowling. He is back to his best now because he bowling is usual back of lenght style, when he tries to become a swing bowler he bowls crap.

And if the pace trio had been improving test by test they should have had an even better performance than against SA in SA and completely smoked England. They didn't, they clearly have a long way to develop before they can be worldbeaters.

Hilfenahus has definately improved every test. He enter the SA tour with a reputation of being a swing bowler & although his average was high, he defiantely impressed. He basically carried the attack in the Ashes & proved in the first test vs WI he can get people out on flat decks. Although some AUS fan on this fans odly would prefer Bollinger over him.

Siddle has been pretty stable as well. Although he had a few wayward spells in the Ashes.

Not saying that they are world beaters ATM (even if i believe they are clearly heading that way) but on form right now thats the best fast bowling attack in the world.

 

[Richard]

What is the Sean Connery line from 'The Rock'?

I believe it is

" Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and **** the prom queen!"

Perfect for this. It isnt about what you could have done (that is all hypothetical) it is about what you do and those that win make it happen. Perform well and win, play bad and win, win ugly, it doesnt matter. The best just win.

It certainly isn't all about what could have been done. Yes, to some extent it is. As I say, Australia rose to the occasion and South Africa didn't, thus Australia were worthy winners and South Africa had only themselves to blame for the fact they never really came close to parity at any point 1996/97-2005/06. But there'd be no point watching cricket if all that mattered was who won. How and why victories and defeats occur is extremely important and in fact far more interesting than merely who won and lost.

 

[Richard]

No they weren't. In ENG 08 the SA attack was just fine. Ntini & Morkel started to get worse during the 6 tests vs AUS.

Morne Morkel has never been much of a bowler; Ntini has not been particularly good since 2005/06; Harris is nothing more than a decent fingerspinner. SA's attack has always had problems since the decline of Nel and Pollock's retirement, though Steyn's arrival and Kallis' re-emergence occurred at about the same time. But they were still quite capable of doing very well with just Steyn's thunderbolts.

Because AUS picked the wrong bowlers. Johnson is bowling at his best is when he hitting the deck as he showed in his 8 wicket haul @ Perth. He is not a swing bowler & although he was effective SA (given he found swing from nowhere) they where able to plan deal with him in AUS, since they knew what was coming.

I've said it before, it doesn't matter in the slightest if you know what's coming. If that is good it's still going to be effective, and Johnson bowled damn well and was hugely effective both in Australia and in South Africa. His effectiveness was no common demonination between Australian success or failure.

Nope. SAs batting was just where stunned by the amount of swing Johnson got. That was not in SA plans nor did AUS expect it.

Johnson's bowling had nothing whatsoever to do with SA's bowling.

 

[Top_Cat]

What is the Sean Connery line from 'The Rock'?

I believe it is

" Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and **** the prom queen!"

Perfect for this. It isnt about what you could have done (that is all hypothetical) it is about what you do and those that win make it happen. Perform well and win, play bad and win, win ugly, it doesnt matter. The best just win.

+1 for a quote from The Rock, MAB.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes. But if you want to rate them individually Hilfenhaus/Siddle/Johnson continue to improve every test (although Johnson has his slight blimp in the Ashes). While for SA Ntini, Morkel have clearly gone backwards while Parnell, McLaren, De Wet are unproven.

Aussie, based on this analysis that they seem to be improving, how do you think Johnson/Siddle/Hilfy will compare with Pakistan's pace attack of Asif/Aamer/Gul in the coming months? On potential alone I would rate Pakistan's better, no?

 

[aussie]

Morne Morkel has never been much of a bowler; Ntini has not been particularly good since 2005/06; Harris is nothing more than a decent fingerspinner. SA's attack has always had problems since the decline of Nel and Pollock's retirement, though Steyn's arrival and Kallis' re-emergence occurred at about the same time. But they were still quite capable of doing very well with just Steyn's thunderbolts.

What?. After SA lost to AUS in 2006, until they lost the AUS this march, they lost just one of 13 series (in SRI 06) between 2006 to 2009.

One the MAIN reasons for this was the assemenblance of the 5 man attack of Steyn/Nitni/Morkel/Kallis.

Secondly Ntini was definately still ab excellent bowler after 2005/06. I dont know what you wherre talking about. Ntini started to decline during the ENG tour last year & by the time SA went to AUS.

Steyn & Ntini as partnership was running through teams, if SA could have done well with Steyn's thunderbolts alone, they would have beaten AUS at home in match.

I've said it before, it doesn't matter in the slightest if you know what's coming. If that is good it's still going to be effective, and Johnson bowled damn well and was hugely effective both in Australia and in South Africa. His effectiveness was no common demonination between Australian success or failure.

Yes it was. He bowled well but differently in AUS & in SA. In AUS he was bowling his usual back of the lenght up in the ribcage type deliveries. While in SA thanks to the conditons he suddenly began to get the ball to swing Wasim Akram style, which at his pace shocked the SAs.

Johnson doing that was difference betwee the teams in that series.

Johnson's bowling had nothing whatsoever to do with SA's bowling.

You said:

Also as I've said before Australia had overwhelmingly the best of the conditions in the South African leg. With more equity there there'd have been a better-balanced series.

Then i said:

Nope. SAs batting was just where stunned by the amount of swing Johnson got. That was not in SA plans nor did AUS expect it.

It is foolish to claim AUS got the better batting conditions. The ball was always doing swinging & seaming in the first two test (Capetown was flat & AUS batting poorly in the 1st innings then).

The reasons SA didn't utilise the conditiosn was because they didn't have any swing bowler & the FACT that Ntni & Morkel who where hit the deck quicks where pretty much in poor form.

AUS bowler used the conditons better. That is all.

 

[aussie]

Aussie, based on this analysis that they seem to be improving, how do you think Johnson/Siddle/Hilfy will compare with Pakistan's pace attack of Asif/Aamer/Gul in the coming months? On potential alone I would rate Pakistan's better, no?

Yea they both looking pretty even indeed i gotta say. Asif definately the best bowler in world IMO just above Steyn.

 

[subshakerz]

Yea they both looking pretty even indeed i gotta say. Asif definately the best bowler in world IMO just above Steyn.

That's a pretty tall claim even for a Pakistan fan like me. He's just come out of the wilderness and I would see how he fairs in Australia (where I expect him to do well) before I can say he's up there with Steyn.

 

[aussie]

That's a pretty tall claim even for a Pakistan fan like me. He's just come out of the wilderness and I would see how he fairs in Australia (where I expect him to do well) before I can say he's up there with Steyn.

Even before he got banned i rated him above Steyn TBH. Asif swings the ball more prodigiously both ways & is far more accurate.

For how brillaint Steyn has been i have never seen him bowl accurately except for MCG last year vs AUS, an ER of 3.62 is a bit high tbh. Which is a slight fault becuase if as some have called him the "Donald clone". Donald was able to bowl fast 90 mph+ & accurately. Steyn though would be better on flat wicket, since i dont think Asif can reverse it.

No Dale Styen performance has been better than what Asif did to SRI in 2006. Which i know you know all about..

 

[Richard]

What?. After SA lost to AUS in 2006, until they lost the AUS this march, they lost just one of 13 series (in SRI 06) between 2006 to 2009.

One the MAIN reasons for this was the assemenblance of the 5 man attack of Steyn/Nitni/Morkel/Kallis.

Secondly Ntini was definately still ab excellent bowler after 2005/06. I dont know what you wherre talking about. Ntini started to decline during the ENG tour last year & by the time SA went to AUS.

Steyn & Ntini as partnership was running through teams, if SA could have done well with Steyn's thunderbolts alone, they would have beaten AUS at home in match.

Morne Morkel has never been much of a bowler, something I've said all his career. He won't ever be either unless he makes some changes. Only very briefly has he ever proven effective - it was just that they were able to carry him because of the excellence of others and the continued victories. As for Ntini if you honestly watch his bowling in 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008 and tell me it was the same as it had been in 2000/01, 2002/03 and 2005/06, you're having a real laff. Ntini has been on the decline for far longer than the last year, and not surprising either given how much workload he typically shoulders.

Yes it was. He bowled well but differently in AUS & in SA. In AUS he was bowling his usual back of the lenght up in the ribcage type deliveries. While in SA thanks to the conditons he suddenly began to get the ball to swing Wasim Akram style, which at his pace shocked the SAs.

Johnson doing that was difference betwee the teams in that series.

Johnson, though he bowled better in SA than Aus, was no more effective there. He was hugely effective in both legs. Australia lost despite his excellence at home and won with his excellence away. His performances did not correlate with Australian victory and defeat.

You said: Then i said: It is foolish to claim AUS got the better batting conditions. The ball was always doing swinging & seaming in the first two test (Capetown was flat & AUS batting poorly in the 1st innings then).

The reasons SA didn't utilise the conditiosn was because they didn't have any swing bowler & the FACT that Ntni & Morkel who where hit the deck quicks where pretty much in poor form.

AUS bowler used the conditons better. That is all.

If you look back at the post in question I've actually deleted that line - I was mixing-up years. In 2008/09 Australia did not overwhelmingly get the better of the conditions in the SA leg - that was in fact 2005/06. So disregard that. But I'm not sure how SA don't have a swing bowler - Steyn is and always will be such a thing.

 

[aussie]

Morne Morkel has never been much of a bowler, something I've said all his career. He won't ever be either unless he makes some changes. Only very briefly has he ever proven effective - it was just that they were able to carry him because of the excellence of others and the continued victories.

Well yea fair enough.

As for Ntini if you honestly watch his bowling in 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008 and tell me it was the same as it had been in 2000/01, 2002/03 and 2005/06, you're having a real laff. Ntini has been on the decline for far longer than the last year, and not surprising either given how much workload he typically shoulders.

Ntini best years a bowler goes like this IMO.

From Lords 2003 - Georgetown 2005, this is when he first qualified as test quality. Before then he anything special in test cricket, a bit like what Morkel is right now.

Then from Trinidad 2005 - Nagpur 2008 He peaked & at point here was arguably the best fast bowler in the buisness, especially when SA where playing AUS.

Since the tour of ENG last year he has been decling gradually & by the end of AUS series in march this year it was clear SA where just carrying him along.

So based on that Nitni was clearly still bowling very well past 2005/06 quite clearly, his decline began in ENG last year.

Johnson, though he bowled better in SA than Aus, was no more effective there. He was hugely effective in both legs. Australia lost despite his excellence at home and won with his excellence away. His performances did not correlate with Australian victory and defeat.

SA won in AUS because AUS selectors picked the wrong bowling attack in the first two test. Johnson was the only good bowler in first two test & SA took advantage of that weakness in the bowling attack.

In the third test Siddle finally looked test class & AUS sort of picked a better bowling attack overall & they won.

Over in SA. AUS picked a better attack in not picking a spinner, they picked a 4-man pace attack (although McDonald shouldn't have played & maybe Nannes or Noffke should have toured after Bollinger got injured) & the seamers utilized the conditions far better than SA bowlers.

While SA bowling in turn was weakened by the fact that Steyn alone was bowling well & Ntini, Morkel bros & Kallis bowled poorly.

You can't underate the effect Johnson being able to swing the ball in SA had on SA batsmen. He got perfect conditons & shocked everybody with inswing at pace he got. Johnson didn't expect it as much as SA where surprised by it.

A similar historical example would be Ambrose in AUS 92/93 before he got tailor made conditons in the 5th test @ Perth.

If you look back at the post in question I've actually deleted that line - I was mixing-up years. In 2008/09 Australia did not overwhelmingly get the better of the conditions in the SA leg - that was in fact 2005/06. So disregard that.

I would disregard but this portion is still incorrect. See above for reference for 2008/09 in SA firstly.

While for 2005/06 SA bowler (Nitni & Nel) utilized the conditons just as well as Lee & Clark. AUS batsmen just handled the SA bowlers better bats, thats all. But i know for some odd reason you think AUS batted on flat decks as you have claimed in past debated with Hayden's runs in this series, so i dont expect you to change your mind here.

But I'm not sure how SA don't have a swing bowler - Steyn is and always will be such a thing.

He can swing the ball yea, more outswing than inswing. But you wouldn't call him a swing bowler like Matthew Hoggard.

 

[Richard]

Ntini best years a bowler goes like this IMO.

From Lords 2003 - Georgetown 2005, this is when he first qualified as test quality. Before then he anything special in test cricket, a bit like what Morkel is right now.

Then from Trinidad 2005 - Nagpur 2008 He peaked & at point here was arguably the best fast bowler in the buisness, especially when SA where playing AUS.

Since the tour of ENG last year he has been decling gradually & by the end of AUS series in march this year it was clear SA where just carrying him along.

So based on that Nitni was clearly still bowling very well past 2005/06 quite clearly, his decline began in ENG last year.

AFAIC Ntini has had several lengthy spells of bowling crap and several (generally shorter) ones of bowling very well. It's often gone on a season-by-season basis - for instance he was excellent in 2000/01, dreadful in 2001/02, excellent in 2002/03, etc. But the last time he bowled especially well was the end of the 2005/06 season. He has had the odd match where he's got good figures since then but mostly that's been down to bad batting rather than him bowling well.

And he's absolutely always been a bowler who needs seam-friendly conditions to do well - he does not and never has come close to excelling at extracting swing.

SA won in AUS because AUS selectors picked the wrong bowling attack in the first two test. Johnson was the only good bowler in first two test & SA took advantage of that weakness in the bowling attack.

In the third test Siddle finally looked test class & AUS sort of picked a better bowling attack overall & they won.

Over in SA. AUS picked a better attack in not picking a spinner, they picked a 4-man pace attack (although McDonald shouldn't have played & maybe Nannes or Noffke should have toured after Bollinger got injured) & the seamers utilized the conditions far better than SA bowlers.

While SA bowling in turn was weakened by the fact that Steyn alone was bowling well & Ntini, Morkel bros & Kallis bowled poorly.

You can't underate the effect Johnson being able to swing the ball in SA had on SA batsmen. He got perfect conditons & shocked everybody with inswing at pace he got. Johnson didn't expect it as much as SA where surprised by it.

A similar historical example would be Ambrose in AUS 92/93 before he got tailor made conditons in the 5th test @ Perth.

The idea that Australia's selection was better in SA than at home has some merit; the idea that Johnson's form made any significant difference to who won and lost does not. In fact it was (as you mentioned) Siddle whose effectiveness changed and correlated with Australia winning or losing.

I would disregard but this portion is still incorrect. See above for reference for 2008/09 in SA firstly.

While for 2005/06 SA bowler (Nitni & Nel) utilized the conditons just as well as Lee & Clark. AUS batsmen just handled the SA bowlers better bats, thats all. But i know for some odd reason you think AUS batted on flat decks as you have claimed in past debated with Hayden's runs in this series, so i dont expect you to change your mind here.

Indeed. There's no disputing AFAIC the fact that Australia had the best of conditions in SA in 2005/06.

He can swing the ball yea, more outswing than inswing. But you wouldn't call him a swing bowler like Matthew Hoggard.

I would - he's a far better swing bowler than Hoggard in my book and also far better at using that swing (ie, he's quicker, and most importantly he's far better at hitting the stumps).

 

[Richard]

Going back to the original topic... this Second Test shows just how stupid all this WI-are-a-disgrace-to-Test-cricket-and-aren't-fit-to-be-playing-Australia nonsense is. WI now have a genuine chance to win this Test. They may not take it, but it emphasises how all that rubbish was written on the basis of a single Test.

Knee-jerk reaction at its very worst.

 

[honestbharani]

Going back to the original topic... this Second Test shows just how stupid all this WI-are-a-disgrace-to-Test-cricket-and-aren't-fit-to-be-playing-Australia nonsense is. WI now have a genuine chance to win this Test. They may not take it, but it emphasises how all that rubbish was written on the basis of a single Test.

Knee-jerk reaction at its very worst.

Not to mention Australia being "easily" the best team in the world...

 

[Ilovecric]

Going back to the original topic... this Second Test shows just how stupid all this WI-are-a-disgrace-to-Test-cricket-and-aren't-fit-to-be-playing-Australia nonsense is. WI now have a genuine chance to win this Test. They may not take it, but it emphasises how all that rubbish was written on the basis of a single Test.

Knee-jerk reaction at its very worst.

I'm happy WI is making a strong case to everyone the team shouldn't be ignored. Alot of people just assume the players aren't good and thats it.

 

[subshakerz]

Going back to the original topic... this Second Test shows just how stupid all this WI-are-a-disgrace-to-Test-cricket-and-aren't-fit-to-be-playing-Australia nonsense is. WI now have a genuine chance to win this Test. They may not take it, but it emphasises how all that rubbish was written on the basis of a single Test.

Knee-jerk reaction at its very worst.

Yeah, a kick in the mouth to the Aussie press who were dismissing WI off the bat.

 

[Furball]

Going back to the original topic... this Second Test shows just how stupid all this WI-are-a-disgrace-to-Test-cricket-and-aren't-fit-to-be-playing-Australia nonsense is. WI now have a genuine chance to win this Test. They may not take it, but it emphasises how all that rubbish was written on the basis of a single Test.

Knee-jerk reaction at its very worst.

Not only that, they're doing it without their 2 best quicks.

There's loads of positives to take from this Test, regardless of what happens over the last 2 days, and it's great to see IMO.

 

[aussie]

AFAIC Ntini has had several lengthy spells of bowling crap and several (generally shorter) ones of bowling very well. It's often gone on a season-by-season basis - for instance he was excellent in 2000/01, dreadful in 2001/02, excellent in 2002/03, etc. But the last time he bowled especially well was the end of the 2005/06 season. He has had the odd match where he's got good figures since then but mostly that's been down to bad batting rather than him bowling well.

And he's absolutely always been a bowler who needs seam-friendly conditions to do well - he does not and never has come close to excelling at extracting swing..

How could that be when he was taking 5 & 6 wicket hauls vs IND & PAK in 2006/07?.

Overall definately disagree he was test quality before SA toured here in 2003 (Lord's test) also. You mentioned 2000/01 & 2001/02. Well i remember seeing him vs AUS & WI in that period & he was definately an average bowler.

The idea that Australia's selection was better in SA than at home has some merit; the idea that Johnson's form made any significant difference to who won and lost does not. In fact it was (as you mentioned) Siddle whose effectiveness changed and correlated with Australia winning or losing.

Johnson swinging the ball in SA was a freak incident. It would be like Harmison suddenly swinging the ball.

As i said although Johnson bowled well in AUS before, the Saffies knew what he was all about - a hit the deck seamer, who tested them physically. Nobody on either side including Johnson himself expected to get the ball to swing so prodigiously. That stunned the Saffies & their batting didn't get accustomed to it until the 2nd innings of the Durban test, which by then the series had already been lost.

Indeed. There's no disputing AFAIC the fact that Australia had the best of conditions in SA in 2005/06.

Which unfortunately is very wrong. Still waiting on the day when you get free time, so we can go through the match reports of that series to deal with Hayden's runs then.

I would - he's a far better swing bowler than Hoggard in my book and also far better at using that swing (ie, he's quicker, and most importantly he's far better at hitting the stumps).

Steyn can swing the ball yes (more geniue outswing than inswing conventionally, while he can reverse it). But you cant call him a "swing bowler", he has many other skills.

Hoggard's is swing bowler, that was his only strenght. Hoggard didn't have the ability to bounce batsmen out or test them physically.


Plus why is it important for a swing bowler to hit the stumps?.

 

[Ilovecric]

RIchard, have you been following the game (quality of the pitch to be exact) ? What do you think of this position WI find themselves in ?