***Official*** Australia in Sri Lanka

[Burgey]

I have no problem with the attack, just don't get how Copeland keeps being the one getting flak just because he is slow. He has been just as effective if not more than the quicker Johnson.

Yeah I get that.

If a change is made to this side in the near term, it'll be at the top of the order you'd reckon.

 

[outbreak]

Weren't we all just talking about how good this bowling attack looks last innings? We struggle in one innings and every ones talking about dropping players now?

 

[Burgey]

Don't really think they've struggled. They've bowled tight and and not let SL run away at a rapid clip on a good batting pitch.

 

[uvelocity]

Bowling attack does look great. But Johnson has 1 good test in how many? He had his good game in that ODI and half of that was luck anyway.

Stability is good and there is zero chance he will be dropped, but I think when he does get the gun it will be beneficial to us. No way will Johnson set his own retirement date.

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally, Johnson's been good this series. Hasn't had eye-rollingly bad starts and has been generally consistent without looking like tearing through the SL line-up.

He's also not bowling massive overs like Ponting let him do pretty often. Ponting seemed stuck in the mode of letting Johnson just keep bowling, waiting for the knock-out ball and you could often see Johnson really feel the pressure of being the wicket guy. You got the feeling Ponting thought Johnson would only need a couple of balls to knock someone over and, 15 overs/80 runs later, still be setting fields accordingly. Clarke seems less apt to let it get to that point.

Harris is pushing hard and the attack is supporting him well, that Johnson isn't right now is no reason to think his spot should be in trouble. Johnson's bowling solid stuff, not going for heaps and is chipping in with a couple per knock. Hard to be too upset about that.

 

[adub]

Personally, Johnson's been good this series. Hasn't had eye-rollingly bad starts and has been generally consistent without looking like tearing through the SL line-up.

He's also not bowling massive overs like Ponting let him do pretty often. Ponting seemed stuck in the mode of letting Johnson just keep bowling, waiting for the knock-out ball and you could often see Johnson really feel the pressure of being the wicket guy. You got the feeling Ponting thought Johnson would only need a couple of balls to knock someone over and, 15 overs/80 runs later, still be setting fields accordingly. Clarke seems less apt to let it get to that point.

Harris is pushing hard and the attack is supporting him well, that Johnson isn't right now is no reason to think his spot should be in trouble. Johnson's bowling solid stuff, not going for heaps and is chipping in with a couple per knock. Hard to be too upset about that.

As someone who has wanted Johnson out of our side for two years I agree with this. I'd prefer Doug, but if Johnson can maintain this sort of performance and Pup continues to use him smartly it will keep him in the side. He does bring the ability to stay over 140k which isn't something we have elsewhere, and if he isn't having regular shockers then his on-days will be even more welcome.

 

[Spark]

We haven't struggled. Dilshan, Mahela and Sanga aren't mugs, and this pitch has basically nothing. Coupled with not much in the way of fortune (save for Mussey) and 2/200 isn't that surprising.

 

[Furball]

I have no problem with the attack, just don't get how Copeland keeps being the one getting flak just because he is slow. He has been just as effective if not more than the quicker Johnson.

Remember you need to be fast to take Test wickets.

If Copeland was bowling at 85mph then no-one would have any complaints with how he's bowled. Australia's biggest problem in the Ashes was that their lineup was too ill-disciplined and leaked stupid amounts of runs. That's not a problem they've suffered here; they've bowled tightly and effectively as a unit. Bowling Sri Lanka's batsmen out in Sri Lanka for consistently less than 300 simply doesn't happen very often.

edit: unlike the Ashes, it's been a concerted team effort. Lyon's 5-fer in the first innings at Galle aside, the attack's been sharing out the wickets on a consistent basis, much like England do, instead of relying on one man (Siddle at Brisbane and Melbourne, Johnson and Harris at Perth.) That should help Australia breed consistency for the future.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not disputing the above but the root of Australia's poor performance in the past couple of years has surely been stuff like getting bowled out for ****-all on day 1 of a Test. The bowlers, already a fairly fragile unit, are instantly under immense pressure to take wickets quickly without giving away many runs (every 4 hurts in that situation) and otherwise bowl their guts out just to limit the damage to a 200-run lead.

In some ways, it's still a problem too. Honestly, the SL tour has gone better than I thought but tougher bowling attacks like the Saffies will be a huge test and I'm not terribly optimistic. Not to mention, the next Test is at the SSC, a place where SL hasn't lost since Australia were last there. They've generally smashed the daylights out of anyone daring to cross the white line, no matter how good the team, and three bats (Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Samaraweera) have immense records there. If Australia don't win here, a drawn series is pretty likely.

 

[robelinda]

Yep colombo is the test I've been dreading, SL should've made that the 1st test, no better feeling than scoring 2/950 in the first test of a series.

 

[Furball]

Not disputing the above but the root of Australia's poor performance in the past couple of years has surely been stuff like getting bowled out for ****-all on day 1 of a Test. The bowlers, already a fairly fragile unit, are instantly under immense pressure to take wickets quickly without giving away many runs (every 4 hurts in that situation) and otherwise bowl their guts out just to limit the damage to a 200-run lead.

In some ways, it's still a problem too.

Yeah, I covered that in my post in the "how long will England be number 1" thread.

I suppose the one positive to be taken so far from this series is that you've not yet had the customary stupid batting collapse that has cropped up at least once a series for the last couple of years. The Australian bowlers have copped a lot of unfair flak IMO, the Ashes series is really the only series recently where a case can be made for the bowlers being worse than the batsmen. Every Test defeat since the South Africa series (and at least 3 victories) has featured a ridiculous batting collapse at some stage.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, I covered that in my post in the "how long will England be number 1" thread.

Who the **** reads that thread anyway?

tl, dr; Who the **** reads that thread anyway?

 

[Furball]

Who the **** reads that thread anyway?

tl, dr; Who the **** reads that thread anyway?

WAC.

It'll be interesting to see how Australia handle the upcoming transition in their batting; you'd have to figure that Ponting and Hussey will depart at some point in the next 3 years. I'd still be banking on England 2005-09 levels of inconsistency; England being where they are now is due in part to giving the likes of Bell and Cook 5 years in the side before they've really hit their peak. It's easy to forget how much England's lineup changed between 2004 and 2005; Hussain, Thorpe and Butcher all retired between the start of the New Zealand series and the start of the Ashes, and we went in with Strauss, who'd played 14 Tests, Bell who'd played 3 and Pietersen on debut. Right now Ponting, Clarke and Hussey are the only batsmen you've got with a reasonable amount of successful Test experience; given that 2 of them are 35 it'll probably take a wee while to bed in the likes of Marsh, Khawaja etc before they're delivering promising results.

 

[Spark]

It's so, so, so important that Clarke turns his obvious good form into runs and does it with much haste.

 

[Top_Cat]

At SSC:

Sangakkara: 18 Tests, avg 74.56, 7 tons
Jayawardene: 23 Tests,avg 80.18, 10 tons
Samaraweera: 14 Tests, avg 82.60, 5 tons

All three have their highest Test scores there too. Scary.

EDIT: On the plus side, Australia won there last time despite having Big Bad Brad (****ing) Williams in the side so miracles can happen.

 

[uvelocity]

Remember you need to be fast to take Test wickets.

Really? Better tell Terry Alderman.

 

[Spark]

He was being sarcastic I think

 

[uvelocity]

He was being sarcastic I think

Ah gotcha

I was trying to think of more examples, but really I think it is pretty accepted that you need to either be fast or be a spinner, but I don't buy that at all. Even in grade cricket and junior cricket unless you're fast or a spinner there is minimal chance of a bowl. What ever happened to right arm slow opening the bowling?

 

[Ruckus]

Unless you're suuuper-quick like peak Brett Lee or Shoaib Akhtar, I don't think speed in itself makes a bowler much more penetrative especially against quality top order batsmen. It has to be coupled with movement of the pitch or in the air for it to be more effective. Johnson bowling yesterday was a good example of that - he was bowling relatively quick but he didn't look like getting a wicket more than anyone else simply because he wasn't getting anything more out of the pitch. Conversely, when Copeland was bowling with the new ball yesterday he beat the bat frequently and was probably unlucky not to pick up atleast one wicket. And once again, later on when he was bowling with the older ball he looked rather innocuous just like the rest of the bowlers because he wasn't extracting much from the pitch.

 

[outbreak]

Is there that much difference between Copes and alot of other countries bowlers though? Fair enough they seem to be able to push it quicker when needed but india/sri lanka come to mind as having quick bowlers who only reach the 130's. I imagine Copeland with training will add alittle bit of speed to sit in that range and keep his control.