*Official* First Test at Swalec Stadium, Cardiff

[The Masterplan]

That would be nice, then maybe Geraint Jones could keep and Freddie' could bat at 6.

 

[Burgey]

I'm not laughing.

Australia would be.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Or say yes, and then say

Strauss (c)
Cook
Bopara
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior (wk)
Flintoff
Broad
Mahmood
Anderson
Panesar

Nurse! The screens!

 

[Top_Cat]

He should've played in the one warm-up. Let the critics keep yapping, choose him in the the 1st test anyway, let them keep yapping about choosing him and then we'd have him bowling that reverse swing at Cardiff and shutting the critics up then.

Provided he didn't then get injured at Cardiff. A bloke going from almost no bowling to Test side is always going be a risk, especially with Lee's injury history and the fact he's always trying his guts out looking for pace. It's why I advocated a smooth prep back into the side and he not be selected for Cardiff at all. His injury may not have been completely predictable but geez, on balance, it was pretty likely.

 

[Johnners]

Gutted

 

[howardj]

Makes you wonder, in hindsight, why we got distracted with accommodating Lee and Clark for the 1st Test, rather than sticking with the same bowling battery that beat the best team in the world in their own backyard (SA in SA). My money is on Clark similarly breaking down at some stage.

 

[Uppercut]

Because then you'd be relying on Mitchell Johnson having another series so ****ing good it defied belief and the rest of the attack gliding along peacefully on his shoulders.

 

[howardj]

I didn't think Siddle was too bad in SA mate.

In fact, he was a star.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Makes you wonder, in hindsight, why we got distracted with accommodating Lee and Clark for the 1st Test, rather than sticking with the same bowling battery that beat the best team in the world in their own backyard (SA in SA). My money is on Clark similarly breaking down at some stage.

Think it was more a case of giving Lee a chance to prove form/fitness before the main event rather than just "accomodating" him and Clark. &, tbf, if he's going to pick up an injury it's better now than during the test itself.

Not gutted as a one-eyed pommie to see Lee out because he looked the best bowler on either side by the proverbial country mile.

& the bowling battery in SA was pretty much Johnson & Siddle, wasn't it? Surely you'd want to bring in better (in my estimation) bowlers when you could?

 

[Uppercut]

I didn't think Siddle was too bad in SA mate.

In fact, he was a star.

Yeah, Siddle was awesome. But my point still stands, don't you think? Why pick bowlers just because they happened to be playing when Siddle and Johnson were owning the place?

 

[howardj]

As a general comment, I think on these boards there is perhaps not an adequate appreciation of how an attack works together. It matters not who gets the wickets. Rather, if everybody is keeping a lid on things (as they all were in SA) and you are winning, then everybody is making a significant contribution to the cause.

 

[Top_Cat]

As a general comment, I think on these boards there is perhaps not an adequate appreciation of how an attack works together. It matters not who gets the wickets. Rather, if everybody is keeping a lid on things (as they all were in SA) and you are winning, then everybody is making a significant contribution to the cause.

Completely agree. Always been my view that the bowling unit did the job in SA, not just Johnson/Siddle. Not matter what anyone says about their figures, you can bet the supports to those guys walked away knowing they did what was asked.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As a general comment, I think on these boards there is perhaps not an adequate appreciation of how an attack works together. It matters not who gets the wickets. Rather, if everybody is keeping a lid on things (as they all were in SA) and you are winning, then everybody is making a significant contribution to the cause.

Fair point, if a slightly patronising one.

However I'd say Clark is at the very least no worse than McDonald or Hauritz at keeping the run rate down and I'd say would be more likely to chip in with some crucial wickets than either.

Guess the other question is who will be the fourth bowler now? I'm assuming it's going to be Hauritz, but is McDonald now a chance? Or even Hilfenhaus?

 

[Top_Cat]

However I'd say Clark is at the very least no worse than McDonald or Hauritz at keeping the run rate down and I'd say would be more likely to chip in with some crucial wickets than either.

If fit, sure. And we've just seen the perils of picking a bowler coming back from a serious injury too soon. Mind you, now that the team is a bowler down (and I bet the injury has been played-down, fully expect an announcement next week that Lee's gone for the series), they might not have a choice. At least, unlike Hilf and McDonald, Clark has significant game time.

Guess the other question is who will be the fourth bowler now? I'm assuming it's going to be Hauritz, but is McDonald now a chance? Or even Hilfenhaus?

The attack will surely be Johnson/Siddle/Clark/Hauritz.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The attack will surely be Johnson/Siddle/Clark/Hauritz.

That's my guess too, yeah. Maybe a case that McDonald's wicket-to-wicket medium swingers might be just the ticket on what's being billed as a low, slow wicket in Cardiff? Extra batting a plus too, even allowing Hauritz is no dunce either.

Just putting it out there.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Because then you'd be relying on Mitchell Johnson having another series so ****ing good it defied belief and the rest of the attack gliding along peacefully on his shoulders.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's my guess too, yeah. Maybe a case that McDonald's wicket-to-wicket medium swingers might be just the ticket on what's being billed as a low, slow wicket in Cardiff? Extra batting a plus too, even allowing Hauritz is no dunce either.

Just putting it out there.

He'd be handy, sure. But he didn't play in either of the warm-ups so a bit of a stretch to pick him for Cardiff, for mine.

Personally, the selectors should have given him a go in one of the warm-ups to give him game time as an alternative to Hauritz if the conditions suited.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As a general comment, I think on these boards there is perhaps not an adequate appreciation of how an attack works together. It matters not who gets the wickets. Rather, if everybody is keeping a lid on things (as they all were in SA) and you are winning, then everybody is making a significant contribution to the cause.

Yeah I agree. One or two players doing a good job isn't a successful bowling attack.

 

[Pothas]

As a general comment, I think on these boards there is perhaps not an adequate appreciation of how an attack works together. It matters not who gets the wickets. Rather, if everybody is keeping a lid on things (as they all were in SA) and you are winning, then everybody is making a significant contribution to the cause.

Not entirely sure about this one, yes it makes sense and their is some sense to it but surley it works both ways? It is going to be easier for the third and fourth bowlers to keep the runs down and contribute to the sucess of the team if the premier bowlers are performing and taking wickets. Also just because a bowler has done a good supporting job it does not mean they should be automatically picked if a better option has returned or has become availble

 

[howardj]

It's so beautiful and pure - the first session of the first day of the first Test of an Ashes series.

It's one for the purists.