Yeah, it was tight pressure building bowling to good plans that gave our bowlers success in England, I don't like the idea of an impact bowler like MJ ****ing said plans upBollinger missed this week but would be fine for the Test he is a better option. Chadd is a better option, Hilf is a better option, Forkers is a better option, yes even Copes is a better option than MJ. **** it Cutting, Butts and probably NCN, and even McKay should be considered better options. The selectors though seem to think it's a pissing contest and rate 'ooh he's so scary he can bowl 150+' above keeping it tight and keeping the pressure on at both ends. Fingers crossed for them, because usually Johnson's extra pace just gets the ball to the rope quicker.
This is an interesting one. I'd definitely agree if it was Pattinson or Starc who remained and Siddle was injured, but Australia already have their nagging first change bowler and are in more need of another proper wicket taking option IMO. That's not to say I'd pick Johnson - I definitely ****ing wouldn't - but I'd sooner pick him than someone like McKay. It's something I considered when the twelve was announced because I had a good long think about whether I'd be happy if Johnson found himself twelfth man and Faulkner played instead. I'm kind of undecided on that specific head to head, but I don't think Australia could afford to pick someone purely as a support bowler given who it is that's actually out.Yeah, it was tight pressure building bowling to good plans that gave our bowlers success in England, I don't like the idea of an impact bowler like MJ ****ing said plans up
Kiss of death.I just want you guys to know that I'm backing adub in for a big series
Yeah I get that feeling too. We don't have enough strength and depth at the moment imo.Thought Australia would win this series at the start of the year. Guess I still think that.
.
Trott is the biggest worry, IMO.I would argue that Root at 6 is a pretty solid situation, but agree opener/3rd seamer are big issues. Rankin/Tremlett will be an interesting decision, as Rankin is a superior bowler to me.
To me, his form in England seemed pretty good on paper, he just often got out after making solid starts. Though given how he looked beforehand that could be more mental problems rather than technical ones, which is more of a problem.Trott is the biggest worry, IMO.
Look, McKay might be stretching the friendship, but he is steady. Won't run through a side like MJ could (if the heavens align), but won't go for 4+ rpo or release the pressure. We are talking about the third seamer spot here after all. If we ever got to a toss up between MJ and McKay well we'd be totally ****ed anyway so meh.I can understand adub's point, but he deffo went overboard IMO; MJ isn't great but he's surely a better option than say McKay or Faulkner.
yeah, but it's been happening for a long time now. His technique is obviously very good but it's his mental ability to score mountains of runs and just not get out that's made him so good. If that's not there anymore...To me, his form in England seemed pretty good on paper, he just often got out after making solid starts. Though given how he looked beforehand that could be more mental problems rather than technical ones, which is more of a problem.
I would take Faulkner over Johnson at this stage for the all-round reasons you describe, but let's be honest, his figures in his test debut aren't a true indication of how he bowled. He didn't bowl badly, but he didn't actually look like taking wickets.Look, McKay might be stretching the friendship, but he is steady. Won't run through a side like MJ could (if the heavens align), but won't go for 4+ rpo or release the pressure. We are talking about the third seamer spot here after all. If we ever got to a toss up between MJ and McKay well we'd be totally ****ed anyway so meh.
But Forkers is way underrated around here. The ****s a contributor. Yeah green Bellerive pitches might explain part of his excellent record, but not all of it. You don't get the sort of numbers he's got just from green pitches and pure arse. Especially so in Shield Finals. At full strength no I don't think he cuts it as one of our seamers, and no I don't think his batting is good enough to justify a spot batting at 7, but he is easily in front of Johnson as an option you can depend on chip in with some valuable wickets whilst bowling dryish and also make regular handy lower order runs at 8. Of the 12 selected he should play. The **** took 6/98 in the last test on debut (out of 15 wickets to fall) as well as chipping in with a couple of 20s where he got out chasing quick runs for the team. Harris only took 4 wickets in that game, Lyon 1 and Siddle 0. But because he mixes it up in white ball stuff people don't rate him and want to drop his arse and rate him below Mitchell ****ing Johnson of all people. The game's not won or lost on the speed gun. Faulkner is the no brainer selection, Johnson is the no brains selection.
And Hugh Hefner doesn't look like he could keep up with 20 year old hotties, but he sure does get to **** a whole lot more of them than I ever will.I would take Faulkner over Johnson at this stage for the all-round reasons you describe, but let's be honest, his figures in his test debut aren't a true indication of how he bowled. He didn't bowl badly, but he didn't actually look like taking wickets.