*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[Jarquis]

Yeah, Marcuss has a serious man-crush on McDonald so I knew he'd put him in the team (and he can back it up too) but I laughed when I saw him listed ahead of Haddin.

Don't think I would actually put him in the team. I'm just saying that he's a viable option, and if he did play that's what lineup id have.
I also said why I have Haddin at 8.
If you're 320/7 I reckon Haddin has the game to get you closer to 400 batting with the tail. Whereas with McDonald I can see you getting 350 and McDonald being 18*

 

[TumTum]

I see McDonald purely as a bowler, don't rate his batting at all.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I see McDonald purely as a bowler, don't rate his batting at all.

I don't think either of his disciplines are strong enough to get into the test team on their own, but looks more of a batting all-rounder to me. Bowling looks a bit wicket-to-wicket and straight up and down from what I've seen.

Might just make a #6 and fourth seamer.

 

[fredfertang]

He didn't exactly set Division 2 of the Championship alight this summer

 

[TumTum]

I don't think either of his disciplines are strong enough to get into the test team on their own, but looks more of a batting all-rounder to me. Bowling looks a bit wicket-to-wicket and straight up and down from what I've seen.

That kind of bowling has served us really well in th last couple of years. First with McDonald in SA (choked SA from scoring and took wickets from balls that nipped in off the seam) and now with Watson (who is finding reverse swing). They have been the consistent bowlers for us, especially more useful than our spinners.

McDonald is considered a batting all-rounder at FC level, but from what I've seen of him he is very very ordinary. Definitely rate guys like Hopes, Henriques, D.Hussey higher than him.

 

[Noble One]

That kind of bowling has served us really well in th last couple of years. First with McDonald in SA (choked SA from scoring and took wickets from balls that nipped in off the seam) and now with Watson (who is finding reverse swing). They have been the consistent bowlers for us, especially more useful than our spinners.

McDonald is considered a batting all-rounder at FC level, but from what I've seen of him he is very very ordinary. Definitely rate guys like Hopes, Henriques, D.Hussey higher than him.

Henriques is not close to matching McDonald. Five years time, maybe.

 

[Shri]

Guys, stop discussing aussie and talk about the Ashes. He should be allowed to have a discussion without people discussing the discussion.

And Shri if you reply to or completely ignore this, I'll campaign for your banning. So much ****-stirring from you lately; keep a lid on it.

Touche. Will do.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As i laready said, it wasn't as if the SA batsmen couildn't hit him off the square. They where rather never in a position to in the first two test TO HIT him him off the square, because of how superb Johnson/Hifly/Siddle bowled in the 1st two test. Especially Johnson who shocked them with amount of inswing he got in SA - they certainly wouldn't have expected that based on what they faced from him in AUS. The SA batsmen where never in a position to be able to take of advantage of McDonald since he was an obvious weaklink, until the final test @ Capetown when they got accustomed to the AUS pace trio on flat pitch & absolutely slaughtered McDonald. So McDonald bowling tight in those 1st two test in SA was him feeding of the pressure Johnson/Siddle/Hilfy created.

If McDonald was such a weak link then SA would've taken advantage of that regardless of the situation they were in during the first two tests. I don't believe the argument that they got into a good position in the third test and then thought, 'hang on, we can hit McDonald around...why didn't we think of that before'.

His economy rate was lower than both Johnson and Hilfenhaus in the 3rd test against SA, and he took 1 less wicket than Hilfy. McGain was the weak link in the attack, and he got smashed.

The rest went as you'd expect on a relatively flat track.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Difference being he took you apart in a couple of Tests before going missing...

He took 5 wickets once, yes. As for tearing us apart in a couple of tests, I can't see a point where he actually put two innings together, let alone tore us apart for two whole tests. Although I'm sure he wasn't bowling badly even when he didn't take too many at the grounds that suited him.

Would be happy if he does the same again, but would prefer it if our batsman were more consistent this time around.

 

[GIMH]

Tore you apart atlords and edgbaston

 

[Son Of Coco]

I thought they were the two matches you were talking about. His effort in getting rid of most of the top order was very impressive at Lords. Bowled well at Birmingham too.

As I said though, reckon I'd take the same this time around, especially as not much happened apart from those two innings. Am saying that in the hope our batting line-up is a little more solid in the middle, but that's probably hoping against hope. Jimmy will get a chance to bowl to the same guys as last time more than likely, meaning there's every chance it will happen again!

From an Australian point of view, hearing about the new and improved Jimmeh last time around and then watching more of the same (actually, that's a lie, he did have 2 good innings with the ball this time) was a little underwhelming.

 

[GIMH]

No, that's fair enough, I think I misunderstood your last post as it sounded to me like you were refuting one of his performances.

My take on Anderson for the last two years is that he has definitely improved, but he still has another step to take. A few years back he was good when it swung and expensive when it didn't. Nowadays, I think he's the best in the world when it swings, and quiet when it doesn't. It makes him less of a liability but obviously still means he''ll run through teams away from home less often. This series is massive for him.

I have a feeling Broad will go well as he is less dependent on conditions, Onions is a big miss over there for my money though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The only time McDonald really got taken to was when South Africa were 5/933, and AB De Villiers was able to slog at him. You have to slog at him to get him away, and if you get out like that - which is always a possibility - you'll look like an absolute dill. He built pressure and continues to bowl well at FC level. Doesn't mean that I think that he should be picked, but there is a fair cherry picking of performances going on. Certainly wouldn't be rating Henriques or James Hopes ahead of him as batsmen either.

Think social is a bit heavy on Siddle. The guy is still our best bowler <26 (age) in the country. He's definitely a better option than Harris in the long term, who I wouldn't describe as a "metronome", and I think the precedent has been set for bowlers of his age getting injured; have to prove a lot to get themselves back in the queue. In the short term, at least Siddle is back bowling at FC level, think he's got a head start on Rhino.

 

[GIMH]

5/933? That a typo?

 

[Matt79]

We call that comic exaggeration gimh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I like the the look of Siddle and Harris, ftr. Think wrt the latter tho he looks quite "top heavy" for a quick. I guess he put on a lot of muscle mass when he stepped up from fast/med to genuinely quick and, given his age, it must have an effect.

Sidebottom never quite recovered properly from the effort of putting on a couple of yards in late 20s/early 30s, hope Harris won't be the same.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Oh, the other thing is that Johnson dead set can't work out which end to hold it with. He's got lazy footwork, and relies on balance which isn't even that great, as he doesn't get his head in line with the ball. Anything that moves, and he's in trouble unless he's in his optimum form.

Think he'll always bat reasonably in Australia, the tracks suit him and he loves the ball at about waist height outside off. But he's loose, and an average above 25 will always be very flattering.

 

[aussie]

If McDonald was such a weak link then SA would've taken advantage of that regardless of the situation they were in during the first two tests. I don't believe the argument that they got into a good position in the third test and then thought, 'hang on, we can hit McDonald around...why didn't we think of that before'.

His economy rate was lower than both Johnson and Hilfenhaus in the 3rd test against SA, and he took 1 less wicket than Hilfy. McGain was the weak link in the attack, and he got smashed.

The rest went as you'd expect on a relatively flat track.

I believe we had this debate actually when that series was going on & i shall say again as i told you way back then.

McDonald keeping it tight is his strenght, thats clear. But its not a McGrath/Ambrose wicket-taking tight. He will bowl 6 balls on the same spot & good batsmen in tests should be good enough to respect that. But if they want to go into second gear againts him, they can do that & hit him off his lenght quite without much fuss, since he doesn't bowl any special wicket-taking deliveries.

In every match in SA as i've gone through before. McDonald basically fed off & was allowed to be economical because of superb the pace trio where in the 1st two tests. SA where never in a dominant enough batting position until the Capetown to take advantage of him "the obvious weak-link" in the bowling attack. He never posed a wicket-taking threat, AUS where better off picking another fast-bowler in SA, such as Nannes ATT after Bollinger went home injured.


While in Sydney although he gave the selectors the a 5-man attack of variety, that they have been seeking in that series after Wason was out injured. It severly weakened the batting. (Given in that home series, the selectors made the stupid error of picking Krejza & Haurtiz as part of 4-man attacks in Perth & MCG).

Thankfully though @ SCG & that entire home series, the batting outside Hayden & Hussey (to a degree) was never under Ashes 2005 pressure batting pressure (exposed technically) againts the SA bowlers. So a combination of continous solid batting & a balanced attacked enabled a win in Sydney, thus McDonald useless position in Sydney was again masked. Picking McDonald to give the side 5-bowlers, aided the balance of the bowling attack, but inversely affected the balance of the batting since McDonald is not a test match #6.

 

[social]

I believe we had this debate actually when that series was going on & i shall say again as i told you way back then.

McDonald keeping it tight is his strenght, thats clear. But its not a McGrath/Ambrose wicket-taking tight. He will bowl 6 balls on the same spot & good batsmen in tests should be good enough to respect that. But if they want to go into second gear againts him, they can do that & hit him off his lenght quite without much fuss, since he doesn't bowl any special wicket-taking deliveries.

In every match in SA as i've gone through before. McDonald basically fed off & was allowed to be economical because of superb the pace trio where in the 1st two tests. SA where never in a dominant enough batting position until the Capetown to take advantage of him "the obvious weak-link" in the bowling attack. He never posed a wicket-taking threat, AUS where better off picking another fast-bowler in SA, such as Nannes ATT after Bollinger went home injured.


While in Sydney although he gave the selectors the a 5-man attack of variety, that they have been seeking in that series after Wason was out injured. It severly weakened the batting. (Given in that home series, the selectors made the stupid error of picking Krejza & Haurtiz as part of 4-man attacks in Perth & MCG).

Thankfully though @ SCG & that entire home series, the batting outside Hayden & Hussey (to a degree) was never under Ashes 2005 pressure batting pressure (exposed technically) againts the SA bowlers. So a combination of continous solid batting & a balanced attacked enabled a win in Sydney, thus McDonald useless position in Sydney was again masked. Picking McDonald to give the side 5-bowlers, aided the balance of the bowling attack, but inversely affected the balance of the batting since McDonald is not a test match #6.

Firstly, no-one is talking about batting McDonald at 6 - if the wicket is greenish at Brisbane, then he is a viable option as a straight replacement for Hauritz

Secondly, there was no "superb pace trio" in any match McDonald played.

There were 2 extremely promising quicks in Johnson and Siddle, one relative dud (both Bollinger and Hilf were roundly criticised for their performances in the games in question and no short-sighted revisionism will change this fact) and no reliable spin option

In short, McDonald was easily the 3rd best bowler in every test he played

Thirdly, McDonald has been playing long enough in by far the strongest fc comp in the world for us to deduce that his record is no fluke

Fourthly, McDonald is unfashionable because he is an unfashionable cricketer - he bowls medium pace, is a gutsy batsman and no better than a trier in the field

However, whatever he does, he does well and consistently which is a vast improvement over many of the incumbents IMO

Fifthly,if he is so easy to hit, why dont people do it more often?

How about the fact that he is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar better than you credit him for being

 

[Flem274*]

firstly, no-one is talking about batting mcdonald at 6 - if the wicket is greenish at brisbane, then he is a viable option as a straight replacement for hauritz

secondly, there was no "superb pace trio" in any match mcdonald played.

There were 2 extremely promising quicks in johnson and siddle, one relative dud (both bollinger and hilf were roundly criticised for their performances in the games in question and no short-sighted revisionism will change this fact) and no reliable spin option

in short, mcdonald was easily the 3rd best bowler in every test he played

thirdly, mcdonald has been playing long enough in by far the strongest fc comp in the world for us to deduce that his record is no fluke

fourthly, mcdonald is unfashionable because he is an unfashionable cricketer - he bowls medium pace, is a gutsy batsman and no better than a trier in the field

however, whatever he does, he does well and consistently which is a vast improvement over many of the incumbents imo

fifthly,if he is so easy to hit, why dont people do it more often?

How about the fact that he is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar better than you credit him for being

awta