*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[Prince EWS]

It hasn't been just one game, and Bollinger's quite arguably Australia's best bowler and didn't play. And Australia's current team isn't their best eleven cricketers today, tomorrow or yesterday.

Thanks man. Wasn't aware of any of those things.

 

[Faisal1985]

Thanks man. Wasn't aware of any of those things.

 

[Jarquis]

If you ask me, Australia are in a better position than England. The result of the match has at least identified Australia's weaknesses - the bowling and North and if anything those players are likely to be replaced.

As far as England is concerned, the result has masked the fact that they batted very poorly in the first innings and the fact that Finn shouldn't be playing. You can guarantee that England will be unchanged for the 2nd test even though 3/4 bowlers bowled poorly out there and we definitely didnt have our best 4 bowlers playing.

Nah man, was just great bowling. Haven't you heard?

 

[Faisal1985]

Just realized 30 wickets out of 49 that Doug has are against Pak and WI. Not the best batting lineups tbh. Although you can argue that WI wasn't all that weak in the 2009 series.

 

[four_or_six]

Johnson is burned out and needs a month off.

What an odd article.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah man, was just great bowling. Haven't you heard?

Whether it was poor batting or good bowling isn't tremendously relevant when you're playing the same opposition another four times. Don't really want to drag this **** into another thread though and neither should you.

 

[Faisal1985]

Johnson is burned out and needs a month off.

What an odd article.

Love the comment on it..

From day 3 onwards all bowlers struggled to take wickets so it is a bit harsh singling out Mitch. Given there was never going to be a result in 5 days the authorities should have cancelled the Adelaide match and extended the Gabba game until a result was achieved like in the good old days. Who knows 15 extra days or so might have done the trick with England being bowled out for 2500 leaving the Aussies to get 2280 odd to win before Boxing Day on the batter friendly Gabba pitch. Now that would be a freaking cricket match - Ashes or no ashes!

 

[tooextracool]

Cant believe the recent 'revelation' that Johnson doesn't threaten the stumps and hence you could just leave most of his deliveries alone. Been saying this for over 2 years on here.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Just realized 30 wickets out of 49 that Doug has are against Pak and WI. Not the best batting lineups tbh. Although you can argue that WI wasn't all that weak in the 2009 series.

And 12 of the others were against NZ.

So far he has beaten up minnows.

At least Finn has a 5 for against a side ranked in the top 5.

 

[Jarquis]

Whether it was poor batting or good bowling isn't tremendously relevant when you're playing the same opposition another four times. .

?
Surely it's wholly important? If it's good bowling then it suggests you're going to struggle should they maintain that level. If it's bad batting, then obviously you can make an effort to improve and thus can expect your performances to improve.
If it's a bit of both (which it was) then it's going to be pretty even (which it will be).

 

[Prince EWS]

?
Surely it's wholly important? If it's good bowling then it suggests you're going to struggle should they maintain that level. If it's bad batting, then obviously you can make an effort to improve and thus can expect your performances to improve.
If it's a bit of both (which it was) then it's going to be pretty even (which it will be).

Good bowling has as much chance of changing as bad batting though.

 

[Jarquis]

Good bowling has as much chance of changing as bad batting though.

Yes but in a bad batting vs good bowling situation, the batting has more scope for improvement so the difference would be more marked, should it improve.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes but in a bad batting vs good bowling situation, the batting has more scope for improvement so the difference would be more marked, should it improve.

Good bowling has more scope for decline as well though, so the difference won't be more marked. In the end it doesn't really matter - bad batting from X and good bowling from Y produces the same result.

 

[Burgey]

And 12 of the others were against NZ.

So far he has beaten up minnows.

At least Finn has a 5 for against a side ranked in the top 5.

That would be the WI line up that beat England then...

 

[Faisal1985]

And 12 of the others were against NZ.

So far he has beaten up minnows.

At least Finn has a 5 for against a side ranked in the top 5.

Well also has 5 against India in tough conditions....to his credit. Can't blame him if he only played the weaker batting sides for the most part but yeah...his "real" test...so to say will come against Eng.

 

[Jarquis]

Good bowling has more scope for decline as well though, so the difference won't be more marked. In the end it doesn't really matter - bad batting from X and good bowling from Y produces the same result.

Agreed, but I still wouldn't say whether it was bad batting or good bowling is entirely irrelevant seeing as one is within your control and one is not.

 

[Faisal1985]

That would be the WI line up that beat England then...

Mate has a point.


Honestly i sometimes get too annoyed by the Aussie sophisticating every single thing. Mitch is not bowling well...sack him for a bit to drive plumber vans put Doug back in. If Adelaide is going to be a batting track like they say it is historically then get Ryan Harris in there too for the reverse swing in place of Hilf...Bring Smithe back for Xavier..a leggie would be a lot more threatening to England.

Make these changes and i guarantee you a test win in Adelaide provided Harris can get reverse swing and Smith gets something on the 4th or 5th day....simple!

 

[Prince EWS]

Agreed, but I still wouldn't say whether it was bad batting or good bowling is entirely irrelevant seeing as one is within your control and one is not.

I don't think whether it's in your control is heaps relevant either though, really. We'd like to think that good performances will stay where they are and we can improve on poor ones, but in reality good performances have as much chance of tailing off as poor performances do of improving. Whether it's in Australa's or England's control doesn't change that.

 

[Faisal1985]

Most of all you negate any or if there was any psychological advantage for England with a totally new bowling attack. Your batting never failed in the first place. Change the entire face of your bowling unit with the exception of Siddle.

 

[Howe_zat]

That would be the WI line up that beat England then...

Or the WI line-up that was badly beaten by England, more recently? Gonna have to try harder than that Burgey...

Doug averages 30 in his two matches against the top sides, so not bad. I rate him as a bowler but I don't know why he is considered to have a tremendous record, it's just a good record.