*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[howardj]

I beg to differ. Batting is not our problem. Yes, it cost us big time at Lords. However, read the game, don't just look at the scorecards. It's our bowling that needs beefing up. Johnson is shattered, Siddle is erratic, and Hauritz is still very much finding his feet. Furthermore, for all the hype about him being an allrounder (yeah, looking at you Tommy Moody), North has been exposed as nothing more than the partest of part timers. He is no more of a bowler than Clarke or Hussey. Besides, we need an extra pace option, not North's darts . Furthermore, Watson (who Ponting named as our best bowler in India in our Test series there) is just as good as North with the bat anyway.

 

[Top_Cat]

I beg to differ. Batting is not our problem. Yes, it cost us big time at Lords. However, read the game, don't just look at the scorecards. It's our bowling that needs beefing up. Johnson is shattered, Siddle is erratic, and Hauritz is still very much finding his feet. Furthermore, for all the hype about him being an allrounder (yeah, looking at you Tommy Moody), North has been exposed as nothing more than the partest of part timers. He is no more of a bowler than Clarke or Hussey. Besides, we need an extra pace option, not North's darts . Furthermore, Watson (who Ponting named as our best bowler in India in our Test series there) is just as good as North with the bat anyway.

Not really arguing that the bowling is without problems or that the batting is the big one. I guess it's just my way of saying 'have faith'. The same team that was beaten at Lords dominated a week earlier in Cardiff. Rash selections help no-one. Think you unfairly minimise how well Siddle and Hauritz have bowled too, Siddle especially ripped out a few key wickets and was generally unlucky with edges, dropped chances, etc. Do agree that Norf's bowling is no longer a reason to pick him, though. If Watto can bowl, I'd have no massive issue with him batting 6 instead of North. If he can't, it's essentially a straight swap for raw ability but a loss for form (150 in a Test > two 50's against Northant's, I reckon).

Mind you, picking an extra pace option purely because your spearhead isn't bowling well is a massive mistake, in my view. If the selectors honestly don't think Johnson's going to come good, pick someone else. Otherwise, have faith in not only him but the others. The possibilities as I see it are;

1) Watto in for North
2) Clark in for Siddle
3) McDonald in for North, bats 7 with Haddin at 6

Can't see the selectors dropping Midge for Edgbaston.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Come on. The Aussie bowlers were only 1 wicket off taking all 20 in Cardiff on an absolute road (as compared to England's 6 for almost 700) and, confronted with another road at Lords, after giving up a 196 opening partnership, took the next 9 wickets for just over 200, only the openers passing 50 on first innings. This with a shockingly poor Midge taking the new cherry.

The Aus bowling unit were what prevented England from scoring a single ton at Cardiff in perfect batting conditions and stopped the same line-up from getting 600+ on the Lords pitch.

The biggest reason for the Lords loss was the Aus batters in the first dig. Just over 200 with only one bloke getting past 50 in response to 450 against bowlers who were no more than solid was a pretty awful batting display and they were playing catch-up from that point onwards. Yes, the Aussie bowlers let England get away from them a bit in the second dig but it'd be bloody tough to back up having bowled your guts out to keep your side in the match, watch as the batsmen lasted 60 overs and then less than a day later, you're back out there bowling again with the oppo starting at 0/200+ and your team staring down the barrel on a pitch still playing beautifully.

Blame the batters for the loss, the bowlers have done their job (Midge Johnson aside).

EDIT: Post total is 11 111; got both feet off the ground as we speak.

I think you're oversimplifying things here. Just because the batsmen performed worse than the bowlers doesn't mean the bowlers didn't bowl poorly and should seriously be looked at. Say whatever you want about keeping England to 430 after giving them 200 for nothing, but they still got 200 for nothing. Recovery is a good skill but staring 400+ every time you bat as a batsman, regardless of the pitch, is a daunting task, especially if you need to win.

I also don't believe you can point to a game where the bowlers weren't good enough to dismiss a tailender with plenty of time in the bank at them as an exhibit for their exemplary performance. Without some serious gifts in Cardiff England would have put up 600, and you can credit the bowlers with bowling good lines but in the end a lot of them weren't. Midge has been ****ing disgraceful, Siddle has been wayward and expensive, Hauritz has been solid (but dare I say it, lucky? this doesn't mean we're friends Richard, btw) and Hilf has been a cut above. This attack isn't above criticism because the batsman failed once from 3 innings.

 

[aussie]

Come on. The Aussie bowlers were only 1 wicket off taking all 20 in Cardiff on an absolute road (as compared to England's 6 for almost 700) and, confronted with another road at Lords, after giving up a 196 opening partnership, took the next 9 wickets for just over 200, only the openers passing 50 on first innings. This with a shockingly poor Midge taking the new cherry.

The Aus bowling unit were what prevented England from scoring a single ton at Cardiff in perfect batting conditions and stopped the same line-up from getting 600+ on the Lords pitch.

The biggest reason for the Lords loss was the Aus batters in the first dig. Just over 200 with only one bloke getting past 50 in response to 450 against bowlers who were no more than solid was a pretty awful batting display and they were playing catch-up from that point onwards. Yes, the Aussie bowlers let England get away from them a bit in the second dig but it'd be bloody tough to back up having bowled your guts out to keep your side in the match, watch as the batsmen lasted 60 overs and then less than a day later, you're back out there bowling again with the oppo starting at 0/200+ and your team staring down the barrel on a pitch still playing beautifully.

Blame the batters for the loss, the bowlers have done their job (Midge Johnson aside).

EDIT: Post total is 11 111; got both feet off the ground as we speak.

All of these details are true. But i have to disagree with the overall notion that the "bowlers have done their job".

England's batting improved a great deal @ Lords from Cardiff. Yea AUS did well to restrict England in 1st innings @ Lord's, but outside the 4th innings @ Cardiff. AUS bowling has not bowled as a cohensive unit. Johnson has been trash, Siddle has been intimidating but inconsistent, Hauritz has ranged from trash to very good, Hilfy has been the only consistent option every innings.

Maybe with KP out, ENGs batting will falter has the series progresses. But AUS would be to expect them to falter, & not pick the best bowling attack. Which potentially is 5 bowlers, with Johnsons being dropped. AUS needs to take a leaf out of SRIs book recently with Mendis, Johnno is really off ATM. Its too much of a risk right now to say "we backing to come good" & lets say AUS bowl first on the first morning & nothing he is still wayward.

Johnson's problem seem to be like he just hasn't adjusted to small duke ball, given that he only would have bowled with the kokabura his whole career to date.

I also have my worries about Watson's bowling has i mentioned before. He needs to be back to the level he was in IND. The match reports from this warm-up doesn't really say much unfortunately.

 

[howardj]

You so so nailed it DCYE

We're friends.

 

[aussie]

You so so nailed it DCYE

We're friends.

Ha, word out. Much better than i did i must say..bullet DCYE

 

[howardj]

Ah, we're all mates.

 

[superkingdave]

Wouldn't bother - we'll be winning it on Day 4.

Where are you sat?

North East Lower, bout the only decent tickets they had left when I got them. In the alcohol free zone though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Aus can't take 20 wickets, that line-up won't solve that.

They were one off in Cardiff and kept England under 500 on a good deck at Lords before they declared in the second innings to set up the win...don't think they're having that much trouble taking wickets.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've got the rest of the series off now. Had the 3rd and 5th booked off ages ago (as I generally need to give a fair bit of notice for my hols) but then I was looking at the fixtures and the holiday tracker in work last week and I realised that day one of Headingley was while I was still off. It would have meant by first two days back in work after a week and a half off being days 4 & 5 of a Test...pretty ridiculous as I clearly wouldn't get back into the groove. So I politely requested a two day extension of my holiday...twas granted, means I'm back in for six days before taking a holiday for the 5th test. Working something like 10 days in August in total, might request another cheeky one for the end of series parade tbh

Is there a Gay Mardi Gras on at the end of August?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Assuming his problems are technical. I know people point to seam position, arm height, etc., but you have both Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath quoted in the press as saying they reckon the technical problems are pretty simple to fix, especially for a good cricketing student like Johnson. I do wonder how much his home life is affecting him.



Watson = Bluebagger. To be fair, he hasn't played a game for them yet...

Yeah, to me it just looks like he's trying to fix things on the run. And he may not even be pinpointing the right areas. It's difficult in a game, when you have to run in and bowl the next ball, to work things out in your head.

There's definitely a problem, and personally I'd rather he worked it out and then played.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Are we talking about Australia or Northants?

Either or really!

Now we've got Macca opening you guys are shot ducks.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Haa, damnnnn. What did Maxwell ever say to gain such an impression?

He is a ****ing idiot...he's on the ABC radio here, talks absolute **** while reminding people every so often than 105 year old Agnes and her dead husband's teeth watch the cricket with the sound turned down so they can listen to Jim's brilliance.

Best known for: Making up new terms that sound ridiculous.

Worst habit: Knowing not much about cricket.

Is a tosser.

 

[Son Of Coco]

EDIT: Post total is 11 111; got both feet off the ground as we speak.

No need to get so graphic, what you guys do in your own home is your business.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think you're oversimplifying things here. Just because the batsmen performed worse than the bowlers doesn't mean the bowlers didn't bowl poorly and should seriously be looked at.

Don't think I said otherwise.

Say whatever you want about keeping England to 430 after giving them 200 for nothing, but they still got 200 for nothing. Recovery is a good skill but staring 400+ every time you bat as a batsman, regardless of the pitch, is a daunting task, especially if you need to win.

Quite right. Exactly what gave the Aussies the touch-up last time they were in England too.

I also don't believe you can point to a game where the bowlers weren't good enough to dismiss a tailender with plenty of time in the bank at them as an exhibit for their exemplary performance. Without some serious gifts in Cardiff England would have put up 600, and you can credit the bowlers with bowling good lines but in the end a lot of them weren't. Midge has been ****ing disgraceful, Siddle has been wayward and expensive, Hauritz has been solid (but dare I say it, lucky? this doesn't mean we're friends Richard, btw) and Hilf has been a cut above. This attack isn't above criticism because the batsman failed once from 3 innings.

Yeah but, as with someone like North, it matters when you fail. They (and North) filled their boots when they should have in Cardiff, failed miserably in the first dig at Lords and, really, only two guys got scores in what was essentially a rearguard, showing just how good conditions were for batting even on day 4. Facing 450 is a big ask but the momentum was with them after wrapping up the English innings quickly, I'd have thought.

I really don't have a decent explanation for why the Aussie batsmen morphed into compulsive hookers after batting with such restraint at Cardiff. Wasn't the bowling, that's for sure.

Also seeing a distinct lack of credit for Siddle, in my view. I'd rate him as pretty unlucky. Johnson has been shocking, for sure.

Either or really!

Now we've got Macca opening you guys are shot ducks.

Give up now England.

 

[Richard]

Also seeing a distinct lack of credit for Siddle, in my view. I'd rate him as pretty unlucky.

Siddle has had some bad luck, but as often happens in such cases, people forget that they've ever bowled poorly during the time the misfortune has been striking. Sure, Siddle could've had a few extra scalps, but he's bowled poorly far more often than he's bowled well this series. He just hasn't always got the figures he's deserved in his few decent spells.

I'd say Siddle has bowled well for 20-25% of the time and poorly 75-80% of it. Whether he deserves to go is another matter, but he hasn't bowled all that well this series.

 

[aussie]

He is a ****ing idiot...he's on the ABC radio here, talks absolute **** while reminding people every so often than 105 year old Agnes and her dead husband's teeth watch the cricket with the sound turned down so they can listen to Jim's brilliance.

Best known for: Making up new terms that sound ridiculous.

Worst habit: Knowing not much about cricket.

Is a tosser.

Ha, well everytime he comes over here and i here him on the radio for the last 3 Ashes series. I have always found him a top listen. If he irritates the AUS cricket public that much, its disappointing..

 

[pasag]

Reckon he's tops. Best caller of the game in the country.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Reckon he's tops. Best caller of the game in the country.

Yeah, play by play there's few better IMO. Very good voice to listen to.

 

[tooextracool]

They were one off in Cardiff and kept England under 500 on a good deck at Lords before they declared in the second innings to set up the win...don't think they're having that much trouble taking wickets.

Perhaps, a better way of phrasing it would be "Aus can't take 20 wickets against a side that bats somewhat competently, that line-up won't solve that."

As in the Ashes in 2005 and as was widely expected, England's bowling has given them the advantage, their batting has been poor.