Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[pup11]

I must admit to being very concerned about him. He doesn't just look out of form to me. The fact he has been hit a few times in the last few series isn't a good sign. It's not like he's just been playing and missing, he has been getting cleaned up. His feet look heavier and slower, and I don't think he possesses the natural ability to thrive in Test cricket without being absolutely at the peak of his powers. Will be interesting to see how it unfolds, but wouldn't suprise me if we saw Clarke at 4, North at 5 and Watson at 6 by the next Aussie summer, with North holding out for about 18 months before Ferguson and co. take the step up.

As for Lee, even though he took 3-fer, I thought he looked like the 4th best of the quicks on display. I wouldn't have him in my XI for the first Test. Stuart Clark, however, is a must, especially now that he has his zip and bounce back.

Won't read to much into Hussey getting cleaned up, that is his regular mode of dismissal, as he doesn't have much of a foot-work, he often leaves a gap between his pad and bat, leaving enough space for the ball to sneak through.

Anyways, I think how Hussey performed in the test series both in Australia and South Africa has a lot to do with the fatigue factor, and I would now back a refreshed Hussey to do well in this series, he is pretty familiar with the conditions, having played loads of county cricket, therefore if he falters in this series badly, then he just might be in trouble.

As for the final team combination, I think nothing is set in stone yet, as far the final Aussie XI for the 1st test in concerned, Australia still have one more practice game against the Lions, and the performance of that game to would be taken into account for the final selection.

 

[aussie]

I don't think the win in SA was simply down to a superb individual peformance though. Johnson proved in Perth that you can't have one person doing the job for a test match (let alone the whole series) and come up trumps.

Not really you know. AUS selectors made a foolish mistake going into that test match with only 4 main bowlers.

Since the start of summer AUS selectors it should have clear to the AUS selectors - that they should be picking 4 seamers in all the tests (a clear idea they still dont seem to get). The only way someone like Krejza could have played was if Watson was fit to bat @ 6.

Johnson taking 8 in the 1st innings, temporarily masked that stupid selection. But SA exposed it by chasing that target so comfortably in the 2nd innings.

The players around you have to be helping out too, and that's what changed in SA.

Again that wasn't that case. For one look at the batting other than Hayden & Hussey AUS batting was never under tested technically or exposed like ENG 05. Australia posted a 300plus score everytime they completed a full innings except for - the second innings @ MCG & the dead rubber Capetown test. So clearly the form of the batsman never changed.

In SA, although having McDonald as one of 4 bowlers was also ludicrous. At least in Johnson/Siddle/Hilfenhaus - AUS got 3 bowlers who suited the conditions perfectly & the Saffies failed to adjust until the 2nd innings @ Durban.

Plus the Gavaskaresque debut performance from Hughes stunned them, since no-one was expecting that. Since their was legitmate worries going into that series, that he was being thrown into lions then. But one must give these irritating selectors credit for seeing his talent.

 

[Uppercut]

I must admit to being very concerned about him. He doesn't just look out of form to me. The fact he has been hit a few times in the last few series isn't a good sign. It's not like he's just been playing and missing, he has been getting cleaned up. His feet look heavier and slower, and I don't think he possesses the natural ability to thrive in Test cricket without being absolutely at the peak of his powers. Will be interesting to see how it unfolds, but wouldn't suprise me if we saw Clarke at 4, North at 5 and Watson at 6 by the next Aussie summer, with North holding out for about 18 months before Ferguson and co. take the step up.

Personally i think that's just how Hussey looks when he bats. He was rarely free-flowing and confidence-inspiring even when he was scoring epic amounts of runs.

What really works against the theory that the Huss is past it is his ODI form. In 15 matches this year- five against New Zealand and ten against South Africa- he's scored 549 runs @ 45.75, S/R of 88. You can always have an opinion on whether form translates between different types of cricket, but it would surely be highly unusual for someone's mind and body to be too old for test cricket while they were still churning out so many runs in ODIs.

 

[Son Of Coco]

In SA, although having McDonald as one of 4 bowlers was also ludicrous. At least in Johnson/Siddle/Hilfenhaus - AUS got 3 bowlers who suited the conditions perfectly & the Saffies failed to adjust until the 2nd innings @ Durban.

Plus the Gavaskaresque debut performance from Hughes stunned them, since no-one expecting that. Since their was legitmate worries going into that series, that he was being thrown into lions then. But one of give these irritating selectors credit for seeing his talent.

It clearly wasn't though, especially given one of the bowlers who 'suited the conditions perfectly' didn't exactly set the world on fire because he bowled too short for the most part. I'm not saying McDonald is a great bowler by any means, but not being able to see the part he played in the team in Aus and SA is just stupid in my opinion.

Let's face it, if Clark or Lee were fit McDonald wouldn't have been there. That doesn't mean he did a terrible job though.

 

[oitoitoi]

Hussey looks more than out of form, he looks a bit worked out, especially against good spin. Ponting isn't the batsmen he was, and he's never done that well in England anyway. Katich, Hughes, Haddin and Clarke are where the runs are going to come from this series, with lower order cameos throughout.

 

[pup11]

Hussey looks more than out of form, he looks a bit worked out, especially against good spin. Ponting isn't the batsmen he was, and he's never done that well in England anyway. Katich, Hughes, Haddin and Clarke are where the runs are going to come from this series, with lower order cameos throughout.

Jeez, Its fair enough to say that Hussey is struggling a bit since the last 6 test matches he has played in, but c'mon the bloke is far from finished, all those bad tests were against the same attack, which is probably one of the best going around.

Though, I don't understand your statement regarding Hussey struggling against good spin bowling, wasn't he quite comfortably Australia's best batsman on this recent test tour to India..??

As for Ponting not being the same batsman he was, yeah he isn't anymore scoring 150+ in every third or fourth innings he plays, but he is hardly out of sorts, he has been inconsistent, but he has played some wonderful knocks too, and his twin 100's in the last boxing day test, or his 80 odd in difficult conditions during the 1st test in SA, are just a few examples of that.

 

[oitoitoi]

Jeez, Its fair enough to say that Hussey is struggling a bit since the last 6 test matches he has played in, but c'mon the bloke is far from finished, all those bad tests were against the same attack, which is probably one of the best going around.

Though, I don't understand your statement regarding Hussey struggling against good spin bowling, wasn't he quite comfortably Australia's best batsman on this recent test tour to India..??

As for Ponting not being the same batsman he was, yeah he isn't anymore scoring 150+ in every third or fourth innings he plays, but he is hardly out of sorts, he has been inconsistent, but he has played some wonderful knocks too, and his twin 100's in the last boxing day test, or his 80 odd in difficult conditions during the 1st test in SA, are just a few examples of that.

Well tbh those wickets in India were so slow they weren't actually that good for spin bowling. I don't think he's finished, not even close, but I think he's just at a point where he needs to develop his game a bit, make a few adjustments, all players go through it at some point, the best ones do it pre-emptively.

Well since Jan 07 Ponting's averaged 43 over 22 tests with 4 hundreds and that average is falling, compared with his career record that's a big drop, but he's obviously still a good player. Just watching him compared to 4 years ago you can see his footwork isn't quite as quick as it used to be, and the fact that he's been getting out to his trademark pull shot shows that perhaps his reflexes have slowed a touch, a combination of these things is exposing the flaws in his technique that these used to compensate for. He's become a lot more vulnerable to that off stump line than he used to be, basically age is catching up with him. I don't think he can come out and attack as consistently as he used to, perhaps he should look to accumalate a bit more with someone like Hughes or Clarke taking on that mantle. Similarly Tendulkar doesn't tend to score as quickly as he used to as others are there to do that job, but through adjusting his game he's maintained his productivity.

 

[irfan]

Hussey looks more than out of form, he looks a bit worked out, especially against good spin. Ponting isn't the batsmen he was, and he's never done that well in England anyway. Katich, Hughes, Haddin and Clarke are where the runs are going to come from this series, with lower order cameos throughout.

I'd chuck North in there as well

 

[Burgey]

Well, given Hauritz's gash effort in the lead up, it's looking more and more like:

Johnson
Siddle
Lee
Clark

for Cardiff, which really ought to send the fear of God into the To-and-Froms. Johnson has been WC since India, Siddle is massively on the improve, has a method suited to England (ie - decent length and hit the seam) and Clark's a metronome who they won't want playing. The only real concern for me of those 4 is Lee himself, who will hopefully get back to his successful pre-India method.

Now England supporters will talk about Anderson and Broad, but the fact is all four of our blokes would be a walk-up in the curent England side, save for possibly Lee. And Lee, who has the question mark over his (fantasy) place in an England side, is the only one of our fellas who looks close to being as effette as either Broad or Anderson.

Australia 4-0.

 

[DaRick]

I am surprised at just how poor Hilfenhaus was against Sussex. It looks more and more like Lee will be playing in Cardiff. To be fair, he wasn't horrible, but he really ought to fix up that no-ball problem.

We should also prepare to have problems with over rates again.

 

[pup11]

Well, given Hauritz's gash effort in the lead up, it's looking more and more like:

Johnson
Siddle
Lee
Clark

for Cardiff, which really ought to send the fear of God into the To-and-Froms. Johnson has been WC since India, Siddle is massively on the improve, has a method suited to England (ie - decent length and hit the seam) and Clark's a metronome who they won't want playing. The only real concern for me of those 4 is Lee himself, who will hopefully get back to his successful pre-India method.

Now England supporters will talk about Anderson and Broad, but the fact is all four of our blokes would be a walk-up in the curent England side, save for possibly Lee. And Lee, who has the question mark over his (fantasy) place in an England side, is the only one of our fellas who looks close to being as effette as either Broad or Anderson.

Australia 4-0.

I am an optimistic Aussie fan, but still I am hardly as confident as you are regarding the current bowling attack, though I agree with most of the stuff that you are saying, but still a lot can go wrong with this attack, despite Johnson and Siddle showing remarkable improvement as bowlers in the last few months.

If England prepare slow, dry pitches knowing that, they have spinners who can use the conditions well, and faster bowlers who are decent exponents reverse swing, then Australia could be in a bit of a fix with their bowling attack.

Lee as we all know is pretty mediocre in conditions like those, and Clark's effectiveness too is likely to be lesser in slow and low conditions, and if that turns out to be the case, then that could put a lot of pressure on the shoulders of Siddle and Johnson.

That's where, I believe not showing enough faith in either McGain or Krezja for this tour, is going to prove to be a big mistake on the part of the selectors.

 

[Uppercut]

I am surprised at just how poor Hilfenhaus was against Sussex. It looks more and more like Lee will be playing in Cardiff. To be fair, he wasn't horrible, but he really ought to fix up that no-ball problem.

We should also prepare to have problems with over rates again.

Got better figures than Clark, who emerged from the match with nothing but universal praise. The no-balls thing is an absolutely massive issue, I'd almost be reluctant to play someone who does it that often. But to be fair to him, it's pretty much the only issue with his bowling at the moment.

 

[tooextracool]

for Cardiff, which really ought to send the fear of God into the To-and-Froms. Johnson has been WC since India, Siddle is massively on the improve, has a method suited to England (ie - decent length and hit the seam) and Clark's a metronome who they won't want playing. The only real concern for me of those 4 is Lee himself, who will hopefully get back to his successful pre-India method.

Has Johnson shown the ability to bowl in-swingers recently outside of the series in SA ?
Personally, Im a little bit more worried about Siddle as an English supporter than Johnson, although obviously if he bowls like he did in SA he will be dangerous.

 

[Burgey]

Has Johnson shown the ability to bowl in-swingers recently outside of the series in SA ?
Personally, Im a little bit more worried about Siddle as an English supporter than Johnson, although obviously if he bowls like he did in SA he will be dangerous.

Yeah, I'd certainly concede Johnson's inswinger is a very recent development. He'd said IIRC, he'd been working on it for some time. Will be interesting to see if he can reproduce it in England.
Siddle's method, from what I've seen of him anyway, seems well-suited to England. The only issue with him is the persisting injury worry ("hot spot" in his foot I think it is).

 

[aussie]

It clearly wasn't though, especially given one of the bowlers who 'suited the conditions perfectly' didn't exactly set the world on fire because he bowled too short for the most part.

Hilfenhaus bowled better than his figures those figures suggested, just like Lee in Ashes 2005.

It was his first series just like how Johnson & Siddle themselves showed signs of potential in this first test/series. Both took a little while (Siddle a bit faster) to full get where they are today. Hilfenhaus complimented Siddle & Johnson very well, by being fairly economical & being dangerous enough with the new & old ball with conventional & reverse swing.

I'm not saying McDonald is a great bowler by any means, but not being able to see the part he played in the team in Aus and SA is just stupid in my opinion.

I would say he played in role in the Sydney test yea, mainly because AUS had 5-bowlers. He accuracy was well utilized as a defensive bowler that kept Johnson/Siddle/Bollinger fresh. He never looked threatening.

But the fact that his batting, clearly wasn't test match number 6 quality. It affected the balance of the side & AUS got away with that stupid selection in Sydney.

In SA, as the selectors made the idotic choice to pick him as one of 4 MAIN-bowlers. Thankfully the pace-trio stepped up fantastically to mask those cracks. All the wickets McDonald took in SA was due to the pressure those 3 quicks put on the SA batsmen, thus he benefited a few cheap scandals, rather than him doing anything special.

Let's face it, if Clark or Lee were fit McDonald wouldn't have been there. That doesn't mean he did a terrible job though.

They shouldn't have picked him in Sydney, Hilfenhaus & North/D Hussey/Hodge could have played since then.

Same thing over in SA, Bollinger should have played in Jo'Burg & after he got injured they could have called up Nannes instead of Geeves as back-up to play the remainder of the series.

 

[Top_Cat]

Has Johnson shown the ability to bowl in-swingers recently outside of the series in SA ?

Certainly has, years ago now. But in the midst of years of injuries, action re-adjustments, etc. it got lost as a consistent weapon so I guess he had to shelve it. In the latest article from him, he talks about how he has subtle changes in his action which he does depending on pitch/conditions. Good to see the in-ducker back.

 

[aussie]

I am an optimistic Aussie fan, but still I am hardly as confident as you are regarding the current bowling attack, though I agree with most of the stuff that you are saying, but still a lot can go wrong with this attack, despite Johnson and Siddle showing remarkable improvement as bowlers in the last few months.

If England prepare slow, dry pitches knowing that, they have spinners who can use the conditions well, and faster bowlers who are decent exponents reverse swing, then Australia could be in a bit of a fix with their bowling attack.

Lee as we all know is pretty mediocre in conditions like those, and Clark's effectiveness too is likely to be lesser in slow and low conditions, and if that turns out to be the case, then that could put a lot of pressure on the shoulders of Siddle and Johnson.

That's where, I believe not showing enough faith in either McGain or Krezja for this tour, is going to prove to be a big mistake on the part of the selectors.

Massive point this...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hilfenhaus bowled better than his figures those figures suggested, just like Lee in Ashes 2005.

It was his first series just like how Johnson & Siddle themselves showed signs of potential in this first test/series. Both took a little while (Siddle a bit faster) to full get where they are today. Hilfenhaus complimented Siddle & Johnson very well, by being fairly economical & being dangerous enough with the new & old ball with conventional & reverse swing.



I would say he played in role in the Sydney test yea, mainly because AUS had 5-bowlers. He accuracy was well utilized as a defensive bowler that kept Johnson/Siddle/Bollinger fresh. He never looked threatening.

But the fact that his batting, clearly wasn't test match number 6 quality. It affected the balance of the side & AUS got away with that stupid selection in Sydney.

In SA, as the selectors made the idotic choice to pick him as one of 4 MAIN-bowlers. Thankfully the pace-trio stepped up fantastically to mask those cracks. All the wickets McDonald took in SA was due to the pressure those 3 quicks put on the SA batsmen, thus he benefited a few cheap scandals, rather than him doing anything special.



They shouldn't have picked him in Sydney, Hilfenhaus & North/D Hussey/Hodge could have played since then.

Same thing over in SA, Bollinger should have played in Jo'Burg & after he got injured they could have called up Nannes instead of Geeves as back-up to play the remainder of the series.

He picked up Amla and Kallis, that's pretty useful.

So Mcdonald benefitted from the pressure put on the batsmen by the other quicks but no-one benefitted from him keeping it tight and going at around 2 an over?

In all fairness, I don't think comparing the job McDonald does to something 3 part-time spinners could do if they had a good day is right. And of course other people could have played. Whether they'd have done better is purely speculation though. McDonald's had one bad test.

 

[pup11]

Yeah, I'd certainly concede Johnson's inswinger is a very recent development. He'd said IIRC, he'd been working on it for some time. Will be interesting to see if he can reproduce it in England.
Siddle's method, from what I've seen of him anyway, seems well-suited to England. The only issue with him is the persisting injury worry ("hot spot" in his foot I think it is).

Its going to very vital that Johnson gets the Duke ball to swing, I recently read an interview of his, where he hinted that he would like to test the English batsmen with a few bumpers, well nothing is wrong with that, but the effectiveness of such a ploy is dependent on the conditions.

If he keeps bowling short on a slow and low pitch, I don't think any of the English batsmen would mind it one bit, so Mitch would have to adjust his natural length slightly to adapt to the English conditions.

 

[aussie]

He picked up Amla and Kallis, that's pretty useful.

Not just because he got them out, meant he bowled well. Lets look back at the dismissals according to cricinfo, because other than that controversial caught & bowl off Kallis @ SCG, i dont remember the rest ATM.

McDonald to Amla, OUT, maiden wicket for McDonald, and a good piece of bowling too! Pitches in line and slants back into beat the bat as Amla falls forward, thats a stump-to-stump delivery to undo him

HM Amla lbw b McDonald 51 (192m 134b 7x4 0x6) SR: 38.05.

Seems like get got Amla with a good ball here. But this doesn't discredit my intial point about his performace in the SCG test. That he was accurate, without be threatening.

McDonald to de Villiers, OUT, Referral: there's an appeal for a leg before and the umpire is convinced, however Kallis is doubtful at the other end and indicates to de Villiers that he should challenge it, the ball lands on a good length outside off and comes in with the angle, the ball clips his pad within the line of the stumps so no doubt there, Asad Rauf reckoned that would have bit the legstump, Bowden raises the finger again, the initial doubt was whether the ball was missing leg, but in the end the decision seems fair

AB de Villiers lbw b McDonald 3 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 42.85.

Reading back this dismissal, i sort of remember this. But the fact that he got him out on a refferal, doesn't say much for McDonald. All it shows that given that SA where under pressure chasing 454, they had to play him with caution.

McDonald to Kallis, OUT, oh well held, McDonald .. or not? Pitches it up down the stumps, Kallis goes back and starts to turn it to the on side, but the ball takes a leading edge and balloons back up in the air towards the bowler, who flings himself to his right in his follow through and looks like he's taken a stunner ... his team-mates converge but Kallis asks for confirmation, and McDonald admits he's not sure. To the naked eye it looked like he took it, Ponting sticks up a finger even before the umpires are consulted, and after numerous analysis Kallis is adjudged out. Thats a very, very tough call. One angle indicates he took it, the straight view says something else. I'm not convinced he took it.

JH Kallis c & b McDonald 4 (23m 13b 0x4 0x6) SR: 30.76.

A bit of a fluke this, as i remember

So Mcdonald benefitted from the pressure put on the batsmen by the other quicks but no-one benefitted from him keeping it tight and going at around 2 an over?.

Nope. Perfect example was the second test in Durban.

After Johnson had bowled one of the most intimadting spell of fast-bowling ever, ripping through the top. The SA batsmen had to play McDonald circumspectly. Especially Kallis who had his jaw shattered, who he dismissed.

In all fairness, I don't think comparing the job McDonald does to something 3 part-time spinners could do if they had a good day is right.

Haa...this is the best comparison i could give TBH. The Waugh bro's bowling medium pace in the 90s could have done his job.

And of course other people could have played. Whether they'd have done better is purely speculation though. McDonald's had one bad test.

No, playing Nannes or Bollinger would have clearly made AUS attack in those 4 test more potent.

McDonald may not have disgraced himself, but AUS clearly got lucky with his selection as i've shown. Has i've said before if AUS pick him as one of 4 MAIN- bowlers again, that would be utter ignorance.