So what went wrong?

[fredfertang]

I don't know what to make of this - is there any merit in it or is it just opportunist b******* ?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't know what to make of this - is there any merit in it or is it just opportunist b******* ?

The latter.

"the Australian team remains as solidly Anglo as in the days of Bradman and Miller."

Hmm.

Katich? Hifhenhaus? Hauritz? Krezja?

 

[age_master]

In 10 years time i would suggest that a lot more subcontinental players will haev come through the ranks and will be playing FC and test cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

The latter.

"the Australian team remains as solidly Anglo as in the days of Bradman and Miller."

Hmm.

Katich? Hifhenhaus? Hauritz? Krezja?

Believe Mitch Johnson is a Koori too. Mate of mine played in the ATSIC Chairman's XI game years ago and mentioned Midge was in the squad.

 

[AaronK]

I stil think 05 victory was much better considering that legends like Mcgrath, Warne, Gilly were playing..

 

[Burgey]

You are right in that England are not a great bowling team. They did however bowl some very good spells during the series that changed games on their heads.

For me, the Australian bowlers were steady but rarely threatening. At many times during the series, you felt that the England batsmen had just tossed their wickets away when everything looked so easy rather than Australian bowlers getting them out. Only at Leeds did the bowlers actually get England out, for the rest of the series the batsmen just obliged.

I take your point that the Australian bowlers were rarely poor during the series whilst their batting veered from excellent to fragile at some points. However, even that collapse at Lords was on the back of a very poor bowling performance in the first innings at Lords which arguably had just as much of an impact on the game as the bad batting did.

The consistent theme developing with this Aussie attack, given its relative lack of experience, seems to be it struggles bowling sides out unless there's a fair bit int he wicket. They did well in SA on seaming pitches and again at Leeds on this tour.

Although tbf they won in Sydney and went within a whisker at Cardiff.

 

[Top_Cat]

The consistent theme developing with this Aussie attack, given its relative lack of experience, seems to be it struggles bowling sides out unless there's a fair bit int he wicket. They did well in SA on seaming pitches and again at Leeds on this tour.

Although tbf they won in Sydney and went within a whisker at Cardiff.

Pretty inexperienced attack, though. In my time watching cricket, no Aus attack I've seen had as its most experienced member a bloke with 20-odd Tests under his belt. There was always one or two others who'd been around for a while. Lee counts but then, he's not in the side and out there bowling with these guys. Siddle/Johnson/Hilf is an attack with decent potential, just needs time not just to gel as a team but to find their feet at the internatonal level individually.

 

[Burgey]

Pretty inexperienced attack, though. In my time watching cricket, no Aus attack I've seen had as its most experienced member a bloke with 20-odd Tests under his belt. There was always one or two others who'd been around for a while. Lee counts but then, he's not in the side and out there bowling with these guys. Siddle/Johnson/Hilf is an attack with decent potential, just needs time not just to gel as a team but to find their feet at the internatonal level individually.

Yeah, I think (and certainly hope) they'll get better in a range of conditions with more experience.

Still waiting for the explanation as to how Australia could possibly have lost from all those on here who say pace always > spin, no matter the conditions. Suspect I'll be waiting a while.

 

[pup11]

The consistent theme developing with this Aussie attack, given its relative lack of experience, seems to be it struggles bowling sides out unless there's a fair bit int he wicket. They did well in SA on seaming pitches and again at Leeds on this tour.

Although tbf they won in Sydney and went within a whisker at Cardiff.

As T_C said, inexperience is definitely a factor, but I think for likes of Mitch, Siddle and Hilf to be successful in placid conditions, they would also need to be a bit more skillful, learning how to reverse swing the ball is vital for a modern day fast bowler.

When the wicket is hard and has decent bounce and carry, then hitting the deck hard (which is what most current Aussie quicks do) can work for you as a fast bowler, but on placid tracks if you keep doing the same thing then you are going to spanked by the batsmen.

The reason why Hilf looked the most potent of our bowlers is because, not only did he maintain very decent lines and lengths, he also consistently swung or seamed the ball around, which none of the other Aussie quicks were able to do.

I think for years as a team we have taken a skill like reverse swinging the ball for granted, but now we can no longer get away with that, because in general pitches around the world are unhelpful for fast bowlers, and its imperative that our quicks with the help of Cooley learn to reverse swing the ball.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, I think (and certainly hope) they'll get better in a range of conditions with more experience.

Still waiting for the explanation as to how Australia could possibly have lost from all those on here who say pace always > spin, no matter the conditions. Suspect I'll be waiting a while.

Coruse you will, seeing as it isn't true

 

[Jono]

Still waiting for the explanation as to how Australia could possibly have lost from all those on here who say pace always > spin, no matter the conditions. Suspect I'll be waiting a while.

Yeah haven't heard from SS and the other individuals in that mob yet.

 

[GIMH]

There are some bull**** theories and what not on CW, but that one tops them all.