This is why Australia will lose the Ashes

[scorpiogal]

Think I admitted it all along, but saying McDonald had performed better than Lee recently blinded you a bit I think. Don't know how many times I have to say if Lee was in good form I'd have him there and not have McDonald. Think it was mentioned at least three pages back. You can also reference Social's comment above. This is one of the most irrational discussions I've been involved in.

Same for me too. Don't know who'd put those names in the same sentence, really. Only Aussies would. The rest of us see them for what they really are.

 

[tooextracool]

From what I've seen, Mcdonald looks a steady type, who will attempt to close an end up, allowing main bowlers to grab a break without too much damage being done in their absence. He is not particularly penetrative, but can be useful as part of an attack. However, I think the English batsmen may prefer to see him at the end of his run-up rather than Brett Lee, but as you say, form and rhythm for both players is very important. If Lee does not find those in these warm-ups, he should be struggling to make the XI.

Its fine to have someone like that if hes a top 7 batsman which McDonald isnt. By having him in the side, he is essentially taking up a slot that could and should be filled by a specialist bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

So what you're actually saying is, the basic ingredients to make a good bowler (lines and lengths, hitting the stumps) ain't anywhere near good enough?

So what he's doesn't bowl 150kph, so what he doesn't hit people with bouncers. He does his job for the good of the TEAM, and that is what's most important in the grand scheme.

Believe it or not, cricket is not as simple as bowling the right lines and lengths and hitting the stumps. Otherwise, players like Mark Ealham would be one of the best test bowlers ever. McDonald does what he can to the best of his abilities, but he doesnt have the skill or the talent to be a successful test match bowler or to take wickets in test match cricket consistently. With Clark in the side especially, McDonald simply doesnt serve anything that Australia need.

 

[tooextracool]

Think the performances of Jimmy Anderson will be important. He is now an integral member of the England attack, has much more control these days, the swing he can get both ways will trouble a number of batsmen, at high pace too. So while I agree Johnson is probably the pick of the bowlers on both sides, he only marginally heads it over Anderson on current form. A fully fit Freddie would certainly push him too.

Yeah think there are too many uncertainities about both attacks. If Anderson bowls like we know he can, if Freddie can stay fully fit, Sidebottom (ditto) and if Broad can continue bowling at 90 mph like he has been lately we might have a good attack. Theres a lot of If's there.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah think there are too many uncertainities about both attacks. If Anderson bowls like we know he can, if Freddie can stay fully fit, Sidebottom (ditto) and if Broad can continue bowling at 90 mph like he has been lately we might have a good attack. Theres a lot of If's there.

You can say that about anyone! If Simon Katich is in form, and if Phil Hughes is as good as he looks, and if Ricky Ponting plays like we know we can, and if Michael Hussey regains his touch, and if Michael Clarke stays fit, and if Marcus North is as good with the bat as he looked in South Africa, then Australia might have a good batting lineup.

Lots of ifs there too, but that doesn't make it any less of a good batting lineup.

 

[tooextracool]

You can say that about anyone! If Simon Katich is in form, and if Phil Hughes is as good as he looks, and if Ricky Ponting plays like we know we can, and if Michael Hussey regains his touch, and if Michael Clarke stays fit, and if Marcus North is as good with the bat as he looked in South Africa, then Australia might have a good batting lineup.

Lots of ifs there too, but that doesn't make it any less of a good batting lineup.

Well Katich is a proven performer, the same with Ponting. I would express doubts over North, Hussey (who has been struggling off late) and Hughes. Not sure what Clarke's fitness is like but hes a proven player as well. There are definitely a lot of question marks about the Australian batting lineup, there is no doubt about that

 

[wfdu_ben91]

A great innings is one which repels great bowling. Outstanding bowling simply cannot be got on top of, as such - unless you're Bradman, or a Viv Richards playing a ten-times-or-so-in-a-lifetime innings, or someone else playing a once-in-several-lifetimes innings (eg Nathan Astle at Christchurch 2001/02).

If the bowler is good enough (and the best usually are) then he always controls the game. Every now and then, truly outstanding batting can play through that. But you cannot just hit outstanding bowling off itself - if the bowler keeps his head and his body shape, he'll get you 999 times out of 1000, maybe more, playing that way.

That's the thing, Hughes did repel great bowling. He was under enormous pressure, early on in the series because the ball was doing all sorts through the air and off the pitch and Hughes was able to overcome the difficult period and turn it into somewhat of a counterattack on his part, even when the bowlers still had their tails up.

He was not only facing great bowling, in difficult conditions, but also was noticiably recieving a fair amount of lip aswell, where most 20 year olds would've buckled under the pressure. 95% of batsman that have played the game would've faulted in Hughes' position.

 

[tooextracool]

You can say that about anyone! If Simon Katich is in form, and if Phil Hughes is as good as he looks, and if Ricky Ponting plays like we know we can, and if Michael Hussey regains his touch, and if Michael Clarke stays fit, and if Marcus North is as good with the bat as he looked in South Africa, then Australia might have a good batting lineup.

Lots of ifs there too, but that doesn't make it any less of a good batting lineup.

Well Katich is a proven performer, the same with Ponting. I would express doubts over North, Hussey (who has been struggling off late) and Hughes. Not sure what Clarke's fitness is like but hes a proven player as well. There are definitely a lot of question marks about the Australian batting lineup, there is no doubt about that

 

[social]

So far this game has told us that:

a. the first 3 bowlers chosen by Oz HAVE to be Johnson, Siddle and Clark; and

b. Oz batsmen have to lift their game

In other words, it's told us zip

 

[social]

Yeah think there are too many uncertainities about both attacks. If Anderson bowls like we know he can, if Freddie can stay fully fit, Sidebottom (ditto) and if Broad can continue bowling at 90 mph like he has been lately we might have a good attack. Theres a lot of If's there.

MASSIVE IFs

All Engs bowlers average well over 30 except for the guys that havent played a team with a heart-beat

 

[Uppercut]

Well Katich is a proven performer, the same with Ponting. I would express doubts over North, Hussey (who has been struggling off late) and Hughes. Not sure what Clarke's fitness is like but hes a proven player as well. There are definitely a lot of question marks about the Australian batting lineup, there is no doubt about that

The point is that there are always question marks. We don't really know whether Ponting will perform either, he's been a bit below his best for a while now. Katich too hasn't been 100% convincing.

Actually, we never know how someone will perform. That's why we watch cricket. "Question marks" over players are irrelevant, if they're good players, they're likely to perform more often than not. Anderson, Broad, Swann, Sidebottom and Flintoff are all good players when fit, so you'd fancy them to play well. Likewise Siddle, Johnson, Clark and (IMO) Lee.

 

[Richard]

That's the thing, Hughes did repel great bowling. He was under enormous pressure, early on in the series because the ball was doing all sorts through the air and off the pitch and Hughes was able to overcome the difficult period and turn it into somewhat of a counterattack on his part, even when the bowlers still had their tails up.

He was not only facing great bowling, in difficult conditions, but also was noticiably recieving a fair amount of lip aswell, where most 20 year olds would've buckled under the pressure. 95% of batsman that have played the game would've faulted in Hughes' position.

The ball wasn't really doing all sorts, nor were the bowlers consistently pitching it in good areas. They were all well below their best (Morkel maybe excepted because he's yet to show that he's that good anyway), and Hughes capitalised. Full credit to him for doing that, but that's all he did. He 100% did not make superlative bowling look average.

 

[Uppercut]

The ball wasn't really doing all sorts, nor were the bowlers consistently pitching it in good areas. They were all well below their best (Morkel maybe excepted because he's yet to show that he's that good anyway), and Hughes capitalised. Full credit to him for doing that, but that's all he did. He 100% did not make superlative bowling look average.

Regularly made decent balls look rank poor ones by being so harsh on anything back of a length outside off stump though.

 

[tooextracool]

MASSIVE IFs

All Engs bowlers average well over 30 except for the guys that havent played a team with a heart-beat

Yeah I know, that was the point I was trying to make actually. We could have a pretty poor attack turn up for the Ashes or a pretty good one, its hard to predict exactly which one will show up. I dont think I would underestimate our bowling anyways, its the batting that Im worried about because they have been mediocre for a long time now.

 

[tooextracool]

Regularly made decent balls look rank poor ones by being so harsh on anything back of a length outside off stump though.

I think its fairly obvious to anyone who watched that they (the SA bowlers) bowled poorly to Hughes and everyone else for the most part. That people were expecting the likes of Morkel to do better was the surprising part IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

Think I admitted it all along, but saying McDonald had performed better than Lee recently blinded you a bit I think. Don't know how many times I have to say if Lee was in good form I'd have him there and not have McDonald. Think it was mentioned at least three pages back. You can also reference Social's comment above. This is one of the most irrational discussions I've been involved in.

I understand, but I do not understand how any rational person would want to have McDonald in the side as one of their 4 bowlers. To me its saying, hey hes better than our best fast bowler when hes rubbish so thats why hes there.

 

[tooextracool]

Or how about we ignore the fact that in all of the innings he's bowled in he's gone for more than 3 an over once.

This is not the reason why bowlers are picked to play and this is the classic reason why Australia are shooting themselves in the foot at the moment. Both Hauritz and McDonald are defensive options, they are in the side because 'they keep things tight' and 'play a role'. Last time I checked a bowlers primary responsibility is to take wickets in test cricket and neither of the above 2 are capable of doing that, McDonald is lucky to have as many wickets as he has, and Hauritz well hes just an absolute joke.

If you told Steve Waugh way back in 2001/02 that he should pick someone because he bowls line and length and is likely to keep the run rate in check but offers no wicket taking threat I think he would have run himself into a brick wall. I am not sure why this defensive mindset has crept into the Australian game off late, but its a shocking attitude to their game.

 

[Jakester1288]

Reality is that he's competing with Clake, Hilfenhaus, McDonald, Haurritz and Watson

Who is Clake and Haurritz?

 

[Jakester1288]

I am not sure why this defensive mindset has crept into the Australian game off late, but its a shocking attitude to their game.

It could be due to losing more games, but IMO it's because of the changes in our sides. Losing Warne, McGrath, Langer, Hayden etc. These guys would never give up, and go all out to get the win for their team.

Ponting

I was surprised to see Ponting is best odds to be top run scorer in the series. What does everyone else thing of this?

 

[howardj]

Yeah, that's the one.

He's not actually in form at the moment, his FC season was poor, especially by his standards. However, Hussey > North > Watson on batting, IMO. There isn't much in it, though. Hussey is slightly above North, and North and Watson are almost equal.

Mate, if Dussey is a better FC bat than Watson, I will eat my computer.

Have a look at Dussey's record for Victoria from 2000 onwards.

It's ordinary, but with the odd purple patch.

I also think North is somewhat overrated by many on this forum.