The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[Prince EWS]

I'm with Chappell here. Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket. You toss the ball to Marcus North, Andrew McDonald or Michael Clarke and they won't go for any more runs than a specialist defensive bowler would. Or you could just tell Johnson or Siddle to bowl a foot outside off stump. "Keeping it tight" isn't a skill that deserves a place in a test team.

Still wouldn't pick Krejza. It's not that he's too attacking, he's just bad.

Yeah, I can't really disagree with this.

I was Krejza's biggest supporter - in fact, I'm pretty sure I was the only one outside of the selectors and Jason's mother who thought he should have been on that tour to India - but he's become seriously over-rated since then by many people and I've never been of the opinion that he should be playing Tests outside the subcontinent. I still think he's going to be useful in certain conditions but he shouldn't be playing in England.

The selectors are only cheating themselves in picking Hauritz though. Before the tour of South Africa, their general line of thought was that they needed to have a spinner play every Test... but because they didn't have a good one, they decided to start picking one who wasn't going to have any impact on the game either positively or negatively when he came on. Hauritz just puts Tests on pause. It really defeats the purpose of what they're trying to achieve by picking a spinner regardless (which I disagree with anyway) as Hauritz doesn't really offer what you'd expect from a front-line spinner even on the occasions he bowls "well" and does his job. McDonald does Hauritz's bowling job to a better standard than Hauritz and can bat too... or better yet, we can do away with the joke of a role and pick someone likely to take a wicket (Lee).

 

[Richard]

Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket.

"Keeping it tight" isn't a skill that deserves a place in a test team.

One true, one not so. Well, sort of, so. Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket (ie, not try to take wickets) but it takes a fair bit of skill regardless to pull it off and have the desired result (ie, slow the run-flow to a trickle). A negative bowler does not = a good defensive bowler. You need a fair bit of skill to be a really good defensive bowler.

However I've never had any time for the selection of bowlers in Tests (or any form of limitless-over cricket) where they are not picked because it's believed they can take wickets themselves. I've no time for "taking wickets at the other end" which works nicely in theory but not in practice and I've no time for "block up an end while the other bowlers take wickets at the other". If you pick a bowler for Test cricket you should pick them to take wickets.

 

[Uppercut]

One true, one not so. Well, sort of, so. Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket (ie, not try to take wickets) but it takes a fair bit of skill regardless to pull it off and have the desired result (ie, slow the run-flow to a trickle). A negative bowler does not = a good defensive bowler. You need a fair bit of skill to be a really good defensive bowler.

However I've never had any time for the selection of bowlers in Tests (or any form of limitless-over cricket) where they are not picked because it's believed they can take wickets themselves. I've no time for "taking wickets at the other end" which works nicely in theory but not in practice and I've no time for "block up an end while the other bowlers take wickets at the other". If you pick a bowler for Test cricket you should pick them to take wickets.

The point isn't so much that it's really easy, it's that if you fancy keeping the runs down for a while and your attack consists of Clark, Siddle, Lee, Johnson, North and Clarke, you'll find a way to do it. In tests at least, good attacking bowlers will find it much easier to bowl economically than defensive ones find it to bowl aggressively and take wickets.

Although Ricky Ponting can't defend properly anyway so it might not make any difference who he has to choose from.

 

[Richard]

The point isn't so much that it's really easy, it's that if you fancy keeping the runs down for a while and your attack consists of Clark, Siddle, Lee, Johnson, North and Clarke, you'll find a way to do it. In tests at least, good attacking bowlers will find it much easier to bowl economically than defensive ones find it to bowl aggressively and take wickets.

Again, I'd not disagree with one part of this post - ie, that the likes of the Australian bowlers in said attack would indeed be perfectly capable of playing a defensive role, and that Hauritz is unneccessary.

But I don't agree at all that it's remotely easy for an attacking bowler who is not normally good at defence to bowl defensively. It's virtually impossible for someone who does not have the skill to do something (whether that be attack or defend) to just suddenly do it because the situation requires. If you've not got the skillsets to attack, you've not got 'em, same way if you've not got the skillsets to defend, you've not got 'em. You're suggesting one is difficult, the other impossible; I'm suggesting that both are virtually impossible.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, I can't really disagree with this.

I was Krejza's biggest supporter - in fact, I'm pretty sure I was the only one outside of the selectors and Jason's mother who thought he should have been on that tour to India - but he's become seriously over-rated since then by many people and I've never been of the opinion that he should be playing Tests outside the subcontinent. I still think he's going to be useful in certain conditions but he shouldn't be playing in England.

All of Krejza, McGain & Haurtiz overall aren't good enough to be used as main-spinner in English conditions. But one has to be picked just in case conditions suite, thus again Krejza is the best of the three to exploit a turning track - once he is played in a 5-man attack.

 

[four_or_six]

I think the Aussies do need to play a spinner. Four quicks is fine if they bowl us out fairly cheaply, but that isn't going to repeatedly happen. It's too big a workload for the quicks in a five-match series. Four quicks in the SA series had two of the bowlers injured by midway through the second test.

 

[Richard]

Three quicks and a spinner, or four quicks and a spinner, has also many times had several of the bowlers injured mid-series. Likewise, four quicks has many times not had such a thing.

And personally I think an attack of Clark, Johnson, Siddle, Lee (or AN Other instead of Lee if needbe) should be more than capable of bowling England out cheaply twice, most of the time, if we get some proper English conditions, which we certainly did in the First Test against West Indies. And it'll be interesting to see if the dose is repeated in the Second.

 

[Uppercut]

All of Krejza, McGain & Haurtiz overall aren't good enough to be used as main-spinner in English conditions. But one has to be picked just in case conditions suite, thus again Krejza is the best of the three to exploit a turning track - once he is played in a 5-man attack.

Marcus North and has more FC wickets than either Krejza or Hauritz do, and at a lower average (so does Andrew Symonds, by a massive distance, but his two modes of bowling make his skill as a spinner a tad unclear statistically). The point not being that North is a better bowler than those two, but that none are likely to be much use. I'd keep Hauritz or Krejza around the squad for a really obvious turning track, but neither are part of Australia's strongest XI.

 

[aussie]

Marcus North and has more FC wickets than either Krejza or Hauritz do, and at a lower average (so does Andrew Symonds, by a massive distance, but his two modes of bowling make his skill as a spinner a tad unclear statistically). The point not being that North is a better bowler than those two, but that none are likely to be much use. I'd keep Hauritz or Krejza around the squad for a really obvious turning track, but neither are part of Australia's strongest XI.

Yea 4-quicks will be Australia's attack for a good while in the future. Just advocating why for the lone spinner spot in the Ashes squad, why Krejza should get that position.

 

[Richard]

Marcus North and has more FC wickets than either Krejza or Hauritz do, and at a lower average (so does Andrew Symonds, by a massive distance, but his two modes of bowling make his skill as a spinner a tad unclear statistically).

Symonds has always been waaaaay better as a seamer than spinner IMO. A very poor spinner but actually capable of bowling pretty decently with his seam-up - hits good areas and gets the ball to do plenty. Seems to bowl a Clive Lloyd esque heavy ball too.

The point not being that North is a better bowler than those two, but that none are likely to be much use. I'd keep Hauritz or Krejza around the squad for a really obvious turning track, but neither are part of Australia's strongest XI.

North actually possibly might be no lesser than Hauritz for my money. Krejza is obviously far better given a turning track but equally obviously quite a bit worse on a non-turner.