*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[Jarquis]

Remove if word is deemed offensive etc.

 

[Richard]

Nah, **** isn't filtered TBH. Anyway yeah it's always quite funny when those ad-hoardings conspire with camerawork to make something like that. There were a couple in the 2006/07 series - some Aussies (I forget who) lounging around below one labelled "life's good" and Duncan Fletcher in front of something with some form of negative connotation (again, I forget what).

 

[Jarquis]

Nah, **** isn't filtered TBH.

I did check but wondered if there was an issue with context

 

[Jamee999]

Thread pinned.

 

[Woodster]

My slight concern, as an England fan, would be for Stuart Clark to return and take the new ball. His metronomic accuracy will have the top order playing at everything, presuming he'll still have enough zip to trouble the best, he'll get a hint of seam movement and he'll bowl from very close to the stumps. He was for me the natural successor with the new pill after McGrath finished.

The areas he'll look to bowl will certain trouble Cook, and potentially Strauss.

 

[Uppercut]

Nah, **** isn't filtered TBH. Anyway yeah it's always quite funny when those ad-hoardings conspire with camerawork to make something like that. There were a couple in the 2006/07 series - some Aussies (I forget who) lounging around below one labelled "life's good" and Duncan Fletcher in front of something with some form of negative connotation (again, I forget what).

My personal favourite was Paul Robinson missing the ball against Croatia with Borat grinning at him in the background.

 

[Uppercut]

1) Johnson has been completely unthreatening with the new ball, and is likely to remain so unless he gets the ball to swing. To suggest that he is the most attacking bowler in the series is not just OTT, but also just plain wrong.
2) Sessions (sometimes even games) are lost or won based on the momentum that teams get at the start of an innings. Australia, lost at Lords because Johnson was primarily responsible in allowing England to get off to that flyer. Being 1-0, Australia cannot afford for this to happen again.
3) If Johnson isn't getting the ball to swing, it seems like he is likely to be just as threatening bowling with a slightly older ball than with the brand new ball.
4) Even if Siddle doesn't bowl on the stumps, he's still likely to cause problems to Cook who is a very poor judge off where his off stump is and has been susceptible to poking at deliveries outside his off stump.

Tbf, Siddle's economy this series has only been marginally better than Johnson's.

 

[four_or_six]

Tbf, Siddle's economy this series has only been marginally better than Johnson's.

I really thought Siddle was going to cause us loads of trouble, before the series started. I know he's been a bit unlucky sometimes, but he hasn't been anywhere near as threatening as I thought he'd be.

But then again, he'd had the least cricket out of any of the Aussies bowlers coming into the tour, Lee and Clark included, so perhaps he will be a lot more threatening later on.

 

[aussie]

I really thought Siddle was going to cause us loads of trouble, before the series started. I know he's been a bit unlucky sometimes, but he hasn't been anywhere near as threatening as I thought he'd be.

But then again, he'd had the least cricket out of any of the Aussies bowlers coming into the tour, Lee and Clark included, so perhaps he will be a lot more threatening later on.

Yea he has been a bit wayward. But he has still remainded a very uncomfortable & hostile customer in the two test so far ENGs batsmen.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well the point is that you can't attack the stumps with Siddle, for the reasons I mentioned. To me it makes much more sense to bowl your most attacking bowler- Johnson- with the new ball, then if it doesn't come off and he's still bowling crap, revert to the more negative line (to left-handers) of Siddle. Defence should be Plan B.

You don't necessarily have to attack the stumps though, in and around off with some away movement is also handy to the left-handers. Johnson could have had nine stumps to aim at on some occasions in the last test and he still wouldn't have been considered to have been attacking them.

 

[social]

Tbf, Siddle's economy this series has only been marginally better than Johnson's.

Dare I say it, but the only consistently decent bowler on show from either side has been Hauritz

The rest have been completely inconsistent or consistently horrible

 

[wpdavid]

Distinctly average really....
Included season stats of those others who have been mentioned in this thread.

Joyce - 445 runs @ 37.08 with a HS of 100 (1 ton and 2 50s)
Trott - 671 runs @ 95.85 with a HS of 166 (3 tons and 1 50)
Bell - 647 runs @ 71.88 with a HS of 172 (2 tons and 4 50s)
Hildreth - 728 runs @ 60.66 with a HS of 303* (2 tons and 3 50s)

Shah - 345 runs @ 57.50 with a HS of 159 (1 ton and 2 50s)
Key - 499 runs @ 62.37 with a HS of 270* (2 tons and 0 50s)
Ramprakash - 721 runs @ 72.10 with a HS of 138 (3 tons and 2 50s)

Not many of those are massively impressive when you think:
1. how many of them have been achieved against D2 attacks.
2. how many of them are massively skewed by one decent innings
3. how many play their home games on absolute roads

Worryingly, Bell's made 7 and 0 in the game when he's likely to be back in the test squad. Shaes of Ramps' form disappearing then he reached 99 tons last year?

 

[Richard]

Worryingly, Bell's made 7 and 0 in the game when he's likely to be back in the test squad. Shaes of Ramps' form disappearing then he reached 99 tons last year?

I'm not totally sure about that TBH - he was due a bad game sometime very soon after averaging 70 or whatever it was - but it's very annoying that he's had his bad game just before he's going to play the Test. Ramprakash had scored something like 25 centuries in 60-65 innings' or something, then went about 10 without looking like getting one.

Bell for me has more shades of Dominic Cork in 2002, and that ended badly as well.

 

[Uppercut]

Dare I say it, but the only consistently decent bowler on show from either side has been Hauritz

The rest have been completely inconsistent or consistently horrible

Hilfenhaus has been pretty solid tbf.

 

[wpdavid]

Hilfenhaus has been pretty solid tbf.

Yes. Whereas Hauritz did have that rotten spell at the start of Day 2 at Cardiff when Swann took him to the cleaners.

 

[Jarquis]

Not many of those are massively impressive when you think:
1. how many of them have been achieved against D2 attacks.
2. how many of them are massively skewed by one decent innings
3. how many play their home games on absolute roads

Worryingly, Bell's made 7 and 0 in the game when he's likely to be back in the test squad. Shaes of Ramps' form disappearing then he reached 99 tons last year?

I separated them into 2 blocks to show the different divisions.
TBF you could argue that none of the above apply for Trott and maybe even Bell.

 

[pup11]

Yes. Whereas Hauritz did have that rotten spell at the start of Day 2 at Cardiff when Swann took him to the cleaners.

TBH, Swann and Jimmy Anderson smashed every bowler on that day, Hauritz being no exception.

 

[Prince EWS]

TBH, Swann and Jimmy Anderson smashed every bowler on that day, Hauritz being no exception.

That was kind of the point...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Dare I say it, but the only consistently decent bowler on show from either side has been Hauritz

The rest have been completely inconsistent or consistently horrible

Didn't think Hilfenhaus has been too bad.

 

[Richard]

Hilfenhaus has been pretty solid tbf.

Yes. Whereas Hauritz did have that rotten spell at the start of Day 2 at Cardiff when Swann took him to the cleaners.

Hauritz has been taken to the cleaners several times - and also failed to perform the stereotypical spinner's role of bowling the oppo out on the last day. In fact Hauritz has bowled wholly unremarkably for decent figures. Hilfenhaus, on the other hand, has been genuinely good more often than not, though he too has had the odd off spell.

Hilfenhaus has bowled so much better than Hauritz this series it's untrue, the disparity in their figures is mad.