Which brings me back to the point that unlucky bowlers don't win Test matches. It's not a problem that's going to go away, so he's just going to continue being "unlucky". Taking wickets with **** balls > beating the edge with good balls, on a long-term basis.
Much more dangerous for Bollinger to be undercooked than Clarke.
Spot on
And like I said before, I believe (or hope) that he won't be as unlucky because as he showed in India, he could move it both ways, and has a good bouncer and yorker.
Bollinger took some good wickets in said shield game tbh.
For a couple of years, Jason Gillespie was also an "unlucky" bowler
Watson and Copeland out performed him
Haha yeah AWTA.
I'm not just saying it's all bad luck, but that I believe he has the capabilities to reverse it
The latter could quite well be the best bowling attack in the world.
haha, must kill you to say that.
So you'd dop a bowler every time they're not the number 1 performer in a game?
Clear selectoral anti-NSW bias tbh.
Stuart Clark as backup too.
We'd have a better chance of winning the Ashes with that + Watson as our bowling attack itbt.
I never said I'd drop Bollinger...I've stated the opposite a number of times.
Yeah WAY better chance imo. It would be quite a gamble, but I think it would pay off.
Haha, a bit. It's obviously different when it's a short sample size as you can just assume it'll reverse itself, but after it goes on for a while you just have to face the fact that something might be going on that you don't realise - either preventing a bowler from taking the wickets you'd expect, or allowing him to take wickets you don't expect. Johnson's a great example of the latter - there's only so long a fluke can last, and it's definitely a number shy of 166 wickets and 38 Tests.