*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

. If you're going to discount the fifth bowler, I think discounting the 8 and 9 batsmen seems logical as well.

Not really, everyone bats but four bowlers is often enough (especially when the opposition have clowns like Hussey, North & Chimpy in their line-ups).

Agree with the rest of your post though.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Not really, everyone bats but four bowlers is often enough (especially when the opposition have clowns like Hussey, North & Chimpy in their line-ups).

Agree with the rest of your post though.

Sometimes four isn't enough though. Having five (six even tbh, North's useful) bowling options > having four. You can't just ignore the fact that Australia have an extra couple of decent bowling options - or you can, but then it doesn't make sense to then take the batting all the way down to nine.

I'll put it this way - I don't think the bowling of Watson and North is less likely to have an impact on the series than the difference between the batting of Hauritz/Johnson and Broad/Swann.

[GIMH]

The double negative in your post hurts my brain

I know what you're saying, but i guess my point is that if I had to pick to just have four bowlers or to declare at seven down each time, I'd go with the former. I'm aware that I am stretching it there though and given that Watson can be considered frontline well bowling well, then the filth defo have the edge in terms of bowling depth

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

The double negative in your post hurts my brain

I know what you're saying, but i guess my point is that if I had to pick to just have four bowlers or to declare at seven down each time, I'd go with the former. I'm aware that I am stretching it there though and given that Watson can be considered frontline well bowling well, then the filth defo have the edge in terms of bowling depth

Yeah but it's not like Hauritz and Johnson add 0 with the bat. We're not comparing Watson and North's bowling to Swann and Broad's complete contribution; merely to their contribution when compared with Hauritz and Johnson.

[Marcuss]

Collingwood to take 5

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah but it's not like Hauritz and Johnson add 0 with the bat. We're not comparing Watson and North's bowling to Swann and Broad's complete contribution; merely to their contribution when compared with Hauritz and Johnson.

It's not like Colly adds nothing with the ball either, just might not take many wickets

[FBU]

Still can't get over these bowling stats

Cricket Records | MCC Spirit of Cricket Test Series, 2010 - Australia | Records | Batting and bowling averages | Cricinfo.com

[Tom 1972]

No doubt, Australia is carrying good form into the Ashes.....

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Don't know how well Onions would've gone here to be honest. Despite his reputation as an honest, hit-the-deck trier, what he actually is, is a pitch-it-up swing and seam merchant, who bowls an extremely large percentage of his balls on the stumps. That can often be highly ineffective in Australia and go for plenty of runs.

Not sure if you and I have been watching the same Onions, I would consider him a poor man's Asif - a little bit of swing and mostly seam movement. Bowling on the stumps doesn't always mean pitching the ball up and trying to swing it. Fair enough, his style of bowling might not be most conducive to the regular Australian conditions but Id still rather have him over the Finn that we've seen thus far.

On Pattinson, I actually thought he did ok on debut leaving all the controversy over his selection aside.Im not sold on Bresnan either, not sure why he's been given an extended run in the side over some superior bowlers.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Not sure if you and I have been watching the same Onions, I would consider him a poor man's Asif - a little bit of swing and mostly seam movement. Bowling on the stumps doesn't always mean pitching the ball up and trying to swing it. Fair enough, his style of bowling might not be most conducive to the regular Australian conditions but Id still rather have him over the Finn that we've seen thus far.

Yeah I'd take him ahead of Finn too but I don't think there'd be much in it here.

Originally Posted by tooextracool

On Pattinson, I actually thought he did ok on debut leaving all the controversy over his selection aside.

Indeed. Terrible selection; not a terrible player though. It'd be out of the box this time as well but it'd make a little more sense. Probably a needlessly disruptive move but given he took eight-fa for Victoria a week or two ago he'd be worth thinking about. More likely to bowl well on Australian wickets than Bresnan, IMO.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I reckon the teams are about equal on batting though. Each of them have class from 1 to 7 but severe problems with form/decline/inconsistency in a couple of their players. The difference will be in the bowling and I think England have a better attack for English conditions while Australia have a better attack for Australian conditions. So I'm tipping Australia, but only because of the HGA. The teams are extremely even IMO.

This.

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Don't know how well Onions would've gone here to be honest. Despite his reputation as an honest, hit-the-deck trier, what he actually is, is a pitch-it-up swing and seam merchant, who bowls an extremely large percentage of his balls on the stumps. That can often be highly ineffective in Australia and go for plenty of runs.

He does bowl a lot of balls on the stumps, but that - and decent pace - are his weapons. He's never been particularly reliant on seam or swing.

[Woodster]

Yes I think Onions will be a miss for us, he bowls swiftly and consistenly on a tight off-stump line with just enough seam movement to trouble the batsman. He'll run in all day and be at the batsman. If we fail to win the series, I don't think he is that integral to the side at this stage to say it would be because he wasn't available, but he would strengthen the side if he was fit.

[flibbertyjibber]

Originally Posted by Woodster

Yes I think Onions will be a miss for us, He'll run in all day and be at the batsman.

That is possibly what we'll miss most.He is a genuine workhorse in the Hoggard mould and we don't have one in the pace attack now.

[Ruckus]

How appropriate, no Onions to make the Aussies cry.

[flibbertyjibber]

Yep,that's shallot.