*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[Pup Clarke]

Hilf's not that tall is he? Would be around the 6ft mark I'd reckon.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hilf's not that tall is he? Would be around the 6ft mark I'd reckon.

Nah, 6' 3" or 4" is my guess.

EDIT: Huh, 6' 1" according to wiki. I stand corrected. Looks bigger.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Cricinfo have him at 1.86, which around 6'1, so I win I guess.

 

[GotSpin]

Agreed. & Harris does them at least a yard faster too. For such a tall guy Hilf doesn't extract a lot of bounce either, so assuming full fitness there's not a lot Hilfenhaus brings to the party that Harris doesn't too. There's a case to be made for playing both tho, IMHO.

I'm not usually an advocate of an all-seam attack, but if I were one of the Oz selectors I'd seriously consider it for Adelaide. North looks nailed on to play and his offies don't lose much in comparsion with Doherty, so it could well be worth a punt.

If I were choosing a team (to win rather than as a pom) from the XII I'd be looking at Harris and Bollinger in for Johnson and Doherty. Hilf had a bad day at the office in the first, but one could at least see the method behind the madness; he was pitching the ball up in an effort to get some swing (admittedly overpitching quite often) but when the Kookaburra refused to move off the narrow his fuller length meant he was ripe for being driven.

With Johnson...well, I really dunno. Either his plan of attack was so subtle its MO eluded a mere cricketing dilettante like me or he didn't have a ****ing Scooby.

Yeah I wouldn't mind an attack of Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Harris and Siddle.

 

[howardj]

Agreed. & Harris does them at least a yard faster too. For such a tall guy Hilf doesn't extract a lot of bounce either, so assuming full fitness there's not a lot Hilfenhaus brings to the party that Harris doesn't too. There's a case to be made for playing both tho, IMHO.

I'm not usually an advocate of an all-seam attack, but if I were one of the Oz selectors I'd seriously consider it for Adelaide. North looks nailed on to play and his offies don't lose much in comparsion with Doherty, so it could well be worth a punt.

If I were choosing a team (to win rather than as a pom) from the XII I'd be looking at Harris and Bollinger in for Johnson and Doherty. Hilf had a bad day at the office in the first, but one could at least see the method behind the madness; he was pitching the ball up in an effort to get some swing (admittedly overpitching quite often) but when the Kookaburra refused to move off the narrow his fuller length meant he was ripe for being driven.

With Johnson...well, I really dunno. Either his plan of attack was so subtle its MO eluded a mere cricketing dilettante like me or he didn't have a ****ing Scooby.

Agreed.. If my life was at stake and I was given this squad of 13, I would leave out Doherty and Johnson. Ponting seems to have more confidence in North than Doherty, and I think the quicks are more likely to pick up wickets on the last day in Adelaide that any of our spinners.

 

[Ausage]

If North is rusted on to play, at what point to we start talking about elevating Haddin to 6 and dropping North to 7?

 

[Prince EWS]

If North is rusted on to play, at what point to we start talking about elevating Haddin to 6 and dropping North to 7?

North should bat higher if anything, assuming he has to play. The last thing we need is having him stranded on the way to his once-every-five-Tests hundred, or coming in as the last recognised batsman with the team in trouble. His all or nothing style is more suited to four or five than six as it is.

I do think it's safe to say Haddin's the better batsman of the two at this point, though.

 

[simmy]

I prefer to rate bowlers on how they bowl, rather than the number of wickets they've taken. Sometimes, bowling figures aren't really representative of how well or poorly someone is bowling and James Anderson can perhaps speak to you about that.

As far as Finn is concerned, hes bowled nowhere near well enough to deserve the number of wickets or the average that he currently holds. As I've said before with Johnson, if you bowl poorly long enough eventually your luck will dry out and the numbers will catch up to you (Mitch now averages>30 in test cricket).

Why dont I rate Finn? Well, firstly because he does absolutely nothing with the ball. Secondly, because he continually bowls the wrong lengths and is frequently bowling too short to be a consistent force in international cricket. I can understand that he has some natural attributes that in addition to the guile he may develop over time may make him successful at the international level. But the fact of the matter is that Tremlett and Shahzad are at this very moment in time superior bowlers and in Tremlett's case far more experienced than Finn. The Ashes is the wrong place to be putting people who arent yet at the top of their game or are still developing as bowlers.

I agree with this 100%.

To some extent I feel the same is true with Broad.

Tbf to the them both they can both bowl the occasional magic ball but Finn in particular is too slow and does too little with the ball to warrant a place above Tremlett.

The downside to the first test from my own viewpoint is that Finn getting 6 wickets will keep him in the side for longer...

 

[GotSpin]

Agreed.. If my life was at stake and I was given this squad of 13, I would leave out Doherty and Johnson. Ponting seems to have more confidence in North than Doherty, and I think the quicks are more likely to pick up wickets on the last day in Adelaide that any of our spinners.

Yep. For us to take 20 wickets we need to go with 4 pace attack. Not sure when that has last happened for us though

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nah man, was just great bowling. Haven't you heard?

Is amazing how 'badly' some teams batted after they've just been rolled. Funny how after 2009 I said how poorly Australia played and was chastised for not giving England enough credit.

Anyway, on to this test. Am backing the same batsman to get out in similar fashion should they get balls in the same area again. Am also hoping Mitch isn't allowed to deliver them at any stage. Will be very interesting to see who turns up in the final 11 on game day though.

 

[robinjr]

Doug averages 30 in his two matches against the top sides, so not bad. I rate him as a bowler but I don't know why he is considered to have a tremendous record, it's just a good record.

he took 5 wickets at 16.20 in india (dravid twice,tendulkar once) so there's no point in mixing that with his only other game against a top side(which also happened to be his debut) to make them look bad becourse firstly that was almost two yeas ago and he has come a long way since then,secondly that was his debut and you cant except wonders from him.

I'm not saying he's gona storm through England but i'd say he's the best bowler Australia has right now and would do a much better job than hilf or mitch if he gets a chance.

 

[FBU]

He has taken 38 wickets in 9 matches, sure against weaker teams, but still a very good return. Also, I believe you should have a clear reason to drop the incumbents in such a big series - Finn warmed up fine, he took 6 wickets in an innings in the test, and he showed proper guts for a young guy to keep at it. Bowling well in one warm-up, and taking wickets in Division 2 last summer, as Tremlett did, is not a good enough reason to drop a young guy who has done little wrong.

I'm a Finn fan too and he has already played at the Adelaide Oval.
The Home of CricketArchive

Tremlett bowled 26 overs at the Queensland Academy and didn't pick up any wickets.

First class last season 12 matches 48 wickets for Tremlett, Finn 13 matches 64 wickets.

Tremlett 7 5fers 0 10fers (105 matches)
Finn 6 5fers 1 10fer (49 matches)

 

[tooextracool]

He has taken 38 wickets in 9 matches, sure against weaker teams, but still a very good return. Also, I believe you should have a clear reason to drop the incumbents in such a big series - Finn warmed up fine, he took 6 wickets in an innings in the test, and he showed proper guts for a young guy to keep at it. Bowling well in one warm-up, and taking wickets in Division 2 last summer, as Tremlett did, is not a good enough reason to drop a young guy who has done little wrong.

I'm not saying he should be dropped, I'm saying he shouldn't have been picked in the first place. Taking wickets against rubbish opposition is not a reason to rate a bowler if you ask me. I've watched every one of Finn's international games and he hasnt bowled anywhere near as well as the wickets column makes him look. Its easy to say he's taken 38 wickets etc but the fact of the matter is that I have yet to hear from anyone that rates him what he actually does with the ball that makes him good.

 

[howardj]

Merv's $0.02

"Now if other bowlers have taken wickets, you can point the finger at Mitch and say `mate, you have got to lift your game'.

"But when no-one takes wickets, none of the fast bowlers take wickets, there's 11 (England) wickets taken for the match - understand that Adelaide is probably going to suit Mitchell Johnson a little bit better than Brisbane because it sort of slides on, his extra pace is going to be useful.

"I think we are just starting to get too critical.

"We are starting to expect a lot from a young man that, yes, he has got talent, but really hasn't matured or developed into the cricketer that he can be.

"And by cutting him short, and leaving him out of this Test match, it's going to dent his confidence more than anything else.''

Well FMD, you can't drop him because it will ruin his confidence. Don't worry about the Ashes, it's important to nuture Mitch's feelings?

Seriously, these selectors (and just punted selectors) are just so contrary. Whatever the obvious is - Mitch, North etc are going **** and should be punted, they just deliberately do the opposite. It's like the obvious is just not good enough for them. They have to be left-field and funky.

They probably walked out of the Gabba the other day and felt vindicated by the Hussey innings. "We told you guys...we held our nerve and three years of averaging in the mid 30s was cancelled out with one innings".

$200 bucks says Mitch plays.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Siddle would undoubtedly be surprised to hear that no Aussie fast bowler took wickets.

The simple fact of the matter is, only one Australian bowler took no wickets (that's none, as in zero) for the match. Hilf didn't light things up either. Trying to justify Mitch's performance though doesn't wash. Australia largely had the best of the bowling conditions in the first innings. And Siddle showed that if you land it in the right spot you get wickets.

 

[Prince EWS]

Siddle would undoubtedly be surprised to hear that no Aussie fast bowler took wickets.

The simple fact of the matter is, only one Australian bowler took no wickets (that's none, as in zero) for the match. Hilf didn't light things up either. Trying to justify Mitch's performance though doesn't wash. Australia largely had the best of the bowling conditions in the first innings. And Siddle showed that if you land it in the right spot you get wickets.

Yeah, Australia's best bowler of the match was the one most would've left out. Coming in second and third were two blokes picked to bat in the top six.

 

[Julian87]

Just because Mitch is a little emo doesn't mean we shouldn't hurt his feelings. WEhat about Doug's feelings?

 

[morgieb]

The question on everyone's lips is, what will happen if we lose the Ashes?

 

[morgieb]

Just because Mitch is a little emo doesn't mean we shouldn't hurt his feelings. WEhat about Doug's feelings?

Zing.

 

[pasag]

Johnson's turning into Steve Harmison.

FFS.