I know it's a stretch, but consider how many hapless young batsmen we've sent in at 3 and they've failed, yet Smitteh comes in to number 5/6 and has some success, I honestly think it's the best way to go, at least for the first series or 2 with Doolan
Proudly supporting the world's no 1 spin bowler Rangana Herath and the mighty Sri Lankans!
I even made a domestic thread
I know Clarke's stats at 5 are incredibly good. But cricket isn't just stats and I think if the guys above him can get through a bit he will be fine at 4. That can allow whoever is coming into the side a better chance at success IMO
Current Favourite XI 1. Vijay 2. Gayle 3. Sangakarra 4. Clarke* 5. Chanderpaul 6. De Kock+ 7. Stokes 8.Johnson 9.Harris 10. Herath 11. Steyn
Stat of the Day.
Mitchell Johnson has bowled 15 innings in test matches against England.
His economy rate was more than 3.5 in all but two of them and over 4.0 in 53% of them (8/15) for an overall economy rate of 4.03 rpo.
Someone like Doolan is a top order batsman who has recently had experience opening the batting at First Class level. Moving him to 4 is already protecting him a little but at the same time not completely shifting him around to protect him. We can agree to disagree..
The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
Last edited by NUFAN; 10-11-2013 at 03:55 PM.
and that's my biggest issue with his selection. i just don't see how he fits in with the established bowling plan
Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?
With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left
probably like none of them except for brisbane
Ok with Chadd or Dougeh but not MJ.
If Watson can't bowl I can see Faulkner getting picked. Him and MJ would be a bad idea. Weakens the batting and bowling.
tbf to Johnson his strike rate (51.2) and wickets per innings (2.3) are fine. There's no question he take wickets (even if a lot of them are off absolute **** bowling).
It the fact that he just makes it so easy for the opposition to rack up their score that hurts us more than the opposition. A guy taking wickets as often as he does should not be averaging 34.42 against a side, yet Johnson does against England. 4.03 rpo explains why.
As a comparison, Englands run rate against Australia in tests including Mitchell Johnson - 3.58. That means the rest of the bowlers were still going at about 3.45 rpo which is too high I'd suggest, but how hard must it be to reign in batsmen that are off to a flyer thanks to the **** at the other end giving them pies to feast on. In games against England featuring Mitchell Johnson:-
Michael Beer 2.94 rpo
Xavier Doherty 3.03 rpo
Nathan Hauritz 3.10 rpo (and no I'm not looking for any of those ****s back in the side (although Hauries sub 35 test average doesn't stack up too bad), but clearly the Poms weren't driving their scoring rates up over 3.5 off the back of the spinners)
Ben Hilfenhaus 3.00 rpo
Peter Siddle 3.5 rpo (still a bit high, but not outrageous)
Cook, Trott and friends will be licking their lips at the prospect of getting a few early boundaries away off Johnson to get their innings going.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)