Lee, Clark..who should be our third fast bowler?

[Perm]

I think the variety a left armer brings is a bit over-rated. Variety in a bowling attack is primarily useful because it gives you options in different conditions - and I don't see the conditions or the match situation ever being such that would make the captain think "Geez I wish I had a left armer." I voted for Johnson, for simply because I believe he's a better bowl at this stage than Tait and Hilfenhaus - the fact that he bowls left handed really didn't come into for me. Obviously changing the angle of attack can be slightly beneficial, but nothing that would actually make me choose a lesser bowler. Hilfenhaus would add as much variety - if not more - by being a genuine swing bowler than Johnson. I just think Johnson has more to offer in different situations.

Johnson is a genuine swing bowler as well though isn't he? I know that Ricky Ponting is unlikely to wish that Johnson was in his bowling attack because he is a left armer, but that nature of his bowling will prove very useful as it changes the angle of attack as you mentioned. Australia don't want to turn into South Africa with a bowling attack consisting of right arm fast medium bowlers (admittedly MacGill will be playing) but Watson, Clark, Lee and Hilfenhaus look fairly "boring" as a bowling attack.

 

[Prince EWS]

Johnson is a genuine swing bowler as well though isn't he?

Johnson certainly does swing the new red ball (have rarely seen him swing the white one though strangely enough) but he isn't really a genuine swing bowler in the way Hilfenhaus is.

Australia don't want to turn into South Africa with a bowling attack consisting of right arm fast medium bowlers (admittedly MacGill will be playing) but Watson, Clark, Lee and Hilfenhaus look fairly "boring" as a bowling attack.

What were McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz then? That pace attack is even more sameish than the other lot you listed (and even more sameish than the South African one really) and yet they still had success. Yes, Warne was there, but MacGill will be there as well. It may be boring, but if it's the best option (which IMO it isn't), it really shouldn't matter which arm the bowler bowls with as it really offers little variety in the grand scheme of themes.

 

[Flem274*]

Why on earth would they do that though? Wouldn't happen unless Clark was injured.

True I should have noticed that. Even two of those mentioned playing at once though could be a bit risky, then again I've only seen Johnson bowl in ODI's. No idea what he's like in tests. Same goes for Tait.

 

[Perm]

Johnson certainly does swing the new red ball (have rarely seen him swing the white one though strangely enough) but he isn't really a genuine swing bowler in the way Hilfenhaus is.

It's not often I've seen him swing the white ball either now that you mention it. Admittedly I haven't seen a lot of either Hilfenhaus or Johnson but I always thought Hilfenhaus was a bowler who could get some swing and seam, generally bowls with accuracy around 135kmh.

What were McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz then? That pace attack is even more sameish than the other lot you listed (and even more sameish than the South African one really) and yet they still had success. Yes, Warne was there, but MacGill will be there as well. It may be boring, but if it's the best option (which IMO it isn't), it really shouldn't matter which arm the bowler bowls with as it really offers little variety in the grand scheme of themes.

McGrath is debateably the greatest fast bowler to ever live, and Gillespie will go down as an Australian great IMO. Kasprowicz was just a good bowler, nothing more and nothing less. I was more making the point that Australia don't want to end up like South Africa with an average Test attack consisting of right arm fast medium bowlers, which wouldn't surprise me if it happened. Lee is an average bowler while Clarke is still relatively unproven, as are Hilfenhaus and Watson. I'm not advocating picking Johnson solely because he is a left-armer but I'm just saying it wouldn't help to add variety to the attack.

 

[andmark]

Shaun Tait.

 

[Richard]

McGrath is debateably the greatest fast bowler to ever live, and Gillespie will go down as an Australian great IMO. Kasprowicz was just a good bowler, nothing more and nothing less. I was more making the point that Australia don't want to end up like South Africa with an average Test attack consisting of right arm fast medium bowlers, which wouldn't surprise me if it happened. Lee is an average bowler while Clarke is still relatively unproven, as are Hilfenhaus and Watson. I'm not advocating picking Johnson solely because he is a left-armer but I'm just saying it wouldn't help to add variety to the attack.

As you said yourself - if the bowlers are all good variety isn't really neccessary (and nor will a varied poor attack be much better than an unvaried poor attack).

It was the same with Roberts-Holding-Garner-Croft or Marshall-Holding-Garner-Patterson - not that much different (though Croft obviously was a bit different to the rest) but all hellish good bowlers (though Patterson went on to become a lesser one) and so formed potent attacks.

 

[Richard]

Lee, Tait AND Johnson are all bowlers who can be destructive yet expensive and Tait has slightly more expensive statistics than Johnson.
The last time I saw them bowl, they were hardly economical and, unless they undergo a fair bit of coaching, I don't think they'll get even remotely near the E/R rate of McGrath or Clark, or even Jason Gillespie.
Hilfenhaus is more economical than Tait, Johnson and Lee and could be a good bridge between Lee and Clark.

Magoffin and Rofe (especially Rofe) are names worth considering too, IMO.

Steve Magoffin? Yo serious?

 

[Neil Pickup]

What happened to Michael/Matthew Inness? I could've sworn that four years ago everyone was telling us how he was going to be the next big thing...

 

[Pup Clarke]

I imagine even the likes of Edmondson, Bollinger, Noffke and maybe even Matt Nicholson are ahead of Magoffin in the pecking order. All good bowlers in their own right imo.

 

[Pup Clarke]

What happened to Michael/Matthew Inness? I could've sworn that four years ago everyone was telling us how he was going to be the next big thing...

Who was saying he was going to be the next best thing?.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well I believe our friend Richard described him as better than Glenn McGrath... hit the archives.

 

[Pup Clarke]

 

[Richard]

Well I believe our friend Richard described him as better than Glenn McGrath... hit the archives.

Haha, I remember that.

How poorly I could put my point across sometimes...

At least it wasn't as bad as The Pitt Affair.

Inness was damn good in his day, though.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Inness was damn good in his day, though.

Rich when did you see him bowl?. Can't be many outside Aus who have?.

 

[Richard]

What happened to Michael/Matthew Inness? I could've sworn that four years ago everyone was telling us how he was going to be the next big thing...

Fell out of favour, had some injury problems, and sadly has barely done a thing for a good couple of years now.

As I say - a real shame because, as I said back in t' day, he was an absolutely brilliant bowler and could have been IMO something pretty special had all gone well.

 

[Richard]

Rich when did you see him bowl?. Can't be many outside Aus who have?.

Nah, there were a couple of old Victoria games that I somehow got my hands on, and he played for Northants for a time.

And I read loads about him as well as seeing him those times.

 

[Bob Bamber]

For me , I think that there is only one real choice. Bracken is proven , he has control , and when conditions suit him (Like Any Swing Bowler) he can be a huge threat. You've already got Lee as your quick bowler. Tait is too inconsistant , he'll give you that easy ball , which can be costly. Sometimes he bowls you an absolute Jaffa , and you cant do anything about it. But I think he could be too much of a risk , in a new look Australian side.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bracken is proven

 

[NZTailender]

Nicholson would be getting too old (at 32, yeah) even though Clark was called up so late. If Clark was say, 27, I could see them perhaps taking a punt with Nicholson. As it stands, Brett Lee is about 31 so that would make the attack an "old one" with a short term view of Australia's test bowling future.

 

[Flem274*]

Nicholson would be getting too old (at 32, yeah) even though Clark was called up so late. If Clark was say, 27, I could see them perhaps taking a punt with Nicholson. As it stands, Brett Lee is about 31 so that would make the attack an "old one" with a short term view of Australia's test bowling future.

True Lee and Clark won't be around much longer. Looks like Johnson, Tait, Hilfenhaus and maybe Bracken will be bowling as a team shortly. Don't know much about this Nicholson character though, whats he like?