*Official* Fifth Test at the SCG

[pup11]

because it was in england and that's normally a helpful place for crap trundlers who can move the ball a tad- ie jon lewis, hoggard.

Don't remember him getting many wickets there with genuine swing bowling.

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't remember him getting many wickets

An excellent comparison to Hilfenhaus then.

 

[vicleggie]

Rubbish, Hoggard actually averages slightly better away from home than he did at home 30.26 away and 30.75 at home.

no no no, i didnt mean hoggard is part of that.
i mean "mention any other english player"..... and then 'who averages worse overseas' etc.
didnt mean hoggard was in that group- i take back saying he's a trundler. was just giving the example before about how trundlers can average well in eng, then be **** overseas.


meant there are heaps of examples besides jon lewis.

 

[vicleggie]

An excellent comparison to Hilfenhaus then.

lol

 

[Ruckus]

He was our best bowler in India and even in this series he has gone past the bat numerous times without any results. Even during his worst phase he would bowl one tight spell after another, so AFAIC he is a vital cog of the bowling attack.

Actually Dougie was our best bowler in India. But saying he was our best bowler in India anyway isn't exactly flattering - aside from Bollinger, the rest were pure ****. Hilf averaged 43 over the series, which is pretty medicore tbh. The "gets the ball past the bat heaps of times, isn't lucky etc." argument is lame imo. There is no luck in cricket over extended periods of time. If he is often getting the ball past the bat without getting the edge, it simply means he is swinging it too much and/or getting it to swing too early allowing the batsmen to adjust better (neither of which are actually a good things).

 

[Spark]

id take him over any of our number 6s since

and its the fact that they set that tone- that conservatism- has had a huge dent on the culture of aus cricket- the mental dominance has gone.
even players like clarke have become less expressive and outward.. The snarl in the team has gone

Perhaps because Katich, Watson, Hughes, Smith, North, Symonds (oh no!) et al aren't quite as good as Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Waugh, Lehmann etc.

Or maybe it's perhaps Warne, McGrath, Lee (at his best), Gillespie etc. were somewhat more threatening than Siddle, Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Hauritz and the like.

I've ranted about this topic enough but you may want to think that our players aren't as good any more. Pretty hard to be mentally dominant if you aren't dominant on the field.

 

[vicleggie]

sick of this "without getting results" **** regarding hilfenhaus.

ffs
he needs to work on his pace, variation and movement through the air. hit the bat harder, dont just kiss the wicket.
maybe then he'll take some ****** wickets

he's not an opening bowlers ****hole at the moment

 

[Spark]

Actually Dougie was our best bowler in India. But saying he was our best bowler in India anyway isn't exactly flattering - aside from Bollinger, the rest were pure ****. Hilf averaged 43 over the series, which is pretty medicore tbh. The "gets the ball past the bat heaps of times, isn't lucky etc." argument is lame imo. There is no luck in cricket over extended periods of time. If he is often getting the ball past the bat without getting the edge, it simply means he is swinging it too much and/or getting it to swing too early allowing the batsmen to adjust better (neither of which are actually a good things).

If we're basing it purely on the first test, then no. Hilfenhaus was most definitely our best bowler in that test. Bollinger bowled well but the test was really set up for the win by an intelligent, hostile and effective spell from Hilfenhaus.

 

[vicleggie]

Perhaps because Katich, Watson, Hughes, Smith, North, Symonds (oh no!) et al aren't quite as good as Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Waugh, Lehmann etc.

Or maybe it's perhaps Warne, McGrath, Lee (at his best), Gillespie etc. were somewhat more threatening than Siddle, Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Hauritz and the like.

I've ranted about this topic enough but you may want to think that our players aren't as good any more. Pretty hard to be mentally dominant if you aren't dominant on the field.

err, no.

its not a case of 'we had some freaks in this era, thats it'

what about when guys like bichel came in during the world cup (odi's admittedly, but the same aggression) and decimated a team
or when guys like kasperwicz came in with a brilliant attitude and put pressure on.

these guys all have the making tobe better players. but they're attitude is that of a bunch of punces right now. no ruthlessness, no attacking their weaknesses and fixing thier issues. ****Weak


"pretty hard to be mentally dominant if u arent dominant on the field"
-- hard to be dominant on the field, and become a better player, and part of a successful team, if you have no balls and are a thin skinned, mentally weak, *****.
as warne said, the difference between someone who plays 1 test and plays 100 tests is their mental side, and attitude towards their training and advancement of their careers etc.

no wonder ian chappel is disgusted at ponting in his articles. chappell resents the current teams attitude. and with good reason

 

[Spark]

Nah it really is. Do you see anyone of the quality of Lehmann in the Shield ranks who could hardly buy a test game? Love? How about a 30yo Hodge? Or a 30yo Hussey? Hell, even a 22yo Michael Clarke?

I see one, and he just made 37.

There's so much bull**** flying around about "mental toughness" and "Gen Y" and "soft/hard" when at the heart of is that the cricketers playing in this country are simply not as good as the cricketers playing 5, 10 years ago.

 

[vicleggie]

Nah it really is. Do you see anyone of the quality of Lehmann in the Shield ranks who could hardly buy a test game? Love? How about a 30yo Hodge? Or a 30yo Hussey? Hell, even a 22yo Michael Clarke?

I see one, and he just made 37.

There's so much bull**** flying around about "mental toughness" and "Gen Y" and "soft/hard" when at the heart of is that the cricketers playing in this country are simply not as good as the cricketers playing 5, 10 years ago.

how do you explain that then? that there was something in the water 10 years ago?
now thats the bull****

 

[pasag]

We did so much hard work today that it's disappointing we've again been the masters of our own demise. It's similar to our 2009 series where everyone could get a start but no one could go on with things. I guess that's better then 98ao though.

Khawaja looked fantastic, been a while since we've had a batsman that didn't look like they were about to break down and cry in between each delivery. Hopefully we won't have to see constant pictures of his parents for the next 15 years though. Do not think England's batsmen will have too many issues on this pitch.

 

[Spark]

how do you explain that then? that there was something in the water 10 years ago?
now thats the bull****

I don't particularly know or care, and the most likely reason is the cyclical nature of sport.

The simple fact is our cricketers as a whole are not as good. While it's easy for armchair jockeys to write it off as softness, it's rank dishonesty IMO.

 

[pup11]

If dropping Hilfenhaus makes our bowling attack so much better, then why were we flogged so badly at Adeliade.
The fact of the matter is, Hilfenhaus is the same bloke who took 60 odd FC wickets in a single season, so obviously he has got some pedigree there. We Australian fans have been spoilt for choices in terms of the ready-made international cricketers we had in the domestic arena to choose from over the years, but now its almost like starting from scratch and it obviosuly would take time before the team and individuals start performing consistently.

 

[Ruckus]

If we're basing it purely on the first test, then no. Hilfenhaus was most definitely our best bowler in that test. Bollinger bowled well but the test was really set up for the win by an intelligent, hostile and effective spell from Hilfenhaus.

Hilf got 0/100 in the first innings at a bad economy...

 

[vicleggie]

I don't particularly know or care, and the most likely reason is the cyclical nature of sport.

The simple fact is our cricketers as a whole are not as good. While it's easy for armchair jockeys to write it off as softness, it's rank dishonesty IMO.

u dont care or know because you are probably the biggest of armchair jockeys- judging by your post you have probably never played competitive cricket, or sport, in your lifetime.

Anyone who has played serious, high level sport before, like myself, realises how much of a mental game it is, andhow important work ethic and process is.

notice none of the pastGREATS, people who know more about cricket than me and you, have put australias failures down to 'this bunch isnt as good' or 'has less ability' etc.
its because that excuse is utter garbage.

a lack of competence and planning for the past 3 years has cost us.
its not merely the losses, but the manner in which we are playing, that back this up.

 

[vicleggie]

Hilf got 0/100 in the first innings at a bad economy...

yeh but it was a very hostile and effective 0/100

 

[pup11]

Nah it really is. Do you see anyone of the quality of Lehmann in the Shield ranks who could hardly buy a test game? Love? How about a 30yo Hodge? Or a 30yo Hussey? Hell, even a 22yo Michael Clarke?

I see one, and he just made 37.

There's so much bull**** flying around about "mental toughness" and "Gen Y" and "soft/hard" when at the heart of is that the cricketers playing in this country are simply not as good as the cricketers playing 5, 10 years ago.

This whole panic that Australian cricket is in a free-fall is a bit self-created, we certainly have enough young talent to help us be a dominant side over the years.
The recent Aussie U-19 side is full of future superstars even at present there are plenty of good young players around, but then at the end of the day its upto the selectors how they groom, nurture and pick these talents, and it also goes without saying that this is the area where Australian cricket have faltered heavily in the last 3 years.

 

[Spark]

Right, but that's it - sport is cyclical. Unless you're seriously suggesting picking players from the U19 squad

We've made some rubbish decisions, sure, but have a look at some of the players that are being cried out for? Ferguson, with an FC average of 36-odd? Marsh, with not much better? And people are honestly saying that our cricketers are as good as ten years ago (=/= not as talented)?

Give me a break.

 

[pup11]

Hilf got 0/100 in the first innings at a bad economy...

If we were in a position to win that test then it was purely due to Hilfy's new ball spell in the 2nd innings. As I said there are rough areas in the consistentcy of every Australian player atm, but you gotta back a few blokes who can carry this team forward out of this tough phase and Hilfy is one of them.
The team management too obviously realises that, and that's probably the reason he is playing ahead of Bollinger. Dougie is a great bloke but I think there are some question marks over his physical and mental fitness to bowl long spells in tough conditions.