Australia - the aftermath of the Ashes

[Kylez]

I've never seen Copeland bowl, but I have seen Cameron and if the former's good enough to keep the latter out of the NSW team he must have something because I was impressed with Cameron.

I could link you to some video highlights of Copeland's bowling if you want?

 

[NUFAN]

They have potential, which is something you can't read from just performance.

No I wouldn't, however now that Harris is out, I wouldn't mind inserting one of them rather than Bollinger.

If Starc and Hazlewood were fit for NSW and made the XI (that's a huge if btw) would you back them to take more wickets over Bollinger or Copeland? I wouldn't at this stage..

 

[BoyBrumby]

I could link you to some video highlights of Copeland's bowling if you want?

Yeah, cheers. Am curious to see him; his figures suggest a talent.

 

[TumTum]

If Starc and Hazlewood were fit for NSW and made the XI (that's a huge if btw) would you back them to take more wickets over Bollinger or Copeland? I wouldn't at this stage..

That's the point, they need to develop on the big stage, even if it means a few years of ordinary performances from them.

 

[Goughy]

Im not a massive fan of building for a long way in the future. You can end up pushing young guys who turn out to be not good enough, casting aside experienced players and when the future arrives you can end up with nothing.

Pick your best XI regardless of reputation and potential. Have some young guys who can be blooded if there is a long term spot available due to injury or loss of form, have some experinced guys who can fill in for injury as short term replacements when a game needs to be won and, when it is close to a tossup, give the young player the spot.

Most importantly, know who your best players are. I keep seeing 10s of names thown forward for this Australia team. Its like fans and the selectors have no real idea who their best group of 20 or so players are. That will lead to a lot of chopping, changes, chances being given, people being dropped and a whole lot of drama.

 

[Kylez]

The ole crystal ball:

Watson
???
Khawaja
Clarke
???
???
Haddin
Johnson
???
???
???

Not sure any other position is set. Whilst Khawaja looks the goods, still has to dance with the big boys. Johnson in until we can find 3 good bowlers to nullify his need to produce an impact spell to counter the weak penetration of our attack.

Siddle is a fixture in that side. His bowling performance in the MCG test suggested he might've turned another corner in his career. Was much more impressive that his Brisbane haul IMO, batting and fielding all included as well.

Yeah, cheers. Am curious to see him; his figures suggest a talent.

No worriers, it shouldn't take too long then.

 

[NUFAN]

That's the point, they need to develop on the big stage, even if it means a few years of ordinary performances from them.

I can't see the Aussie public accepting a young bowler be given a couple of years to find his feet in Test Cricket. Look at us all (me included) wanting to get rid of Smith.

FTR I agree 100% with Goughy's post.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd say the attack's a bit more effective than they've looked in this series. England play certain bowlers- particularly Hilfenhaus and Johnson- unusually well. I can't believe how few loose strokes have been played to Hilfenhaus given the lines and lengths he's maintained with a hint of movement (albeit out of the hand). He's quite an English-style bowler, perhaps it's all that time they spent netting with Matthew Hoggard. Johnson just doesn't fluster them at all- they keep playing every ball on its merit.

I'd need to know how good the alternatives are to really say what the right course of action is, particularly Copeland and Cameron, who I've never seen bowl. But I wouldn't be panicking as far as the bowling is concerned, Johnson, Hilf, Siddle, Harris and Bollinger might not be good enough to win back the Ashes from a side I've been very, very impressed with, but they're all test-class. If there are better bowlers around to replace them with then that's fantastic.

The batting seems a much more serious issue. Watto's okay and Clarke's all class, he'll come good. But I think Ponting will soon retire, so that leaves gaps at 3 and 6, and Hughes is one for the future but I just can't see how he's going to get runs in test cricket as things stand. I guess wholesale changes are inevitable but there aren't any options I expect to get runs from the very start it might be a few years before it finds any solidity again. It's far from ideal.

Their general confidence is pretty terrible too, as evidenced by the fact that they keep throwing away winning positions. Heads drop a little too soon, with the MCG test an encouraging exception. There's not really much to do other than work hard at fielding and fitness and don't listen to the media. Confidence will come once it's warranted.

 

[NasserFan207]

Honestly if you replaced the word Johnson with Harmison you'd think the posters were England fans circa 06.

 

[vcs]

I'd say the attack's a bit more effective than they've looked in this series. England play certain bowlers- particularly Hilfenhaus and Johnson- unusually well. I can't believe how few loose strokes have been played to Hilfenhaus given the lines and lengths he's maintained with a hint of movement (albeit out of the hand). He's quite an English-style bowler, perhaps it's all that time they spent netting with Matthew Hoggard. Johnson just doesn't fluster them at all- they keep playing every ball on its merit.

I'd need to know how good the alternatives are to really say what the right course of action is, particularly Copeland and Cameron, who I've never seen bowl. But I wouldn't be panicking as far as the bowling is concerned, Johnson, Hilf, Siddle, Harris and Bollinger might not be good enough to win back the Ashes from a side I've been very, very impressed with, but they're all test-class. If there are better bowlers around to replace them with then that's fantastic.

The batting seems a much more serious issue. Watto's okay and Clarke's all class, he'll come good. But I think Ponting will soon retire, so that leaves gaps at 3 and 6, and Hughes is one for the future but I just can't see how he's going to get runs in test cricket as things stand. I guess wholesale changes are inevitable but there aren't any options I expect to get runs from the very start it might be a few years before it finds any solidity again. It's far from ideal.

Their general confidence is pretty terrible too, as evidenced by the fact that they keep throwing away winning positions. Heads drop a little too soon, with the MCG test an encouraging exception. There's not really much to do other than work hard at fielding and fitness and don't listen to the media. Confidence will come once it's warranted.

Interestingly, I feel the opposite. Clarke and Ponting had horrendous series but should come good again, assuming Ponting is relieved of the captaincy. I've had the impression that Watto would make a good captain but people don't seem to consider him a good choice. The number six position is a worry, but if they can blood Khawaja there and he takes to Test cricket quickly, their batting will look very good again.

The bowling however, looks like a long-term worry.. the lack of even a remotely competent spinner is a big problem, given Clarke doesn't bowl these days. Johnson winning you one match in ten isn't good enough when he is liable to lose you two or three for every one of those. Harris doesn't look like he can stay fit.

 

[stephen]

Honestly if you replaced the word Johnson with Harmison you'd think the posters were England fans circa 06.

Harmison must have been eternally frustrating for the English fans. So much potential but so dire as a cricketer.

Johnson is much more dangerous on his day, but when it's not his day he's incredibly erratic. Honestly, if he was in the English side (for example) behind bowlers of the class of Anderson and Tremlett he would be far more menacing as the captain could use him properly as a strike weapon. In the current Australian side he has noone really to hide behind if things go wrong. I mean look at Finn. He was dire in the tests that he played - far worse than Johnson - but his performance went mostly unnoticed because Anderson and Broad/Tremlett were bowling so well. Imagine how dangerous England would be if Johnson was their third bowler *shudder*.

 

[Jono]

Before you worry about Mitch, look at the other bowlers. Hilf doesn't do enough, Harris is injury prone, Siddle isn't as God-awful as Mitch is when he's not on, but he's not exactly super consistent, and Bollinger isn't even making the team compared to being spoken of damn highly 12 months ago.

How anyone can single out Mitch is silly.

You don't single out a player unless he really stands out as not performing, or is getting old and past his prime. Mitch is neither.

 

[Furball]

Amazing that the discussion has been almost exclusively about the bowling. It's Australia's batting which has been utterly shocking and costing them Tests for 2 years now.

England have had a good time of it against Australia's bowling this series, but that's been the exception rather than the rule over the past 2 years. Every Test that Australia have lost or come close to losing since they got back from South Africa has featured an epic batting collapse at some point. The defeats this series have been unusual because usually the bowlers have at least given Australia a fighting chance at salvaging something. Lord's 2009 is possibly the only exception I can think of.

 

[Jono]

Very true. The reason it isn't getting attention is because the performing batsmen, Watson and Katich, seem to be safe (prior to Katich's injury), and Hussey has returned to form. So that leaves Clarke, who was very good not long ago... and Ponting, who is an all-time great.

Australia's batting woes are just very tricky to tackle.

 

[stephen]

Very true. The reason it isn't getting attention is because the performing batsmen, Watson and Katich, seem to be safe (prior to Katich's injury), and Hussey has returned to form. So that leaves Clarke, who was very good not long ago... and Ponting, who is an all-time great.

Australia's batting woes are just very tricky to tackle.

Yeah with Katich available and Hussey in form, there really is only the number 6 spot up for grabs. Yet it has been the two best batsmen in the team - Ponting and Clarke who haven't been performing at all.

I am beginning to wonder if Ponting's style means that he's actually past it. It might be that he can't have the longevity of Lara or Tendulkar simply because of the way that he bats. He was the best of the three against quick bowling, which suggests that he had a very good eye but the eye is the first thing to go for batsmen. This is why Gilchrist really fell off the edge of a cliff in 2005 and never really came back except for the odd cameo.

Of course I could be wrong and Ponting could return to form and make huge runs like Tendulkar has been, but at this stage he just appears as though he's done. At what point do we accept that and move on?

 

[Jono]

I am beginning to wonder if Ponting's style means that he's actually past it. It might be that he can't have the longevity of Lara or Tendulkar simply because of the way that he bats. He was the best of the three against quick bowling, which suggests that he had a very good eye but the eye is the first thing to go for batsmen. This is why Gilchrist really fell off the edge of a cliff in 2005 and never really came back except for the odd cameo.

Of course I could be wrong and Ponting could return to form and make huge runs like Tendulkar has been, but at this stage he just appears as though he's done. At what point do we accept that and move on?

I have been saying this since 2007 to be perfectly honest. I predicted Ponting to have no hope of coming close to Sachin's test runs record, and on top of that, that Kallis would overtake Ponting and be a real threat to Sachin.

The main reason was I believed Sachin and Kallis had the techniques behind them to handle old age, whereas Ponting's reflexes and eyes waning would have a bigger impact on his game.

However even though what I predicted ended up coming true, there are flaws in my argument. Why is Dravid then suffering, since his technique has always been very good? He's not an eye player like Ponting. The other flaw in my argument is why the hell did Lara get better the older he got? He most definitely was a player who relied on his reflexes, especially compared to Dravid.

Had Lara waned as he got older, and Dravid had a similar path to Kallis, my theory would be perfect. But Dravid and Lara make no sense

 

[vcs]

I have been saying this since 2007 to be perfectly honest. I predicted Ponting to have no hope of coming close to Sachin's test runs record, and on top of that, that Kallis would overtake Ponting and be a real threat to Sachin.

The main reason was I believed Sachin and Kallis had the techniques behind them to handle old age, whereas Ponting's reflexes and eyes waning would have a bigger impact on his game.

However even though what I predicted ended up coming true, there are flaws in my argument. Why is Dravid then suffering, since his technique has always been very good? He's not an eye player like Ponting. The other flaw in my argument is why the hell did Lara get better the older he got? He most definitely was a player who relied on his reflexes, especially compared to Dravid.

Had Lara waned as he got older, and Dravid had a similar path to Kallis, my theory would be perfect. But Dravid and Lara make no sense

Here's a simpler theory... every player's different.

 

[Jono]

That's no fun.

 

[Faisal1985]

Johnson for me is a big part of the problem, as well as the batting. He literally is way off the mark for too many consecutive tests, and we generally get thrashed as a result. His best is great, but it shows itself once a year, and is the result of pure FLUKE. If a batsman scored a ton once a year he would be shown the door.

Honestly, I think this is a bit harsh on him. He did win you the only test of the series and brought you back into the series and gave a fair chance to win the Ashes back. If i look at the success stories of Australia. 1- Hussey, 2- Watson/Haddin, 3 - Johnson.

Its the Australian batting which has been the main problem imo. Ponting and Clarke have failed miserably, along with Hughes..

If you give the bowlers something to bowl at and they end up failing then its fair to criticize them. But you don't score 98 ****ing runs and expect the bowlers to bring you back into the game with a batting line up as loaded as England's.

 

[Blaze 18]

Yeah, it is the batting that is the problem. It is easy to forget, but the one test that Australia won was largely down to the bowling. Australia have been collapsing far too often for the bowlers to be able to do anything. I wouldn't recommend wholesale changes; they rarely work. Persist with the following team for another season and see how they do.

1) Shane Watson
2) Simon Katich
3) Ricky Ponting
4) Michael Clarke
5) Michael Hussey
6) Brad Haddin
7) Steven Smith
8) Mitchell Johnson
9) Peter Siddle
10)Ben Hilfenhaus
11)Ryan Harris

If they continue to lose - I don't think they will - then get in Usman Khwaja or whoever is performing in domestic matches.