This is why Australia will lose the Ashes

[scorpiogal]

I would argue that Hussey isn't a 'certainty'...he'll probably play. But if guys in a position to challenge for his spot were playing better he might not. Ponting obviously will, he's the captain.

You have to pick someone in the team from the squad you've got was what I was on about. And 3 hours into the first tour match isn't when it's going to happen. Lee should have to prove himself given his prior record in England, as should the other bowlers in the squad. There's absolutely no reason for Lee to be thought of as a certainty.

We know Lee isn't a certainty and as Lee himself said, that's what the 2 warm-ups are for, to prove himself and for the other guys to do the same. I never said otherwise. I said he has to please the selectors/captain/coach.

 

[rivera213]

I wouldn't read too much into Sussex's apparent ass-whooping of Australia.

I can't remember how many times I thought we'd win the Ashes only for Australia to outclass us in every department.

It's good to see Hughes out for 15 though, it at least shows he's human! Lol

 

[Son Of Coco]

We know Lee isn't a certainty and as Lee himself said, that's what the 2 warm-ups are for, to prove himself and for the other guys to do the same. I never said otherwise. I said he has to please the selectors/captain/coach.

You said he already has

 

[tooextracool]

Right, so then going on SA he's not that bad with the ball. Thanks for that.

Indeed, he took wickets at nearly 40 a piece. Give him a medal.

I really cannot believe that this day has come when Australians have started to defend players like McDonald and Hauritz. After all the crap that we had to take for having wheelie-bin Ashley Giles around our side, the fact is Giles in his sleep is a better bowler than these two.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I wouldn't read too much into Sussex's apparent ass-whooping of Australia.

I can't remember how many times I thought we'd win the Ashes only for Australia to outclass us in every department.

It's good to see Hughes out for 15 though, it at least shows he's human! Lol

Yeah, first tour match and all that. Saw a pic of Hughes dismissal and there seemed to be a middle stump missing. Does this suggest his approach to the shot wasn't all it should have been?

 

[scorpiogal]

Sounds better than the truth - "he bowled absolute rubbish in the t20s but we hope he strikes some form soon,"

Of course they'd sugar-coat. Just as they sugar-coated many of the under-performers' performances, many of whom weren't even mentioned because Lee is a much more popular read. *cough cough*

 

[scorpiogal]

You said he already has

I didn't. the captain did.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Indeed, he took wickets at nearly 40 a piece. Give him a medal.

I really cannot believe that this day has come when Australians have started to defend players like McDonald and Hauritz. After all the crap that we had to take for having wheelie-bin Ashley Giles around our side, the fact is Giles in his sleep is a better bowler than these two.

Yes, ignoring the fact he did well in the first two games (in which we won the series) and not so well in the third.

Why watch games when you can read stats huh?

Giles in his sleep...

Never knew he was actually awake.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I didn't. the captain did.

We're in trouble then.

 

[scorpiogal]

We're in trouble then.

Said he's seen some reverse swing as well.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, ignoring the fact he did well in the first two games (in which we won the series) and not so well in the third.

Oh yeah, how convenient. lets ignore the game in which he does poorly and only consider the game he does well?
He bowled well in all of 1 innings FFS for the whole series, where he took the legendary wickets of Harris and Morkel.

Look like it or not, Ive watched McDonald bowl enough in those series to assure you that hes nothing more than rubbish. If Australia are counting on him as a 4th seamer they have some serious issues.

 

[four_or_six]

Of course they'd sugar-coat. Just as they sugar-coated many of the under-performers' performances, many of whom weren't even mentioned because Lee is a much more popular read. *cough cough*

Yes, I was surprised Lee got any more stick than Johnson for the T20's, because I thought Lee actually looked more threatening, but got worse figures because of a few poor deliveries. Johnson was bowling off a shorterned run-up and looked sluggish.

Still, I think the reason Johnson isn't playing today is because he's got some kind of wear and tear injury and the Aussies are freaked out that he might not make it through the series.

 

[Richard]

There was nothing wrong with South Africa's bowlers - Phillip Hughes just made them look poor.

Batsmen can't make good bowling look poor - the bowler controls the game if he's good enough. SA's bowlers weren't good enough to get a grip on Hughes, simple as that. If they'd been better, they would have done.

 

[Jakester1288]

I dont care how highly you rate McDonald, there is no bloody way he is better than Lee. Lee could hobble up to the crease and bowl better IMO and Im not even a Lee mark.

No, he wouldn't. McDonald, at the moment, in the international arena, has been performing better than Lee.

I had another post to quote somewhere in this thread, but after reading it and coming back, I couldn't find it.

If Lee performs well in the tour games, bowling good line, lengths, with good pace, accuracy, some swing, and bags a couple of wickets without conceding too many runs, he should be playing in the Ashes series ahead of McDonald. I'm also very keen to see how McDonald, Hauritz, Lee and the batsmen perform in these couple of games.

 

[Woodster]

Batsmen can't make good bowling look poor - the bowler controls the game if he's good enough. SA's bowlers weren't good enough to get a grip on Hughes, simple as that. If they'd been better, they would have done.

Unfortunately the complexities of cricket mean it is never as simple as this. Batsmen can always attempt things to upset a bowlers rhythm. Whether that is simply acknowledging when a bowler is having a good spell and simply bide his time, or try to unsettle the bowler's line and length. Yes, it is easy to say well the bowler should adjust, simple, but it is never always that simple. As a batsman just because the bowler is bowling well it does not necessarily mean he shall remain on top, or take your wicket.

 

[Woodster]

No, he wouldn't. McDonald, at the moment, in the international arena, has been performing better than Lee.

I had another post to quote somewhere in this thread, but after reading it and coming back, I couldn't find it.

If Lee performs well in the tour games, bowling good line, lengths, with good pace, accuracy, some swing, and bags a couple of wickets without conceding too many runs, he should be playing in the Ashes series ahead of McDonald. I'm also very keen to see how McDonald, Hauritz, Lee and the batsmen perform in these couple of games.

From what I've seen, Mcdonald looks a steady type, who will attempt to close an end up, allowing main bowlers to grab a break without too much damage being done in their absence. He is not particularly penetrative, but can be useful as part of an attack. However, I think the English batsmen may prefer to see him at the end of his run-up rather than Brett Lee, but as you say, form and rhythm for both players is very important. If Lee does not find those in these warm-ups, he should be struggling to make the XI.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Look like it or not, Ive watched McDonald bowl enough in those series to assure you that hes nothing more than rubbish.

So what you're actually saying is, the basic ingredients to make a good bowler (lines and lengths, hitting the stumps) ain't anywhere near good enough?

So what he's doesn't bowl 150kph, so what he doesn't hit people with bouncers. He does his job for the good of the TEAM, and that is what's most important in the grand scheme.

 

[Uppercut]

Think the fast bowling stocks are fairly even tbh. Johnson is the best bowler on either side, obviously. Siddle and Lee are both class but might not find English conditions especially well-suited to their games and Clark will be killer if he can rediscover form from just over a year ago.

Flintoff, Anderson, Broad and Sidebottom (fitness dependent) is a bloody good four-pronged pace attack though. Particularly at home.

 

[Woodster]

Think the performances of Jimmy Anderson will be important. He is now an integral member of the England attack, has much more control these days, the swing he can get both ways will trouble a number of batsmen, at high pace too. So while I agree Johnson is probably the pick of the bowlers on both sides, he only marginally heads it over Anderson on current form. A fully fit Freddie would certainly push him too.

 

[Burgey]

Batsmen can't make good bowling look poor - the bowler controls the game if he's good enough. SA's bowlers weren't good enough to get a grip on Hughes, simple as that. If they'd been better, they would have done.

Bradman would disagree. Your comment is suggestive there's no such thing as a great innings, that when a player makes a large score it is always the fault of the bowling, or the bowling is substandard.

That just isn't so, with respect.