View Full Version : Australia's pop gun attack
Gavin Excell
30 Oct 2008, 20:35
This series has yet again proven that bowlers wins test matches.
Australia's attack with the retirements of Wanre and McGrath has proven not up the standard of India and has been exposed.
White and Watson (and Symonds if gets recall) are one day "all rounders" and miles off Test standard for bowling. Sure they all can bat ok but their bowling is inoffensive as all get out.
In test cricket batsman are dime a dozen and almost incidental to the result - the need is for bowlers who take wickets. Get rid of all these alleged "all rounders" and give the opportunity specialised bowlers. Sure you may get spanked with youth but its a defeatist go nowhere policy to play the likes of White, Watson and Symonds.
ahhhhhh
30 Oct 2008, 20:40
Watson looked like our most likely bowler last innings
Belnakor
30 Oct 2008, 20:52
Makes an average bowling attack look even worse when the pitches are dead and the batsman aren't making any runs.
aussie1st
30 Oct 2008, 20:54
Can't blame Watson he bowled well especially the last session. Hes also in there for his batting, he does have a average of over 50 in FC after all. His bowling is a bonus.
What we need is bowlers that can bowl line and length. That means one of Lee or Johnson have to go as we can't have two wayward bowlers in the side. A Hilfy, Siddle or Bollinger would do nicely in over them. Then picking a proper spinner would help.
eventhough i am an indian, as an australia fan at all times in sport, i am feeling really sick seeing the aussie team beaten black and blue and the moronic aussie selectors are the biggest culprits, how on earth roy symonds is not in the team and why the hell katich/watson/white are playing, these three(katich/watson/white) are ok cricketers but white and watson are bits and pieces and katich has never deserved a place in the aussie team and never will
Carn the Coasters
30 Oct 2008, 21:07
Disagree. With Langer retiring and Jaques injured, Katich is the best opener available in the country. He scored massive amounts of runs in the Pura Cup last year and if it wasn't for his age, no one would be concerned with his selection IMO.
Watson too has deserved a spot. If he can average 45 or so with the bat and pick up a couple of wickets each match, then he is worthy of being picked at number 6 (especially until the time when Symonds proves he is in form and 'prepared' to play test match cricket). By then though, Watson may be able to move up the order due to his batting alone. The real problem is the 4th bowling option.
White is clearly being picked because he can bat as well. Not sure this is the best choice. If he is not worthy of being in the top 6 on his batting, then there is no real reason to pick him. As we have no test quality spinners, maybe we should bring in another paceman to take up that spot?
Belnakor
30 Oct 2008, 21:09
Watson's first class record is really good - he is a project player and i'd expect him to be in the side until further notice. At least the next 10 tests unless he really has a form slump. Genuine all-rounders are rare as hen's teeth and Watson looks to be the goods. Most all-rounders take awhile to get one aspect right, and Watson is only getting better at bowling. He'll really learn his craft over in India.
White on the other hand....
katich, watson, white have average records at international level, they are acceptable cricketers but no more, they deserve to be in the kiwi team but not in the baggygreen.nuff said.
Blue Dimension
30 Oct 2008, 21:54
People who are blaming Watson for Australia's poor performances have NFI.
Cousin Jed
30 Oct 2008, 22:03
Wickets for Series
Johnson 11
Watson 5
Lee 5
White 4
Siddle 4
Clarke 2
Katich 1
Clark 1
hmmmm
achancely
30 Oct 2008, 22:11
Fair to say Watson has outperformed most expectations this series.
He doesn't really deserve criticism. Done everything asked of him.
Made4September
30 Oct 2008, 22:12
Wickets for Series
Johnson 11
Watson 5
Lee 5
White 4
Siddle 4
Clarke 2
Katich 1
Clark 1
hmmmm
Theres more to cricket than stats though, that in no way indicates how Clark has bowled (in comparison to others)
Belnakor
30 Oct 2008, 22:14
Watson must be 3rd or so in the runs too.
Cousin Jed
30 Oct 2008, 22:19
Theres more to cricket than stats though, that in no way indicates how Clark has bowled (in comparison to others)
But he hasn't looked like taking a wicket. I know he is injured somewhat but if you are going to use the word popgun if anything Clark is the man it is describing.
In this series.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
30 Oct 2008, 23:00
Was watching the Ashes 2006/07 DVD a few weeks back and everyone knows that Clark had a great series.
One thing that i noticed from the DVD is that he was making the batsmen come on to the front foot and the ball would "zip" off the wicket almost like the ball was gaining pace.
These wickets don't have that bounce or zip which South African and English wickets do. His injury is obviously another factor complicating the issue. I still think he is a great bowler but these wickets dont really suit his style of bowling especially when his bowling first when there is o variable bounce of sideways seem.
Lee is in a similar mould, though he has bowled a lot better this game. He obviously is still needing match fitness after his break.
Johnson has been good but his bowling to short, as all our bowlers are, the lack of experience on Indian wickets is really showing. This short of the length stuff that you normally see at the Gabba or Perth is harmless here on the subcontinent. Would like them to pitch it up more but obviously it is hard if you pitch up and the ball goes back over your head.
Still i do rate our attack highly in home conditions so im sceptical of culling bowlers just yet. The pitch is obviously very flat and we are up against one of the best batting lineups of the last 20 years.
Lets keep things in perspective.
Gunnar Longshanks
31 Oct 2008, 03:08
This series has yet again proven that bowlers wins test matches.
Australia's attack with the retirements of Wanre and McGrath has proven not up the standard of India and has been exposed.
White and Watson (and Symonds if gets recall) are one day "all rounders" and miles off Test standard for bowling. Sure they all can bat ok but their bowling is inoffensive as all get out.
In test cricket batsman are dime a dozen and almost incidental to the result - the need is for bowlers who take wickets. Get rid of all these alleged "all rounders" and give the opportunity specialised bowlers. Sure you may get spanked with youth but its a defeatist go nowhere policy to play the likes of White, Watson and Symonds.But Watson or Symonds would be selected as a member of our top six, and our fifth bowler overall. If our bowling has been shit, the blame surely lies elsewhere.
If there's a problem, it's with the four guys picked for their bowling alone. Clark and Lee are the guys who haven't cut the mustard.
White has struggled. But which spinner should we pick instead of him?
As for Watson and Symonds, should we replace them at number six with a specialist bowler?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
31 Oct 2008, 03:33
To me Casson is the best spinner we have at the moment IMO.
If we are going to pick a spinner as the 4th bowler it simply cannot be White. We would never get 20 wickets.
We either go with an attacking spinner who turns the ball or a 4th seamer.
Gunnar Longshanks
31 Oct 2008, 03:41
To me Casson is the best spinner we have at the moment IMO.I don't understand the mechanics enough to make that kind of call.
But I do think it's styrange to pick Casson for the West Indies tour and then leave him out completely when we go to India.
So he was our best option in May. But six months later, he wasn't even top three.
I don't understand that. One of those decisions must be a mistake. They can't both be right.
If we are going to pick a spinner as the 4th bowler it simply cannot be White. We would never get 20 wickets.Agreed.
We either go with an attacking spinner who turns the ball or a 4th seamer.If we pick a fourth specialist quick, it probably means Symonds replacing Watson to add variety.
Watson and four quicks is too much of the same thing.
The alternative is to pick Symonds as our number one spinner and have him and Watson batting at six and seven in the same XI, along with Lee, Clark and Johnson. I'm not convinced about the merits of that - but it's a radical option, especially if they want Symonds without dropping Watson.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
31 Oct 2008, 03:53
I don't feel neither Watson or Symonds are good enough with the ball to warrant being labelled as the "4th bowling option".
IMO this is where we have gone wrong in India, and i will admit, i pushed for the current setup before the series began.
At the moment we are basically relying on Lee, Clarke and Johnson to get 20 wickets. Sure White and Clarke might snag the odd wicket and Watson is quite capable of bowling economically and even getting the odd bag of wickets but his not going to take enough wickets CONSISTENTLY to win us test matchs and ultimately test series.
I still think Watson has a massive role to play in this side and his bowling is more then useful but i wouldnt want him to be a specialist 4th bowler.
I cant really criticise the selectors because i did want our current setup but it has become clear that it is not potent enough on these pitches to take 20 wickets.
To me Casson is the best spinner we have at the moment IMO.
If we are going to pick a spinner as the 4th bowler it simply cannot be White. We would never get 20 wickets.
We either go with an attacking spinner who turns the ball or a 4th seamer.
Particularly when you consider the Indians seem to be most susceptible to left arm wrist spin…
Kruuuuuuuuuuezer
31 Oct 2008, 16:30
We do not have 1 bowler in our current side who at any stage looks like taking a wicket. How the hell we are going to bowl out a side atm i don't know.
And stop hating on Watto he is being economical and picking up wickets, you can't ask anymore from an all rounder. He isn't a specialist bowler....he is a batting all rounder you have to remember that
Bombers_Forever
31 Oct 2008, 16:55
Our biggest issue is Lee. He has been bowling rubbish all series and should really have stepped up with Clark injured. He proves yet again he needs a McGrath at the other end to help him. His off-field issues are affecting him but really, he has hardly looked threatening all series (particularly compared to the Indian opening pair).
White/the spinner is a concern but really, when your leading bowler is doing nothing, that is where the problem lies. Watson doesn't deserve criticism - he is bowling better than Symonds would have been in India.
aussie1st
31 Oct 2008, 18:17
For mind Lee has looked more threatening than Johnson in patches. But in saying that he too has released the pressure far too often. Johnson picks up the wickets but I don't remember seeing too many good balls. His best balls I remember are bouncers. But Lee has been good elsewhere of late so it's hard to drop him. Johnson has the wickets so again hard to drop him, but I still feel we can't have both in our attack.
People who are blaming Watson for Australia's poor performances have NFI.
ha ha, u have nfi(no ....... ....)
cricketers like watson and white will never be anything but bits and pieces, symonds is a gun.katich should be kicked out.enough talked.bye.
demon21
31 Oct 2008, 18:55
ha ha, u have nfi(no ....... ....)
cricketers like watson and white will never be anything but bits and pieces, symonds is a gun.katich should be kicked out.enough talked.bye.
Some people rate Symonds way to highly at test level Symonds is a average player at best his best part of his game at test level is his fielding.
Some people rate Symonds way to highly at test level Symonds is a average player at best his best part of his game at test level is his fielding.ha ha, symonds is a wonderful player, see him play test cricket and he has a good record as well