Aussie bowling attack

[JR78]

Hilfenhaus forgotten, Bollinger in and out, same for Siddle, Johnson dropped for one game last summer then returns without playing a game. The selections have me baffled me and the players seem confused.

From below - any thoughts on our best balanced attack in tests?

Harris, Hilfenhaus, Siddle, Copeland, Johnson, Pattinson, Cummins, Bollinger, Starc, Hazlewood, Beer, Hauritz, Doherty, S.Smith, Krejza

I think Harris, Cummins, Siddle & Johnson unless it's a big turner. I'm not sure what Steve Smith's role is to be honest.

 

[GameOver]

Steve Smith has no role. Johnson is the most overrated player in world cricket. End rant!!

 

[Drummond]

Harris, Copeland (don't particularly rate him but we do need SOMEONE to keep it tight), Bollinger, Lyon/Beer.

I'm staggered Pattinson hasn't been given more of a shot, legitimate talent.

 

[BarneyBent]

Harris, Cummins, Siddle and Johnson? Really?

Cummins, Siddle and Johnson are LITERALLY our three most unreliable bowlers. We can afford to have one, maybe two, of them in at any one time. This is especially the case when the other bowler is Harris, who, despite being reliably good, has a terribly unreliable body. If Harris breaks down, barring the other three miraculously being on, we're ****ed.

If Hauritz is fit, he's in. Other than that, SOK or Lyon. Not too fussed, tbh, but I'd prefer SOK on the back of his FC record. But if we want to play four quicks (e.g. I think we should first up against the Saffers), then we go for one or two of Copeland, Bollinger or even maybe Pattinson, over one or two of Johnson, Siddle and Cummins (in order of preference). Pattinson isn't really that reliable, being so inexperienced, but he seems like a bowler that could reign it in if required.

But basically, our bowling attack is a mess. Ask ten different people and they'll give you ten different answers as to what our best bowling set-up is, which is not good. Compare that to when we were at our best. Our bowling set-up was clear. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, and then maybe some contention over Lee/Kasper/Bichel/other. But there was, generally, consensus.

The fact that you could randomly select a bowling attack out of Hilfenhaus, Harris, Johnson, Bollinger, Siddle, Pattinson, Copeland and Cummins, and Doherty, Krejza, Hauritz, SOK, Lyon and Beer, and none of them would be that difficult to imagine as our best lineup, is a BIG worry.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Harris, Cummins, Siddle and Johnson? Really?

Cummins, Siddle and Johnson are LITERALLY our three most unreliable bowlers. We can afford to have one, maybe two, of them in at any one time. This is especially the case when the other bowler is Harris, who, despite being reliably good, has a terribly unreliable body. If Harris breaks down, barring the other three miraculously being on, we're ****ed.

If Hauritz is fit, he's in. Other than that, SOK or Lyon. Not too fussed, tbh, but I'd prefer SOK on the back of his FC record. But if we want to play four quicks (e.g. I think we should first up against the Saffers), then we go for one or two of Copeland, Bollinger or even maybe Pattinson, over one or two of Johnson, Siddle and Cummins (in order of preference). Pattinson isn't really that reliable, being so inexperienced, but he seems like a bowler that could reign it in if required.

But basically, our bowling attack is a mess. Ask ten different people and they'll give you ten different answers as to what our best bowling set-up is, which is not good. Compare that to when we were at our best. Our bowling set-up was clear. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, and then maybe some contention over Lee/Kasper/Bichel/other. But there was, generally, consensus.

The fact that you could randomly select a bowling attack out of Hilfenhaus, Harris, Johnson, Bollinger, Siddle, Pattinson, Copeland and Cummins, and Doherty, Krejza, Hauritz, SOK, Lyon and Beer, and none of them would be that difficult to imagine as our best lineup, is a BIG worry.

You can get rid of the three Taswegians for starters. That will make life marginally easier.

I have a really irrational dislike of watching Krejza in Aus colours. Makes me see red instead of canary yellow or cream. And the other two are done with I reckon.

At least we have Harris who is a starter for 10. If Bolly could get fit, I'd have him second walk-up pick, but no-one appears to trust him.

The others can do rock/paper/scissors and then hope for the best.

 

[dan warna]

I think our selectors lack vision, or intelligence, heck hilditch doesn't even go to games, he's too busy...

 

[Topper Harley]

You can get rid of the three Taswegians for starters. That will make life marginally easier.

I have a really irrational dislike of watching Krejza in Aus colours. Makes me see red instead of canary yellow or cream. And the other two are done with I reckon.

At least we have Harris who is a starter for 10. If Bolly could get fit, I'd have him second walk-up pick, but no-one appears to trust him.

The others can do rock/paper/scissors and then hope for the best.

Pretty spot on here, and if by some fluke we could pick Johnson in his on game and drop him for all others we'd be looking OK.

At this stage it's Harris, Copeland and Siddle for our best pace attack, with Lyon as the spinner.

They will pick Johnson though, we have to live with that, and hopefully Siddle sits out for him.

Anyone know what happened to George BTW? haven't heard much of him in recent tours

 

[Bomber Bears]

I'd agree with Harris Copeland Siddle Lyon at present (although prefer O'Keefe or maybe Hauritz to Lyon).

Harris is quality as long as he's fit, Copeland keeps the pressure on and can chime in with wickets (and is likely to be more effective in South Africa than Sri Lanka, although he bowled better than his figures there), Siddle when he uses his brain is a good bowler. Too often he'll pitch it up, bowl well, take wickets, then revert to short shit next game. If he can get more consistency i'd gladly have him ahead of Johnson, who is fast running out of chances (and could well be dropped).

 

[Train Signals]

For test matches It's gotta be: Harris, Siddle, Johnson and Lyon.


Steve Smith is the worst cricketer in the current squad. If he plays ahead of Mitch Marsh I won't be watching.

Fails whenever the team needs him, bowls shit. Get him out of the side!

 

[mark73]

I've always been a Johnson fan and at his best he can terrorise batsmen but he's got to get back to taking wickets. In anyway. Spit at them, bowl at their head/nuts, whatever.

 

[mark73]

For test matches It's gotta be: Harris, Siddle, Johnson and Lyon.


Steve Smith is the worst cricketer in the current squad. If he plays ahead of Mitch Marsh I won't be watching.

Fails whenever the team needs him, bowls shit. Get him out of the side!

He's from NSW. It's been going on for 900 years.

 

[Phone]

Best attack: Harris, Bollinger, (x), Hauritz/Lyon
Upcoming tour: Harris, Copeland, MJ, Lyon

x up in the air. MJ of course currently has it and will for the summer. If Siddle over the domestic season actually shows he has a brain and stops bowling it in completely the wrong area all the time - or four times out of five matches - I'd probably bring him back for MJ. But certainly not right now as he hasn't proved that and it boggles the mind anyone is actually willing to play MJ and Siddle in the same attack full-time right now. It's like they haven't paid any attention to the results of australian cricket. You can't have a pace attack where 2 of the bowlers only perform once every five matches. even if the one performance is brilliant.

Hilf no way currently. If he discovers a way to actually get right handed batsmen out consistently he might come back into the frame but that'll take time. Still only 28yo though. Even his 4 wicket haul in the recent shield match which led to 'don't you forget about me' articles was 50% left handed. Copeland of course currently has a spot in the team but once Bollinger gets back in there the need to have a bowler like copeland eg a bowler who actually put it in the same, correct spot 90% of the time isn't needed so much. If Bollinger contiunes in exile Copeland is 2nd in line for that 2nd seamer spot though. And Pattinson, Cummins etc no way. would sooner pick Magoffin.

So x is between siddle and mj with mj having it right now.

 

[Jimthegreat]

For test matches It's gotta be: Harris, Siddle, Johnson and Lyon.


Steve Smith is the worst cricketer in the current squad. If he plays ahead of Mitch Marsh I won't be watching.

Fails whenever the team needs him, bowls shit. Get him out of the side!

Hopefully with that line up, Harris and bowl the whole 90 overs from both ends. Siddle is crapola, as can be Johnson, except for the odd great day. Lyon is basically average. Can tie up an end though I suppose.

Harris, Copeland, Cummins, Lyon I wouldn't mind. Copeland and Harris are a must as they keep the pressure right on the bats. Seeing the Siddle and Johnson can bowl crap just as happy to develop the youth line with Cummins. I reality Johnson will play so unless we go with 4 quicks, which I doubt, Cummins might be mixing drinks.

 

[courtjester]

I'd be pretty happy with an attack of:

Harris
Bollinger
Cummins/ Siddle
Hauritz/ Johnson

My rationale is that Harris (if fit) and Bollinger (if fit) are our best two quicks, in terms of containing and attacking. If either is unfit, play Copeland.

Siddle or Cummins play as strike bowlers.

Hauritz or Johnson play depending on the deck. Johnson bowls really well on a pitch that suits him, when he can zip it through. On a slow wicket, he is hittable crap. Both are similar with the bat as number 8 bats.

One thing that needs to happen is to stop the mindset that Johnson is a lock for the team. Horse for courses, esp with him.

 

[Phone]

ftr if hauritz and johnson ever play in the same team again i want hauritz at 8. just makes more sense for the safer, more defensive batsmen to be there considering there'll be another batsman at the other end.

 

[The_Reaper]

I still can't believe that Cummins isn't going to be allowed to play a full shield season before debuting him.

Hell, if we are really desperate to give him a test soon- why not wait a month till we play New Zealand at the Gabba and Bellerive?

 

[mark73]

In South Africa I'd go with;

Johnson
Siddle
McDonald
eddiesmith
Cummins (just to shut everyone up - he's not ready for test cricket yet).

 

[Bucking Beads]

I still can't believe that Cummins isn't going to be allowed to play a full shield season before debuting him.

Hell, if we are really desperate to give him a test soon- why not wait a month till we play New Zealand at the Gabba and Bellerive?

At least that way we could have seen how he is going in the longer format of the game by giving him a few shield games.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Looks like sanity may have prevailed, with Cummins apparently not playing in the tour game that started overnight. Highly unlikely to play in the test if he's not playing there. Good to see Mitch Johnson get 4 for and Sidds 3 for, though: "Siddle starred with 3-16 from 14 overs, including six maidens. The 26-year-old charged in with his usual effort, consistently beating the outside edge and on several occasions struck the batsmen with well-placed short balls."
No wickets for Copeland, though, so his chances of playing in the test will have lengthened, I expect.

 

[Hellgood]

Harris - our number one bowler bo so far
Copeland - tough choice between him and Siddle. I like what he brings even if he is not as aggressive as Siddle
Johnson - when he is on, he is a gun, atrocious when not, but too hard to leave him out
Beer - I think he's more attacking than Lyon, gives it some flight, accurate and has benefit of being a lefty. I have no problem with Lyon getting a few more tests to prove himself, but I rate Beer higher.

The others:
Siddle - like him, but when he isn't firing he can be so inneffective and leaks runs. A pretty good back up option
Pattinson - I think of him as a smarter, taller version of Siddle. Has pace and bounce. I would prefer he play than Cummins at this stage of his career
Cummins - like him, just for god sake let him play at shield level. Was very good in the shield final and has shown he can be effective at international level in the T20 and ODI's. Problem is, what happens when batsmen are on top of him like when Duminy and Miller were hitting him everywhere. Has time so why not give it to him.
George - Excellent prospect who has already played and been forgotten about by most. Tall, accurate and takes wickets at Adelaide oval. Can't believe nobody talks about him.
Coulter-Nile - Very sharp. Swings it and knows how to intimidate good batsmen (see Klinger). Will take plenty of wickets this year.
Cutting - Get's plenty of bounce and has had no problems taking wickets over the last couple of years. Will play international cricket sooner or later.
Hilfenhaus - Unfortunately I can't see the selectors picking him again barring a massive year in the shield. Had an absolute shocker of an Ashes and it's going to take a lot for people to forget that.
Starc - more of an ODI prospect for mine
Faulkner - like Starc, I can't see him becoming a test cricketer. Very likely that he will play ODI's though with his swing and handy batting.

Think I covered nearly every bowler in state cricket lol.

 

[King Elvis]

We're gunna get smashed this Summer.

Not convinced we have a bowling attack capable of taking 20 wickets a Test with any consistency.

 

[Kyptastic]

Have you seen India's attack? I'd be more worried about lots of draws than Australia losing a test series.

 

[Phone]

Siddle - like him, but when he isn't firing he can be so inneffective and leaks runs. A pretty good back up option

i mean he could be our best bowler. But there's just absolutely no consistently apart from his inconsistently and to a degree it annoys me that a guy who got his test spot on the back of 5 games in the Shield isn't gonna be sent back there to earn it back. Disagree on the leaking runs part though. That's the difference between him and MJ. During MJ's 'break' between his 5 wicket haul performance he takes a few more wickets than Siddle, but Siddle doesn't put in that headline grabbing shocking performance. Siddle either goes too short and outside off (no shot) or too short and on middle (knocked to the leg side for one or two)

Pattinson - I think of him as a smarter, taller version of Siddle. Has pace and bounce. I would prefer he play than Cummins at this stage of his career

Smarter the key word. But I would prefer him to play too but as I said elsewhere I'd sooner pick Magoffin than either of those two. 6 FC games....jesus christ.

Cummins - like him, just for god sake let him play at shield level. Was very good in the shield final and has shown he can be effective at international level in the T20 and ODI's. Problem is, what happens when batsmen are on top of him like when Duminy and Miller were hitting him everywhere. Has time so why not give it to him.

I think the important thing to note re Cummins international performances so far is that quite a few of his wickets have come through slower balls. No doubt that shows a bit of brain and what not....but in tests matches unless it's a seriously good slower ball it's not gonna take wickets. Of course he's taken wickets through raw pace too, but if he takes 3/60 and all three wickets come through slower balls...I mean cool your jets about him being the next test superstar. Usual rant about too young etc here Got the talent no doubt but he wouldn't be picked in my NSW side if I've got Dougeh, Copeland and Hazlewood to pick... And no Hazlewood shouldn't be anywhere near Aus yet either.

George - Excellent prospect who has already played and been forgotten about by most. Tall, accurate and takes wickets at Adelaide oval. Can't believe nobody talks about him.

Well he doesn't get talked about because up until that 5 wicket haul against NSW he hasn't been taking wickets at Adl. Oval...he hasn't been taking wickets anywhere but in Hobart. (which made his test debut in India of all places a bit funny/sad) Now the five wicket haul has pipped my interest and I'll be keeping an eye on how he goes on all the other non-Hobart grounds this season.

Hilfenhaus - Unfortunately I can't see the selectors picking him again barring a massive year in the shield. Had an absolute shocker of an Ashes and it's going to take a lot for people to forget that.

Look, he has some good things about him. But as long as he contiunes being more or less ineffective to right handed batsmen....I mean 55 test wickets and 25 of them being left handed is a bit ridiculous, even with more and more left handers in the game. In any case he's not getting these left handers out first ball either. He just doesn't look like getting right handed batsmen out. They might give away their wicket to him though. I'm not gonna write off his chances of adding to his test cap, but he's gonna need more than one good Shield season. It's two for me and proving he can get right handed batsmen out consistently. Unfortunately by my count he has 7 fc wickets this season....4 of them are left handers. Some county time too will no doubt be on his mind

Starc - more of an ODI prospect for mine

Yep. Should probably be dropped for our upcoming Shield match but it won't happen.
Faulkner - like Starc, I can't see him becoming a test cricketer. Very likely that he will play ODI's though with his swing and handy batting.

Yep. Not really much to add other than the George 'I'll be keeping an eye on how he goes on all the other non-Hobart grounds this season' line

Didn't respond to Cutting and Coulter-Nile. Not much of a view on them other than the usual too young, need to play more, one season isn't everything blah blah blah

No doubt we've got some young talent but we actually have got some older talent. Bollinger the obvious example of older talent not in the team. We don't have to go youth crazy and start picking teams like crap AFL teams. We don't get draft picks for losing the Ashes 3-1. We can start by actually trying to pick the best team, which didn't happen in the Ashes. Harris-Bollinger-Johnson/Siddle is actually a more than decent attack. Of course it's hardly the most reliable (fitness of Harris/Bollinger, form of Johnson/Siddle) but simply if we have got Harris and Bollinger fit there's no reason for Pattinson, Cummins etc being anywhere near the squad. Now currently I guess they don't consider Bollinger fit - I question the wisdom of saying you won't pick Bollinger in tests until he gets fitter, and then dragging him away from NSW pre-season and the first rounds of the shield to play in meaningless OD matches - which makes Pattinson and Cummins presence in the tests squads a bit ok...but mostly annoying.

 

[Selective Retention]

Have you seen India's attack? I'd be more worried about lots of draws than Australia losing a test series.

Our bowling has been underwhelming the last few years but it's the batting collapses that have lost us tests.

I wouldn't trust our current batsman to get through a series against Bangladesh without a costly innings full of brain explosions.

As for the bowlers.

Harris is clearly number one.

I think both MJ/Siddle have looked better under McDermott. South Africa is the test.

Bollinger should be the standby bowler for Harris (fitness) or the other two (if bowling pies).

I don't rate Copeland much. I just can't see him taking wickets, particularly at home, on good pitches and against test standard batting line ups.

Lyon should get an extended run as spinner, at least until he has definitively proven he is not up to it and/or Hauritz is fit and in form.

 

[frankrizzo]

edit...