Aussie bowling attack

[Hellgood]

If India don't have Khan their bowling lineup is probably more atrocious than ours. Sreesanth ffs. Apparently a new guy, Varun Aaron who's pretty quick, but I have only heard of him and never seen him.

 

[King Elvis]

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

Agreed, but, as SR said, we have a nasty habit of losing 3/20 in the first 5 overs at present; collapses have become frequent, if we have our normal 2-3 of those in the Series, it'll cost us Tests.

 

[damochandler]

i hope ben cutting gets a test well before cummins

 

[Bucking Beads]

i hope ben cutting gets a test well before cummins

It won't happen but it should happen. Cutting is a bloody good bowler .

 

[damochandler]

It won't happen but it should happen. Cutting is a bloody good bowler .

no because he isn't taking wickets in 20/20s and one dayers

 

[jknothimjustafan]

Our best bowling line up?

MJ
Harris
Lyon
Bollinger

Watson (all rounder)

Easy

How Bollinger can not be considered one of the best 4 bowlers in the country has got me stuffed.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Our best bowling line up?

MJ
Harris
Lyon
Bollinger

Watson (all rounder)

Easy

How Bollinger can not be considered one of the best 4 bowlers in the country has got me stuffed.

Yes, I agree with that. Like O'Keefe as our spinner.

 

[Phone]

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

Disagree, mainly because we already know South African conditions suit Siddle and MJ. If they kill it there I won't be surprised. NZ and India are bigger tests. (also the big knock i have on those two is there's no consistently in their games so a 2 test series doesn't really test that. It's perfectly acceptable to have a good game and then a mediocre game. It's when you have a good game, 4 mediocre games and then a good game again problems arise...)

 

[King Elvis]

2 Test, a series, bleh.

 

[Jimthegreat]

2 Test, a series, bleh.

I agree. Ridiculous for such a big series. One I consider only second to an English series.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I agree. Ridiculous for such a big series. One I consider only second to an English series.

I love that there was only 3 ODI's. Brilliant. Those endless 5 or 7 match series really annoy me. if they hadn't spread the limited overs matches out so much they could have squeezed in at least another tour match if not another test match.

 

[aussierulesrules]

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.

Agree with those points. Siddle has looked much more dangerous since he started pitching the ball up more and Douggie was looking the goods in Sri Lanka and was clearly in our best test line-up for that series, but wasn't in the squad.
Copeland just ain't taking enough wickets. 5 or something, in 3 tests in Sri Lanka, on wickets that were supposed to suit him and only one against Sth Africa A, in two innings the other day, just isn't enough, especially when we already have Watson in there bowling medium pace.
If we want someone to bowl slow medium and be very economical we might as well throw Andrew McDonald back in there, who has already done it at test level, but also brings decent batting into the equation. He did adequately in the tests he played a couple of years ago (9 wickets at 33, economy rate of 2.45 RPO and a batting average of 21, with a 68 in his last innings), when he was called up out of the blue, but is now significantly better and more confident, with bat especially. He was in brilliant form with both bat and ball before he got those injuries last summer and surely would have been picked at no. 6 in the Ashes, had he not gotten injured. (At the time of his injury he was making quick Shield hundreds and taking good wickets at about 1.5 runs an over.) In his last two Shield games, against NSW and Qld, he's had innings of 1 for 25 off 17 overs and 1 for 31 off 20 overs, so he looks to back to his economical best. (He does need some runs though.)

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Agree with those points. Siddle has looked much more dangerous since he started pitching the ball up more and Douggie was looking the goods in Sri Lanka and was clearly in our best test line-up for that series.
Copeland just ain't taking enough wickets. 5 or something, in 3 tests in Sri Lanka, on wickets that were supposed to suit him and only one against Sth Africa A, in two innings the other day, just isn't enough, especially when we already have Watson in there bowling medium pace.
If we want someone to bowl slow medium and be very economical we might as well throw Andrew McDonald back in there, who has already done it at test level, but also brings decent batting into the equation. He did adequately in the tests he played a couple of years ago, when he probably didn't do much to deserve a spot, but is now significantly better and more confident, with bat especially. He was in brilliant form with both bat and ball before he got those injuries last summer and surely would have been picked at no. 6 in the Ashes, had he not gotten injured. (At the time of his injury he was making quick hundreds and taking good wickets at about 1.5 runs an over.)

Copeland did better than Mitchell Johnson stats wise. I think he deserves another go.

But then I though McDonald should have been persisted with after South Africa. He was discarded far too easily.

 

[frankrizzo]

The two test series is because of the spat between CA and the south africans over boxing day, it's basically them saying if you won't come for boxing day we will treat you like a minnow and squeeze you in for an out of season 2 test series.

 

[King Elvis]

I thought it was as a result of the IPL, Champions League and Big Bash?

 

[aussierulesrules]

But then I though McDonald should have been persisted with after South Africa. He was discarded far too easily.

Fully agree with that, especially after he was just starting to show something with the bat for Australia, in Sth Africa, after being very economical with the ball.
I thought he had to play for us in that Ashes series in England (after that Sth African tour), where the English wickets would have been absolutely ideal for him and we badly needed someone that could be economical and also take the odd wicket, but I got the distinct impression he wasn't selected because the press over there were saying things like "who is Andrew McDonald?", in a demeaning way. I wouldn't be at all surprised if those selecting our teams were scared off by that and weren't brave enough to pick him, even though he looked to be clearly in our best line-up on those wickets. In what turned out to be a very close series, it was a costly mistake, IMO.

 

[damochandler]

The two test series is because of the spat between CA and the south africans over boxing day, it's basically them saying if you won't come for boxing day we will treat you like a minnow and squeeze you in for an out of season 2 test series.

yep and the next time they play here, they will be playing before christams

 

[aussierulesrules]

Also with relation to the economy rate thing, most seem to forget that when Siddle first burst onto the scene, he generally bowled very economically. In both one day and test matches, from memory. He would just run in and hit that good line and length ball after ball and the odd one would do something and he's get a wicket. He went for very few runs in the time between his debut and missing several months with that injury.
I'm not sure how or why, but somewhere along the way since that injury he's lost that (maybe someone was telling him to do something different and it didn't work?). So if Billy can get him bowling well and with confidence again, there's every chance he'll get back to being very economical again, as well as being quick and aggressive.
I just checked his career test economy rate and despite his last year or two not being as good and consistent as he was at the start of his career, it's still just 3.04 RPO, which is noticeably better than Mitch Jonhson, Dale Steyn, Ntini (before he retired) Morne Morkel, Zaheer Kahn, Sreesanth, Ishant Sharma and Jimmy Anderson, for example, who are all around 3.3 or higher.

Was happy to see this article, too, with regard to Billy's coaching I get the feeling our bowling coaching has been pretty crap in the past year or two and it will help us enormously if we can get the overall bowling back on track:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/539583.html

Edit: I've just read more of the article and it seems for someone like Siddle, it has been the way those in Victoria have been taught to bowl in recent times (short), that may have messed with the good thing he had going on a few years ago ("Some states, Queensland and more recently Victoria, have excelled at bowling "dry" - a shorter length that gives up the possibility of swing in favour of bounce, preying on an impetuosity that may be found in Australian domestic batsmen, but can be far harder to locate among Test cricket's best exponents."). If he gets consistently back to bowling fuller, while having the short and sharp ball up his sleeve, for surprise bouncers, he could get back to his best and be valuable for Australia again. As it seems certain Mitch Jonhson will be, as bowling fuller allows him to swing it more, which is when he's at his best.
A very good read and the figures for those who McDermott has been working with, since the Sri Lankan tour, suggest he's got them on a much better track.

 

[Phone]

I thought it was as a result of the IPL, Champions League and Big Bash?

Only the Champions League - which SA and Aus part own - and because they was some absurd scheduling. A 3rd test could have easily been organised but instead we had 5 day breaks between ODers and a 4 day tour game.....which went for 3 anyway. I'd wager both boards are fine with two matches, given the busy scheduling up ahead though

McDonald didn't get picked again because a) watson entered the team and b) hauritz/doherty (lol)/beer entered the team. the only way mcdonald was getting back in was for siddle/hilf/mj...and given those three were there to the very end of 2011-12 ashes. I mean yeah McDonald didn't perform badly. But neither did Hauritz and neither has Watson. Of course there's plenty of times I would have preferred McDonald to Hilf/Siddle/MJ but I dunno know I would have thought it's pretty clear to see why McDonald hasn't been sighted again and not particularly noteworthy. Remember, Watson was injured when McDonald's tests took place.)

Siddle doesn't leak runs. He just lacks any threat whatsoever inbetween his 5 wicket haul match. See Ashes: 5 matches played, 2 six wicket hauls...14 wickets for the series. which wouldn't be so bad if MJ wasn't in the team and doing the same thing (well he leaks more runs, but he gets more wickets...4 matches - + gabba - in the ashes, 15 wickets

As for that article...I mean it's hardly out there saying Siddle bowled too short/Hilf too wide/MJ too shit. yeah yeah obviously the bowling coach ****ed up but I like to think the captain, the coach and the bowlers themselves would have done something. I mean if Ponting can try to change Hauritz's action...a total failure that hopefully Clarke and others have learnt from. and hell clarke should have said something too. he captained a match too

 

[Cousin Jed]

Ponting loved short pitch bowling. It was his main tactic.

 

[Phone]

i like to think ponting would walk up to say hilf and say 'bowl like waqir' and walk back to slip ala http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...-for-change-20101102-17ch6.html#ixzz1d61jU7FC

 

[aussierulesrules]

McDonald didn't get picked again because a) watson entered the team and b) hauritz/doherty (lol)/beer entered the team. the only way mcdonald was getting back in was for siddle/hilf/mj...and given those three were there to the very end of 2011-12 ashes. I mean yeah McDonald didn't perform badly. But neither did Hauritz and neither has Watson. Of course there's plenty of times I would have preferred McDonald to Hilf/Siddle/MJ but I dunno know I would have thought it's pretty clear to see why McDonald hasn't been sighted again and not particularly noteworthy. Remember, Watson was injured when McDonald's tests took place.)

Siddle doesn't leak runs. He just lacks any threat whatsoever inbetween his 5 wicket haul match. See Ashes: 5 matches played, 2 six wicket hauls...14 wickets for the series. which wouldn't be so bad if MJ wasn't in the team and doing the same thing (well he leaks more runs, but he gets more wickets...4 matches - + gabba - in the ashes, 15 wickets

And that was the big mistake, IMO. In those first two 2009 Ashes tests we had just MJ, Siddle and Hilfenhaus and then a combination of Hauritz, Michael Clarke, Marcus North and Simon Katich bowling the rest of the overs. On wickets that would have most likely suited McDonald, who had been in the team for the most recent two test series (taking 9 wickets at 33, at an economy rate of 2.45 RPO, against the best/2nd best team in the world), down to the ground. Surely, on English pitches, when you already have 3 who can bowl handy spin, you'd be better off with someone who bowls straight as an arrow, ultra-economically and gets subtle swing (and makes runs), than someone like Hauritz.
As if to emphasise what we were missing out on, after those first two tests, there was a tour game and McDonald made 32 and 75 (our highest score in the 2nd innings) and then took 4 for 15 off 11 overs (as many wickets as Siddle, Johnson, Watson and S Clarke got between them), to help us win the game in the 2nd innings, yet they still didn't bring him into the team.
As you said, Watson came in for the 3rd Ashes test, but he replaced Phil Hughes, not Hauritz, so we still had North, Katich and M Clarke to bowl spin, if required and would surely have been better off with McDonald, who just showed he was clearly in form, than Hauritz. So that was 3 tests gone.
They then brought in Stuart Clarke for the final two tests, who got 4 wickets in four innings, at 44, an inferior record to McDonald's recent one, (of 9 wickets at 33 in his recent tests, on wickets that wouldn't have suited him as much as the English wickets would have).
I said at the time and I say now, it was a bad call dumping him for that series. When you consider how close that series was, it could have been very costly, as there were a few out of form with both the bat and ball, so to leave out someone out, who looked to be in form with both, and who would have loved those conditions, was not wise, IMO.

Then of course, last summer, we had Smith batting at no 6 in the Ashes.
As I said, McDonald was in sparkling form at the start of that summer (far, far better than the form he was in before being called up for Australia initially), so I expect he surely would have been in there instead of Smith, had he not been injured just before the series started (unless of course they were only playing for the future and had no great desire to win).

So I think he's been very stiff to miss out on playing for Australia again, since his last game in Sth Africa. (Having said that, he was pretty lucky to get a call up in the first place, as he hadn't exactly been knocking the door down.)

As for Siddle, I think you're judging him more on his most recent games, where I think everyone would agree he hasn't been bowling well generally, or consistently. He hasn't been like that for his whole career and I dare say he won't be like that from now on, as he looks to be back on a better track. I dare say his most recent year or so's form would have a fair bit to do with him being told to bowl shorter, which looks to have stuffed him up. It's a lot for you to ask him to bowl fuller if those in charge were telling him to bowl shorter. It's no surprise they get confused and their bowling suffers. Both Siddle and MJ's bowling has gone steadily downhill in the past couple of years, but hopefully that graph will start tracking up again, with McDermott in charge.

 

[Phone]

And that was the big mistake, IMO. In those first two 2009 Ashes tests we had MJ, Siddle and Hilfenhaus and then a combination of Hauritz, Michael Clarke, Marcus North and Simon Katich bowling the rest of the overs. On wickets that would have most likely suited McDonald, who had been in the team for the most recent two test series, down to the ground. Surely, on English pitches, when you already have 3 who can bowl handy spin, you'd be better off with someone who bowls straight as an arrow and gets subtle swing (and makes runs), than someone like Hauritz.

ironically the groundsmen for the 1st test was thinking just like you - and prepared a spinning wicket. England played Swann and Monty. You telling me you would have played McDonald instead on that pitch? Anyway Hauritz rightfully played, and was our best bowler. McDonald would have been useless on that pitch. 2nd test maybe you have an argument for McDonald playing - but only in hindsight. Hauritz got injured in the first innings - and took 3 in the 2nd - and MJ had his meltdown. if mcdonald played it would have been for siddle who was pretty mediocre in the first test. But the feats of Johnson-Siddle-Hilf in that SA tour were still dominating our selection policy in 2011 let alone 2 months later.

As you said, Watson came in for the 3rd Ashes test, but he replaced Phil Hughes, not Hauritz, so we still had North, Katich and M Clarke to bowl spin, if required and would surely have still been better off with McDonald, who just showed he was clearly in form, than Hauritz.

Hauritz had been our best bowler in the first two matches. Was he not showing form? Johnson should have been dropped. They chickened out. We bought in Watson. Watson did fine. McDonald v Hauritz isn't the debate here. McDonald v Johnson or v Watson is the one. Anyway rain came in and made a result impossible.

They then brought in Stuart Clarke for the final two tests, who got 4 wickets in four innings, at 44, an inferior record to McDonald's recent one, (of 9 wickets at 33 in his recent tests, on wickets that wouldn't have suited him as much as the English wickets would have).

I dunno know given Clark torn England's batting order apart in the first session of the 4th match I'd say they get that right. But the selectors didn't have the balls to say to Clark - or MJ or Siddle - we're gonna drop you. Because the next match Hauritz - if fit -should have played given it was a dustbowl. McDonald as per the 1st match wasn't an option except for Watson.

I said at the time and I say now, it was a bad call dumping him for that series. When you consider how close that series was, it could have been very costly, as there were many out of form with both the bat and ball, so to leave out someone out, who looked to be in form with both, and who would have loved those conditions, was not wise, IMO.

And here's the problem - the first and last test were not conditions McDonald would have loved. The 2nd test there wasn't a spot for him. The 3rd test they maybe was but they went with Watson and MJ. Questionable move but no surprise given how much faith they'd given Watson before and how much faith they've given MJ since. I would have taken a dead rat over MJ for the 3rd test but in any case, they probably would have played Clark before McDonald. In the 4th test Clark did play and he killed the game by lunch.

Further more, like S. Smith currently McDonald hadn't shown he was up to test level with the bat. In that SA tour MJ clearly outperformed him with the bat. So we're back to the replacing the specialist bowler thing which during the 09 Ashes wasn't in McDonald's favour, be it pitches, form or selectional favouritism. He wasn't harshly treated. Unlucky perhaps.

IThen of course last summer, we had Smith batting at no 6 in the Ashes.

As I said, McDonald was in sparkling form at the start of that summer, so I expect he surely would have been in there instead of Smith, had he not been injured just before the series started (unless of course they were only playing for the future and had no great desire to win).

McDonald injured obv. Anyway in the 3rd and 4th test the bit part all-rounder needed to bowl spin. You saying for the MCG you would have played 6 seamers? Hauritz was the one who should have played there. Not McDonald. (although McDonald could have then taken the 6 spot anyway)

As for Siddle, I think you're judging him more on his most recent games, where I think everyone would agree he hasn't been bowling well generally, or consistently. He hasn't been like that for his whole career and I dare say he won't be like that from now on, as he looks to be back on a better track. I dare say his most recent year or so's form would have a fair bit to do with him being told to bowl shorter, which looks to have stuffed him up. It's a lot for you to ask him to bowl fuller when those in charge were telling him to bowl shorter. It's no surprise they get confused and their bowling suffers.

Siddle's bowling graph: http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerBowlGraph.asp?PlayerID=3618

That 4/75 is the last test of the 09 Ashes. There's a complete lack of red and green lines since that time. It's all or nothing. With MJ in combo it's hardly a surprise we suck arse currently. And that purple - uh red and blue - patch? SA 09 tour. With the Sydney match before too. He hasn't shown he's consistent at all during his test career bar one tour.

Of course the annoying thing all through this is that Siddle has shown plenty of times he could be a top bowler in the world....usually bowl fuller stuff. and then he goes back to bowling short rubbish. now yes the bowling coach might have been telling him to do this - given Siddle isn't really noted for swing movement maybe they thought that was a better area to pitch. But Siddle could have said "no, this is the best way for me to bowl". Him not doing that could be an effect of getting into the test team on the back of 5 FC games eg he didn't have the confidence to call out the bowling coach and captain but it's what happened. And he takes part of the blame, as does the bowling coach, the head coach, the captain and well pretty much everyone else really.

 

[Radical Roo]

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?

Being able to bowl well for 4 to 10 overs in 2020 and 1day does not translate to sustained 5 days of cricket against top opp.