- Status
I'm not sold on Clarke as captain, too much like Punter light. I'd like to give Kattich a run, or possibly North.
Would keep Haddin too, he was one of our top batsmen and his keeping improved towards the end of the series.
Funny, when KP comes back 4 of the poms top 6 will be born in SA.
Would keep Haddin too, he was one of our top batsmen and his keeping improved towards the end of the series.
Funny, when KP comes back 4 of the poms top 6 will be born in SA.
I think people have missed the point a bit here. All this talk about dropping Watson, Ponting, Hussey and Haddin has neglected to address our biggest failing this series- our bowling. While our top order may have cost us the series in 2005, and crumbled at two crucial times this series, our bowlers have consistently failed to maintain pressure on the English batsmen in all 5 tests.
In the first test, they let England get to 450 in the first dig after being 7/350. In the second dig they couldn't get England out despite having them 5/170 with a session and a half to play on a 5th day pitch (that cost us the match and probably the series). In the second test, they allowed England to put on 200 for the first wicket of the match- the game was gone from there. They bowled well in the 4th test, but in this last test they failed to take wickets in pairs, and bowled far too inconsistently on a pitch where England should have been bundled out for less than 250.
Look at Englands batsmen- Cook has had only one good innings, Bell is the same, Collingwood has been rubbish apart from the first test second innings, Bopara was shit, Prior was shit, Flintoff did fuck all. The four best batsmen for England were Strauss, Trott, Broad and Swann. How did we not rattle through this mediocre lineup every time?
It wasn't Ponting's captaincy. It was Siddle spraying two balls down leg every single over, it was Johnson bowling absolute rubbish, Hilfy lacking the flair to rip the stumps out. These guys need to take the blame, not the batsmen.
In the first test, they let England get to 450 in the first dig after being 7/350. In the second dig they couldn't get England out despite having them 5/170 with a session and a half to play on a 5th day pitch (that cost us the match and probably the series). In the second test, they allowed England to put on 200 for the first wicket of the match- the game was gone from there. They bowled well in the 4th test, but in this last test they failed to take wickets in pairs, and bowled far too inconsistently on a pitch where England should have been bundled out for less than 250.
Look at Englands batsmen- Cook has had only one good innings, Bell is the same, Collingwood has been rubbish apart from the first test second innings, Bopara was shit, Prior was shit, Flintoff did fuck all. The four best batsmen for England were Strauss, Trott, Broad and Swann. How did we not rattle through this mediocre lineup every time?
It wasn't Ponting's captaincy. It was Siddle spraying two balls down leg every single over, it was Johnson bowling absolute rubbish, Hilfy lacking the flair to rip the stumps out. These guys need to take the blame, not the batsmen.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I'm not sure about Haddin. He only seems to score when there is little or no pressure on him. He can't dig in and help the lower order to put on another 100-150 runs in a pressure situation.
Barbarian - you have some good points, particularly with the bowling in the first test. The batting put us in the position to win it, and the bowlers couldn't finish it off. However the batting is also the main reason for us losing the two test that we did with totals that were far below par. Hussey was the main culprit, but the other senior batsmen also di not stand up when it counted. And we have to stop the supidity of having Watson as an opener.
barbarian said:
And yet these three were praised by the chairman of selectors, Andrew Hilditch, after the Fourth Test as having done a great job in SAf and there was no way any of them were in jeopardy to be dropped in favour of Clark. The selection and management of our front-line bowlers was appalling and cost us the series.
A large portion of blame for this poor result must be sheeted home to the selectors. Too many injured players were on the plane, there was no back up opening batsmen, no backup middle order batsmen, one too many mediocre all-rounders (McDonald should've been in the team or not on the plane, FU Watson should never be allowed near an Australian team again), Lee (who left Oz injured) has a very poor record in England and the selectors have successfully fucked the team around in the quest to find a reasonable spinner. How close were Rogers/Jaques, Hodge, Bollinger and Krejza to selection? Once the team was on tour non-performers such as Hussey and Johnson didn't feel under any pressure to keep their spots. And young Hughes wasn't reinstated to play on a featherbed where the opposing fast bowlers wouldn't've been able to put pressure on him, a crap pitch for which we didn't pick a spinner. A total selectors' fuckup.
Scotty said:
The batsmen capitulated in two innings. The first in both the second and fifth tests, the ones which England ultimately won. That shows how much the batting held this side together- the two where they didn't perform were the two in which we lost.
Even still, in the second test I would place more blame with the bowlers on the first morning than the batsmen who were out cheaply. Onions and Anderson bowled superbly to take wickets- Strauss and Cook didn't need to be to score runs. And I think the senior batsmen DID stand up when it counted, and only really failed in two innings. They stood up in Cardiff, the second innings at Lords, the second innings at Edgbaston, and first innings at Leeds. They also did pretty well to get to 350 in the 4th innings yesterday.
And on Watson, I don't think it is stupidity at all. He hasn't yet failed, so I think the selectors have been somewhat vindicated there. Yes, he hasn't had a really big score and IMO is better suited to batting at 5 or 6, but he has certainly held his own at the top of the order, and scored more runs than Katich in the three tests they have played together.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Thats a bit of a contradiction. Face it, both the batting and bowling were below par on more than one occasion.
If you can't make 200 in the first innings of a test there isn't much chance of winning, or even drawing the thing is there?
Being bowled out for under 200 is probably equivalent to the bowling side allowing the batting side to score over 500. How many times did that happen?
Scotty said:
One does not necessarily follow the other though. For me the obvious move is to drop Hussey and bring in Hughes- push Watson down to 6 and North up to 5, with Hughes slotting in to the opening spot.
Scotty said:
Not necessarily. Depends on the pitch conditions, standard of bowling, weather etc. Look, I agree the batsmen failed badly on two occassions- but that happens in a five match series. The bowling was consistently mediocre, and did far more damage than the occassional batting collapse.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
The bowling is missing a top class spinner, has a swing bowler that went better than most expected, a seamer that stood up a few times and a left arm spearhead that has the ability to be one of the best in the world but struggles with consistency. Did you really expect the bowling to be that great anyway? The more experienced batting line up has to stand up and be counted when the bowlers have been below par and the fact is they didn't.
If the selectors took the hard option from the start, then we would have seen Watson batting at 6 with Hughes opening and Hussey left out as you suggest. Do you think they would have the guts to do it now Hussey has notched up a ton?
Mark Waugh seems to have the same view point as me as to why we lost the series - basically in 3 sessions. 2 batting collapses and one bowling inability to knock off the tail enders.
If the selectors took the hard option from the start, then we would have seen Watson batting at 6 with Hughes opening and Hussey left out as you suggest. Do you think they would have the guts to do it now Hussey has notched up a ton?
Mark Waugh seems to have the same view point as me as to why we lost the series - basically in 3 sessions. 2 batting collapses and one bowling inability to knock off the tail enders.
Scotty said:
Siddle and Johnson cop the brunt of my criticism. The problem was not natural ability in moving the ball or getting bounce etc., it was basic shit like not bowling down the leg side. Despite getting wickets both of those bowlers failed to maintain any sort of pressure by bowling tight lines. Broad's spells in the fourth and fifth test should show them how it's done. Yes they probably aren't as good or experienced as the batsmen, but thats irrelevent. Their continual lack of control was the leading factor in us not winning the series.
And notice I say 'not winning'. Yes a couple of collapses lost two games, but throughout the series mediocre bowling allowed a shithouse batting lineup to put competitive scores on the board time after time. The one game our bowlers got their shit together we came away with a victory.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I'm sure everyone, including me is disappointed with the bowling performance, and it obviously wasn't good enough. But we also have to take into account that we have a bowling attack that has what 30 odd games experience between them? Fact is if we bowled them out in Cardiff and didn't have those two batting collapses at Lords and the Oval we most likely would have 'won' the series. Our 4 most experienced players did not stand up when we needed them most - the most disappointing of these was at the oval.
You rightly say that England has a 'shithouse' batting lineup, but their bowling lineup isn't any better. I mean ffs we allowed Broad to get two 5 fors.
mark_s
Chilla Wilson (44)
Our bowling was poor in 4 tests out of 5, and our batting was poor in 3 tests out of 5. We would have retained the ashes if either one had been consistently good. As it is, we were lucky not to lose this series 3-1.
I still think the selectors should take most of the blame for the series loss, the coaching staff are next in line. We took an unbalanced squad to england (no reserve openers, only 1 spinner) with too many players returing from injury and with unknown form (Lee, Clark, Watson - 2 of whom are at the end of their careers). We relied too much on part time bowlers and part time batters. We also kept too much faith in players woefully out of form (Hussey and Johnson). Whats more, these are pretty much the same reasons we lost to SA at home last year. Atleast SA were a very good team that played very good cricket to beat us, the same can't be said for this England team.
Ponting also deserves a share of the blame. I have been resisting calling for him to be stood down as captain as I didn't think there were any better alternatives. But I now think its time to promote Clarke. I still have my doubts about him as captain (I think he has a touch of the Kim Hughes about him) but I see no benefit in waiting longer, he will either sink or swim and we should find out. Katich or Ponting could be reinstated as captain if Clarke fails miserably.
My guess is that the selectors ACB will keep Ponting as test captain until the next Ashes series but drop him from all other forms of the game.
We also need to be bringing through more young talent as Ponting, Katich, Hussey, Haddin will all likely be gone in the next 1-2 years. Replacement players need to be identified and brought into the system now.
I still think the selectors should take most of the blame for the series loss, the coaching staff are next in line. We took an unbalanced squad to england (no reserve openers, only 1 spinner) with too many players returing from injury and with unknown form (Lee, Clark, Watson - 2 of whom are at the end of their careers). We relied too much on part time bowlers and part time batters. We also kept too much faith in players woefully out of form (Hussey and Johnson). Whats more, these are pretty much the same reasons we lost to SA at home last year. Atleast SA were a very good team that played very good cricket to beat us, the same can't be said for this England team.
Ponting also deserves a share of the blame. I have been resisting calling for him to be stood down as captain as I didn't think there were any better alternatives. But I now think its time to promote Clarke. I still have my doubts about him as captain (I think he has a touch of the Kim Hughes about him) but I see no benefit in waiting longer, he will either sink or swim and we should find out. Katich or Ponting could be reinstated as captain if Clarke fails miserably.
My guess is that the selectors ACB will keep Ponting as test captain until the next Ashes series but drop him from all other forms of the game.
We also need to be bringing through more young talent as Ponting, Katich, Hussey, Haddin will all likely be gone in the next 1-2 years. Replacement players need to be identified and brought into the system now.
mark_s said:
I would be very surprised if they did this anytime soon. He is still the best or second best batsman in the team, plain and simple. This is not a Steve Waugh scenario. They may ask him to retire, but certainly won't drop him, especially when there are no other top order batsmen banging down the door.
I think he has a blank cheque here, and I only hope he doesn't hang on too long.
Newb
Trevor Allan (34)
well, on to the lighter side of things for a bit.
stumbled upon this. classic freddie. "mind the windows tino" :lmao:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1NFbVx0uN8
stumbled upon this. classic freddie. "mind the windows tino" :lmao:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1NFbVx0uN8
O
OZGOD
Guest
Cricket is a funny game, but it's also a game, like most games are, about momentum, and who can seize the initiative, and win the KEY MOMENTS. England played their best cricket when it mattered the most, and we were found wanting. Who cares about four centuries in a drawn Test in Cardiff? Jonathan Trott's ton at the Oval was worth more than all four of those OZ tons in Cardiff.
Ditto Strauss at Lords, it was a massive ton that set the pace for England and got them out to a huge lead. Siddle, Hilf and MJ may have taken 20 wickets or 18 wickets or whatever overall, but giving away all those runs at Lords and failing to get the last wicket in Cardiff was the difference.
I feel that there were 2 sessions that cost OZ the Ashes - the first innings at Lords and the first innings at the Oval. Both times we collapsed like a pile of old rubbish which cost us the Test. I think the enormity of the occasion got to the players and they nutted up and choked, basically.
The reality of it (and this is NOT sour grapes) is that neither of these teams - OZ or England - are really all that good, particularly when you compare them to the 2005 versions. This OZ team had a good batting lineup that choked in the key moments, and an attack that was only balanced with five bowlers, not four. The absence of Clark imbalanced our pacers, but his inclusion means that we can't play a spinner and have to rely on part timers bowling half trackers.
The England team had a pedestrian (apart from Strauss) batting lineup and a bunch of honest triers as a bowling attack, who managed to seize the opportunity to fire at crucial times. There was such a seesaw in momentum - the OZ dominated the 1st Test, the Poms the 2nd and 3rd bar the last day, the OZ the 4th Test, and England the 5th. It's been enthralling cricket in that sense, and has basically turned out how I've predicted (not in the sense of OZ losing, I actually had OZ 2-1 before the series) but in the sense that this OZ team doesn't have the consistency that previous teams had - when we're good we're really good, when we're bad we're shlthouse and as bad as any team going around. If you wanted to compare, previous Australian squads probably had a deviation in performance like this:
----good performance
----bad performance
And now we have:
----good performance
----bad performance
When we're good we're a match for anyone, when we're bad we're REALLY bad.
I think questions will be, and have been, asked of Dubya's captaincy after this, considering we managed to snatch defeat after only requiring a draw in the fifth Test due to a pathetic batting collapse. That said, I think he led as well as could have given the personnel - he wasn't to blame for the batsmen giving their wickets away at Lords and the Oval, and he couldn't be blamed for the fact that Stu Clark wasn't picked for key matches and when he was picked (aside from Headingley) it was on a pitch that he ultimately was useless for (the Oval). Hindsight (and Warney) will crucify Dubya and the selectors (who are the real decisionmakers) for not picking Horroritz, but I think they can be forgiven for misreading the pitch - the Poms misread it too otherwise they would have picked two spinners.
Also, Dubya made some boneheaded decisions in 2005 but I thought he showed creditable captaincy here. His real failure was an inability to lead from the front with the bat. I can see him staying on, winning the Ashes back next year, leading us to the WC in 2011, and then gracefully retiring, because by then Michael Clarke will be ready. Right now Dubya is still our best batsman.
As for England, if Bambi can show the same form he did at the Oval going forward he may have a decent claim to being mini-Flingtoff. The bowling attack is workmanlike rather than spectacular, particularly with the departure of Flingtoff it loses a lot of its aura. Their batting, if you include Kevinder at 4, looks pretty solid. Trott looks like another typical hard-bitten Seffrican - calm, solid and of good temperament. He may yet end up batting at first drop eventually. With Strauss, Trott, Collywobble and Kevinder - keeping in mind we need to see how Trott goes overseas, but to get a debut ton in a must-win Test under the microscope shows that he's got a bit of mongrel in him - they have the makings of a really solid batting lineup.
Anyway disappointed in the result but can't really complain as while we dominated the stats, we didn't dominate the moments that mattered and were genuinely outplayed during those key moments. Well played to the Pommies and we will see you Down Under next year!
Ditto Strauss at Lords, it was a massive ton that set the pace for England and got them out to a huge lead. Siddle, Hilf and MJ may have taken 20 wickets or 18 wickets or whatever overall, but giving away all those runs at Lords and failing to get the last wicket in Cardiff was the difference.
I feel that there were 2 sessions that cost OZ the Ashes - the first innings at Lords and the first innings at the Oval. Both times we collapsed like a pile of old rubbish which cost us the Test. I think the enormity of the occasion got to the players and they nutted up and choked, basically.
The reality of it (and this is NOT sour grapes) is that neither of these teams - OZ or England - are really all that good, particularly when you compare them to the 2005 versions. This OZ team had a good batting lineup that choked in the key moments, and an attack that was only balanced with five bowlers, not four. The absence of Clark imbalanced our pacers, but his inclusion means that we can't play a spinner and have to rely on part timers bowling half trackers.
The England team had a pedestrian (apart from Strauss) batting lineup and a bunch of honest triers as a bowling attack, who managed to seize the opportunity to fire at crucial times. There was such a seesaw in momentum - the OZ dominated the 1st Test, the Poms the 2nd and 3rd bar the last day, the OZ the 4th Test, and England the 5th. It's been enthralling cricket in that sense, and has basically turned out how I've predicted (not in the sense of OZ losing, I actually had OZ 2-1 before the series) but in the sense that this OZ team doesn't have the consistency that previous teams had - when we're good we're really good, when we're bad we're shlthouse and as bad as any team going around. If you wanted to compare, previous Australian squads probably had a deviation in performance like this:
----good performance
----bad performance
And now we have:
----good performance
----bad performance
When we're good we're a match for anyone, when we're bad we're REALLY bad.
I think questions will be, and have been, asked of Dubya's captaincy after this, considering we managed to snatch defeat after only requiring a draw in the fifth Test due to a pathetic batting collapse. That said, I think he led as well as could have given the personnel - he wasn't to blame for the batsmen giving their wickets away at Lords and the Oval, and he couldn't be blamed for the fact that Stu Clark wasn't picked for key matches and when he was picked (aside from Headingley) it was on a pitch that he ultimately was useless for (the Oval). Hindsight (and Warney) will crucify Dubya and the selectors (who are the real decisionmakers) for not picking Horroritz, but I think they can be forgiven for misreading the pitch - the Poms misread it too otherwise they would have picked two spinners.
Also, Dubya made some boneheaded decisions in 2005 but I thought he showed creditable captaincy here. His real failure was an inability to lead from the front with the bat. I can see him staying on, winning the Ashes back next year, leading us to the WC in 2011, and then gracefully retiring, because by then Michael Clarke will be ready. Right now Dubya is still our best batsman.
As for England, if Bambi can show the same form he did at the Oval going forward he may have a decent claim to being mini-Flingtoff. The bowling attack is workmanlike rather than spectacular, particularly with the departure of Flingtoff it loses a lot of its aura. Their batting, if you include Kevinder at 4, looks pretty solid. Trott looks like another typical hard-bitten Seffrican - calm, solid and of good temperament. He may yet end up batting at first drop eventually. With Strauss, Trott, Collywobble and Kevinder - keeping in mind we need to see how Trott goes overseas, but to get a debut ton in a must-win Test under the microscope shows that he's got a bit of mongrel in him - they have the makings of a really solid batting lineup.
Anyway disappointed in the result but can't really complain as while we dominated the stats, we didn't dominate the moments that mattered and were genuinely outplayed during those key moments. Well played to the Pommies and we will see you Down Under next year!
- Status