Aus vs SL - Test 1

[No4918]

Ed Cowan
David Warner
Phil Hughes
Shane Watson
Michael Clarke (c)
Michael Hussey
Matthew Wade
Peter Siddle
Mitchell Starc
Nathan Lyon
Ben Hilfenhaus
Mitchell Johnson (12th man)

Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/australia/michael-clarke-names-mitchell-johnson-as-the-12th-man-for-the-hobart-test-against-sri-lanka/story-fn2mcu3x-1226535993830#ixzz2EtqbGYFz

Johnson is probably unlucky after being the best in Perth. Starc was ahead of him though for the first 2 tests so i don't mind his inclusion. Hifenhaus is probably the right choice if he can swing the ball but it must have been close. If not, Johnson has to be a chance in Melbourne where the conditions will be better for the batsmen and Hilfy plodding in while out of form is not going to take wickets.

 

[Sully]

Pretty bad batting lineup

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Torn Hammy]

I don't like Warner as a test opener. Why not have Hughes and Cowan opening and then Warner.

 

[The Red Baron]

I'm also a bit worried about our batting order. Our top 4 is pretty ordinary. At least 2 of these guys really need to have a big series with the bat, otherwise we are really going to have troubles come the ashes.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well, we won the toss and will bat.

Let's hope our top order does well.

All four of them need runs.

 

[The Red Baron]

Well, Clarke's declaration has turned out to be a pearler. Ian Chappell and Mark Taylor would be having orgasms at the moment. I would bet that Clarke was having some second thoughts though during the Dilshan-Mathews partnership though.

I would expect the top order to go pretty hard, pile on the runs where they can, and declare somewhere between lunch and tea tomorrow. That would give them ample time to get Sri Lanka out, weather permitting.

It is a stark contrast to the England-India game. The Indians have lost the plot, and the poms always play for the draw. I would much prefer a skipper declare and play for a win.

 

[No4918]

I'm not sold on the declaration and think he'd like an extra 70-80 lead. The pitch is on the slide and scoring won't be easy for either team but hanging in is possible. With Hilfy out he will be wanting to get into them not long after tea and earlier if possible. Would not like to defend less than 350 and with many batsmen playing for positions i don't think many will be throwing there wickets away to get another couple hundred in a hurry.

Could be Adelaide all over again.

 

[The Red Baron]

I'm not sold on the declaration and think he'd like an extra 70-80 lead. The pitch is on the slide and scoring won't be easy for either team but hanging in is possible. With Hilfy out he will be wanting to get into them not long after tea and earlier if possible. Would not like to defend less than 350 and with many batsmen playing for positions i don't think many will be throwing there wickets away to get another couple hundred in a hurry.

Could be Adelaide all over again.

These are the risks you take when you play for the win.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It was a very aggressive declaration and in the end Clarke has been vindicated. It caught everyone by surprise and that's a good thing. I wasn't so sure about it and would have preferred another 50-75 runs on the board, but getting those four wickets last night made Clarke look like a genius.

Hilfy breaking down is a huge blow, however. When is someone in Australian cricket going to step and take some responsibility for what is now an epidemic of fast bowling injuries? It's just about the best resourced and funded sport in Australia and we can't manage to get our first choice team out on the paddock pretty much at all any more. It's ordinary for mine.

 

[Lindommer]

Cowan and Warner have passed 100. Let's hope this gives them the confidence to go on and become a good, stable opening pair.

 

[No4918]

Finally get a win which was not looking 50-50 half way through the day.

Concerns going forward:
1. Let's all hope Clarke is fit for Boxing Day. I think he is likely, would have preferred he did not take the field today to recover if he was really that bad.
2. Finding bowlers that can consistently bowl out sides twice. We were a fast man down but had Watson to make up for it where we did not in Adelaide. Lyon.... mmmm.... i don't think he is ever going to win us a test outside the subcontinent. Anyone else ready?

 

[mark_s]

Lyon will rarely be a match winner for us, but he is doing pretty well. his bowling numbers compare favourably to bruce yardley's, probably the best of the modern day Aus off spinners, and harbhajan singh. His numbers are better than Vettori's which surprised me.

As for the fast bowlers, bloody hell. Starc has been patchy, Siddle good and everyone else injured. OUr pace attack was meant to be our trump card this year.

This sri lankan team is pretty weak though. We should win 3 nil even if Clarke misses the next two tests.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think Lyon has been pretty good. My complaint today would be that he didn't toss the ball up enough and thus wasn't enough of a threat against batsman who are just trying not to get out.

Having Starc or any left arm pace bowler in the side is important for Lyon. The foot marks created by the left armer offer the spinner so much by the end of the test. If we'd had Starc in Adelaide instead of Hilfenhaus I think the added foot marks would have been enough for Lyon to win the test for us.

Australian pitches generally aren't very favourable for off spinners. Nathan Lyon is definitely the guy and we need to persist with him. He will do well in conditions that suit him.

Starc needs to improve his consistency. At his best he is excellent. His final spell to clean up the tail this afternoon was brilliant. He has the best yorker in the country and genuine pace. A guy his height bowling around 145km/h is pretty lethal if he gets his line and length right. I definitely think having a left armer in the side is crucial.

 

[The Red Baron]

I'm with you on pretty much all of that BH. Lyon is a good spinner, we just need to be patient. He is head and shoulders the best spinning option in the country. I would have also liked to see him toss the ball up, and vary his pace more than he has. Other than that, he is pretty sound.

The good thing about Lyon is that he is economical. Batsmen find it quite hard to put him away. As he matures more and comes to understand his own bowling, he will translate that pressure into wickets. He is never going to bowl a wicket taker every ball, no bowler can. And sometimes bowlers will go wicketless in an innings. Just look at some of the recent India-England tests. In the second innings of the Mumbai test, James Anderson didn't take a wicket. It's not because he was bowling bad, the spinners took all the wickets because the pitch suited them.

Funny thing about our left armed quicks. They just seem to lack consistency. Mitchell Johnson's case is well documented, and Starc has problems with consistency as well. They just seem to be unable to put the ball in the right spot at times.

 

[Torn Hammy]

I'm with you on pretty much all of that BH. Lyon is a good spinner, we just need to be patient. He is head and shoulders the best spinning option in the country. I would have also liked to see him toss the ball up, and vary his pace more than he has. Other than that, he is pretty sound.

The good thing about Lyon is that he is economical. Batsmen find it quite hard to put him away. As he matures more and comes to understand his own bowling, he will translate that pressure into wickets. He is never going to bowl a wicket taker every ball, no bowler can. And sometimes bowlers will go wicketless in an innings. Just look at some of the recent India-England tests. In the second innings of the Mumbai test, James Anderson didn't take a wicket. It's not because he was bowling bad, the spinners took all the wickets because the pitch suited them.

Funny thing about our left armed quicks. They just seem to lack consistency. Mitchell Johnson's case is well documented, and Starc has problems with consistency as well. They just seem to be unable to put the ball in the right spot at times.

I've always thought that if a leftie can't swing the ball into a right hander, they will struggle. Both Starc and Johnson are devastating when they do, but ordinary when they don't. They both should be working hard with McDermott and Waqar.

 

[Braveheart81]

I actually think outswing bowling is harder to play in all situations.

When the ball is coming back in to you it naturally drifts towards your pads.

Most left armers will by default swing the ball back into the right hander. That is generally the stock delivery.

Being able to get the ball to move the other way or even just hold its line is what is likely to find the edge and get the wicket.

Case in point would be Starc's dismissal of Kulasekara yesterday. It was a delivery across his body that was close enough to the stumps that he had to play but held its line so it caught the outside edge and resulted in a caught behind to Wade.

Whichever direction you are swinging it, you certainly need some movement in the air. Unless you're bowling 160km/h, it's not likely to trouble any quality batsman unless the ball is doing something through the air or off the pitch.