-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
IanG said:
Poor form.
Regardless of the situation, how can you really go for the opposition?
Ian4 said:
Astounding logic isnt it? Looks like they'll drop Siddle 1 test after taking a hat trick and a 6 for for 2 blokes that were dropped for the last test. And because Johnson was bowling well in the nets! The selection panel of Jamie Cox, David Boon Hilditch and Chappell.....ship o fools!
tigertim said:
I hope Siddle is not dropped. He was average in Adelaide, but 6-for is like a 100+ and you certainly wouldn't drop a batsman one test after a century - unless your name is Brad Hodge. Johnson has no confidence - and I reckon he prefers bowling to right handers. It's a long wait to get to 'em these days!
tigertim said:
Staggering. Johnson's poor form over the past year or so has been completely forgotten and apparently will magically turn around via a strong net session after missing just one game. The powers that be have no idea.
Certainly a gutsy choice by the selectors if Johnson plays.
Harris was the best bowler in Adelaide so stays.
Hilfy is rightly a moral to come in. The brickie is ideally suited to bowling into the doctor keeping things dry. Its a hard thankless task but his strength & the way the breeze will help his outswing means he'll rightly be included for the role. It will enable the other pacemen to operate down wind where they are suited.
Depends on the pitch if Beer comes in.
If he does it then comes down to Siddle & Johnson. Certainly a gutsy call to include the latter. No doubt not playing him in the shield was the right thing. Whether he's sorted his technical issues out is the big question. Have to be a query on it but he does love the WACA.
If they are going to take the punt on him Siddle is the correct choice to go. Has conceded over 200 runs since his last wicket & despite a monster 1st innings in Brisbane on a helpful deck is still averaging over 44 in the series. Navy's said for a long time he needs to generate more movement either in the air or off the seam to be a long term international cricketer. That still stands.
Harris was the best bowler in Adelaide so stays.
Hilfy is rightly a moral to come in. The brickie is ideally suited to bowling into the doctor keeping things dry. Its a hard thankless task but his strength & the way the breeze will help his outswing means he'll rightly be included for the role. It will enable the other pacemen to operate down wind where they are suited.
Depends on the pitch if Beer comes in.
If he does it then comes down to Siddle & Johnson. Certainly a gutsy call to include the latter. No doubt not playing him in the shield was the right thing. Whether he's sorted his technical issues out is the big question. Have to be a query on it but he does love the WACA.
If they are going to take the punt on him Siddle is the correct choice to go. Has conceded over 200 runs since his last wicket & despite a monster 1st innings in Brisbane on a helpful deck is still averaging over 44 in the series. Navy's said for a long time he needs to generate more movement either in the air or off the seam to be a long term international cricketer. That still stands.
So Siddle should be dropped 1 test after taking 6 for for 2 guys that were deemed not good enough for the last test. For blokes that could barely take a wicket between them when they did play? The only reason Hilfy and Johnson havent gone for 200 runs since their last wicket is because there weren't good enough to get a game in the last test!
As a footy analogy it's like dropping a forward in rd 3 who kicked 10 goals in rd 1 ( and none in rd 2) for someone who couldnt get a game in rd 2 and kicked 1 goal in rd 1. Illogical.
It's like dropping Hussey if he fails in the Perth test for the Boxing day test.
It's time for the selectors to stay calm and stop chopping and chaging. They gave North and Hussey far too long to regain form but Hauritz, Doherty, Siddle, Hilfy dont get the same opportunities. And Beer will follow in their footsteps.
As a footy analogy it's like dropping a forward in rd 3 who kicked 10 goals in rd 1 ( and none in rd 2) for someone who couldnt get a game in rd 2 and kicked 1 goal in rd 1. Illogical.
It's like dropping Hussey if he fails in the Perth test for the Boxing day test.
It's time for the selectors to stay calm and stop chopping and chaging. They gave North and Hussey far too long to regain form but Hauritz, Doherty, Siddle, Hilfy dont get the same opportunities. And Beer will follow in their footsteps.
Bowlers are rightly treated differently to batsmen. They are completely different crafts with vastly different variables.
Surely youve seen enough cricket for navy not to have to explain it to you.
Also could you point out where navy said Siddle should be dropped. Cheers.
Surely youve seen enough cricket for navy not to have to explain it to you.
Also could you point out where navy said Siddle should be dropped. Cheers.
Navy Days said:
Can't agree on Johnson not playing in the Shield. Should have played at least as a means to regain form. Bowling in the nets is completely different. And the players get plenty of rest between matches. Siddle's form in Brisbane should entitel him to play in Perth regardless of any bowlers for courses philosophy. As Phil points out, Johnson's poor form is not a sudden occurrence.
Selectors will take a horses for courses with the quicks
Johnson has a good record in Perth while Siddle is I think poor and the selectors will want a left arm variation in Perth.
Siddle will play in Melbourne where he has had success with Harris unlikely to play 3 weeks in a row and maybe forced out of boxing day test.
Johnson has a good record in Perth while Siddle is I think poor and the selectors will want a left arm variation in Perth.
Siddle will play in Melbourne where he has had success with Harris unlikely to play 3 weeks in a row and maybe forced out of boxing day test.
jb03 said:
Johnsons form is caused by his technique. Nothing else. Continually playing without fixing the latter will mean no progress is ever made.
Also have a hunch that a lot of Johnson ills are caused by him listening to too many people. The shield is not the right place for him right now.
Australia employ a full time bowling coach. He is the man to work the hours necessary with Johnson to rectify his issues. If he cant maybe he's not the right man for the job, that doesnt mean the process is wrong.
Whether he has had enough time to fix things is the question (none of us know the answer until Thursday), not whether he should have played in the shield INO.
Navy Days said:
I appreciate that that is your opinion but will have to disagree with a majority of what you wrote. If he has technique problems as you allude to then playing in the Shield is the place to find out whether it has been recitified, not in a must win Ashes test.
Thats fair. It would be the safe option waiting longer & playing him in the shield first. Because playing him in test cricket now there is a risk no question at all.
Navy's main arguement is that having him have extended time with the bowling coach in the nets is currently the right remedy for him. Not getting him straight back into the shield as some out there suggest.
Maybe they think they have him right & because in fact it is a must win test they dont see the point in waiting til the series is over.
Or maybe because WA's next shield game is against Tasmania they dont want him to lose confidence further.
Navy's main arguement is that having him have extended time with the bowling coach in the nets is currently the right remedy for him. Not getting him straight back into the shield as some out there suggest.
Maybe they think they have him right & because in fact it is a must win test they dont see the point in waiting til the series is over.
Or maybe because WA's next shield game is against Tasmania they dont want him to lose confidence further.
jb03 said:
Agree. The problem with nets is that technique needs to stand up to three clips through mid wicket for four. Technique needs to be demonstrated in the arena not the nets.
Hilfy and Johnson were less penetrating than Siddle in Bris - and as said elsewhere, hilfy and Johnson did not get the opportunity to bowl on the road in Adelaide, unlike Siddle.
I believe, unfortunately for Australia's test prospects, Johnson has been greatly overrated by our selectors. perhaps getting the tick of approval from the great DK early on is still ringing in the selectors' ears.
He is a bowler who, even when his action was better, rarely swung the ball in the air. He got a lot of his wickets from blokes chasing wide deliveries which were nicked into the cordon. Batsmen the world over have cottoned onto this. They leave his wide stuff. They make him bowl to them. When he gets too straight, he is easy pickings. And as we know, his radar is all over the place. I don't even think he knows where the next ball is going to be bowled.
We saw with Brett Lee that sheer pace isn't enough to intimidate the best batsmen in the world. Get it in the right areas and do just enough with the ball to leave the batsmen always guessing. Johnson doesn't do it, and IMO except for a few glorious weeks in South Africa, he never has, and I will be surprised if he will. Sure, he will have the odd good innings here and there, but they will be exceptions IMO.
If the selectors are still thinking that our future bowling attack will be built around him, we won't be getting better any time soon IMO.
(Just re-read this and realised I may have overdone the IMOs, IMO!)
He is a bowler who, even when his action was better, rarely swung the ball in the air. He got a lot of his wickets from blokes chasing wide deliveries which were nicked into the cordon. Batsmen the world over have cottoned onto this. They leave his wide stuff. They make him bowl to them. When he gets too straight, he is easy pickings. And as we know, his radar is all over the place. I don't even think he knows where the next ball is going to be bowled.
We saw with Brett Lee that sheer pace isn't enough to intimidate the best batsmen in the world. Get it in the right areas and do just enough with the ball to leave the batsmen always guessing. Johnson doesn't do it, and IMO except for a few glorious weeks in South Africa, he never has, and I will be surprised if he will. Sure, he will have the odd good innings here and there, but they will be exceptions IMO.
If the selectors are still thinking that our future bowling attack will be built around him, we won't be getting better any time soon IMO.
(Just re-read this and realised I may have overdone the IMOs, IMO!)
Some fair points Phil.
Whilst never a big mover of the ball as you say, & because of his action he'll also never be able to bring the ball back into the RH batsman, at his best Johnson did have the ability to leave the right hander in the air. Combined with his pace this was enough to cause problems.
Whilst never a big mover of the ball as you say, & because of his action he'll also never be able to bring the ball back into the RH batsman, at his best Johnson did have the ability to leave the right hander in the air. Combined with his pace this was enough to cause problems.
jb03 said:
Think he can be a player in time. Has height which is a massive asset to a bowler.
But isnt strong enough in the body yet to get through multiple spells.
