Australia in England - 2009 Ashes Tour

[valvolux]

hauritz is pretty ordinary...i mean look at his first class stats...never taken a 5 for. but he is fairly accurate from what ive seen...but absolutely no variation....so the english would attack him...forcing him out of the attack...and the sole reason he would be picked is to just give the quicks a rest, he isnt a true wicket taking option....so its a waste of time which im hoping is obvious to the selectors. Id squeeze lee in as the 4th quick in his place (or even better Hilfy, but i cant see that happening). unless england do prepare ridiculous pinning wickets, theres no reason to pick him, im guessing they will leave him out and rely on clarke, katich and north...which really isnt a bad combination of slow bowlers at all. katich is dam good hey, as is clark if the surface is offering a little....easily as useful as panesar. north is pretty tidy as well, but i can see him fetching a few balls over the boundary. this allows 4 pacemen which im dead certain england would prefer not to face...because all the aussie quicks except lee are pretty dam accurate and will go well in english conditions. likewise im sure the aussie batsmen would prefer to face 3 quicks and 2 spinners on turning decks, because we have some pretty decent players of spin. I reckon england would be digging their own grave not giving their quicks some assistance...because the likes of broad and anderson will be cannon fodder unless they get some assistance. you take hauritz out of todays game and all the no balls...and its a pretty tight performance.

the pecking order has to be johnson,siddle, clark, lee then hilfy....although id take hilfy over lee anyday because you simply cant go after him with the new ball or youll get out, but he does lose a bit of zip when the shine goes off the ball, but who knows, maybe cooley has taught him how to reverse it. lee is just straight and fast all the time and is easy to bash...gets no swing (that he can control anyway) and no movement off the seam...when he does bowl a good ball 9 times out of 10 its a no ball...hes just plain rubbish. i just hate lee, hes like a pressure relief valve for the opposition. but punter definately has some manly love for the guy which is a worry. if we do go with hauritz...and lee in the same game, we will lose. our selectors are moronic, especially merv, so i wouldnt be suprised.

 

[sifter132]

^Mate welcome to the Lee hating club - you'll fit in well :

I could launch my passionate Lee defence (15 months ago he's the Allan Border medallist - but 1 bad series in India - where EVERYONE went crap, 2 Tests v SA where he bowled with a broken foot and 2 bad T20 games and suddenly he's crap???), but I'll save y'all that for the moment. Whoops, how did that slip in...

I'll just say that if we picked Johnson, Siddle and Clark I'd be a bit worried because there is no swinger of the ball there. Siddle and Clark are 'hit the deck' bowlers who rarely swing it and you never know what Mitch will do or not. That was our problem last time, the England boys were moving it reverse all over the place, but we had McGrath, Gillespie and Kasper who aren't big swingers of the ball (Kasper can a bit, but he ruined it by bowling trollop). So I think Lee or Hilfy must be picked for balance so we have someone to move the new ball and reverse swing the old one. Lee has to be ahead here (whether you guys like it or not). He's got more experience and is very handy with bat too. Hilfy would have to bowl really well to supplant Lee and I don't think he managed that yesterday.

So here's how I'd line up the bowlers:
8. Johnson
9. Lee/Hilfenhaus
10. Siddle/Clark/Hauritz
11. Siddle/Clark/Hauritz

If the pitch looks like turning, it would be tough on Siddle or Clark to miss out after today's bowling effort, but I think if Watson can come back strongly next match he could play as pace bowler #4 allowing Hauritz to play. On a spinning deck I still think he'll be more useful than he showed today and he'll definitely be tempting all the Poms to try to slog him after today's efforts. Might play right into his hands like it did for Krejza on his debut.

 

[valvolux]

Ive always disliked the inconsistency of lee.....he just seems to leak runs at the exact moment we dont need him to....in all forms of cricket. i totally disagree with you saying that lee should be included because he can swing it......sure he does sometimes get massive swing with the new ball, but he simply cant control it. he generally has these massive outswingers that start a metre outside off and finish at first slip...he has no inswinger to speak of. then after 2 overs the swing disappears...by which time hes already lost his line and length cause he cant swing it..then he gets battered. there was a period where he was pretty consistent...but that period is gone...hes injured...hes old...and hes nothing the english havent seen and dominated before. Clark on the other hand has dominated the english as well as other fine batting lineups...he like mcgrath will do just enough and will get wickets at a very cheap price...he will do a job everytime and will be a menace at lords much like McGrath. Its about building pressure and maintaining it, something which Lee cant do as a strike bowler....which is why he is here. when everyone was injured he put together some good tests against the lankans by not letting it rip...but hes here to let rip...we already have johnson, we dont need lee. plus siddle can let it rip as well, just with a heck more accuracy.

siddle hits the deck hard for sure, but he certainly can swing the nut. he naturally brings the ball into the right hander and hilfy naturally moves it away...would be a great combination. lee should only play as a fourth seemer...theres no room for him if we go with 3. i would be tempted to put in hilfy cause he has probably the best outswinger in world cricket and is an unknown quantity...but I dont think they will do it, because they need someone like Clark building pressure and for some reason punter has his pecker up bings backside!

 

[aussie1st]

I'll just say that if we picked Johnson, Siddle and Clark I'd be a bit worried because there is no swinger of the ball there. Siddle and Clark are 'hit the deck' bowlers who rarely swing it and you never know what Mitch will do or not. That was our problem last time, the England boys were moving it reverse all over the place, but we had McGrath, Gillespie and Kasper who aren't big swingers of the ball (Kasper can a bit, but he ruined it by bowling trollop). So I think Lee or Hilfy must be picked for balance so we have someone to move the new ball and reverse swing the old one. Lee has to be ahead here (whether you guys like it or not). He's got more experience and is very handy with bat too. Hilfy would have to bowl really well to supplant Lee and I don't think he managed that yesterday.

Is Lee even swinging the ball though? He failed to get it going during the last Ashes series with the Duke balls. So really the only swing bowler we have is Hilfy which means he is a must to provide variation.

Hauritz will need to take some wickets in the 2nd inns to put his name in the frame as right now its too hard to leave out 2 of Clark, Siddle, Lee, Hilfy.

 

[irottev]

Hauritz will be fine. England probably won't alook to attack him to that extent. Second innings is when spinners should be judged. Ponting bowled him too much i'd say. The seamers all did a good job. I think this aussie bowling line-up is pretty well rounded. I think Australia will win the ashes, I think it could be really closwe and exciting though, I really can't wait for it to start.

 

[Left_Hander]

I'll just say that if we picked Johnson, Siddle and Clark I'd be a bit worried because there is no swinger of the ball there. Siddle and Clark are 'hit the deck' bowlers who rarely swing it and you never know what Mitch will do or not.

Mitch has that angle across the right hander which is a bit like a swinging ball. The batsmen feels like he has to play away from his body when he bowls it a bit wider.

 

[aussie1st]

Johnson actually got some sort of swing in SA i.e. ball moving into the right handers. So I guess if hes swinging the ball then we aren't as desperate for a swing bowler.

 

[angryangy]

Swing can be handy, but more often it mesmerises pundits more than batsmen. You don't want a swing bowler if he's a liability when it doesn't swing.

angryangy added 12 Minutes and 6 Seconds later...

After Katers played 17 balls for 0 last night, the innings he's played today has come out of nowhere.

 

[aussie1st]

Hes overtaken Hughes who was ahead overnight. Looks to be business as usual now after the stutter on the first day.

 

[spaga1994]

and know hughes is on 68 not out at lunch and ponting on 16 of 31 balls 1/136 were doing pretty good

 

[angryangy]

When you see Ponting play an innings like this, you think he must throw away a few innings due to boredom.

 

[iridescentt]

Down on one knee, Phillip Hughes square drives | Cricket Photo | Cricinfo.com

^^ Is that apart of the new Kookaburra range or something ?

 

[angryangy]

It looks like it's got Blade stickers on it.

 

[sifter132]

Ive always disliked the inconsistency of lee.....he just seems to leak runs at the exact moment we dont need him to....in all forms of cricket. i totally disagree with you saying that lee should be included because he can swing it......sure he does sometimes get massive swing with the new ball, but he simply cant control it. he generally has these massive outswingers that start a metre outside off and finish at first slip...he has no inswinger to speak of. then after 2 overs the swing disappears...by which time hes already lost his line and length cause he cant swing it..then he gets battered. there was a period where he was pretty consistent...but that period is gone...hes injured...hes old...and hes nothing the english havent seen and dominated before. Clark on the other hand has dominated the english as well as other fine batting lineups...he like mcgrath will do just enough and will get wickets at a very cheap price...he will do a job everytime and will be a menace at lords much like McGrath. Its about building pressure and maintaining it, something which Lee cant do as a strike bowler....which is why he is here. when everyone was injured he put together some good tests against the lankans by not letting it rip...but hes here to let rip...we already have johnson, we dont need lee. plus siddle can let it rip as well, just with a heck more accuracy.

You make him sound like a club cricketer. Those 3 Sussex boys he got out the other day should be embarrassed.

OK brace yourself for the "Lee defence"

Lee always gets crap for his record in England, but let's look at 2005. He took a quite respectable 20 wickets - expensive wickets sure, but that was always going to be his role, pace and intimidation. The battleplan allowed for Warne, McGrath and probably Gillespie to keep a lid on the scoring to allow Lee free reign to attack during his spells. But the plan was screwed when McGrath missed 2 Tests and looked innocuous in a 3rd and when their 4th bowler combination of Kasper/Gillespie bowled atrociously (they took a mere 7 wickets between them in 5 Tests at about 4.6 RPO - truly awful).


How about some recent figures? Here are the series played by Lee in the last year-year and a half and how he did compared to fellow old guy and much lauded in this forum - Stuart Clark, and for reference, with golden boy Mitch Johnson in each:

in India - Lee 4 Tests, 8 wickets, avg 61.62 (Lee had virus and lost a lot of weight)
in India - Clark 2 Tests, 2 wickets, avg 80.50 (Clark was injured for one Test, but dropped for extra spinner in the other)
in India - Johnson 4 Tests, 13 wickets, avg 40.07
Johnson>Lee>Clark

v NZ - Lee 2 Tests, 12 wickets, avg 21.83
v NZ - Clark 2 Tests, 7 wickets, avg 23.85
v NZ - Johnson 2 Tests, 14 wickets, avg 11.00
Johnson>Lee>Clark

v SA - Lee 2 Tests, 1 wicket, avg 249 (spent 2nd Test bowling purely to break the bone in his foot. First Test took just 1 wkt, but went at only 2.75 RPO)
v SA - Clark DNP - Injured
v SA - Johnson 3 Tests, 17 wickets, avg 25.88
Johnson>Both

Go back further in WI last May/June:
Lee 3 Tests, 18 wickets, avg 23.72
Clark 3 Tests, 13 wickets, avg 19.30
Johnson 3 Tests, 10 wickets, avg 34.70
I'll call it a tie, Both>Johnson

v India in summer of 07/08:
Lee 4 Tests, 24 wickets, avg 22.58
Clark 4 Tests, 14 wickets, avg 28.21
Johnson 4 Tests, 16 wickets, avg 33.12
Lee>Both

v SL in summer of 07/08:
Lee 2 Tests, 16 wickets, avg 17.56
Clark 2 Tests, 7 wickets, avg 36.57
Johnson 2 Tests, 8 wickets, avg 30.12
Lee>Johnson>Clark


That shows me the last time Stuart Clark actually outperformed Brett Lee in a series would have been 2.5 years ago in the 06/07 Ashes where Clark took 26 wickets @ 17.03 and Lee took 20 wickets @ 33.20. Yet Stuart Clark is much loved and Brett Lee is crap. Don't talk about fitness, both bowlers struggled last year when they weren't fit, Lee with his weight loss and stress fractured foot and Clark with his rickety elbow. The only thing I can base it on is a shoddy 3 over spell against Chris Gayle. And if a couple of overs of T20 ever starts guiding who we select for Tests, I hope I'm not around to see it...

 

[Skater]

As far as I'm concerned I thought Brett Lee was very good in 2005, with both bat and ball.