Jan 3-7: 5th Test: Australia v England at Sydney

[angryangy]

I think Bresnan was at least a little lucky with the reverse swing, in that the sooner the ball wears to the point it can reverse, the more of an advantage it is. Both balls in Melbourne and in Sydney had a big gash on them; they didn't just reverse, they reversed when practically new. There are times when bowlers will say "let's bang it into the pitch and see if we can scuff it up", but these times it seemed if there was a process, it was "let's bowl bad to Watson and hope he smashes the ball into something".

Of course, it's clever if they meant it, but you'd think all bowlers would be reverse swinging it through Sehwag all the time by now.

 

[lethalhughes]

The longer the denial the greater the damage to the future of Australian cricket. Someone needs to get Watson scoring hundreds. Find a suitable opener to partner him, a new captain, a spinner (even if he doesn't play every test), a couple of pace bowlers to support Siddle, who imo, should be leading the attack for years to come. Some new batsman to come through, Hussey is nearing the end of his career, as is Ponting, if he continues his career, which I think he will. They didn't prepare for losing the players that they have done, though I think Haddin has done a good job with the gloves and bat, but that's 1 of 11...

Also, try not to make daft decisions like playing a number 8 bits and pieces player at 6! It's like Australia are turning in to England of 10 years ago.

If Siddle is the one to lead our attack we're in big trouble.Are people aware Siddle averages over 30 with the ball in that series and overall too?Bollinger andd Harris are the 2 best bowlers in Australia and Copeland the best swing bowler currently in Australia.We should be thinking of an attack comprising of these 3.If Harris isn't fit or can't stay fit we are in big trouble.Johnson ,Siddle ,Hilfenhaus are just not good enough.A case can be made for retaining Johnson in the squad but Siddle and Hilfenhaus need to work on their games,one is a one trick pony who sends the ball down outside off without much thought,the other has limited to no tricks , doesn't move the ball and runs hot and cold.Don't make Siddle's hat trick and his spell in the 4th test fool you the guy has a lot I mean a lot of work to do.I believe he can develop though but Copeland is a more complete bowler than Siddle.

 

[Ollie_H]

Of course, it's clever if they meant it, but you'd think all bowlers would be reverse swinging it through Sehwag all the time by now.

Sky pointed something very good out about the way the ball was swinging. Whilst you can also put it down to the fact there were 'gashes' (not that I saw these) but there was also a massive difference between the way the ball was maintained by either side. With England there was CLEAR rough side and an incredibly shiny side which allowed the ball to swing more and also reverse earlier, the difference between the two sides of the ball was huge. Then they showed the Aussie ball and it was shiny on both sides and was overall completely different.

I'm pretty sure that the way England worked on the ball was very methodical to the extent that I think only a few players are actually allowed to shine the ball (Colly was chief shiner) whilst Australia just seemed to go with it.

 

[aussie1st]

I'm pretty sure that the way England worked on the ball was very methodical to the extent that I think only a few players are actually allowed to shine the ball (Colly was chief shiner) whilst Australia just seemed to go with it.

Just shows how much more organised the English were. The big problem for Australia is Johnson, the way he bowls means the ball is hitting both sides and hence it is very hard to keep one side shiny. Then you have Siddle bowling too short which is asking to be hit by the batsmen.

 

[Sureshot]

If Siddle is the one to lead our attack we're in big trouble.Are people aware Siddle averages over 30 with the ball in that series and overall too?Bollinger andd Harris are the 2 best bowlers in Australia and Copeland the best swing bowler currently in Australia.We should be thinking of an attack comprising of these 3.If Harris isn't fit or can't stay fit we are in big trouble.Johnson ,Siddle ,Hilfenhaus are just not good enough.A case can be made for retaining Johnson in the squad but Siddle and Hilfenhaus need to work on their games,one is a one trick pony who sends the ball down outside off without much thought,the other has limited to no tricks , doesn't move the ball and runs hot and cold.Don't make Siddle's hat trick and his spell in the 4th test fool you the guy has a lot I mean a lot of work to do.I believe he can develop though but Copeland is a more complete bowler than Siddle.

Harris is too injury prone to have him lead your attack, I'm unconvinced by Bollinger, even if he was unfit in the series.

Not saying Siddle is the perfect bowler, he has a lot to do as you say, but your whole team has, you have to rebuild for 2-3 years down the line, I think Siddle could have the kind of temperament that means in 2-3 years he's helping the blood in the young bowlers. Siddle has many non-technical qualities that'll make him a strong contender for big improvements.

 

[Sureshot]

Am I the only one that thinks Johnson needs a really good mentor? I'd say McGrath, but I doubt he'd be interested from what I heard of him in the Sky box. Maybe Lee?

 

[War]

If Siddle is the one to lead our attack we're in big trouble.Are people aware Siddle averages over 30 with the ball in that series and overall too?Bollinger andd Harris are the 2 best bowlers in Australia and Copeland the best swing bowler currently in Australia.We should be thinking of an attack comprising of these 3.If Harris isn't fit or can't stay fit we are in big trouble.Johnson ,Siddle ,Hilfenhaus are just not good enough.A case can be made for retaining Johnson in the squad but Siddle and Hilfenhaus need to work on their games,one is a one trick pony who sends the ball down outside off without much thought,the other has limited to no tricks , doesn't move the ball and runs hot and cold.Don't make Siddle's hat trick and his spell in the 4th test fool you the guy has a lot I mean a lot of work to do.I believe he can develop though but Copeland is a more complete bowler than Siddle.

Indeed. As Ian Chappell cricinfo article couple weeks ago mentioned in Siddle, Hilfy, Johnson AUS had a set of 1st change bowlers & no out & out attack leader. Which is why it was the flop of the series that Bolllinger was doing the job of leading the attack all year since the 2009 Ashes, barely played 1 test.

----------

Harris is too injury prone to have him lead your attack, I'm unconvinced by Bollinger, even if he was unfit in the series.

Well all those injuries that Bond, Akhtar & Cairns, Flintoff, Gough had during their careers didn't have stop them from being attack leaders the times they did stay fit.

Plus id be interested to know what about Bollinger in the last year bowling before he played the adelaide test clearly not 100% would have made you unconvinced about him.

 

[RoboRocks]

Indeed. As Ian Chappell cricinfo article couple weeks ago mentioned in Siddle, Hilfy, Johnson AUS had a set of 1st change bowlers & no out & out attack leader. Which is why it was the flop of the series that Bolllinger was doing the job of leading the attack all year since the 2009 Ashes, barely played 1 test.

I never been convinced by Bollinger either. I saw him play for Worcestershire in 2007 and never looked like getting too many.

 

[War]

Just shows how much more organised the English were. The big problem for Australia is Johnson, the way he bowls means the ball is hitting both sides and hence it is very hard to keep one side shiny. Then you have Siddle bowling too short which is asking to be hit by the batsmen.

Hmmm im not sure if have one bowler like Johnson who keeps hitting both sides of the ball really prevented the ball from swinging reverse or conventionally for AUS.

Since for ENG, Broad & Finn dont exactly have upright seams when they bowled early in the series. Tremlett & Bresnan did however.

AUS just didn't have no-one shinning the ball for them when it got older as Cook did for ENG during this series. Which for modern day cricket is pretty stupid.

----------

I never been convinced by Bollinger either. I saw him play for Worcestershire in 2007 and never looked like getting too many.

Thats a bit unfair i'd say. That would almost be like comparing Anderson of Ashes 2006/07 & Anderson now. Plus i dont think Bollinger played much games @ Worcestershite in 07 for anyone to make any kind of proper judgement on him.

Bollinger in the last year while Steyn was obviously the best quick in the world & Aamir was proving to young fast-bowling find of the world. Bollinger was right up their in that period with performances along with Zaheer, Anderson, Morkel, Asif.

 

[lethalhughes]

I never been convinced by Bollinger either. I saw him play for Worcestershire in 2007 and never looked like getting too many.

Yes but thats in 2007, the guy is a much much better bowler now.Selectors should have been more eager to bring Bollinger back in the team.How does he get overlook for Hilfenhaus?Another great question is that how does a guy average around 70 with about 6 wickets and ends up playing all 5 test?Selectors indeed have no idea.

Yes very true statement-Hilfy,Johnson and Siddle are all first change seamers.We certainly can't afford both in our attack ,let alone all 3.If they really had it in them we would have seen enough improvement by them.I mean they've been in the team for a while now.Its time to see what Copeland or Pattinson has to offer.Surely a new bowling talent will be introduce to the team next series.Its not like we're short of replacements,there is also Cameron,Hazelwood.We need to be bold in this crisis we are in and look outside the box.Its insane to try the same things and expect different results.Siddle,Johnson and Hilfy have had a big enough sample of matches to see what they really are made of (decent bowlers at best,none have killer punch,Johnson on his day has it but man he strikes 2 times a year).Bollinger has impress in the little he has played,so there's no way he can be place in that bracket.I know Hilditch wants to believe there was nothing wrong with the selections, but indeed the results says otherwise.No comment on the spinner scenario because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who the spinner in our team should be.

 

[aussie1st]

Hmmm im not sure if have one bowler like Johnson who keeps hitting both sides of the ball really prevented the ball from swinging reverse or conventionally for AUS.

Since for ENG, Broad & Finn dont exactly have upright seams when they bowled early in the series. Tremlett & Bresnan did however.

If you have one bowler that is roughing both sides of the ball then you are going to get a lot less reverse or convectional swing. It is aerodynamics and no amount of shinning is going to change that. It means the reverse swing will come a lot later in the ball's life and last for a shorter amount of time. You chuck Johnson into the English attack for the 5th Ashes test and you certainly wouldn't have seen the reverse swing the English were getting in the 2nd innings.

 

[War]

If you have one bowler that is roughing both sides of the ball then you are going to get a lot less reverse or convectional swing. It is aerodynamics and no amount of shinning is going to change that. It means the reverse swing will come a lot later and last for a shorter amount of time. You chuck Johnson into the English attack for the 5th Ashes test and you certainly wouldn't have seen the reverse swing the English were getting in the 2nd innings.

I dont know, its interesting. ENG had a spinner in Swann bowling who would have roughed up the side where Cook was shinning. Plus i think back to the 2005 Ashes when ENG also had Giles & Harmo (who never had an upright seam) & Jones & Flintoff still got in reversing & Hoggard always swung it conventionally.

Do you remember any AUS fielder during this series shinning the ball like what Cook was doing for ENG?

 

[aussie1st]

I dont know, its interesting. ENG had a spinner in Swann bowling who would have roughed up the side where Cook was shinning. Plus i think back to the 2005 Ashes when ENG also had Giles & Harmo (who never had an upright seam) & Jones & Flintoff still got in reversing & Hoggard always swung it conventionally.

It's not so much about keeping the ball upright, that is only needed when you are trying to swing or get seam movement. As long as you are landing the ball on the side you want then you will be able to get the asymmetry between the two sides. The majority of bowlers are able to do this but Johnson is vastly different and it's common knowledge as the commentators have mentioned in the past that Johnson has no idea which side the ball is landing and hence makes it difficult to keep one side shiny. Spinners bowl alot slower so there impact on the ball would be a lot less compared to a Johnson.

As for who was shinning the ball, I didn't pay attention but I highly doubt that they would have no one doing it. The reason everyone is harping on about Cook shinning the ball is because he sweats the less of the players and hence his hand will be the driest.

 

[Sureshot]

Also helps that the England bowlers have been hitting the seam more and it's also been hit less by the batsman, England have been a lot more aggressive with the bat in the top order.

 

[midgetwars]

The difference was the bowling. Remember people complaining about no spinner in MCG. Well there was one in SCG, no difference.

Selectors: Forced Changes. Not even other changes for the "dead rubber". They did an excellent job the slectors to screw Australia over.