Trans-Tasman Trophy (NZ in Australia), December 2011/12

[War]

How does Bollinger deserve to be in the team, let alone spearhead?

Because outside of Ryan Harris, since the Lee/Clark spearhead combo went off the scene in mid/late 2008. Bollinger is the only AUS fast-bowler to lead the attack on the level of a spearhead consistently series -by-series over an extended period.

There is an abundance of pace bowlers performing significantly better than him at the moment.

Geez that first-class season is barely four (4) games in which Bollinger missed most of those games due to Australia ODI/T20 commitments and the Champions League with NSW.

Plus its not as if Bollinger needs to prove anything in FC cricket by blazing through batting line-ups to prove that he is test standard or that he can lead AUS attack.

He already did from Adelaide 2009 - Mohali 2010 competently before he was ridiculously dropped after the Ashes Adelaide test and before the selectors started coming up with dumb excuses about his fitness which resulted in him not making the SRI tour.

Interestingly enough, when you take away Bollinger's statistics against Pakistan, New Zealand and the West Indies (the same teams you used to discredit Hauritz' performance when he was in the team), Bollinger averages 42.75 with the ball. Perform the same analysis for Hauritz, he averages 41.07.

Ha what?. What kind of crazy stats picking is this. Plus the performances of Bollinger and Hauritz is against those same teams is totally incomparable because as a new-ball bowler and a spinner, respectively, they have different roles in the team.

Yes Bollinger for the aforementioned period only played against low-level teams post 2009 Ashes when he came into the side. But against those same low-level team the other major fast-bowlers in Johnson and Siddle was struggling to be consistent - while Bollinger stood up.

When Shane Warne was ripping through joke English batting in the 90s, nobody took shots at him for that - rather they realized it was bowler of extreme talent in operation. Same thing applies to Bollinger during the set period, but of a lesser extent.

Plus Bollinger showed in Mohali test vs India after a year bowling to low-level teams that, that he could lead the attack against a high quality opposition.

Hauritz case is totally different. He consistently failed between MCG 08 - IND 2010, to do the job of basic test standard spinner, which is to be a wicket-taking threat in the fourth innings or turning pitches vs good or poor batting teams. Except for when he took wickets versus a PAK side was in turmoil due to corruptive elements going on with PAK cricket throughout 2010.

The Indian's hit him out of test cricket and he is where is belongs now - which is far away from the AUS test setup.

----------

^And Hilfenhaus has better returns than Doug this season, so if anyone's coming back it's him. I personally don't see the Bollinger hype, he's a Siddle level bowler in my eyes. If he got consistent movement back into the lefties, then yes he might be something special, but 95% of the time I've seen him bowl he hasn't (marginally better than Johnson's 99% of the time ).

Siddle level bowler?. Ha I would love for you to show me which period outside that 08/09 tour S Africa, where Siddle has ever put together a consecutive very good series performances at any point of this career. Compared to what Bollinger did from WI 09 - IND 2010.

Same thing applies for Johnson. That aforementioned period from Bollinger is better than any point of Johnson career except his 6 test hiatus vs SA 08/09 home/away.

 

[sifter132]

Because outside of Ryan Harris, since the Lee/Clark spearhead combo went off the scene in mid/late 2008. Bollinger is the only AUS fast-bowler to lead the attack on the level of a spearhead consistently series -by-series over an extended period.

That's pretty optimistic. Doug's played 12 Tests - just 12! And he's played a full series only 3 times (vs pak 09/10 (3 Tests), vs nz 09/10 (3 Tests), vs Pak '10 (2 Tests). That's not series by series over and extended period. Besides, in those 3 series he was not the 'spearhead'. I'm defining spearhead as: a) taking the most wickets, and b) bowling the most overs, because as a spearhead the captain will be turning to you more often to get wickets.

So let's see how Doug's record stacks up as a spearhead...
*Vs Pak 09/10 Siddle and Johnson bowled more overs, and Johnson took as many wickets as Doug (12 each).
*vs Nz 09/10, Johnson took as many wickets and bowled more overs.
*And in 2010 vs Pak, Hilf and Johnson bowled more overs than Doug, and Hilf took more wickets. I'm not seeing "a spearhead consistently series -by-series over an extended period" in that record at all.

He had 2 very productive Tests filling in for Hilfenhaus vs WI, and yet Johnson took 13 wickets in those 2 Tests as well, just as Bollinger did. And that one Test against India showed promise, but again Johnson took 5 wickets that match like Bollinger. And Johnson bowled more overs (yes partly because Doug broke down at the end , but I would guess Mitch still would have ended up with more). I can't find Doug as a spearhead ANYWHERE.

He had good productivity in those 10 matches sure, but as Num has mentioned it was hardly against the world's best batting sides, so it's hard to say that his record in those 10 matches should carry a lot of weight.

Geez that first-class season is barely four (4) games in which Bollinger missed most of those games due to Australia ODI/T20 commitments and the Champions League with NSW.

Plus its not as if Bollinger needs to prove anything in FC cricket by blazing through batting line-ups to prove that he is test standard or that he can lead AUS attack.

He already did from Adelaide 2009 - Mohali 2010 competently before he was ridiculously dropped after the Ashes Adelaide test and before the selectors started coming up with dumb excuses about his fitness which resulted in him not making the SRI tour.

I'll agree that he's been poorly treated and not given the correct avenues to come back. He needed to be on that Australia A tour of Zimbabwe to give him some first class bowling.

Siddle level bowler?. Ha I would love for you to show me which period outside that 08/09 tour S Africa, where Siddle has ever put together a consecutive very good series performances at any point of this career. Compared to what Bollinger did from WI 09 - IND 2010.

Same thing applies for Johnson. That aforementioned period from Bollinger is better than any point of Johnson career except his 6 test hiatus vs SA 08/09 home/away.

Well I just have for Johnson in the first part - he took as many wickets as Bollinger in that WI 09/10 - Ind 10 period and those are the best 10 games of Bollinger's life. Siddle, no, but I think Siddle is pretty pedestrian. Good trier but nothing special. These 3 guys are your standard support bowlers IMHO - Johnson and Bollinger have teased that they have more, but Bollinger won't improve his fitness much now he's over 30 and Johnson doesn't handle the responsibilities of spearheading very well and is too hot and cold to be any more than a 3rd bowler. If Harris and Cummins can take the first 2 spots in the attack, one of Johnson/Siddle/Bollinger should round it out. I think Johnson's got the most of those 3 personally.

 

[War]

That's pretty optimistic. Doug's played 12 Tests - just 12! And he's played a full series only 3 times (vs pak 09/10 (3 Tests), vs nz 09/10 (3 Tests), vs Pak '10 (2 Tests). That's not series by series over and extended period.

And so what if he only played 12 test!. Ryan Harris has only played 8 and since his match winning bowling effort in Perth Ashes test, everyone in AUS has been refering to him as AUS spearhead. So really you people need to stop.

Besides, in those 3 series he was not the 'spearhead'. I'm defining spearhead as: a) taking the most wickets, and b) bowling the most overs, because as a spearhead the captain will be turning to you more often to get wickets.

Generically this is is what should happen, but no captain is that robotic. Every test match situation is different and a captain may chose to bowl his spearhead in different spells throughout a test.

However its incorrect revisionism to suggest that Bollinger was not AUS clear spearhead for a year up to when he last played tests. Going into the 2010/11 Ashes, he was universally seen as AUS best bowler for over a year and his axing for that Brisbane test was seen as madness:


http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/1993294-post121.html

Ugh, that would be depressing. Bollinger has the best Test record out of anyone in the squad. He should play if he's physically fit. If anyone deserves the backing of the selectors, it's Doug, not North or Hussey or what have you.

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/1993432-post126.html

Bollinger wont be dropped.He most likely isn't fit enough.When fit he'll come straight back in.Siddle isn't a bad replacement either.

lethalhughes added 15 Minutes and 56 Seconds later...

Oh boy I'm shock,I just read this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...23/3074546.htm

Seems like Dougy is convince he is fit and he is left out!!!!If those numbers Dougy has put out in the last few games isn't enough then what has the world gone to.Dougy has easily been our best bowler.I love Siddle but wtf.Selctors gone mad or what.Selectors have given us a classic example of what to do selection wise to make a team slide down the ranking, there's very few selections they've made thats been logical and this one is no exeption.Even though selectors love a bowler so much surely they've got to respect top performance.Dougy has done all ask of him performance wise.

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/1993520-post131.html

I wouldn't mind it so much if they had a stronger value system. How can you drop your best bowler on such an ambiguous matter as match fitness (especially when he has actually played a game), but at the same time show unwavering confidence in your worst batsmen? It sends the message that you simply don't know what you're doing.

There is no way that Siddle should be in the team ahead of Bollinger. I think that the whole Australian squad has reduced into petty squabbles tbh.

So let's see how Doug's record stacks up as a spearhead...
*Vs Pak 09/10 Siddle and Johnson bowled more overs, and Johnson took as many wickets as Doug (12 each).

*vs Nz 09/10, Johnson took as many wickets and bowled more overs.

*And in 2010 vs Pak, Hilf and Johnson bowled more overs than Doug, and Hilf took more wickets. I'm not seeing "a spearhead consistently series -by-series over an extended period" in that record at all.

This series vs PAK in ENG was the only two test during that year when Doug didn't bowl well, which can happen to any bowler.

However he was back to his best during that Mohali test vs IND leading the attack as spearhead.

Otherwise i'm sorry my friend but i dont know what you were watching during Bollinger's 12 test, if you didn't see a bowler who was head a shoulders above his peers. Only Hilfenhaus who was complimented Doug during that period as the swing-bowling/workhorse was bowling anywhere close to as good as him.

He had 2 very productive Tests filling in for Hilfenhaus vs WI, and yet Johnson took 13 wickets in those 2 Tests as well, just as Bollinger did. And that one Test against India showed promise, but again Johnson took 5 wickets that match like Bollinger. And Johnson bowled more overs (yes partly because Doug broke down at the end , but I would guess Mitch still would have ended up with more). I can't find Doug as a spearhead ANYWHERE.

After Johnson's disappointing 2009 Ashes, no doubt between Windies 2009 - IND 2010, his bowling was solid. However in my estimation Bollinger most certainly was bowling far more disciplined than him in the set period and was a more trustworthy bowler for Ponting.

He had good productivity in those 10 matches sure, but as Num has mentioned it was hardly against the world's best batting sides, so it's hard to say that his record in those 10 matches should carry a lot of weight.

And as i said before:

When Shane Warne was ripping through joke English batting in the 90s, nobody took shots at him for that - rather they realized it was bowler of extreme talent in operation. Same thing applies to Bollinger during the set period, but of a lesser extent.

I'll agree that he's been poorly treated and not given the correct avenues to come back. He needed to be on that Australia A tour of Zimbabwe to give him some first class bowling.

Yes that tour would have helped. But otherwise he should still be in the team today and looking ahead to the first test vs New Zeland, if Harris is not fit, Bollinger should be in along with Cummins and either Siddle/Copeland.

Well I just have for Johnson in the first part - he took as many wickets as Bollinger in that WI 09/10 - Ind 10 period and those are the best 10 games of Bollinger's life. Siddle, no, but I think Siddle is pretty pedestrian. Good trier but nothing special. These 3 guys are your standard support bowlers IMHO - Johnson and Bollinger have teased that they have more, but Bollinger won't improve his fitness much now he's over 30 and Johnson doesn't handle the responsibilities of spearheading very well and is too hot and cold to be any more than a 3rd bowler. If Harris and Cummins can take the first 2 spots in the attack, one of Johnson/Siddle/Bollinger should round it out. I think Johnson's got the most of those 3 personally.

No way man! Bollinger at his best in tests, never showed the level of inconsistently Johnson has shown in his career since his staring series' vs SA 08/09 home and away.

Johnson is the worst of three hands down, i really dont understand how you can seriously suggest otherwise.

Plus Bollinger doesn't have fitness issues that is overly serious. That's is the idiotic reasoning the selectors gave at the time for not picking for the Brisbane Ashes tests, after he got injured in the test in IND. That IND test injury was simply due to him rushing back from playing in the Champions League final and they maintained that crap for not including him in the test squad for Sri Lanka.

His fitness is far more stable than Harris mind you, who is AUS crocked version of Bond, Flintoff, Cairns, Schultz, Akhtar. Bollinger is far more likely to play through a full test series than Harris ever could ATM and Harris is universally seen as AUS spearhead, so that is not a creditable critique. That is Andrew Hilditch talking.

 

[angryangy]

I also happen to think that the concept of a spearhead is rubbish sentimentalism. It's like calling someone "world class". You can argue about it for hours because it doesn't mean anything.

 

[War]

I also happen to think that the concept of a spearhead is rubbish sentimentalism. It's like calling someone "world class". You can argue about it for hours because it doesn't mean anything.

*spillsjuicejpg* Ha what?

Spearhead is just a more eloquent way of saying leading, best bowler - which every team generally always has. I don't see how it be "rubbish sentimentalism" and why anyone would have to argue over hours if for eg i suggest Steyn, Anderson, Gul, Khan, Edwards, Malinga (ODIs) are the current spearhead fast bowlers of those nations.


Anyway presuming Watson and Harris are ruled out of the 1st test, the best best XI IMO would be:

Hughes
Warner
Khawaja
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Johnson/Bollinger
Siddle
Cummins
Copeland

I think with Watson out its not the best idea to play 3 quicks + Lyon although its NZ. Thus i'd be inclined to play 4 quicks.

Preferably Katich could be recalled, but that wont happen. So lets see what Warner is made of in tests.

While if Bollinger can be fit and bowl well in NSW FC match on Nov 25-28th before the 1st test, id pick him.

 

[aussie1st]

Might as well rest Watson especially if Warner kills it in the A game. Was hoping to blood Wade but looks like Haddin saved his ass and probably Paine's one as well. And if Cutting kills it in the A game then I'd get him in there too.

 

[sifter132]

Ah a long reply, I shouldn't have expected any less Here's my return of serve...

And so what if he only played 12 test!. Ryan Harris has only played 8 and since his match winning bowling effort in Perth Ashes test, everyone in AUS has been refering to him as AUS spearhead. So really you people need to stop.

Yes 8 Tests is nothing, but no one has been saying that Harris has been a consistent series-by-series spearhead like you said of Bollinger. Harris has been great when he's played, but consistent spearhead would be wrong.

However its incorrect revisionism to suggest that Bollinger was not AUS clear spearhead for a year up to when he last played tests. Going into the 2010/11 Ashes, he was universally seen as AUS best bowler for over a year and his axing for that Brisbane test was seen as madness

I like the quotes from forum members But just because he was unlucky to be dropped does not mean he was the 'clear spearhead'. I've already shown that Johnson took as many wickets as Bollinger in the previous 12 months - not at quite as good a rate, but Ponting turned to Johnson more frequently. Johnson was rated higher on the ICC rankings and Johnson was seen to be the key bowler in the Ashes lead up chatter eg. this article with Mickey Arthur (Johnson the key to Ashes) Arthur says there about Johnson, "He's the one out-and-out strike bowler that Australia have." So no, Doug was NOT universally seen as the best AUS bowler prior to the Ashes...

Plus, dropping Bollinger was a GOOD CALL. He was left out in Brisbane for Siddle because he hadn't had a decent bowl since he was injured. Those fears proved to be accurate in Adelaide where he looked terrible: unfit, underdone and unthreatening. Good God, could Hilditch have done something right for once?? Perhaps since then he's deserved a recall, but that's another issue.

Otherwise i'm sorry my friend but i dont know what you were watching during Bollinger's 12 test, if you didn't see a bowler who was head a shoulders above his peers. Only Hilfenhaus who was complimented Doug during that period as the swing-bowling/workhorse was bowling anywhere close to as good as him.

I saw a guy who managed to take quite a few tail end scalps, induced a higher than usual amount of false shots and couldn't be relied on to move the ball, just getting random movement. I dunno but that sounds a lot like Mitch Johnson...Oh and he was a momentum bowler, some spells were fiery others were flat. Like Peter Siddle. I did not see a guy who I thought was head and shoulders above everyone else. I saw a guy having a productive summer, generally running in hard and doing well. But nothing special - not the saviour for Australia's bowling attack.

No way man! Bollinger at his best in tests, never showed the level of inconsistently Johnson has shown in his career since his staring series' vs SA 08/09 home and away.

One of the reasons for that is his opponents. Pick the 10 easiest matches for our bowling attack in the last 5 years and most of Bollinger's Tests would be on that list. It's a bit easier to be consistent when you are bowling at WI, Pak and NZ, generally in good bowling conditions.

And yes, Johnson's inconsistent. Thanks for pointing that out, I was wondering what it was about him...

After Johnson's disappointing 2009 Ashes, no doubt between Windies 2009 - IND 2010, his bowling was solid. However in my estimation Bollinger most certainly was bowling far more disciplined than him in the set period and was a more trustworthy bowler for Ponting.

Bollinger has the better average of the 2 over that year by a few runs definitely, but if Ponting really rated Bollinger that highly above his other bowlers, I think he might have bowled more. If not, then there's only one reason for it...(see next point)

Plus Bollinger doesn't have fitness issues that is overly serious. That's is the idiotic reasoning the selectors gave at the time for not picking for the Brisbane Ashes tests, after he got injured in the test in IND. That IND test injury was simply due to him rushing back from playing in the Champions League final and they maintained that crap for not including him in the test squad for Sri Lanka.

I wasn't really talking about his injury proneness, I'm talking about his in match fitness. His ability to bowl long spells and an ability to keep his speeds up late in the day. That could be why Ponting didn't bowl him as much, because he wasn't as fit as the others. And that fitness is what I was referring to when I said it's unlikely to improve now he's past 30.

It's a definite weakness in his case. Think for example, if Australia's attack this summer was Harris, Cummins, Watson, Bollinger and Lyon. Harris and Watson have proven to be injury prone and wouldn't want to be overbowled by Clarke. Cummins hasn't built up his 5 day fitness yet, which was mentioned a couple of times in the match report of the last Test, and also wouldn't want to be overbowled. Lyon hasn't really been trusted much to bowl long spells thus far. In that case your other bowler should be a very fit workhorse bowler, like Johnson/Siddle/Copeland. Bollinger would not be a good fit for that role given what I've seen of his fitness levels.

Johnson is the worst of three hands down, i really dont understand how you can seriously suggest otherwise.

Each to their own sir, each to their own. And yes I am seriously suggesting it (thanks for the back hand...). Like I said further up this post, with my bowling scout eyes on I haven't seen anything mind blowing from Bollinger (good, but not special). Nor anything mind blowing on the stat sheet, where Johnson has taken as many wickets as Bollinger in games where they've played together - in both Tests and ODIs (49 wickets each in their 11 Tests together, and in their 22 ODIs together Johnson has 39 wickets to Doug's 36, at 0.2 RPO lower than Doug) Sure Johnson's been ineffective recently, but Doug's hardly been carving it up either (for other reasons I know, but it's not like Doug's banging down the door with a stream of 5fers).

The other thing going for Johnson over Doug is batting and fielding, Mitch kinda won us a Test last night with the bat and has a lot of potential in that area. Doug would do a good job in the right attack, but I think Johnson potentially offers more if he can get it right. My opinion.

 

[sifter132]

And...now that War and I have kinda hijacked the thread I'll get it back on track

The fact that Australia won, and the performance of Ponting, Haddin and Johnson with the bat in that 2nd innings will give Inverarity pause before putting a red line through them. Another factor crossing the mind: I think Arthur is a bit of a Mitch fan, so with Arthur now a selector that might see Johnson's run extended. The 2nd day he tried the short run was much better than his first (1/24 off 13 overs vs 0/77 off 17 overs), so maybe that improvement might be enough to keep him in the team.

I read Nathan Bracken the other day saying that a rotation policy for the quicks wouldn't be a bad thing, and I kinda agree. Harris and Cummins are the 2 best at present, but need to be managed and with so many reasonable pace bowlers around: Johnson, Siddle, Copeland, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, Cutting, Starc, Pattinson etc. I think giving them a Test off every now and then wouldn't be the worst thing.

Forecast for the 'A' game this weekend in Brisbane is a bit patchy, which is no good for either side. Kiwis would want some good cricket, and the 'A' guys would be keen to show what they can do against internationals. Hopefully the weather is clear for most of it.

 

[aussie1st]

If Johnson is picked based on his runs then that will do me. He averaged 50 in SL and 80 in SA in the thing he is being picked for. If runs from a bowler are that important then SOK really should be in the side already. I would have said this would have been a good test on if Authur will be picking favourites but he only has 1/5 of the say.

 

[swacker]

There's been a lot of apology for Ponting, and I guess he deserves it to a great range. I think he deserves a valediction test, that's about it. There is a place for opinion, but I feel like Australia has stretched it lately to Ponting and in particular to Johnson. Personally, I believe he deserves at least the NZ series as a farewell. (One commenter on the cricinfo commentary said he felt Johnson wasn't getting enough support... truly?)

I think Australia still have enough experience in the team to go forward with. If they're that worries about experience they could compromise somewhat and bring Bollinger back, whose test record is pretty great and has had some bad luck bowling on dead pitches in his last few games.

 

[VC the slogger]

New Zealand don't seem to be favourites.They probably haven't won a test series against a proper test playing nation since the retirements of Nathan Astle,Chris Cairns and Stephen Fleming.They have good players who underperform regularly.If they have to win,batsmen like Ryder,Taylor,Guptill and Williamson and bowlers like Southee,Martin and newbie Trent Boult need to perform well consistently.

 

[VC the slogger]

This should be the ideal line-up:
1-M.Guptill
2-J.Ryder
3-R.Taylor
4-K.Williamson
5-BJ.Watling/Brownlie
6-B.McCullum(wk)
7-D.Vettori
8-D.Bracewell
9-T.Southee
10-T.Boult
11-C.Martin

 

[CG123]

This should be the ideal line-up:
1-M.Guptill
2-J.Ryder
3-R.Taylor
4-K.Williamson
5-BJ.Watling/Brownlie
6-B.McCullum(wk)
7-D.Vettori
8-D.Bracewell
9-T.Southee
10-T.Boult
11-C.Martin

McCullum doesn't keep anymore in tests, he now opens the batting, and Ryder doesn't open in tests, he bats in the middle order.

Our line-up will be:

1. M. Guptill
2. B. McCullum
3. K. Williamson
4. R. Taylor
5. J. Ryder
6. D. Brownlie/D. Vettori
7. R. Young
8. D. Vettori/T. Boult
9. D. Bracewell
10. T. Southee
11. C. Martin

From what I've read over the last day or so, the only position of uncertainty is whether they'll play Brownlie (batsman) or Boult (bowler).

 

[VC the slogger]

Then I don't think NZ stand a chance winning this series..Ryder at no3 is fine .McCullum doesn't score consistently against top teams.They should have dropped him and got James Franklin for the tests.He is a useful bowler too and would strenghten the bowling attack as well.Its good to have one wk batsman in the team instead of two

 

[CG123]

Then I don't think NZ stand a chance winning this series..Ryder at no3 is fine .McCullum doesn't score consistently against top teams.They should have dropped him and got James Franklin for the tests.He is a useful bowler too and would strenghten the bowling attack as well.Its good to have one wk batsman in the team instead of two

Ryder's always batted at five in tests, so I'm not sure why you'd move him up to three. Williamson's a three by nature, so the sensible option is to bat him there.

James Franklin's crap, I have no idea why you want him ahead of McCullum who averages over 50 opening the batting. Franklin's been giving so many opportunities, and sadly he's just another one of our long line of players who dominate at the domestic level but are found out easily at the highest level (test cricket).

I'd also obviously prefer it if McCullum still kept in tests, but at the end of the day I don't think there's much difference between Reece Young down the order and a random opener instead of McCullum who'll normally fail.

FTR since Franklin made his test comeback in 2008 as a "batting all-rounder", he's averaged 20 with the bat and 126 with the ball!