SA Footy

In Adelaide we couldn't make 250 on a road, so we drop a frontline batsman and bring in a all rounder, Haddin most likely to move to 6. We cant blame the bowlers when we only give them mediocre targets to bowl at. This was a perfect oppurtunity to blood one of our young guns at 6 in Ferg or Usman. Also Hughes dosn't deserve his spot, and they arn't keen on S.Marsh on opening then Hussey should move to the top. We have to make 450 in our 1st innings to have a chance.

What is the better line up

Watson
M.Hussey
Ponting
Usman
Clarke
Fergusson
Haddin

Watson
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Smith
I like the first one

It's cause we need two wins and a draw to get the ashes back.
Need to take 40 wickets over two tests.

The Cadet wrote:In Adelaide we couldn't make 250 on a road, so we drop a frontline batsman and bring in a all rounder, Haddin most likely to move to 6. We cant blame the bowlers when we only give them mediocre targets to bowl at. This was a perfect oppurtunity to blood one of our young guns at 6 in Ferg or Usman. Also Hughes dosn't deserve his spot, and they arn't keen on S.Marsh on opening then Hussey should move to the top. We have to make 450 in our 1st innings to have a chance.

What is the better line up

Watson
M.Hussey
Ponting
Usman
Clarke
Fergusson
Haddin

Watson
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Smith
I like the first one

5/1000 and we can't blame the bowlers?

regards,

REB

Yeah we havnt bowled well. But we are 1 - nill down because of our batsman have failed. Englands attack is the worst they have had for some time. If you cant draw at Adelaide and keep the series alive , then dont blame the bowlers.

The Cadet wrote:Yeah we havnt bowled well. But we are 1 - nill down because of our batsman have failed. Englands attack is the worst they have had for some time. If you cant draw at Adelaide and keep the series alive , then dont blame the bowlers.

Um...it's 1 all if we bowl them out in Brisbane. And if we bowled them out for 300 then make it's 2-0 or 1-1 at worse. The wicket at Adelaide was not the road that many have made it out to be. Second and Third days were good for batting but how about a spin bowler who can make use of the footmarks. Swan did and DOHerty couldn't.

England's attack the worst they have fielded for some time? You've got to be kidding that is the worst cricket related comment I have ever read from you!


regards,

REB

The Cadet wrote:Yeah we havnt bowled well. But we are 1 - nill down because of our batsman have failed. Englands attack is the worst they have had for some time. If you cant draw at Adelaide and keep the series alive , then dont blame the bowlers.

englands worst attack for some time?? thats a big call mate! what you'd take giles over swan? or harmy over broad or finn? i believe its a very honest attack, spear headed by anderson and have always looked like taken a wicket as a group.

We didn't drop a batsman, we dropped North didn't we?

Lightning McQueen wrote:We didn't drop a batsman, we dropped North didn't we?

gold. True we are not losing anything dropping that joker

2010/11 Attack

Anderson
Broad
Finn
Swann
Collingwood

2009
Anderson
Flintoff
Onions/Harmison
Swann

2007/8
Hoggard
Harminson
Anderson/Mahmmood
Flintoff
Giles/Panesar

2005
Harmison
Hoggard
Flintoff
Jones
Giles

All pretty similar attacks reb, 2005 there best. Broad has talent but is over rated at this stage. Anderson has only just come good. Yes they have the best spinner in the world, but him alone shouldn't beat us.

The Cadet wrote:2010/11 Attack

Anderson
Broad
Finn
Swann
Collingwood

2009
Anderson
Flintoff
Onions/Harmison
Swann

2007/8
Hoggard
Harminson
Anderson/Mahmmood
Flintoff
Giles/Panesar

2005
Harmison
Hoggard
Flintoff
Jones
Giles

All pretty similar attacks reb, 2005 there best. Broad has talent but is over rated at this stage. Anderson has only just come good. Yes they have the best spinner in the world, but him alone shouldn't beat us.

Where's he gone since 2009?

carey wrote:

The Cadet wrote:Yeah we havnt bowled well. But we are 1 - nill down because of our batsman have failed. Englands attack is the worst they have had for some time. If you cant draw at Adelaide and keep the series alive , then dont blame the bowlers.

englands worst attack for some time?? thats a big call mate! what you'd take giles over swan? or harmy over broad or finn? i believe its a very honest attack, spear headed by anderson and have always looked like taken a wicket as a group.

Plus from memory they took 20 wickets at Adelaide, something we (Australia) havent even got close to

Lightning McQueen wrote:We didn't drop a batsman, we dropped North didn't we?

Just dropped our better performing spinner LOL.

The Cadet wrote:2010/11 Attack

Anderson
Broad
Finn
Swann
Collingwood

2009
Anderson
Flintoff
Onions/Harmison
Swann

2007/8
Hoggard
Harminson
Anderson/Mahmmood
Flintoff
Giles/Panesar

2005
Harmison
Hoggard
Flintoff
Jones
Giles

All pretty similar attacks reb, 2005 there best. Broad has talent but is over rated at this stage. Anderson has only just come good. Yes they have the best spinner in the world, but him alone shouldn't beat us.

You might call them ordinary, but we're shocking in comparison and that's what matters.

locky801 wrote:

carey wrote:

The Cadet wrote:Yeah we havnt bowled well. But we are 1 - nill down because of our batsman have failed. Englands attack is the worst they have had for some time. If you cant draw at Adelaide and keep the series alive , then dont blame the bowlers.

englands worst attack for some time?? thats a big call mate! what you'd take giles over swan? or harmy over broad or finn? i believe its a very honest attack, spear headed by anderson and have always looked like taken a wicket as a group.

Plus from memory they took 20 wickets at Adelaide, something we (Australia) havent even got close to

So why don't we strengthen our batting instead of weakening it. It's easier to take 20 wickets with runs on the board.

you can make 1000 runs in the first innings, if you cant bowl them out, whats the point? We can make 245 again in the first innings of the next test, and if we bowl well are a chance of winning. Sure, runs are important, but if you cant take 20 wickets, the best result you can get is a draw

If we made 450 in our 1st innings it would of been a draw. If we could of shown a bit of grit in the second innings it would of been a draw. Gutless, spinless performance by our batsman. If we held our catches we would of had them 2/20, and if we had made a decent score maybe the presssure would of been on for longer. Instead our quicks were bowliing with 1 slip for the majority of the Test.

pafc1870 wrote:you can make 1000 runs in the first innings, if you cant bowl them out, whats the point? We can make 245 again in the first innings of the next test, and if we bowl well are a chance of winning. Sure, runs are important, but if you cant take 20 wickets, the best result you can get is a draw

I know the circumstances are slightly different in today's game, and Ian Chappell had Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson at his disposal, but he always aimed for 300 runs with the bat, anything more was a bonus and often unnecessary.

Okay, our batting was poor in the Adelaide Test but that still doesn't excuse the fact that our attack was unable to bowl a consistent line and, even worse, a constant length. At one time Bollinger pitched the ball in the perfect spot to Pietersen, about 6 metres from the crease and moving across him. The ball had Pietersen floundering, it beat him completely. I said, "Yes!! that's the spot Dougie, keep it there". The next ball, instead of concentrating on the spot and slightly varying the line, Doug pounds one in short, Pietersen rocks onto the back foot and smashes it through mid wicket for 4.

Variety is all very well, but sometimes you need to strive for a constant line and length, tie a batsman down and force him into error. Our bowlers never did that. For the entire innings it was one pitched up outside off, a short on, one down the leg side, another short one, then one over the top of the batman's head, followed up by one 2 feet outside off tto be smashed for 4.

As for that stuff Doherty calls bowling, WTF was that??!! When you're trying to bowl that rubbish, you cannot waiver from a consistent line and length, otherwise you are cannon fodder. However, for some reason he manages to bowl 2 poop balls each over. That's parklands stuff.

Siddle gets a hat trick bowling a fuller length and forcing batsmen to play in an area they feel uncertain. Since then, all he's done is bowl short. As for Johnson ... disgraceful. Ricky should be shot for allowing them to keep doing it, and the bowling coach should be sacked.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

pafc1870 wrote:you can make 1000 runs in the first innings, if you cant bowl them out, whats the point? We can make 245 again in the first innings of the next test, and if we bowl well are a chance of winning. Sure, runs are important, but if you cant take 20 wickets, the best result you can get is a draw

I know the circumstances are slightly different in today's game, and Ian Chappell had Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson at his disposal, but he always aimed for 300 runs with the bat, anything more was a bonus and often unnecessary.

Okay, our batting was poor in the Adelaide Test but that still doesn't excuse the fact that our attack was unable to bowl a consistent line and, even worse, a constant length. At one time Bollinger pitched the ball in the perfect spot to Pietersen, about 6 metres from the crease and moving across him. The ball had Pietersen floundering, it beat him completely. I said, "Yes!! that's the spot Dougie, keep it there". The next ball, instead of concentrating on the spot and slightly varying the line, Doug pounds one in short, Pietersen rocks onto the back foot and smashes it through mid wicket for 4.

Variety is all very well, but sometimes you need to strive for a constant line and length, tie a batsman down and force him into error. Our bowlers never did that. For the entire innings it was one pitched up outside off, a short on, one down the leg side, another short one, then one over the top of the batman's head, followed up by one 2 feet outside off tto be smashed for 4.

As for that stuff Doherty calls bowling, WTF was that??!! When you're trying to bowl that rubbish, you cannot waiver from a consistent line and length, otherwise you are cannon fodder. However, for some reason he manages to bowl 2 poop balls each over. That's parklands stuff.

Siddle gets a hat trick bowling a fuller length and forcing batsmen to play in an area they feel uncertain. Since then, all he's done is bowl short. As for Johnson ... disgraceful. Ricky should be shot for allowing them to keep doing it, and the bowling coach should be sacked.

Well said Hawk... I completely agree. When we used to be in trouble, we resorted to bowling McGrath who tied things down at one end and made the batsman play rash strokes either at McGrath or the bowler at the other end. If we bowl haphazardly at both ends, what's forcing the errors - mistakes? At that level mistakes happen rarely where there isn't any pressure.

At least the Poms are compiling pressure against us by bowling line and length consistently.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

pafc1870 wrote:you can make 1000 runs in the first innings, if you cant bowl them out, whats the point? We can make 245 again in the first innings of the next test, and if we bowl well are a chance of winning. Sure, runs are important, but if you cant take 20 wickets, the best result you can get is a draw

I know the circumstances are slightly different in today's game, and Ian Chappell had Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson at his disposal, but he always aimed for 300 runs with the bat, anything more was a bonus and often unnecessary.

Okay, our batting was poor in the Adelaide Test but that still doesn't excuse the fact that our attack was unable to bowl a consistent line and, even worse, a constant length. At one time Bollinger pitched the ball in the perfect spot to Pietersen, about 6 metres from the crease and moving across him. The ball had Pietersen floundering, it beat him completely. I said, "Yes!! that's the spot Dougie, keep it there". The next ball, instead of concentrating on the spot and slightly varying the line, Doug pounds one in short, Pietersen rocks onto the back foot and smashes it through mid wicket for 4.

Variety is all very well, but sometimes you need to strive for a constant line and length, tie a batsman down and force him into error. Our bowlers never did that. For the entire innings it was one pitched up outside off, a short on, one down the leg side, another short one, then one over the top of the batman's head, followed up by one 2 feet outside off tto be smashed for 4.

As for that stuff Doherty calls bowling, WTF was that??!! When you're trying to bowl that rubbish, you cannot waiver from a consistent line and length, otherwise you are cannon fodder. However, for some reason he manages to bowl 2 poop balls each over. That's parklands stuff.

Siddle gets a hat trick bowling a fuller length and forcing batsmen to play in an area they feel uncertain. Since then, all he's done is bowl short. As for Johnson ... disgraceful. Ricky should be shot for allowing them to keep doing it, and the bowling coach should be sacked.

I wish you were captain!

regards,

REB

Interesting article in the paper today saying the revolving door of bowlers is causing bowlers to bowl for themselves rather than work in partnerships.