SA Footy

I can see it happening...

Australia don't have an international standard spinner, so they either play a substandard player, or... four quicks...

Siddle, Johnson, Harris, Bollinger would be our best four bowlers, and, if for what ever reason they cannot play, then Hilfenhaus, Copeland, Starc, George, Cameron, and Swan, all appear better options than our spin brigade, which is headed by Hauritz. Names like Beer and Doherty should never play Test cricket, and Hauritz appears to be consigned to the spinner's scrapheap, along with so many others recently, depsite his strong returns in the Shield after his demotion.

South Africa have been persisting with Paul Harris, who is comparable with Hauritz, despite Steyn, Morkel, Tsotsebe, Parnell being a better foursome.

Pakistan have Mohammed Asif, Mohammed Amir, Umar Gul, Wahab Riaz and Tanvir Ahmed ahead of Abdur Rehman, and the forgotten Danish Kaneria... Obviously there is a cloud over the first two, because of the spot fixing, but clearly their best four bowlers are all pace bowlers...

India, NZ, and England are all exceptions, as they have Harbhajan, Vettori, and Swann, all international quality spinners, but after those three, it is all quicks.

Not just Australia, it is all countries that are suffering a shortage of quality spin options, so it's either going to see some big scores, as countries play substandard players, or we see four quicks...

Should be interesting...

See, there's the problem. Our four 'quicks' aren't that terrifying. Four quicks might work if they are quality but when you are relying on Bollinger, Hilf and Johnson to knock sides over regularly then you're in strife...which we are. Four quicks only works if they are good quicks because you don't have variety in your attack.

HAURIE MUST PLAY.

FFS get your head out of the sand Punter and Hilditch.

regards,

REB

Media Park wrote:I can see it happening...

Australia don't have an international standard spinner, so they either play a substandard player, or... four quicks...

Siddle, Johnson, Harris, Bollinger would be our best four bowlers, and, if for what ever reason they cannot play, then Hilfenhaus, Copeland, Starc, George, Cameron, and Swan, all appear better options than our spin brigade, which is headed by Hauritz. Names like Beer and Doherty should never play Test cricket, and Hauritz appears to be consigned to the spinner's scrapheap, along with so many others recently, depsite his strong returns in the Shield after his demotion.

South Africa have been persisting with Paul Harris, who is comparable with Hauritz, despite Steyn, Morkel, Tsotsebe, Parnell being a better foursome.

Pakistan have Mohammed Asif, Mohammed Amir, Umar Gul, Wahab Riaz and Tanvir Ahmed ahead of Abdur Rehman, and the forgotten Danish Kaneria... Obviously there is a cloud over the first two, because of the spot fixing, but clearly their best four bowlers are all pace bowlers...

India, NZ, and England are all exceptions, as they have Harbhajan, Vettori, and Swann, all international quality spinners, but after those three, it is all quicks.

Not just Australia, it is all countries that are suffering a shortage of quality spin options, so it's either going to see some big scores, as countries play substandard players, or we see four quicks...

Should be interesting...

There should be a cloud over this bloke too......

Bumping this...

It didn't get much of a response the first time, but...

Lyon is not much chop against the Indians, and our best attack is Harris coming in (although we lose Patto), so possibly even Siddle, Hilf, Harris and Starc.

The Saffers at the moment have Steyn and Morkel the incumbents, with my new favorite international quick Vernon having burst onto the scene. Then they have a choice, play journeyman hack Imran Tahir instead of another burgeoning quick Marchant DeLange, purely to play a spinner.

India, sans Harbhajan, don't have a world class spinner, so Zaheer, Umesh Yadav and Ishant are the best fit three, with Varun Aaron the next best when fit...

Four quicks, the way of the world...

With alot of the pitches that are starting to be produced especially in Aus and SAF i wouldnt be surprised to see more teams play with the 4 quicks.

Im certain if Pattinson wasnt injured the Aussies would have rightly played four quicks against the Indians at the WACA.

Its really a horses for course thing imho if you are playing on a big turning pitch the average spinner then becomes an elite bowler where as if the pitch is flat or not turning the ok spinner becomes as easy as backyard cricket like the Indians are doing to Lyon at the moment.

In Aussies case i wouldnt mind us playing four quicks as i think we under use Clarke as a spinner bowler. He has alot of talent with the ball.

Was just thinking this while reading the SA v SL and the Aussie threads...as they say, everything comes back into style and not just clothes haha...bring back the 80s!!!

whufc wrote:With alot of the pitches that are starting to be produced especially in Aus and SAF i wouldnt be surprised to see more teams play with the 4 quicks.

Im certain if Pattinson wasnt injured the Aussies would have rightly played four quicks against the Indians at the WACA.

Its really a horses for course thing imho if you are playing on a big turning pitch the average spinner then becomes an elite bowler where as if the pitch is flat or not turning the ok spinner becomes as easy as backyard cricket like the Indians are doing to Lyon at the moment.

In Aussies case i wouldnt mind us playing four quicks as i think we under use Clarke as a spinner bowler. He has alot of talent with the ball.

Why cant we still play 4 quicks?
Play Harris and another quick. We could go with Starc or what the heck we are 2-0 up blood another quick. Behrendorf played in the PM's XI recently and bowled well, its his home deck at the WACA. We took a punt with Cummins and Pattinson and look how that has worked, why not blood another kid in a match where he would be under far less pressure

Rik E Boy wrote:See, there's the problem. Our four 'quicks' aren't that terrifying. Four quicks might work if they are quality but when you are relying on Bollinger, Hilf and Johnson to knock sides over regularly then you're in strife...which we are. Four quicks only works if they are good quicks because you don't have variety in your attack.HAURIE MUST PLAY.

FFS get your head out of the sand Punter and Hilditch.

regards,

REB

Still believe this is the case with our attack. Sure, you might have got away with Harris, Pattinson (if not injured), Siddle and Hilfenhaus at the WACA, but nowhere else. All right handers, all quick but not express 140-145kms, all around the same height and not overly tall. Starc at least gives some variety being left handed and tall. (Cutting, Copeland and Cummins all are taller, but would have thought only Cummins might be challenging these four atm if all fit)

Here's another one. Win or draw at WACA gives us the trophy, Adelaide a dead rubber, have a look at the leggie Boyce?

FlyingHigh wrote:Here's another one. Win or draw at WACA gives us the trophy, Adelaide a dead rubber, have a look at the leggie Boyce?

We've got to stop 'having a look' at spinners at test level. The turnstile for slow bowlers is hindering, not assisting in their development. I believe that the expectations placed on the slower bowlers of this country have been unfairly inflated. Face it, we'll never see another Warne. What we are looking for is another Bruce Yardley, Ashley Mallett or Ray Bright. Plenty of these guys in the past had the odd poor series let alone the odd poor test. They would never had learn their craft if they had a - been chucked into 'dead rubbers' so the selectors could have a look and then been discarded for the next series or b - dropped just because of two relatively poor test matches in a row.

I don't believe Hauritz should have been dropped during the Ashes series (although the Poms were pretty happy and surprised about this) and I don't believe that Lyon should be discarded as he looks the most promising of the slows in the post Warne era.

Here's something else to factor in...four quicks means more quick bowling obviously but I also believe it means more overs bowled per quick. Pup and Warner aren't the type of guys who can regularly bowl large amounts of overs. More overs per bowler means more injuries and already

Johnson
Harris
Cummins
Pattinson
Cutting
Watson

have suffered injuries this season. We play a lot more cricket now so I reckon if we go in without a slow bowler we'll get more injuries. It would place additional pressure on the captain who has had back problems in the past. It is for this reason that I feel Lyon is safe.

For those of you promoting the quality of our fast bowling attack I'd still say our fast bowling stocks are very much about potential rather than results at this stage. The majority of our faster bowlers are either young in years or in experience or both. When we can field a four pronged attack equal to Marshall, Holding, Garner and Walsh get back to me on the four quicks idea because folks we are nowhere near that.

Having said all of the above I would not mind if Lyon was rested for a test if it's a greenie in the West but I would not like to see a four quicks attack as a permanent part of our attack. This type of attack will not win the Ashes in my opinion.

regards,

REB

So Jimmy Pattinson has done enough that when he is fit again, he will be straight back in, right?
Old mate Cummo will also be straight back in...

Now if you play Mitchell Starc, and he spuds up again, then he's easy enough to drop.

If Siddle and Hilfy continue to do what they've been doing, then they are not going to be dropped.

Now Lyon is highly unlikely to do anything of note against India, so looking forward to our next Test series, which I believe is April, and the Frank Worrell Trophy, and wouldn't a side with Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Pattinson and Cummins strike a bit of fear into the opposition, especially when you likely have Shane Watson back as the fifth bowler.
Climb back up the rankings.

As impressive as Lyon has been, he should not be in the next Test side, and once he's out, he may struggle to get back in.

Media Park wrote:So Jimmy Pattinson has done enough that when he is fit again, he will be straight back in, right?
Old mate Cummo will also be straight back in...

Now if you play Mitchell Starc, and he spuds up again, then he's easy enough to drop.

If Siddle and Hilfy continue to do what they've been doing, then they are not going to be dropped.

Now Lyon is highly unlikely to do anything of note against India, so looking forward to our next Test series, which I believe is April, and the Frank Worrell Trophy, and wouldn't a side with Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Pattinson and Cummins strike a bit of fear into the opposition, especially when you likely have Shane Watson back as the fifth bowler.
Climb back up the rankings.

As impressive as Lyon has been, he should not be in the next Test side, and once he's out, he may struggle to get back in.

So you won't bowl Lyon because India are too good and you won't bowl Lyon either when we play the Windies who are crap. Doesn't sound like you all that impressed about Lyon to me. So what happens when the Ashes comes around and we've got no spinner? You said a year ago this four quicks era was beginning and since then we've unearthed a slow bowler who has been our best since Warne so the chances of it beginning now are even less. Our captain, who has a history of back problems is not going to sacrifice the versatility of our attack, and possibly remove a vital component of our attack come the Ashes just so he can bowl eight to ten overs in the second innings.

We can climb up the rankings with our without Lyon, but we can't beat England with a four quick attack or by belatedly bringing back Lyon for the Poms series. He'd have no confidence and we can't blast the Poms out.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:Here's another one. Win or draw at WACA gives us the trophy, Adelaide a dead rubber, have a look at the leggie Boyce?

We've got to stop 'having a look' at spinners at test level. The turnstile for slow bowlers is hindering, not assisting in their development. I believe that the expectations placed on the slower bowlers of this country have been unfairly inflated. Face it, we'll never see another Warne. What we are looking for is another Bruce Yardley, Ashley Mallett or Ray Bright. Plenty of these guys in the past had the odd poor series let alone the odd poor test. They would never had learn their craft if they had a - been chucked into 'dead rubbers' so the selectors could have a look and then been discarded for the next series or b - dropped just because of two relatively poor test matches in a row.

I don't believe Hauritz should have been dropped during the Ashes series (although the Poms were pretty happy and surprised about this) and I don't believe that Lyon should be discarded as he looks the most promising of the slows in the post Warne era.

Agree with much of what you are saying there REB. We expect too much of our spin bowlers to come in and dominate straight away. We will never see another Warne, but I do reckon we need to be looking for another MacGill. And Hauritz was starting to show he was comfortable at Test level.
Was only posing it as a question, and never said I'd drop Lyon . Given certain events happening at the WACA re Harris and Marsh, and a hot week leading into the test, our bowling line-up could easily be Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Watson, Lyon and Boyce. Personally I think Boyce would ideally be a couple of years away, but you never know what the selectors are thinking, given the Ashes are 18 months out.

Swann is an overrated hack with a poor Test match record when you take out two series against an infighting West Indies in 2008 and a series against Pakistan when they were an infighting, courtbound rabble. He is good for one innings a series, after that he is cannon fodder just as he was in the Ashes last year. Everyone believed the media hype about him in the Ashes and thought he is a star, he took 5/91 in one innings, but apart from that in the other 9 innings he bowled he took 7/506 at an average of 72. In the series against India in England, where India did their usual away hibernation on pitches that suit Swann, he took 6/106 in one innings, in the other 7 innings he bowled he took 7/423 at an average of 60.

Four quicks would be acceptable in Perth if they trot out an ol' school flyer, but on just about any other surface in the world, I can't believe that anyone would entertain the thought of dropping Lyon.

What has he honestly done wrong? We've won 5 of the 9 Tests he's played in thus far, with the side only losing just 2 of them. Somebody earlier mentioned about looking for another MacGill, well 'Gazza' has a better economy rate than MacGill, and believe it or not, a better strike rate than Sir Warney! Our quicks are our weapon, and the cornerstone for our revival as a Test playing nation, he only needs to play his part, and based on the cold hard facts, you'd have to say he is doing exactly that, plus he's still learning his trade and improving all the time. Gazza will play a lot of Test cricket for Australia in a soon-to-be successful new era.

As for Hauritz, I fully agree he got the rough end of the pineapple and NEVER should have made way for Simon Whitlock, I mean, Xavier Doherty.. It was unfortunate that he popped his shoulder shortly afterwards in the ODI's, and recent indications are he's getting back to his best and finally getting that dip and away shape in his deliveries again. But he's no longer our #1 spin option... Simple as that. Not the first, or last bloke who's career path was hampered by such circumstances.

It's a shame Coulter-Nile isn't up for Test cricket just yet after another injury layoff, because I reckon he'd ruffle a few Indian feathers on his home patch, and in a horses for courses race, I reckon he'd have a bigger impact on the match than Starc at this stage of his career. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

pafc1870 wrote:Swann is an overrated hack with a poor Test match record when you take out two series against an infighting West Indies in 2008 and a series against Pakistan when they were an infighting, courtbound rabble. He is good for one innings a series, after that he is cannon fodder just as he was in the Ashes last year. Everyone believed the media hype about him in the Ashes and thought he is a star, he took 5/91 in one innings, but apart from that in the other 9 innings he bowled he took 7/506 at an average of 72. In the series against India in England, where India did their usual away hibernation on pitches that suit Swann, he took 6/106 in one innings, in the other 7 innings he bowled he took 7/423 at an average of 60.

Everyones averages look worse when you take out their best performances LOL.

regards,

REB

Of course, but if your standard performance is cannon fodder, you are of questionable use to your team until you can become more consistent. You get judged by what you do against the best opposition you can face and Swann has never done anything of note against Australia, India or South Africa.

Rik E Boy wrote:

pafc1870 wrote:Swann is an overrated hack with a poor Test match record when you take out two series against an infighting West Indies in 2008 and a series against Pakistan when they were an infighting, courtbound rabble. He is good for one innings a series, after that he is cannon fodder just as he was in the Ashes last year. Everyone believed the media hype about him in the Ashes and thought he is a star, he took 5/91 in one innings, but apart from that in the other 9 innings he bowled he took 7/506 at an average of 72. In the series against India in England, where India did their usual away hibernation on pitches that suit Swann, he took 6/106 in one innings, in the other 7 innings he bowled he took 7/423 at an average of 60.

Everyones averages look worse when you take out their best performances LOL.

regards,

REB

Exactly what I thought reading this post! although I do agree with it about Swann being overrated

There is a very big difference in your best performances making your average look ok, and your best performances making a good average look even better.

pafc1870 wrote:Swann is an overrated hack with a poor Test match record when you take out two series against an infighting West Indies in 2008 and a series against Pakistan when they were an infighting, courtbound rabble. He is good for one innings a series, after that he is cannon fodder just as he was in the Ashes last year. Everyone believed the media hype about him in the Ashes and thought he is a star, he took 5/91 in one innings, but apart from that in the other 9 innings he bowled he took 7/506 at an average of 72. In the series against India in England, where India did their usual away hibernation on pitches that suit Swann, he took 6/106 in one innings, in the other 7 innings he bowled he took 7/423 at an average of 60.

Swann has taken 153 test wickets in 36 matches at an ave of 28.82 . Hack?