AUST V ENG 2nd test Adelaide.

[blink]

Ding Dong Bell gone!

c & b Lee 60

England 3/158


Finally a wicket for Lee who was having a tough time of it on the flat track with miniMAL swing & movement.

[mal]

DRINKS last session
EG 3/205
Lee + Mcgrath opened the bowling after tea.
Lee got an immediate breakthrogh getting Bell caught + bowling for 60
off an attepted pathetic hook shot.
Still no Stewie Clark in the last session, I am baffled EG 3/205 CLARK 2/25
Lee bowling to PIETERSON with 3 men on the fence ???
Pietersons 6 of Warnnnnney a classic

We are in strife.

[sydney-dog]

Lee is shite

only takes wickets against crap countries and tail enders

he is a dumb ass bowler who time and time again continues to waste the new ball with short shite

never a plan with this guy other then to bang them in short

but Ponting wants him in the team

[mal]

STUMPS
3/265
COLLINGWOOD 98*
PLONKIERSON 60*

LEE 20 OVERS 1/77
CLARK 15 OVERS 2/25

2 things stood out like dogs balls today.
Winning the toss supercedes players abilities on certain ovals[Adelaide + MCG +SCG
are ovals where the toss is paramount]
Australia needs a 5 man bowling attack.

The indeflaitable Collingwood and the supremist Pieterson have put England in an
inpregnable situation, and both batted very well.
Clark despite being underbowled , was the pick of the attack[poorly handled by Ricky today]
Lee/Mcgrath/Warne all battled on manfully, but this typical unfairish Les Burdett pitch
was the defining factor all day.

The momentum gained by Plonkerson/Collingwood in Brisbane continued today, as
I said when England scored nearly 400 in its last dig there, that 5 bowlers was a
prerequisite for the 2nd test.
Sit on this elderly attack long enough and the cracks show.

Australia is a champion team and will not doubt hit back hard tomorrow, if we can
contain them to about 380 odd we are still in the hunt.
We need an early breakthrough to expose the over-rated Flintoff early.

[sydney-dog]

Mal

Lets just try and get a bit of variety first

Lee is hopeless on a good track, he is just a dumb bowler who does not have a cricket brain to work out a batsman weakness and to bowl to a plan

The initial concern regarding Clark and McGrath saameness has flaired again

I am not sure if we need five bowlers, but a left armer swinging the ball in to the right hand batsman at pace would be a good start

for Christ Sake - give the attack some variety

[mal]

SD Lee bowls at 150km
2nd ball to pieterson was a 155km thunderbolt
Next ball went to the mid wicket picketts.

There is a place for a FAST bowler, you are right on many of your points on Lee.
My concern when he has to butter up for 4th + 5th spells in a 4 man attack
and that takes the edge of him, although he sustained his effort + pace today.
In the long term he might get burnt out in a 4 man attack, with 5 bowlers and
then unleashing him in short bursts it will be the best for Lee and the team.

Watson is the key as was Symonds last year, they allowed the other 4 bowlers
to bowl less spells and be more effective.

SD yeah Lee is over-rated but you need charasmatic explosive fast bowlers in a line up.

**However I rate Brett Lee as the number 1 one day bowler in the world[a champion]**

[sydney-dog]

Watson is the key, PLEASE, what quality does he bring to our bowling stocks

In regards to Lee, I would not be so concerned abouth his 4th of 5th spells if he got some wickets in his 1st or 2nd spells

I agree being about to bowl at 150km / hr is a great asset, but you need to put the ball in the right spots, and at International level, against good batsmen, on good tracks, you need to have the ability to bowl to a consistent plan and look for the weakness

when will he learn, time and time again, he does not give the new ball a chance to do anything because he is banging it in short

Pace by itself means nothing, pace, movement and unpredictability = wickets

[mal]

SD WATSON in the team allows the other 3 quicks to freshen up which
will allow them to bowl at full intensity.
The 4 elderly bowlers need to be taken care off for longevity.

If Martyn/Clark are only going to average 35 in test cricket in a series
then they are expendible.
I would never contemplate replacing say a Hussey with a WATSON.

[whufc]

Brett Lee's biggest problem which he has always had is his extremes, 90% of his balls are real short or half volleys. he rarely finds that consistent length and when he does it's normally to straight or to far outside off-stump, they don't have to play. Even is slower ball is to much of an extreme change.

In saying that a guy who can bowl at 150km will always take some wickets through sheer pace, the real quick guys get wickets at all levels.

[sydney-dog]

I know it's back on the Watson debate

but he has done nothing to deserve his spot

we are picking him on a strategy not on performance, I have a real issue with this, you have to earn and deserve your spot

maybe it would not be an issue if half our bowling attack wasn't 75 years old

our cricket team has dominated for 15 years with 4 bowlers, the WI dominated before that with 4 bowlers, but suddenly the POMS beat us in a series with a quality all rounder and we want to rush and change our model for success

lets pick the side on performance

[whufc]

In the perfect world the four bowlers plus the all-rounder is the best line-up but lets not kid ourselves Watson is no Freddie Flintoff, Chris Cairns or even Dwayne Bravo for that matter.

In my opionion Watson would never get through a whole test season with out missing numerous games due to injury, he is an injury prone player and he won't devleope because your batting and bowling average isn't going to get any better in the trainers room. Geez even pick Mals man Hopes if your going to have an allrounder at least he will string enough games together to have a chance at developing into the man we are looking for.

[sydney-dog]

if the purpose is for a 5th bowler, to give the 4 main strike bowlers some relief and to chip in with a wicket here and there, well pick Roy

his batting and fielding speaks for itself, and has picked up some good test wickets

the other concern about watson, is his mental toughness, he is a sook that drops the head too easily

[magpie in the 80's]

In the perfect world the four bowlers plus the all-rounder is the best line-up but lets not kid ourselves Watson is no Freddie Flintoff, Chris Cairns or even Dwayne Bravo for that matter.

In my opionion Watson would never get through a whole test season with out missing numerous games due to injury, he is an injury prone player and he won't devleope because your batting and bowling average isn't going to get any better in the trainers room. Geez even pick Mals man Hopes if your going to have an allrounder at least he will string enough games together to have a chance at developing into the man we are looking for.

WELL SAID WHUFC

IMO WE HAVE THE ALLROUNDER IN THE SIDE ALREADY

STEWIE CLARK; took wickets and made runs in the 1st test

now can we squeeze TAIT in

[Adelaide Hawk]

I think most thinking cricker supporters suspected deep down that if England could win the toss today and have 1st use of a good wicket, then they could reach 450 plus and apply real pressure to the Australians. I think the Aussies will need to do just about everything correct to avoid the Poms levelling the series 1-1.

I didn't see much of today's play, but I did wander past the big screen in Hindmarsh Square around 3.30 and saw Matthew Clarke bowling left arm tripe around the wicket and knew we were in trouble. I seriously doubt if Clarke would trouble me, let alone Test batsmen.

I said prior to the match that we should play Tait, but feared the selectors would play it safe. There's no guarantee Tait would have taken a bag, but he bowls well on unresponsive Adelaide Oval wickets. I really do think we erred on the side of caution.

But ... well done England. They obviously set themselves to bat for 5 sessions, and to hell with the total number of runs. I still don't think the English bowlers are a great attack, but with 500 runs to play with they may just be able to apply enough pressure to win this one.

[mal]

if the purpose is for a 5th bowler, to give the 4 main strike bowlers some relief and to chip in with a wicket here and there, well pick Roy

his batting and fielding speaks for itself, and has picked up some good test wickets

the other concern about watson, is his mental toughness, he is a sook that drops the head too easily

Watson/Symonds/Hopes/White can all be used as allrounders.
They might all average about 25 with the bat.
Martyn only averages about 35 in test cricket these days ,so replace him with one of them.
Symonds might average 10 less than Martyn but will save that many in the field.

SD as for only having 4 bowlers for a long time.
When the 4 are champs [Mcgrath + Warne in particular] you get away with it.
But the 2 absolute champs Macca AND Warrrrrrrney are now 36 + years old.
Life after these 2 are gone was shown up today, both got 0 wickets and EG are 3/270 !!!

In 2 years time if you play 4 bowlers say
Tait, Clark, Lee, + Cullen International sides will bat first and make 400 + and kill us.

[sydney-dog]

I rather play 5 specialist bowlers, then an all rounder that does not deserve his spot

[Ecky]

I didn't see much of today's play, but I did wander past the big screen in Hindmarsh Square around 3.30 and saw Matthew Clarke bowling left arm tripe around the wicket and knew we were in trouble. I seriously doubt if Clarke would trouble me, let alone Test batsmen.

I thought he was off to St Kilda?

(Sorry, I know I have used this kind of line before but I couldn't resist... )

[mal]

I rather play 5 specialist bowlers, then an all rounder that does not deserve his spot

Id rather play an allrounder than a middle order batsman who struggles.

[sydney-dog]

their are plenty of middle order batsmen around the country who deserve their opportunity before crying eyes watson

[mal]

[quote="sydney-dog"]their are plenty of middle order batsmen around the country who deserve their opportunity before crying eyes watson[/quote

Symonds/Hopes/White dont cry.