Dogwatcher wrote:Agreed, Pattinson was the preferred option. I'm just suggesting the attack's not as bad as it looks.
We lack the grunt required to capitalise on the workhorse type bowlers we have. It's going to be a great tussle. I just can't seem to get around the two test concept though, usually every sort has a best of 3,5 or 7.
Dogwatcher wrote:Agreed, Pattinson was the preferred option. I'm just suggesting the attack's not as bad as it looks.
We lack the grunt required to capitalise on the workhorse type bowlers we have. It's going to be a great tussle. I just can't seem to get around the two test concept though, usually every sort has a best of 3,5 or 7.
I agree. I also think the highlighted bit is where Lyon comes in.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher wrote:Agreed, Pattinson was the preferred option. I'm just suggesting the attack's not as bad as it looks.
We lack the grunt required to capitalise on the workhorse type bowlers we have. It's going to be a great tussle. I just can't seem to get around the two test concept though, usually every sort has a best of 3,5 or 7.
I agree. I also think the highlighted bit is where Lyon comes in.
I was thinking that but then I remembered how well Warne & McGrath teamed up, then again, we have nothing near that calibre in either discipline.
Obviously as a South Australian I'd like to see Sayers play. However I'm glad that Bird has got a go because it seems to indicate that the selectors are interested in lateral movement from the seam bowlers (incredible, I know!).
RB wrote:Obviously as a South Australian I'd like to see Sayers play. However I'm glad that Bird has got a go because it seems to indicate that the selectors are interested in lateral movement from the seam bowlers (incredible, I know!).
Bird impressed in his only three tests.
Very happy Bird has been given another crack. Taken plenty of wickets at Shield level and has proven he can perform at and has some experience at test level.
Can't believe the negativity about the bowling. Hazlewood is a world class bowler with a great record and is still a very young man. Perhaps he's not Glenn McGrath, but why not? At the same age McGrath was averaging high 30s wasn't he? Hazlewood averages less than 25. Less than 25 is in the pantheon of all time great bowlers. I think Bird is a class act and really, I wanted him in the test side once Harris retired. Over in NZ I can see those two being really effective. Siddle will always be handy to have around and is pretty under rated. 200 wickets, averages almost exactly 30. The poms would be going bananas if he was one of theirs. I'd love to see Starc instead of Siddle, because of balance for one but also I think Starc has as many weapons as any bowler we've seen. But wouldn't think Pattinson or Cummins, even fully fit, would be all that far ahead.
Grahaml wrote:Can't believe the negativity about the bowling. Hazlewood is a world class bowler with a great record and is still a very young man. Perhaps he's not Glenn McGrath, but why not? At the same age McGrath was averaging high 30s wasn't he? Hazlewood averages less than 25. Less than 25 is in the pantheon of all time great bowlers. I think Bird is a class act and really, I wanted him in the test side once Harris retired. Over in NZ I can see those two being really effective. Siddle will always be handy to have around and is pretty under rated. 200 wickets, averages almost exactly 30. The poms would be going bananas if he was one of theirs. I'd love to see Starc instead of Siddle, because of balance for one but also I think Starc has as many weapons as any bowler we've seen. But wouldn't think Pattinson or Cummins, even fully fit, would be all that far ahead.
His 16 average against the West Indies paints a prettier picture for himself though. Nevertheless, he's the closest thing to McGrath that we've seen.
