Predictions

JD10

International Cricketer
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Location
North England/Melbourne
Batting Comparsion
Andrew Strauss vs Shane Watson - Strauss
Alastair Cook vs Simon Katich - Draw
Jonathan Trott vs Ricky Ponting - Ponting
Kevin Pietersen vs Michael Clarke - Draw
Paul Collingwood vs Mike Hussey - Draw
Ian Bell vs Marcus North - Bell
Matt Prior vs Brad Haddin - Matt Prior
Bowling all-rounders:
Stuart Broad vs Mitchell Johnson - Broad
 

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
I like how we didn't compare averages for Finn against Bollinger, but we did for Johnson and Broad. Quite how Hilfenhaus has one good innings in India and is suddenly world class is beyond me too.

On another point, fit and on form, Onions hits close to 90mph. Harris may still be quicker, but Onions is no slouch.
 

Papa_Smurf

International Cricketer
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Location
Smurf Village
Online Cricket Games Owned
I like how we didn't compare averages for Finn against Bollinger, but we did for Johnson and Broad. Quite how Hilfenhaus has one good innings in India and is suddenly world class is beyond me too.

On another point, fit and on form, Onions hits close to 90mph. Harris may still be quicker, but Onions is no slouch.

Finn's only bowled against Bangladesh and Pakistan. And from what I've seen, I haven't been over-impressed by him. Expecting him to be a major fail in the Ashes.

Hilfenhaus is class - bowling superbly against the indian top order in inida is no mean feat. Considering he's going into the ashes on top of that performance only strengthens his cause.

Agree about Onions.
 

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
Did I miss this Test Series in India when Hilfenhaus tore them to shreds?

Yes, he seemed to get Sehwag out, but he still averaged in the 40s. That's hardly special.
 

shravi

National Board President
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Profile Flag
India
Did I miss this Test Series in India when Hilfenhaus tore them to shreds?

Yes, he seemed to get Sehwag out, but he still averaged in the 40s. That's hardly special.

It would be pretty stupid to only go by averages. Hilfenhaus bowled like a world class fast bowler in that series and anyone who saw the series could tell you that.
 

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
There's a difference between looking like a World Class fast bowler some of the time and being a World Class fast bowler all the time. We're in a results business. There's no prizes for flair, it's about taking wickets and scoring runs.
 

Themer

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Location
Newark, UK
Online Cricket Games Owned
Because the stenght of AUS attack is its pace attack. Mentioning the spin resources wont mean anything since its obviously bad.

That would be like judging the strenght of Windies attack of the 70s & 80s by wahtever average spinner they had (Harper, Butts, Padmore, Jumadeen, Nanan). When the the obvious strenght of the attack was its pace bowling resources.

Yes but we were talking about the strength of the attack so I fail to see why I can't bring up Swann into the reckoning just because its an area where Australia fall down. I've been talking about the overall attack the whole time.

Yes he certainly does bowls fairly close into the stump like Shaun Pollock at his best. But Onions is a much of a swing bowlers as Anderson, Hoggard, Tim Southee, Hilfenhaus. Thats his obvious strenght with the ball. When the ball stops swiniging he becomes gun-barell straight & is easy to play

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Onions is like a faster Glenn McGrath who's attempting to aim for offstump albeit his accuracy is nowhere near McGrath standard. The comparison to Pollock is a good one actually in his earlier days when he used to regularly touch 90 mph.

If I was to do a player comparison (player vs player) which I hate as they simply do not give you the relative strength of the attack it would probably go as follows.

Broad > Johnson (I'd much rather have the consistency of Broad over Johnson for the fact that Johnson is even worse than Anderson when it comes to how well he performs swinging wildly. Additionally Broad can have magical spells himself as we saw in the Ashes last time)
Anderson = Hilfenhaus (Hilfenhuas is workhorse who you could give an end all day and he'd still be going but personally I think he bowls just a length too short which results in Flintoff syndrome ie repeatedly beats the bat without reward. I'd rather have Anderson as he can win a session alone if settings suit and I fully believe that he is now able to keep things tight when it isn't swinging.)
Swann > Hauritz (Lets not kid ourselves Australia are going to go in with a spinner regardless of how much you'd like to see them go in with a four pronged pace attack)
Bollinger > Finn (Not sure why you've been mentioning Onions considering when he's laid up with a bad back. This one is obvious but Finn is by no mean a poor bowler though and when he gets it right he'll be very dangerous sprays it around too much though.)

Andrew Strauss vs Shane Watson - Strauss
Alastair Cook vs Simon Katich - Draw
Jonathan Trott vs Ricky Ponting - Ponting
Kevin Pietersen vs Michael Clarke - Draw
Paul Collingwood vs Mike Hussey - Draw
Ian Bell vs Marcus North - Bell
Matt Prior vs Brad Haddin - Matt Prior
Bowling all-rounders:
Stuart Broad vs Mitchell Johnson - Broad

I'd agree with this bar the Cook vs Katich match up. Katich is miles better than Cook.
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
There's a difference between looking like a World Class fast bowler some of the time and being a World Class fast bowler all the time. We're in a results business. There's no prizes for flair, it's about taking wickets and scoring runs.

Haha. This is very rigid point of view on how cricketers are judged.

Cricket may be a results buisness. But its not a buisness where all stats are taken on face value. It is about interpretation of stats based on watching players.

As poster shravi already highlighted, it was painstakingly obvious to anyone who watched Hilfenahaus bowl in India, that he bowled superbly. The horribly dont reflect how well he bowl. It beyond me how you could find any critique in his performance. Some reasoning can only be found on the internet!
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
Yes but we were talking about the strength of the attack so I fail to see why I can't bring up Swann into the reckoning just because its an area where Australia fall down. I've been talking about the overall attack the whole time.

No i said you dont have to bring AUS spinners into the equation given the strenght of AUS attack can only be judged by its fast bowling options. The best AUS attack would not include a spinner.

ENG best attack is 3 quicks plus plan. So obviously we will talk about Swann when judging the overall strenght of ENGs attack.

So basically its Hilfenhaus/Bollinger/Johnson/Harris vs Anderson/Broad/Finn/Swann. AUS is better quite clearly.


We'll have to agree to disagree then. Onions is like a faster Glenn McGrath who's attempting to aim for offstump albeit his accuracy is nowhere near McGrath standard. The comparison to Pollock is a good one actually in his earlier days when he used to regularly touch 90 mph.

Really dont see the McGrath comparison at all my friend. I have seen no bowler since McGrath retirement that resembles anything he does, certainly not Onions in any way.

As you have agreed, he delivers close into the stumps like Pollock during his early days, but thats it. Pollock was more of a seam bowler, while Onions seam & swings it a more when he gets helpul conditions as he showed last year in the Ashes.



If I was to do a player comparison (player vs player) which I hate as they simply do not give you the relative strength of the attack it would probably go as follows.

Well yes usually player vs player comparison i dont do as well. Since not all the time teams with better players on team 1, may beat the team 2 with superior player. Given team chemistry, pyscological edge etc.

I.e IND probably had a better batting line-up in the middle-order than AUS for the last 15 years or so if you compare player vs player with the present of famous 4. But obviously given AUS superior bowling, they where better.

While SA in 90s where probably on par player vs player to AUS of the 90s. But the psycological effect one player in Warne had over the SA team, made AUS win more.

But usually i'd say teams who come up better in the player vs player match-up, usally wins.


Broad > Johnson (I'd much rather have the consistency of Broad over Johnson for the fact that Johnson is even worse than Anderson when it comes to how well he performs swinging wildly. Additionally Broad can have magical spells himself as we saw in the Ashes last time)

No way. You may could depend on Broad to bowl 6 balls in the same place more often than Johnson. But Johnson is far more likley to be more of wicket taking threat on seaming wickets or flat decks (especially). ATS i'm not sure if Broad could take 5 wicket haul on flat overseas pitch againts a strong batting team. Johnson has already done that in IND recently.

It doesn't make sense comparing Johnson & Anderson since they are different type of bowlers (thats why i compared him to Broad & Hilfenahus to Andersons since they are the two swing bowlers). Johnson is back-of-lenght bowler like Morkel who doesn't swing the ball. Whose strenghts are when they aim to hit the pitch & test batsman back foot game.

Johnson can swing the ball if he is in form & gets the right conditons as we he showed in S Africa 09, when he destroyed them (when Broad was in S Africa last winter, he didn't trouble the S African batsmen anywhere near as much as Johnson did when he was in top form). But its not a strenght of his or something he looks to depend on.

I definately put Johnson produced in SA 09 when he broke Graeme Smith's hand & broke Jacques Kallis jaw. Over Broad Oval spell.

Anderson = Hilfenhaus (Hilfenhuas is workhorse who you could give an end all day and he'd still be going but personally I think he bowls just a length too short which results in Flintoff syndrome ie repeatedly beats the bat without reward. I'd rather have Anderson as he can win a session alone if settings suit and I fully believe that he is now able to keep things tight when it isn't swinging.).

Where is recent test evidence of that?. In recent series againts South Africa & PAK when the ball stopped swinging, Jimmy still was not showing the ability to be able to do anything when the sun came out.

While just recently Hilfy in conditons where he should have struggled in IND. Managed to keep Sehwag quiet in IND conditons. When Jimmy was in IND 08, he was anywhere near as threatening to the IND batsmen as Hilfenhaus was.

Hilfenhaus has already passed the test of bowling well in non seaming condtions againts good batsmen. Anderson hasn't as yet, so clearly Hify deserves the edge as the better all-round bowler to date.




Swann > Hauritz (Lets not kid ourselves Australia are going to go in with a spinner regardless of how much you'd like to see them go in with a four pronged pace attack)

Ye i know. But that doesn't mean you have to mention it as a basis to judge AUS best attack vs ENG best attack.

If ENG where picking Bresnan over Finn currently or something & everyone was crying in ENG that Finn has to play & the ENG selectors where stubbornly sticking with Bresnan (like what the AUS selectors are doing with Hauritz). I would still judge ENG best attack with Finn in it, since i know Finn is the better bowler.


Bollinger > Finn (Not sure why you've been mentioning Onions considering when he's laid up with a bad back. This one is obvious but Finn is by no mean a poor bowler though and when he gets it right he'll be very dangerous sprays it around too much though.)

I mentioned Onions since he is part of our bowling options still & presuming he is comes back fit or was still playing this summer. He conceivably would have been ahead of Finn going into the Ashes & Finn may not have even played @ home vs PAK.
 

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
Haha. This is very rigid point of view on how cricketers are judged.

Cricket may be a results buisness. But its not a buisness where all stats are taken on face value. It is about interpretation of stats based on watching players.

As poster shravi already highlighted, it was painstakingly obvious to anyone who watched Hilfenahaus bowl in India, that he bowled superbly. The horribly dont reflect how well he bowl. It beyond me how you could find any critique in his performance. Some reasoning can only be found on the internet!

You've misread what I said. I said that plenty of bowlers look World Class in some performances. That however, is different to always playing at the top level well. I could name plenty of bowlers from the last 10 years who have been superb in matches/spells/spells of matches. That is different to being genuinely brilliant though, which is what you're claiming he is.
 

Themer

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Location
Newark, UK
Online Cricket Games Owned
You've misread what I said. I said that plenty of bowlers look World Class in some performances. That however, is different to always playing at the top level well. I could name plenty of bowlers from the last 10 years who have been superb in matches/spells/spells of matches. That is different to being genuinely brilliant though, which is what you're claiming he is.

I concur completely; this is specifically relevant to Johnson and Siddle. It gets on my nerves when people keep referring to Johnson as a close world class bowler when he's been awful since the start of the Ashes last year (additionally his batting has completely fell away as well). It would be like be repeatedly calling Harmison world class because on his day he ripped through teams.
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
You've misread what I said. I said that plenty of bowlers look World Class in some performances. That however, is different to always playing at the top level well. I could name plenty of bowlers from the last 10 years who have been superb in matches/spells/spells of matches. That is different to being genuinely brilliant though, which is what you're claiming he is.

But Hilfenhaus hasn't a had a poor series since his career has started. So its not as if that series in IND has been an abberation. Each series he has played he has gotten noticeably better & his adapted to each conditions he has played in, even if stats may not show it to the number.

I never claimed Hilfenahus is "genuienly brilliant". I said he has passed all the test as all-roud bowler by showing he can bowl well in swinging conditions & non-swinging conditons. Something our own Anderson is yet to do, which is why Hilfenhaus should be rated as the better swing bowler.




Themer said:
I concur completely; this is specifically relevant to Johnson and Siddle. It gets on my nerves when people keep referring to Johnson as a close world class bowler when he's been awful since the start of the Ashes last year (additionally his batting has completely fell away as well). It would be like be repeatedly calling Harmison world class because on his day he ripped through teams.

Clearly you haven't been watching Johnson bowling if you going to say he has been close to awful since start of the Ashes last year.

Johnson has bowled very well in test since his Ashes 09 struggles which has been well documented due to off-field distraction & faling to adjst to bowling with the duke ball for the 1st time.

Nothing was woeful about the way Johnson bowled in the 09/10 home summer vs WI/PAK/NZ & recently in India. The only reason Johnson bowled poorly in ENG this year again was because he went into the series injured & having not played cricket since the T20 WC final. Johnson is one of those bowlers who needs to keep bowling in order to maintain rhtyhm, he is not like Flintoff who could be out of cricket for months & come back & hit his lenght immediately.
 

Themer

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Location
Newark, UK
Online Cricket Games Owned
All I have to say is we'll see to be honest. Should bring to an end any disagreement between us when we see how they go during the Ashes.

Really looking forward to see how Johnson goes; personally I think he's going to spray it around but as you say he could blitz England.
 

Slowcoach

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Location
Australia
Swann is not going to be a factor in this series, look how well he did last time Australia played England, what did he take, 11 wickets at 47 or something?
The only way Swann is going to take 20 or 30 wickets is if he bowls 3000 overs, takes the new ball, and bowls from both ends to a spiritless and unmotivated Pakistan and West Indies lineup who have long since given up the will to fight.
 

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
Guess we won't count Hauritz being dropped as the first player dropped since he didn't play an Ashes match. Siddle could well be the highest wicket taker now though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top