Axis of Bob

He has now.

Faulkner is a good prospect, but he's not at test level yet. He's just not quite there as a batsman or as a bowler yet, but he's well on his way. Certainly his batting has only started to show some form of production this year. Has a career (and season) average of less than 30 with the bat, which isn't good enough for Tests. But he has improved a lot this year and he'll get there eventually. Christian is averaging about 60 with the bat this year, which is why he's being put up as an option. His bowling is handy, and probably not as good as Faulkner, but his batting is clearly better which is why he's there. Probably a poor man's Watson.

Sorry, I'd already read your opinion. http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/content/current/story/546544.html In summary, you believe that if he is now bowling like they are saying he is bowling, then you are happy with his selection and that he needs to take wickets to stay in the team. Thank god we have selectors.

Hilfenhaus has been a good bowler for Australia in the past. He lacked penetration against England last series, but before then he has been very good. His series breakdown has been as follows: vs South Africa (away) 2008/09 - 7 wickets at 52.28. vs England (away) 2009 - 22 wickets @ 27.45 vs West Indies (home) 2009/10 - 5 wickets @ 14.00 vs Pakistan (neutral) 2010 - 8 wickets @ 23.75 vs India (away) 2010/11 - 6 wickets @ 43.50 vs England (home) 2010/11 - 7 wickets @ 59.28 Firstly, it shows that he has been a successful bowler for us in the past. In the final series against England, he had an economy rate of 2.62. This was by far the best of the Australian bowlers, with Siddle being next best of the main bowlers at 3.28 rpo. It wasn't that he was bowling badly, he just wasn't penetrating. If he was bowling badly then he would have dumped much earlier. This is reinforced by the fact that he bowled the most overs of any Australian bowler, despite only playing 4 tests. He also had the lowest (behind George who only played one test) economy rate in the Indian tour, bowling the second most overs (82 overs, behind Hauritz's 90 overs). Before these series he has been a very good bowler. But in these two series he lacked penetration, which is what Chris Rogers has been saying about him. He also says that this season he has recovered that pace and penetration, making him a very good bowler. He bowling well in the Shield and, if he's bowling well, then he has demonstrated that he is a capable international bowler. He's a proven bowler who is emerging from a lean patch. He has a massive tank (I hear he runs a 15+ beep) and can bowl many overs a day. Against the top batsmen in the world, we can rely on him to perform a role for our attack and not let the captain down. That's what you want and that's why he's there. Conversely, Starc has shown that he's not yet capable of maintaining pressure for long periods of time. I'd be surprised if Starc played on Boxing Day.

The theory behind winning is the toss is that you compare the score you think you'd make in the 1st innings and compare it to what you think you'd make batting 4th. If you think you'd make more in the 1st innings than the 4th, then you bat. If you think you'd make more in the 4th innings then you'd bowl. You very rarely have a pitch where it's easier to bat in the 4th innings than it is in the first innings. This was one of those rare occasions.

Thanks Nash. I was beginning to worry that I was the problem. At least it made sense outside the bubble.

How is it a difficult concept to grasp? For the past 5 years we have had a certain balance to our batting lineup since Johnson has been in the side. It has meant that we have, in the past, fielded a stronger batting lineup than we have at the moment. I could easily have not mentioned Johnson at all and, instead, simply said that our bowlers in this test are weaker as a collective than they have been for some time. This was exposed during that run chase. I think people are looking for an anti-Johnson angle on this one when it was simply a comment about the batting strength of our bowlers. It was not a comment about selection and it certainly wasn't a comment with any particular agenda behind it. I'll try to remove the subtlety from my posts in the future, but doing so certainly takes a lot of the fun out of posting.

That Rhino is a moderator has nothing to do with you being wrong.

I didn't say anything about Johnson's bowling, since we didn't bowl today. I simply made the point that our tail is much longer now that we don't have him at number 8. If he was batting at 8 today (ignoring bowling) then we probably would have won. It is a genuine issue.

The point I'm making is that our tail is very fragile without Johnson. Siddle is an honest batsmen for a bowler, Pattinson and Starc may become that in time and Lyon is a number 11. When you have a 6 and 7 that are struggling then the tail looks exceptionally long. I worry about it for the future, when our bowling line up starts looking like: Pattinson, Cummins, Hazelwood, Lyon. England had the '6 out = all out' problem in the 5-0 Ashes here, and it meant that they played Ashley Giles instead of Panesar. We now have a very long tail. It's an issue without Johnson because he has done well at number 8 for us. He's bowling rubbish, but his absence has resulted in us losing lance in the lower half of our batting order. 15 runs from him today would have won us the match.

Mitchell Johnson would have been very handy today.

I thought both Warner and Hughes batted exceptionally well today. Hughes looked really solid from the get go, even against Martin. I think the main reason for this was because he left the ball much better, so he didn't reach for the ball and defended in a far more compact way. Warner showed his worth in being able to shift the game momentum, as the bowlers were not able to completely dictate and instead were forced to employ more defensive fields. And Clarke's captaincy was again excellent and shows great faith in Lyon. I also thought Starc was much better in his pre lunch spell. Didn't get rewarded, but bowled with very good pace.

He played at a ball that was just too wide to play at. That wasn't a technique thing, but rather it was just a bad ball to play at on a seaming deck.

Yes the pitch is green, but we did bowl well, especially Siddle and Pattinson early on. Starc was erratic, but bowled some corkers in between. It will be interesting to see how we bat on this pitch, especially against the new ball.

So you've seen enough at state level to know he's not good enough, but at the same time not enough to know if he's worth a spot? That's nonsensical rubbish and you deserve to be called out for it. I like Warner. Is he good enough? I don't know, but the signs are good. What he does well is go on when he has the chance, which is a great trait for an opener. Guys like Sehwag, Gayle and McCullum are dangerous because they can change the game quickly. It makes the game easier for their batting partner because the bowlers are on the defensive. I'm more than willing to be patient with him, because he seems to be made of stern stuff too. While everyone is very excited about Pattinson and Cummins, I think that it's important to realise that these kids are going to be inconsistent. They'll have good days and bad days. They need a senior workhorse to help them out on the bad days and shoulder the workload. Siddle is perfect for that role. I also thought he bowled well without luck and would surely keep his spot for the moment.

I agree, in part, Nasher. Most people wouldn't know what is wrong with his technique as they would only look at the result. Most of the 'technique' issues raised by armchair pundits have been rubbish. That said, Martin is exactly the sort of bowler he will struggle with the way he plays. However, Martin is generally pretty tough on most lefties. Hughes just plays the game a different way, because he struggles to score through the onside as he can't get around his front pad. Therefore a bowler who swings it away from him can afford to bowl a leg/middle stump line to him, which forces him to play at a lot of good balls. If a bowler did that to, say, Mike Hussey, then he'd be worked for runs through the on side all day. I don't have a problem with his dismissal yesterday, though. That's his scoring zone, but he just didn't get over the ball enough. It's one of his great strengths, the cut shot, and his technique means that he can cut balls far closer to him than most batsmen. It's a style you often see at lower levels of cricket. It doesn't make it bad, but it presents a different set of challenges.

Michael Klinger. Couldn't get a spot at Victoria because he was behind: Elliott, Arnberger, Mott, Hodge, Moss, Harvey, etc. Of those, Arnberger was from NSW, Mott from QLD, Moss from NSW. We have also brought in Chris Rogers, Graeme Rummans, and I'm sure others whose names escape me at the moment. These have been designed purely to win games in the Sheffield Shield, not produce Australian players. Look, right now, at our Shield side (although we are giving more opportunities this year). Chris Rogers won't play for Australia again, yet we have brought him into the side from WA. Peter Handscombe can't get a gig despite churning out runs all year. Michael Hill made runs last year, yet can't get a gig. Brett Forsyth can't get a game. Keath has been struggling a bit, but if you're trying to churn out Australian players then you'd accept that. The other side is that participation in Victoria is declining. NSW grassroots cricket is very strong, but not so in Victoria. A strong Victorian side is all well and good, but kids don't say 'I want to be like Chris Rogers'.

"This interesting and rare surname, found widely recorded in Gloucestershire, is the Anglicized form of a Dutch name which may have arrived in England at two periods in English history. Firstly, it may have arrived in Gloucestershire when Edward 111 brought Flemish weavers over to teach their craft to the English, with many settling in the Cotswolds. More likely however, the name followed later from Holland due to the religious persecution of French Huguenots, by the Duke of Alba who suppressed the Protestant revolt in the Netherlands (1567 - 1572), and who fled to nearby countries." Read more: http://www.surnamedb...k#ixzz1ezf4QtWj And jcb, I'd let go of the Nasher bashing. You're not exactly covering yourself in glory. Nasher is clearly a racist. He obviously hates all anglicised dutch aboriginal Turks. What a shameless racist.

Rubbish, titan. Don't let your blind hatred of Haddin stop you from acknowledging the quality of his inning at that time. I am not Haddin's number 1 fan, but he played a fabulous innings to help us win the match. He was facing some really top quality bowling and the ball was decking around. He was solid and patient when we needed it and Hussey was still in, and he counterattacked at exactly the right time after tea to give our inning momentum when we needed it. It was a fantastic chase, not just because it was a 300+ run chase on the last day with the ball moving around, but because of the quality of the bowling. Steyn, Morkel, Philander and Tahir bowled very well, yet we were still able to chase the target down on a difficult pitch. Ponting was excellent, but Khawaja's effort on day 4 was superb at that time. I'm not sure he's the best against spin, but he's a top talent with an excellent temperament. Johnson returned to the sensible batting that made him a dangerous lower order batsman in the first place, and was exceptional in providing support and also guiding us home after Haddin went. Fantastic game - all 5 days. Great pitch that game everyone a chance: Philander decking it around, Tahir and Lyon getting wickets, Cummins exploiting the pace and bounce, yet also Amla scoring 100 and many half centuries through the game on each day of the test.

That's exactly what I was about the write. It's such a unique game, Test cricket, and brings elements that are very hard to find in other sports.

Wade seems to be a quality player who could play for Australia. He's probably still behind Paine, though. His keeping seems to have improved a lot from the bits I've seen this year and he's certainly making runs. I think Paine has him covered, but he's certainly not doing his prospects any harm. It's a good problem to have, especially with Haddin being towards the end of his career.

They need to be good enough. Cummins is.

Nuggets, you are arguing against your own points. The Ashes team was a young team, and it was thrashed. The team is still young, yet you want to throw more young players into the mix? Hussey had a bad game, but is still batting very well. The only 'old' batsman that you could be looking to replace is Ponting, but I don't think he's yet ready to be dumped. He's still got a few more credits in the bank. You said that Khawaja should never have been dropped .... but the player he was replaced with was Shaun Marsh, who has since averaged nearly 60 in tests. So list your team, as you would want it now, Nuggets. What is your Australian XI. Also, it's Alex Keath. He's not playing because he can't make runs at district level at the moment. He will, but these things take time. You can't just throw kids in and expect them to perform. He needs development and he'll do that through the Futures league until he starts putting it together.

Australia are in a position of rebuilding but, like the Dees, you can't just cast off every experienced player and play kids. If you do then they will get smashed and that may be worse for their development than not playing at all. Cummins looks are real talent but the next top line young fast bowler, in my opinion, is Josh Hazelwood. Very tall, quick enough (mid 130s), consistent and has a great seam that can move the ball in the air or off the deck. Quality prospect. Australia is lucky that we actually have a very strong group of young quicks coming through. Hazelwood, Cummins, Pattinson, Starc (although others rate him higher than I do at the moment). The bowlers we have at the moment, Harris aside, are pretty average. Siddle is honest, Copeland has faults, Johnson has even more (but lots of talent), Lyon and Beer are inexperienced. Our future batsmen don't look quite as strong at the moment, with the leading players probably being Khawaja, Maddinson, Marsh x 2 (Mitch is super talented, but doesn't seem to know how to build an innings yet - but should be very good), Paine/Wade, Smith, Warner (probably better than is given credit for), Hughes ..... but the quality doesn't seem to be as high. Nor the output yet. I think we'll need some older heads to stay around, especially in the batting, to help shelter the youngsters from the heat a bit.

They have a whole new selection committee. What exactly did you want to do to fix up CA? Also, just to annoy you, are you aware that the probably next 3 test debutantes are going to be from NSW? Nothing to do with state bias, but rather because they are the best players in the pipeline