titan_uranus

I don't have any more desire to continue this back-and-forth crap. I've admitted I was OTT. I'll just say this: calling me arrogant for a poorly worded sentence or two is, I think, unfair. And if I were you, based on your comments, I wouldn't be calling anyone arrogant...

I am aware I was hyperbolic, I think that's clear. But regardless of my OTT wording, my point was clear, in that I didn't think Hilfenhaus was a step forward and I didn't think he'd be any good. Doesn't matter now because I've been shown wrong. Essentially, you have had the same problem, minus the hyperbole.

I reckon he probably is our best batsman now. Ponting is also in some semblance of form, with 4 50s from his last 6 innings, and currently 37*. But Clarke's our best batsman, surely. This Ponting-Clarke partnership has helped us immensely. Feels like the second innings of Melbourne, with Ponting and Hussey. Good recovery.

He's definitely different. For one he's faster than before, pushing regularly up to 145. Before, he was rarely above 140. That's one difference. It took him a while in Melbourne but he's also using the width of the crease more than he used to. He's also varying his length. Previously he was a stock, good length, stump to stump kind of bowler. Now he's working in fuller deliveries and bouncers too. He bounced out the Indian tail today. Not something he used to be good at. Haha thanks Rogue.

Yes I did. He was. He's improved now. One swallow doesn't make a summer of course, but he's already done far better than I would ever have expected of him.

You're happy with making fun of my comments about Hilfenhaus, then surely you won't mind me bringing this one up again. Boxing Day Test - 1st innings we were 6/214 but all out for 333. 119 runs for the final four wickets. Then in the 2nd innings we were 6/148 but were bowled out for 240. 92 runs for the final four wickets. Siddle, Pattinson, Hilfenhaus and Lyon (as well as Starc and Cummins) have all shown that, in addition to the fact that they are actually taking wickets, they can bat as well. We don't have a tail problem at all.

Three 100s in the last six Tests isn't good enough for you?

Hilfenhaus bowled well to Gambhir, but he looked his usual, Ashes 2010/11, self, to the right handers. There was talk, either on Cricinfo or in the papers, that he had worked on bowling from wider on the crease, but he hasn't done that today at all. Disappointed in that, but his pace was up which was nice. Pattinson and Siddle are also bowling well. Lyon wasn't bad but Sehwag always takes spinners apart (e.g. Krejza in 2008). Neither of yesterday's umpiring mistakes were howlers, I don't think. The ball did miss Hussey's bat by a bit, but it wasn't clear cut, and there was a clear sound with Cowan. DRS would have overturned both but that doesn't mean they were howlers. Not giving Haddin out was as bad if not worse. Having said that, if Hussey doesn't make runs in the second innings and Watson is fit for Sydney, that could be the end of Mr Cricket. With Warner and Cowan at the top, surely Watson goes to 6 as an all rounder, bowling more. That would balance our side well I think.

No, I previously said he was crap when he was in the side previously, and he was dropped for good reason (he wasn't taking wickets). I said I was surprised he was brought back, but on the basis of the news that he's changed his action or his style of bowling, if he starts taking wickets then good for him. His previous problem was that he wasn't taking wickets. He was economical, which is nice, but he wasn't threatening with the new ball. And I haven't anywhere said I'm happy with his selection, because I'm not, new Hilfenhaus or old Hilfenhaus. I'd give Starc the game to see if he really can do something at Test level, since it seems Harris (touch wood) will be ready to go in Sydney, and I'd rather see what the younger Starc can do. And I disagree with your opening statement in the previous post: 'it shows that he has been a successful bowler for us in the past.' I don't agree with that reading of the statistics, nor of Hilfenhaus in general. If you want a summary of my stance it is this: I don't like Hilfenhaus, I never have, and I don't believe he played any long-term decent cricket in his 17 Tests. I'm surprised and, to an extent, disappointed he's been re-called, but if he truly has re-worked himself then good for him. But I'd prefer to stick with Starc. And in the longer run, I'd much prefer to go with Harris, Cummins, Pattinson and Siddle.

That's without a doubt as flattering and as good a write up on a previously pedestrian bowler I can imagine. It seems as though he has changed his game a bit since he was dropped, which makes perfect sense given he wasn't taking wickets. As a new-ball bowler if you're taking wickets you're not playing well, and he wasn't doing that. He wasn't quick and he had no variation. Almost every ball he bowled was a good-length, gentle away swinger. That's what made him 'rubbish'. If the reports are correct, and he has changed his game, quickening his speed and adding in variation, maybe he has become more of a wicket-taking threat. He certainly has to be taking wickets if he's going to hold his spot (which I can't see happening, with Cummins and Harris due to return soon).

Oh come on HT, my possible hyperbole aside, my point is that Hilfenhaus just hasn't been that competitive or threatening of a bowler when he's bowled for Australia. If the selectors have seen something new from him, then so be it, but I don't think it's a progressive step forward to look to Hilfenhaus. He's had his turn, and he didn't take it. 'Occasionally performed admirably', in all honesty, is spot on. He's never taken a 5-for.

Cowan for Hughes is a big plus. That helps. Marsh or Christian for Khawaja is an improvement too. Marsh gets first dibs but if he isn't fit then Christian bats at 6, which pushes Ponting, Clarke and Hussey up one. Not ideal, but until Marsh is fit again we have no choice. Selecting HIlfenhaus is just ridiculous. We took 40 wickets against NZ without too much trouble. Sure, it was only NZ, and Starc wasn't as good as Pattinson, but there is absolutely no need whatsoever to drop him just so we can play Hilfenhaus. Hilfy is just rubbish. I have no idea what the selectors see in him, he's shown repeatedly that he is limited and just really not that good.

Hilfenhaus. Why. What a backwards step that would be. He's just not that good. I understand that Starc isn't bowling well but until Harris or Cummins is ready to replace him, he should hold his spot over the has-beens like Hilfenhaus. Cowan and Marsh for Hughes and Khawaja is improvement. Khawaja isn't in form and isn't making runs. Cowan and Marsh are. Mind you, same argument goes for Ponting and Hussey, but those will be the spots that Khawaja will be able to take back later.

This is all true, but I feel you're putting too much importance on it. If we continually had a tail that was collapsing each innings, and we were leaving batsmen stranded, that would present an issue. That's not happening. First innings in Brisbane - 6th wicket fell at 345, 10th wicket fell at 427. Pattinson made 12, Starc made 32*. Not a problem. First innings in Hobart - 6th wicket fell at 69, 10th wicket fell at 136. Siddle made 36, Pattinson made 17. Again, I don't see a problem. We do not have four bunnies batting 8-11. None of them may have the ability to score a Test century, but that's not important. Siddle and Pattinson have both shown that they have the ability to bat for a decent length innings (in Siddle's case, he's done that repeatedly). Yes, in the second innings in Hobart Siddle, Pattinson and Starc all fell cheaply and in quick succession. But having a tail that does that once in a while is excusable. For me, the strength of a bowling line up should be measured by their ability to take 20 wickets. The ability for our 8, 9, 10 and 11 to bat is obviously useful, but not as important. Like I said above, I'd rather have a top 7 who can make us the majority of our runs, and a tail who can take 20 wickets.

This is such utter rubbish. Sure, in an ideal world we'd play 11 batsmen. Since we didn't bowl today, shouldn't we have played four batsmen instead of Siddle, Pattinson, Starc and Lyon? Come on now, you're intelligent. It cuts both ways. We would have liked to have someone with batting prowess in the tail, but we need four bowlers who can take 20 wickets, and we shouldn't be picking bowlers coz they can bat. ^This.

15 runs if we were chasing 241. As I said above, his impotent bowling would have seen us chasing more than that. Your point about the tail is correct though. It's long. However, Harris can bat, and strengthens it slightly if he comes in at 8. In the end, we shouldn't be picking bowlers because they can also bat a bit. We should back our top 7 to get the job done. Sure, it'd be nice if we batted to 9 or 10, but I'd rather us play four bowlers who can take 20 wickets and a top 6 who can make a sufficient number of runs.

Surely AoB was joking. If Johnson had played we would have been chasing 341, not 241.

This match has shown, once again, our fragile batting line up. The bowlers did fine, we conceded 150 and 226 and didn't let any batsman get past 56. Can't fault any of them (although I've already heard one person say that we lost because we let Boult and Martin add 20-odd runs for the final wicket in their second innings...). The fault lies with our batsmen. Hughes, Khawaja, Ponting, Hussey and Haddin are all out of form and giving us nothing. I'd tip the first two to be the ones to make way for Watson (who absolutely must replace Hughes), and Marsh (who must come in if fit, meaning a second player must go out). In a way that's the best thing for the team, but in a way it's not, in that we'd be removing the two young batsmen and keeping the older ones. I did not 'unfairly discount' anyone. When I said what I said, there was nothing to suggest he would score 123* and carry his bat like he did today. Don't say there was. Sure, he's now gone on to show me and the world that he has the skill to make it at Test level, and his innings today was amazing. But hindsight is a wonderful thing, and when I said what I said, this innings was not something many people would have foreseen. Agree with Khawaja. He's not making runs at all. With Warner's form, he surely is in trouble for Boxing Day. What's new, WYL not happy with bowling first. But what's this, a contradictory post? This post is so true to form. How can you say it was a dangerous idea to bowl first (and thus bat last), but then say that 150 was a good score in the first innings? If 150 was a good score first up, and the pitch was a 'billiard table', surely batting first would have been risky? Turns out we made the highest score of the match in the fourth innings. If Warner had had some support from someone else in the top 7, we would have won.

Agree with this, I've been mighty impressed with his captaincy so far. He likes bringing the spinner on when needed and rotates the quicks quite well. I'm a bit surprised at how much faith he puts in Hussey's bowling but he's taking about a wicket per game so can't be faulted really! If that's a reference to what I said earlier, well done. I never discounted him. I said I didn't think he was good enough. Until this innings, nothing had changed. However, I'm happy to say he's playing a far better innings than I would have given him credit for, and he's heaping the pressure on Hughes, Khawaja and Ponting. He looks a lot more compact and stable than he has in any other innings I've seen from him. I don't think it's too early any more re: Lyon, he's had 7 Tests now and to me he's shown more in these Tests than any other spinner we've tried did. Looking at how he bowls, with dip, bounce, curve and turn, it makes a mockery of some of the other bowlers we've tried. Hauritz, Dohery and Beer were all honest triers but didn't turn it much, didn't extract too much bounce, and didn't take wickets. Lyon, without a doubt, is the best spinner we've had since MacGill, and it makes such a difference to our bowling line up.

We've worked on our bowling line up, with Pattinson, Cummins and Lyon all showing promise (Starc looks out of his depth but that's acceptable). Our batting line up is still substandard. And badly so. Hughes is done. I sincerely hope he doesn't make a decent score in the second innings, as the selectors/Clarke will hold onto anything they can to keep him in. He needs to go back to NSW and work on his game. We have better alternatives anyway. Warner is still unconvincing and will make way for Watson/Marsh. Khawaja is an interesting one; he's not really making runs and he looked terrible today but he looks like a Test batsman (far more so than Warner or Hughes) and looks like he has the right temperament. Ponting is close to done, Hussey is back to his pre-Ashes form (his Ashes and Sri Lanka credits can't keep him in forever), and Haddin's 80-odd in Brisbane ought not mask the fact that he's utterly terrible and should make way for Wade in Melbourne. Clarke is in good form but can't do everything from number 5. He's coming in with too few runs on the board, and is getting no support from 6 and 7 and the moment. Awks... Rubbish. He played at it with an angled bat pushing away from his body. Look at how Khawaja went out. Straight bat. Straight down the line, pushing with bat next to pad. He got beaten, and he was bogged down, which contributed to his nervy push, but he played straight down the line. Hughes pushed away from his body (again), and didn't present the full face of the bat (again). His technique is exactly why he went out.

No I wrote that badly, my bad. What I meant was that having seen him at NSW level I haven't seen anything which suggests to me that he's good enough to hold down a long term spot in the Australian side at the moment. I see how that reads, which makes no sense. Not what I meant. I stand by that too. I have watched him for NSW and yes, he has made centuries, but even Hughes before being picked looked in far greater shape and looked like a longer term player than Warner did. I'm not saying Warner needs to break Bradman's Shield runs record like Hughes did; all I'm saying is that from what I have seen of Warner at State level, nothing suggests he is going to be a long term opener, and nothing he did in the Brisbane Test changed that (obviously partly because he wasn't given much of a chance). Nothing I've said so far means he won't make it, or can't. Nor does it say he isn't a good option (i.e. an attacking one). But right now, if Marsh and Watson were fit, they would come straight back in, and Warner would be the first to go. That is all I am saying. Right now, he's not good enough to hold his spot.

Sorry for expressing an opinion using the word 'technique'. But when you watch how he plays short stuff, and you watch his dismissals, his front foot ends up square of the wicket and he fends at the ball away from his chest. Yesterday's cut shot is a bit different but generally when defending short balls angled across him he doesn't get his body behind the ball and pushes away, with feet moving all over the place. It's not a technique/style/whatever you'd like me to call it that works at Test level. Where did I say that on the basis of this Test Warner is incapable? I said he's not good enough. That comes from having watched him at NSW level. He has made plenty of runs, sure, but that's over one season. For me I haven't seen enough of him at that level to warrant long-term selection. Moreover I believe Watson, Marsh and Khawaja are all better than him, making him in a prime position to be dropped for being 'not good enough'. Agree with this. Yesterday's dismissal is different, off a cut shot of the middle of the bat rather than an edge. But don't forget he was dropped the ball before which would have made his dismissal, if the catch was held, another in the series of slips cordon catches resulting from poorly played shots to short deliveries.

There won't be any change for Hobart. Cummins and Harris won't be fit, nor will Watson or Marsh. Assuming full fitness though, this is the team I'd play: Watson Marsh Khawaja Ponting Clarke Hussey Haddin Harris Siddle/Pattinson Cummins Lyon The only decision I can't be sure about is Pattinson or Siddle. Siddle bowled better than his figures showed and Pattinson wasn't very good in the first innings. But Pattinson did take 5-for which helps, and he looks like he has the tools (swing, bounce, pace etc.). Warner isn't good enough and won't hold his spot when Marsh and Watson are fit. Marsh and Watson are both better than Hughes who has a fatal flaw in his technique, always being squared up to short balls and being caught in the cordon. Not good enough. Khawaja is better and needs to settle. Ponting is also better and holds his spot until Hughes can show that he isn't weak to the short stuff.

Haven't been here in a while, so missed out on the chance to rant about 47 and then Ponting, Haddin and Johnson. Amazing Test match that one. A very good line in Brydon Coverdale's article on Cricinfo today: "In two years' time few people will recall, or care, who won the T20s and ODIs played in South Africa over the past six weeks. But the Tests, what with 47 all out, 23 wickets in a day, Australia's Wanderers chase,and the emergence of Pat Cummins and Vernon Philander, will be remembered. And fans will wonder how on earth it was only a two-Test series." T20s should be removed from the International cricket landscape. They won't, of course, for financial reasons, but to me T20 is a club format. Countries should stick to playing Tests and ODIs. Anyway, onto the cricket. Ponting's innings changes little. A half century it was, and a good one too, but the fact that we care that he made 50 says a lot about his form. I doubt he'll be dropped, and with the injuries to Marsh and Watson I don't think now is the right time, but that time is coming. We tour the West Indies after our home summer: that may be a good opportunity to blood someone. Haddin must go. His innings was full of poor and rash strokes. Yes he made 50. No that's not enough. Wade is in form, is younger, and is far more responsible with his strokemaking. Plus he's better withe gloves. Paine is better than Wade but he's injured, so Wade it is, and now is the time. Use the NZ series as 'practice' for the Indian series. Johnson's innings better not overshadow his total impotence with the ball. He should be dropped. A spot in the XI is not the place to be working on technique. He should go back to the nets and to WA and work on his bowling there, not in the middle of a Test match. There are too many promising youngsters being kept out at the moment that it's becoming impossible to keep him in the side. Siddle is in a similar boat. He's a good bowler when part of a unit, and has shown he has what it takes, but he lacks weaponry and he didn't bowl well in Johannesburg. I'd rather drop Johnson and keep Siddle, but Siddle's spot is tenuous too. Cummins is going to be a star, and with Pattinson, Starc, Hazlewood and Cutting all up and coming bowlers, it's hard to mount an argument for playing Johnson or Siddle. Should neither Watson nor Marsh be fit for Brisbane, we're going to need to find another batsman, and the reports all seem to suggest that Warner will be that batsman. Kinda freaks me out that David Warner is considered the next in line, but his numbers seem to suggest he's capable, so who knows.

Wow. Hewitt v Wawrinka match suspended due to darkness. Hewitt down 5-3 in the fifth. Looks like he'll lose I guess, which sucks, falling at the very last hurdle. Tomic was great to beat Wawrinka and give us a chance, and even took a set off Federer, and Hewitt's been good in both games. So close, if we do end up losing. So close.