H_T

That's precisely right. Cook loves them.

Johnson has a stock delivery titan..it's flat out. He doesn't possess the skill to have the seam straight (hence no swing), when it leaves the hand it's more a scrambled seam. Unless he hits a crack, it's pretty much just straight up and down.

Agree with that. Batsmen need to stand up, particularly the middle order. But more importantly our bowlers need to take 20 wickets and need to make inroads into a confident top 6 outfit. Whilst Australia did look on top and in control 200+ in front, it goes to show why Test cricket can certainly test both physically and mentally. England have counter punched the Aussies a beauty. Pretty much told the Aussies they are in for a tough Summer and won't relinquish the urn without one hell of a fight. That's why it's my choice of cricket. And why it will prosper. And why the stands will be filled in all 5 Tests.

I didn't see much yesterday unfortunately to comment on yesterday's bowling Nasher, but from what I have seen in this Test (on what I can comment on) is Hilfy with his swing has looked much more dangerous and been close more often. To me Johnson has bowled too short at the Gabba and has been punished by Cook and from what I've seen today, Trott. Being able swing the ball with pace is a very handy option to have. Johnson whilst quick has not been threatening the top order.

Hussey has wound back the clock with a superb innings and Haddin looks set to really unleash approaching his century. Aussies well and truly in control now.

Yeah, I saw that too. Sorry I was editing whilst you were posting there is more content above ^.

The first two days have been sellouts ! 36,000+ Now for the weekend. I think it's fair to say the Australian public are pretty happy with the state of play. Gulp !

I missed Clarke's innings but whilst out I did hear Skulls (Kerry O'Keefe) on 774 say that Clarke didn't look good, very stiff. (He went on to say that Clarke's inclusion within the team demanded scrutiny as he clearly hasn't been close to 100% despite players previously playing injured for Australia). He'll have to pull through this Test and hopefully contribute. When he was put at mid-on/mid-off yesterday that was a telling sign, rather than mid-wicket or cover. Agree on North. He was the only change I had in my team a few weeks back (North for McDonald); of course until McDonald got injured that is.

Clearly he is untroubled by the side strain, hence free to play for NSW in the Shield. The selectors were concerned he hadn't had enough cricket (23 overs total) prior to the first Test - that is why they were concerned he wasn't ready for the Test. Siddle on the other hand had played 3 games. Now you can tell the ABC TV dept why. Absolutely. Breath of fresh air and what a day to start the series. Most memorable. On Johnson - he's form with the bat whilst a bonus shouldn't necessarily be considered when weighing up strike bowlers in my opinion. I know he occassionally contributes but it's the bowling that is the essential ingredient when selection is considered.

Yeah, I get your drift. Fwiw, I thought the wicket played okay all considered. 4/197 was an indication of that. The way Strauss played was unlike Strauss - although he does have a poor record in Australia. The other batsmen in Trott, Cook, Pieterson, Bell all got starts, so they'd be confident of turning things around. This Test is not over by a longshot. At least Punter can feel confident throwing the ball to Siddle anytime, but he may want to 'start to reconsider' the level of faith he has in Mitchell. Even though he has been a bit of a go-to man for the Skipper on numerous occassions and has delivered on occassions. He can be a dangerous bowler - for that is granted when on song. However, when he's not the opposition batsmen love him and he creates alot of work for scoreboard attendants.

To be honest Siddle was due for his second spell having only bowled 6 overs up until then. Ricky had limited choices. It was Siddle's line and length and consistency which unsettled the Englishmen and all due credit should go to Siddle himself for bowling so well by steaming in and of course the selectors for having shown faith in him. I give Punter a knock only when they had the Poms at 8 for and attacked the tail but when Bell faced they eased the pressure by having some men out. I understand maybe the temptation for a run to get the tail back on strike, but some of the fieldsmen positioned - as mentioned on 774 - was perplexing to say the least. All in all a good day for the Australians on Day 1 and let's hope the run continues by the Aussies with the bat in Day 2 by occupying the crease and milking some runs in the first session. Absolutely. Of course, I've said just as much previously (previous page) by stating the selectors would be feeling quite happy after day 1 and they should feel vindicated to date with the changes made. I can't help but think Chappell may have had an influence in such a brave call.

Could have had 7 ! Dropped by Haddin, should have taken that on Brad. I must say, I'm a little surprised at Ponting's field set for Bell. At 8/227 it should be a far more attacking field. It's no wonder he faces criticism now and again. Siddle 6/44.

Peter Siddle. Peter Siddle. Peter Siddle. Hat trick ~! 7/197. What an over. Aussies right on top of proceedings. The Birthday boy has turned the Ashes on it's head in the first Test. 5 wickets for Siddle and won't the selectors feel happy.

Poms 4/125 Pieterson out to Peter Siddle and just now Collingwood gone too. Siddle most economical bowler to date - two wickets ! Hilfy & Johnson been hit for a bit. Hilfenhaus has a wicket so too Watson. MJ relatively expensive. Cook & Bell would be big scalps. Cook occupying crease for Poms.

England won the toss and elected to bat.

Good on him. Hodge makes 'another' century against the Bulls last night. What else is new.....

Watched the All Star game the other night. Nannes was on fire with the ball. Pity for Paine. Hodge was on fire, again, and I took particular interest in what M.Hayden had to say in play on Hodge.

Matthew Wade ??

Oh no ! That's a tough break and a shame.

I'm not sure the conditions were all that conducive to a good batting strip either. They've had plenty of rain up there of late. Hence the opening days results. But guess who would have won the toss and batted regardless...

I hope you read my whole post because I made a few adjustments while you replied. And no, I'm not worried. Btw, if it was that obvious then state it initially, rather than learn from others posts (in this case mine) and then claim that you thought it was obvious...

I never argued this point WYL ! FCS. I'm actually of the same opinion re: naming the squad before this round of matches currently taking place. It was a directive from Cricket Australia to the selectors. The selectors have done their job. Blame CA. This is a classic example of you diverting away from the original argument. Which was initially about not wanting to win anymore, then it was about wanting the golden contract rather than fighting for a Test spot...etc etc. More twists than turns. RR is right, you would wouldn't look out of place as a politician.

Lacks team ethic ? What rot. I'm quite certain all cricketers are pulling in the same direction to perform well and put Australia back on top. Are they just ? And of course, you have proof of this ? All bowlers are fighting for a Test spot. Paine & Haddin are fighting for their spot. I suggest a few of the batsmen are currently fighting for their spot. Contract or not.

"We shall see ?" {poor response} - Picking a 17 man squad does not support your theory that the team is not about winning !

The problem is you WYL, you cannot substantiate or backup your out-there generalisations on matters. When you're faced with the facts in an argument you turn a blind eye. That IS soft ! This last statement of yours ^ , the latest in your encyclopaedia of sweeping statements relating to cricket or any other matter (for that matter) supports this. If you think the focus for the Australian Cricket Team is not about winning anymore.....you're again..severely mistaken !