Ashes Series 2009 (3 Viewers)

[Roy9]

Johnson's wicket was a pre-meditated charge because he wanted to cash in when all the fielders were up... resulted in him yorking himself

 

[blue_chameleon]

Perhaps get of your ass put the keyboard away and play a game of cricket, even backyard cricket will do and they you'll see that its not because of your brilliant bowling but because of batsmen error that you get wickets...

Way to make assumptions champ.

Look, at the end of the day, I don't think Swan bowled superbly either. He got wickets because he bowled in areas that could cause trouble for the batsmen. This doesn't mean he bowled superbly.

I'll give him credit though; he worked at Clarke for his wicket, gave him a full ball to play at and connect with, then followed it up with a ball with a tonne of flight and much quicker. He used his head. He got wickets, and important ones.

I don't rate him as an outstanding bowler, because the aussies aren't batting well enough at the moment to put perspective into his bowling. If the Aussies bat really well in Edgbaston where they find themselves well on top, then Swan comes in gets the important wickets then, then i'll 'rate' him a better bowler than I currently do.

At the moment though, he seems to be a pretty decent bowler that thinks about his wickets and has a fair bit of luck. He's certainly not proved to me that he's a bowler that can swing a game though.

Back onto what matters; I really hope the Aussies can turn their luck around in Edgbaston. Seems as though Hughes and Johnson need this luck the most. I'd like to see Siddle sit the next test out in place of Clark.

 

[BigBoyJames_]

My bowling attack:

Lee
clark
MJ
Hilfi

 

[Lentern]

LOL your a sad case. So your saying bowlers don't deserve credit for wickets when batsmen make errors? So really what your saying is batsmen deserve credit for playing down the wrong line/hooking to wrong lengths/charging unnecessarily etc and subsequently being bowled or caught and not the bowlers for making the batsmen make errors?

Do you know how idiotic you sound?

And the reason i brought up the Sydney test (its questionable you even saw it) is because there were countless umpiring failures which cost India the game and countless appeals by none other than Gillie behind the stumps which hadn't even nicked(Dravid of the pad) which were given as wickets.... so this is in reference to your pathetic attempts to discount the 'wickets' taken by England in face of awful decisions - fact of the matter is they are still wickets - and hence to make it remotely possible for there to be a wicket/wickets due to bad umpiring a bowler has to put in the effort and bowl pretty well so yes Swan/Freddy did bowl well and i do rate Swan. As do countless others.

Perhaps get of your ass put the keyboard away and play a game of cricket, even backyard cricket will do and they you'll see that its not because of your brilliant bowling but because of batsmen error that you get wickets...

See you ask me not to just go an attack you but I try to point out why I have a different opinion on the game and then you just come out saying such incredibly stupid stuff that just warrants it. I never said Australia deserved to win the Sydney test or any of the bowlers who profitted from Stevie's Wonderful umpiring deserved those wickets. You just assumed that I, must assume.

From what I can gather you think it a silly idea to evaluate a bowlers quality on whether or not he bowls in a way that creates wicket taking opportunities as opposed to one who luckilly profits from batsman with rocks in their head and umpires with blindfolds on.

I've heard people say lines like "wickets are wickets" before and such people are fools. In saying such things it makes the assessment entirely statistical and puts aside the real factors. The factors for example that lead to Jason Gillespie being dropped not only afte scoring a double century but after being Australia's leading wicket taker for the series. Swan did little to create wicket taking opportunities and as such the fact that wickets fell into his lap does not make him a good bowler.

Oh and some rambling shit about how you probably wouldn't know how to hold a bat and the only thing wider than your stock ball is your mum, etc etc etc personal attack...

 

[shak99]

yeah i agree. And where the fark is stuart clark? zzz

Clark and LEE are both available, i think its time Siddle is given a rest, as Johnson just needs confidence and he will rip Strauss, Cook, Bell, Bopara apart in the 4th and 5th tests.

:rofl:

 

[Prashant Sallan]

Clark and LEE are both available, i think its time Siddle is given a rest, as Johnson just needs confidence and he will rip Strauss, Cook, Bell, Bopara apart in the 4th and 5th tests.

:rofl:

Lee is not available, he is injured.. Clark is available.. i dont think johnson will be very effective, he's abit like Shaun Tait to me.. just abit more accurate though (well sometimes... lol), LOL at Englands belief that they can beat Australia without Pieterson and Flintoff.. lol well Maybe without Pieterson.. but not flintoff..

 

[Sculzyoner]

See you ask me not to just go an attack you but I try to point out why I have a different opinion on the game and then you just come out saying such incredibly stupid stuff that just warrants it. I never said Australia deserved to win the Sydney test or any of the bowlers who profitted from Stevie's Wonderful umpiring deserved those wickets. You just assumed that I, must assume.

From what I can gather you think it a silly idea to evaluate a bowlers quality on whether or not he bowls in a way that creates wicket taking opportunities as opposed to one who luckilly profits from batsman with rocks in their head and umpires with blindfolds on.

I've heard people say lines like "wickets are wickets" before and such people are fools. In saying such things it makes the assessment entirely statistical and puts aside the real factors. The factors for example that lead to Jason Gillespie being dropped not only afte scoring a double century but after being Australia's leading wicket taker for the series. Swan did little to create wicket taking opportunities and as such the fact that wickets fell into his lap does not make him a good bowler.

Oh and some rambling shit about how you probably wouldn't know how to hold a bat and the only thing wider than your stock ball is your mum, etc etc etc personal attack...

It's Australia's fault for chucking their wickets away... Wickets are wickets though...
You have to deal with what's in front of you. The fact that Johnson charged Swann doesn't take away from the wickets...

 

[Sculzyoner]

England will get done from here on in...

 

[Roy9]

Johnson must be bowling badly again.... only bowled 7 overs and was 0/42 whereas Clark got 2/45 after 14 overs. It's weird how Johnson might get dropped.

Anyway, at least Hughesy has been getting some runs in the 2nd innings (65 not out)

 

[Lentern]

It's Australia's fault for chucking their wickets away... Wickets are wickets though...
You have to deal with what's in front of you. The fact that Johnson charged Swann doesn't take away from the wickets...

When a bowler bowls a cracking ball that draws and edge through the slips for four you don't say "the dickhead deserves those runs against his name" and by the same token when the bowler throws him a pie and the batsman makes a meal of it you don't reward the pie chucker.

 

[mikael.cfc]

johnso = shocking...

 

[Roy9]

The fuck, Watson in for Hughes apparently?

 

[whatashotbyseve]

Yeh I heard. What a joke.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Not really hey.

Watson as a batter for Hughes, but also as a bowler for Johnson.

Despite my like for Hughes, he isn't in the best form and hasn't shown promise thus far. Flintoff had exploited his weakness to the short ball too well for him to not be a risk. It's a massive risk taking him into the 3rd test when England are 1 up in the series.

Hopefully they'll throw him back in for the 5th test (provided we win Edgbaston and the 4th test).

 

[whatashotbyseve]

He can't bat as well as Hughes and he can't bowl or bat as well as Johnson. So why bother picking him?

 

[u-borat]

cos he's shit

 

[blue_chameleon]

He can't bat as well as Hughes and he can't bowl or bat as well as Johnson. So why bother picking him?

Can you really apply that statement to the past 2 tests though?

Hughes batting well?
Johnson bowling well?

I'd say with quite a tongue-in-cheek manner, if anything it's balanced out nicely by picking someone like Watson. Even if Watson is only half the bowler that Johnson is and half the batter that Hughes is, then given the performances of H and J throughout the series, Watson would seem at the very least to cater sufficiently for both their losses.

I like Hughes and Johnson, I had big hopes on both this series. For whatever reason they aren't good enough, which has been evident from the first 2 tests. So what's the logical decision here? They'll both be back later when they find form.

Aus could play Johnson and just give the poms a 100 runs headstart?

 

[blue_chameleon]

Teams aren't confirmed yet either.

If Clark isn't in this team, then the aussies might as well just give the poms the ashes. He creates pressure well and (if Johnson were to be picked, thus Siddle out) then Johnson might feel less pressured by his poor form of late.

Clark needs to be in this team.

 

[newmz89]

Well Watson is going alright so far. Hopefully he can get his ton, and it seems we are off to a good start in this Test Match, also good to win the toss for once.

 

[Roy9]

I thought Watson would've been picked but for North instead of Hughes... Surprised Clark didn't get picked either. If he didn't get picked for this test then I doubt he will play at all seeing as Lee is supposed to be fit for the next one. Unlucky for Haddin as well, broke his finger in the warm up