Australia v England, 5th Test, Sydney, 3-7 January, 2014

skully wrote:So this Watson chap. Can't bat, can't bowl, can't catch. Just WhyTF is he in the Aus XI, can someone please tell me?

Dunno why he's in the Aus XI, skulls, but I know I'd have him in our XI just now for batting, bowling & fielding.

1. He's outscored all our bats, and at a better average to boot. 345 runs @ 38. In comparison ......

we've only had 16 individual scores higher than that all series. Discount the new boys Root Stokes & Carbs (who have 6 of them), and our big guns contribution is absolutely pitiful .....

Cook - 72 at Perth, 65 at Gabba and 51 at MCG
Bell - 72 at Adelaide and 60 at Pertgh
KP - 71 at MCG, 53 at Adelaide, 49 at MCG and 45 at Perth
Prior - 69 at Perth his only innings of note.

They have over 25,000 test runs between them, and a high score of 72 in nine completed innings sums up why we're as good as whitewashed as I type.

2. He may have only 4 wickets, but his economy of 2.55 rpo is way better than any of our lot. In contrast, our most economical overall is Jimmy at 3.26. Take away the aberration innings of 0/105 2nd dig at Perth, and it's still a shade over 3 rpo. Not shabby, but still more expensive than Watson. I'm sure if he'd been bowling with Jimmy for a dozen overs mid-innings, then Smith, Haddin, Bailey and MJ wouldn't have been running away at 5, 6 or 7 rpo to get Aus out of the shit at 5 down for bugger all .....

3. We,ve been so poor in the field compared with our usual decent standards, it's hard to see how the big Qbilly wouldn't have improved our fielding stats too in this series.

holcs wrote:Interesting to hear Johnson getting all the plaudits on here, when actually the reason Aus have blown us away has been Harris. Yes Midge has cleaned up the tail, but Harris is simply sensational against the England top order! He is the one that stifles us and creates the pressure and takes the wickets up front which then allows Johnson blows away our timid tail for a dismal total!

Top 6 wickets:
Johnson - 16
Lyon - 12
Harris - 11
Siddle - 9

baggygreen wrote:

holcs wrote:Interesting to hear Johnson getting all the plaudits on here, when actually the reason Aus have blown us away has been Harris. Yes Midge has cleaned up the tail, but Harris is simply sensational against the England top order! He is the one that stifles us and creates the pressure and takes the wickets up front which then allows Johnson blows away our timid tail for a dismal total!

Top 6 wickets:
Johnson - 16
Lyon - 12
Harris - 11
Siddle - 9

This

Haddin should be man of the series. Had he not pulled Australia's first innings around, time and again, Johnson would not have had the runs on the board, the wind in his sails and his tail up to blow away the increasingly demoralised Poms.

Acid Test: Australia could have won convincingly without Johnson. They couldn't have without Haddin. Man of the Series.

That

PeterCS wrote:

Haddin should be man of the series. Had he not pulled Australia's first innings around, time and again, Johnson would not have had the runs on the board, the wind in his sails and his tail up to blow away the increasingly demoralised Poms.

Acid Test: Australia could have won convincingly without Johnson. They couldn't have without Haddin. Man of the Series.

That

... is wrong. If Haddin hadn't played England would still be bowled out for 150 every innings. So the fact Australia were making 250 rather than 350 each innings wouldn't be too decisive, it would still be more than enough.

The cruel irony here is that this is (perhaps give or take one or two players) the very same Australian team that England beat fairly convincingly 3 - zip just 5 months ago !

It therefore begs an answer to the following questions:

Has England regressed so dramatically?
Has Australia improved out of sight?
Does Boof claim Man of the Series?
Should England now seriously consider playing every test series on home soil?

Away teams won two Tests in 2013, out of 40 or so played I think, an astonishing stat... if this was a trend it would call into question the entire future of the format, but the previous two years were apparently a lot more even.

England were a bubble waiting to be burst, it was clear for a long time though nobody saw it being quite this spectacular. Australia have settled on a formula and benefited from a few inspired performances in conditions that suit, which has played a part in the disintegration of the opposition.

I still maintain the turning point of the series was allowing them to start that over before lunch on the second day of the series when Trott was out, though. Sack the time-wasting coach!

Jimmy Taylor got a ton today for Claremont Neddies

Gary 111 wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Haddin should be man of the series. Had he not pulled Australia's first innings around, time and again, Johnson would not have had the runs on the board, the wind in his sails and his tail up to blow away the increasingly demoralised Poms.

Acid Test: Australia could have won convincingly without Johnson. They couldn't have without Haddin. Man of the Series.

That

... is wrong. If Haddin hadn't played England would still be bowled out for 150 every innings. So the fact Australia were making 250 rather than 350 each innings wouldn't be too decisive, it would still be more than enough.

Classic "static thinking" again, methinks. Only calculating the final maths (adding or subtracting runs from the final scorecard), not reading the developing game situations, or how "this affects that".

Had - as seemed quite likely three times over - Aus been dismissed for 200-230 in any of the first three Tests (you forget that Haddin being such a thorn in England's side, rather than joining the previous batting procession, also made time, opportunity and Aussie morale for runs to be made at the other end - and also importantly, extended the time for England debilitatingly to be chasing leather, in broiling heat in two cases), and also roused the crowd to bellicose support for their boys, ..... then I believe it is highly likely England would have started out their three first innings in far better shape, spirit and frame of mind.

I'll grant you that Johnson played his part with the bat in the first Test, opening innings - but who do you think set that tone, made the fightback possible, mentored Johnson's previously fragile mindset with a fearless flashing blade and the senior professional's words of guidance and support?

Having "let it slip away", nerves, sweat and bad feeling started to beset the England effort. The crowds in excelsis, the Aussie captain in buoyant, adventurous mood, and the bowlers on the joyous, invincible warpath saw to the rest. Nobody more roused and raised by this, essentially the work of Haddin, than Johnson.

embee wrote:Jimmy Taylor got a ton today for Claremont Neddies

He's seen Aussie fire, he's seen a shower of Pommie shite. (On the TV.)

Merlin wrote:The cruel irony here is that this is (perhaps give or take one or two players) the very same Australian team that England beat fairly convincingly 3 - zip just 5 months ago !

It therefore begs an answer to the following questions:

Has England regressed so dramatically?
Has Australia improved out of sight?
Does Boof claim Man of the Series?
Should England now seriously consider playing every test series on home soil?

1. No, the signs of weakness were there for anyone with eyes to see. Six months ago, and previous to that in UAE. Especially in England batting techniques, also periodic fatigue and a falling-away in the bowling.
2. No, gradually but surely over 12 months. This series should have been much closer, given the fragility at several points of Oz's batting. It wasn't, for reasons elsewhere explained. In three words, Lehmann, Haddin, Johnson. Add three words, and those are Harris, Siddle and Lyon.
3. At the end of the first Test, I claimed as much. That's the philosophical position, "the big picture". As the MoS award goes to those out in the middle, it's Haddin for me, with runner-up Jonners.
4. No, that's a sardonic overreaction, despite beamer's impressive stat above about a high trend of home victories in Tests. We shouldn't all follow Indian preferences for owning the bat and ball!
What it does mean is that we should realise cricket is a game, and have some proportion. And then renew in at least three positions. Take note of the massively effective Lehmann example. Fresh intelligence - thorough, practical research on oppositions, and effective practice with our own players so that good play becomes second nature (well learnt but not robotic) - a supportive, understanding and indeed friendly relationship with the players that is not mateyness or tolerance of slackness, or petulance. That sort of thing.

PeterCS wrote:

skully wrote:So this Watson chap. Can't bat, can't bowl, can't catch. Just WhyTF is he in the Aus XI, can someone please tell me?

Batting average above Bailey's (and all the bowlers') and just slightly below Clarke's and Smith's, with a strike rate above all of those and also Rogers'.

Bowling average of 30, with an economy rate bettered only by Siddle.

You'll be calling for Clarke's head next.

Now that's just crazy talk, Petey. You do know I'm Prez of the Pup fan club?   

Watson has not once made runs when we are under pressure (his average pumped up by the 2nd innings bat throwing in Perth and the not out 80 in I2 at MCG), has bowled only a handful of overs before twice pulling up lame, and couldn't catch a cold at first slip. Sure, he's jagged 4 wickets, but I argue that Pup probably could have got those 4 wickets himself.   

Can I fill out Twat's immigration papers and send them to you for approval?  

Actually, Watsons & Clarkes batting averages for this series are very similar.

Watson is a useless test cricketer. Stats don't tell you the circumstances, as mentioned by skully above.

Combine the fact that he is useless with the fact that he apparently has an attitude as well, it is no wonder his captain hates him.

Pup, along with Midge, Smith (twice) and Rogers all made 1st innings scores with Haddin to set up wins. Twat walked in, hung his bat out and walked off, to 5 times contribute to perilous 1st innings positions that Haddin had to dig us out of.

I maintain Twatson is simply NOT a number 3, but may go OK at no. 6 where he may have a little more licence to perform as he has in a couple of I2 innings. If Warner (another 1st innings non-performer) is going to  be retained, we can't open with Twat, as you can't afford to have 2 cowboys starting the innings.

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:So this Watson chap. Can't bat, can't bowl, can't catch. Just WhyTF is he in the Aus XI, can someone please tell me?

Even the dolly he caught almost bobbled out.

What astounds me is that Boof says if he can't bowl then he won't be selected.  Which infers that they don't think his batting is good enough to warrant a place on its own.  It may be a view supported by evidence but why the fark is someone who gets picked because he bowls a bit batting at #3 then?

Yes, number 3 is a key position and Aus have gotten away with it in this series. They won't against better sides.

But then someone can come in and argue that how many better sides are there in test cricket.

Big Dog wrote:Actually, Watsons & Clarkes batting averages for this series are very similar.

Watson (first innings): 144 runs @ 28
Watson (second innings): 201 runs @ 50

Clarke (first innings): 193 runs @ 39
Clarke (second innings) 170 runs @ 43

Clarke has one first innings hundred this series. He's the only one of the pair of them to have made a contribution with the game on the line.

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:So this Watson chap. Can't bat, can't bowl, can't catch. Just WhyTF is he in the Aus XI, can someone please tell me?

Even the dolly he caught almost bobbled out.

What astounds me is that Boof says if he can't bowl then he won't be selected.  Which infers that they don't think his batting is good enough to warrant a place on its own.  It may be a view supported by evidence but why the fark is someone who gets picked because he bowls a bit batting at #3 then?

Yes, number 3 is a key position and Aus have gotten away with it in this series. They won't against better sides.

Aye, A_G. We need someone with a little more grit at 3 (perhaps Alex Doolan). The Bailey experiment appears to have failed, so put Twat at 6.

Dello wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Actually, Watsons & Clarkes batting averages for this series are very similar.

Watson (first innings): 144 runs @ 28
Watson (second innings): 201 runs @ 50

Clarke (first innings): 193 runs @ 39
Clarke (second innings) 170 runs @ 43

Clarke has one first innings hundred this series. He's the only one of the pair of them to have made a contribution with the game on the line.

THIS.

skully wrote:Pup, along with Midge, Smith (twice) and Rogers all made 1st innings scores with Haddin to set up wins. Twat walked in, hung his bat out and walked off, to 5 times contribute to perilous 1st innings positions that Haddin had to dig us out of.

I maintain Twatson is simply NOT a number 3, but may go OK at no. 6 where he may have a little more licence to perform as he has in a couple of I2 innings. If Warner (another 1st innings non-performer) is going to  be retained, we can't open with Twat, as you can't afford to have 2 cowboys starting the innings.

See above.

He'll do fine at six. Bailey's obviously not going to persist, regardless of what he does today.

It would be mice to see George help us add another 150. If not you can see Carberry doing a Mark Butcher

G.Wood wrote:It would be mice to see George help us add another 150.  If not you can see Carberry doing a Mark Butcher

Aye. And wouldn't that be an anticlimactic finish to the series for us.   

PeterCS wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Haddin should be man of the series. Had he not pulled Australia's first innings around, time and again, Johnson would not have had the runs on the board, the wind in his sails and his tail up to blow away the increasingly demoralised Poms.

Acid Test: Australia could have won convincingly without Johnson. They couldn't have without Haddin. Man of the Series.

That

... is wrong. If Haddin hadn't played England would still be bowled out for 150 every innings. So the fact Australia were making 250 rather than 350 each innings wouldn't be too decisive, it would still be more than enough.

Classic "static thinking" again, methinks. Only calculating the final maths (adding or subtracting runs from the final scorecard), not reading the developing game situations, or how "this affects that".

Had - as seemed quite likely three times over - Aus been dismissed for 200-230 in any of the first three Tests (you forget that Haddin being such a thorn in England's side, rather than joining the previous batting procession, also made time, opportunity and Aussie morale for runs to be made at the other end - and also importantly, extended the time for England debilitatingly to be chasing leather, in broiling heat in two cases), and also roused the crowd to bellicose support for their boys, ..... then I believe it is highly likely England would have started out their three first innings in far better shape, spirit and frame of mind.

I'll grant you that Johnson played his part with the bat in the first Test, opening innings - but who do you think set that tone, made the fightback possible, mentored Johnson's previously fragile mindset with a fearless flashing blade and the senior professional's words of guidance and support?

Having "let it slip away", nerves, sweat and bad feeling started to beset the England effort. The crowds in excelsis, the Aussie captain in buoyant, adventurous mood, and the bowlers on the joyous, invincible warpath saw to the rest. Nobody more roused and raised by this, essentially the work of Haddin, than Johnson.

This is nonsense.

The only reason England's batsmen can't lay a bat on Johnson, Harris or Siddle is Haddin?

Australia would have won convincingly with or without Haddin.

I'll give you without Haddin, Johnson and Harris, then it might have been close. But England would only have been playing against 8 men.

As I said earlier, they have been playing against eight anyway - Rogers, Bailey and TAYne POCson have made pretty negligible contributions on the whole.

So in other words, playing against 5 men we might have had a chance.

Interesting stats just put up. Over the 2 consecutive Ashes series Buck Rogers is in the top 3 averages. And no player from either side has managed to top 50 average over the 2 series. Belf is top with 45.