Clarke restates belief in Aussie attack being world's best

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-01/clarke-lays-down-challenge-to-proteas-bowlers/5232384

"I'm a little bit biased, but in my opinion this Australian attack is the best in the world," Clarke said.

"What I've seen from the Australian fast bowlers over a long period of time, I feel we have the best attack in the world."

He's also expecting sporty wickets which make it hard for batsmen but perhaps later seasons etc. they might not be as fiery as the ones in November on our last tour.

He's fully entitled to his opinion.

And it's not like he says he's being objective...

Clarke also said he didn't know what the result between SA and India was. He is either trying to play mind Ames extremely weakly or he is a total dickhead.

taipan wrote:Clarke also said he didn't know what the result between SA and India was. He is either trying to play mind Ames extremely weakly or he is a total dickhead.

Anybody half-familiar with Taips' body of work would see that it's not impossible to be both.

(WTF Leslie Ethelbert George has to do with it, Lord knows....)

JGK wrote:And it's not like he says he's being objective...

and it seems to have got to at least one Saffie

It's a strange comment from Clarke seeing as the attack has chopped and changed almost on a Test by Test basis up until Ashes 2013-14.

We may have a good talent pool to choose from right now, given freedom from injury, but the 'argument' really is about the relative strength of the top 3-4 bowlers from either side, and I can't see how anyone could argue our best 3 are within cooee of Steyn, Philander, and Morkel.

I'm hoping for mental weakness from Morkel, a significant career interruption for Philander, and an attack of the Brett Lees for Steyn. Without at least two of these, and quickly, I think our top order is screwed.

Still, if Midge keeps his whitewash form anything can happen.

FWIW - I don't think Morkel would make the Aust side.

Morkel v Siddle ... ??

The Ostrich tends to go to water if things aren't running for him, whereas Cot keeps grinding away.

And on MrK's point, Midge's form is crucial for a competitive effort by Aus in this series.

JGK wrote:Still, if Midge keeps his whitewash form anything can happen.

FWIW - I don't think Morkel would make the Aust side.

I'm not sure.

A better (more cogent) point would be that Lyon would improve the current South African team.

But that still doesn't really substantiate Clarke's case, does it. He didn't say "best balanced".

.

lardbucket wrote:Morkel v Siddle ... ??

In the current Aust side, yes to Siddle. Morkel has one of the easiest fast bowling jobs in world cricket and still averages over 30.

And to consider "the bigger picture" ...

Did MC make any claims about the Oz batting lineup being "the best in the world"?

Or was the pumping of his bowler's collective tyres, in part, a diversionary tactic?

On recent form, best composite XI?

Perhaps

Smith (G)
Petersen
Amla
De Villiers
Clarke
Haddin (if De Kock is excluded on ethnic grounds)
Philander
Johnson
Steyn
Harris
Lyon / Morkel (depending on track)

Or is that a bit Saffie-heavy, and does Warner get in for Alviro?

(Not sure you need the stalwart Siddle if the rest in their various ways have smashed the Martian opposition to pieces.)

PeterCS wrote:...and does Warner get in for Alviro?

Er, no.

Of course Faf would press a case for inclusion too, while he is still warm with the bat and quicksilver in the field. You'd have to drop a quick though (or a frontline bowler of some sort), which might be difficult.

I think Lyon would have to be in that team.

Every good team deserves twirler.

JGK wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Morkel v Siddle ... ??

In the current Aust side, yes to Siddle.  Morkel has one of the easiest fast bowling jobs in world cricket and still averages over 30.

Actually Morkel averages under thirty. Not necessarily arguing his case over the solid and reliable Siddle but maybe you're understating his case by saying he has the easiest job bowling after Steyn and Philander. In the first test against India for e.g. he was probably their best bowler but didn't enjoy the spoils. Batsmen have repeatedly said that he is the most difficult of their batsmen to face but that doesn't always translate to wickets. Hussey for e.g. has said that Morkel is the bowler he least likes facing in their attack except when the conditions are conducive to movement when in his words Philander becomes " an absolute nightmare". Sometimes the stats don't tell the full picture. One of Morkel's problems seems to be a tendency to bowl too short and with his height he sometimes misses out on LBWs etc.

PeterCS wrote:On recent form, best composite XI?

Perhaps

Smith (G)
Petersen
Amla
De Villiers
Clarke
Haddin (if De Kock is excluded on ethnic grounds)
Philander
Johnson
Steyn
Harris
Lyon / Morkel (depending on track)

Or is that a bit Saffie-heavy, and does Warner get in for Alviro?

(Not sure you need the stalwart Siddle if the rest in their various ways have smashed the Martian opposition to pieces.)

Consensus seems to be that the selectors have not handled de Kock's probable entry in the smartest manner.

I thought Snorkel was selected for ethnic quota reasons

horace wrote:I thought Snorkel was selected for ethnic quota reasons

NTR.

DFTFT

embee wrote:DFTFT

Red is a troll?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/mitchell-johnson-already-has-proteas-rattled-says-pat-cummins-20140202-31vg6.html

Cummins believes that Johnson already has the Proteas rattled.

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:DFTFT

Red is a troll?

Hard to believe anyone is that stupid unintentionally ...