England’s James Anderson celebrates with teammates as Australia’s Michael Clarke ,left, leaves the field after being caught by Alastair Cook, on the second day of the second cricket test match between England and Australia at Lord’s cricket ground in London, Friday, July 17, 2009. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth
Phillip Hughes must be feeling so relieved that his place in the Australian cricket team is open to all comers, from both within and outside the touring squad.
Firstly the only ‘spare’ batsmen in the squad, Shane Watson, tells the world that he is available to open the batting (one presumes that Shane forgot to add that ‘should my young team mate continue to fail’).
No signs of team solidarity that is so often spruiked by the sensitive new age professionals in that pronouncement.
Then grey bearded Justin Langer, aged 39, but still belting the pride of English cricket mediocrity around county grounds announces that he is ready and willing to play in the 3rd Test , if required. This said only partly tongue in cheek.
Hughes has found the path to the top a lot less slippery than the perch. His technique has been found wanting, and clearly so.
He was only within an umpire’s whim and then an easy edge let pass by the Northants keeper and slip fieldsmen from a sixth straight failure. Regardless of his second dig 68, which would have returned a some measure of confidence, he is far from the positive mental state with which he began this Ashes campaign.
The England bowlers will have a straightforward tactic waiting for him at Edgbaston, but he will play there despite the offers of Watson and Langer.
Mitchell Johnson finds himself in an altogether different head space. He has bowled one spell worthy of an international cricketer since Durban in March.
He has NOT, I repeat NOT, swung the ball at all since the First test against South Africa back at the end of February at the Wanderers.
Ben Hilfenhaus must have become infuriated with the state of the ball every time he followed a Johnson over. The seam remains pristine but plenty of polishing to do on the scuffed, formerly shiny surface.
Johnson’s erratics have the double whammy of decreasing the efficacy of his bowling partner, especially when it is a swing bowler reliant on hardness and shine, and allowing all the pressure off at his end.
So many eggs were plonked in the Johnson basket at tour’s start with no thought of an appropriate back up left arm swing/seam/fast bowler even though his successes had been patchy.
It is one thing to support a player and give him your (selectors, captain, coach, players’) confidence, it is another altogether to ignore his shortcomings, pretend he is a ‘swing’ bowler, not deal with all of the outside disturbing influences and simply plough ahead and cross your fingers.
There has been some culpable decision making from the Australian selectors with this touring team. Decisions that have ignored the realities of human frailty and the lessons of cricket history.
Mitchell Johnson has bowled incredibly poorly in technical terms in the first two Tests. No seam, no swing (which is what happens when the seam is tumbling like a MotoGP rider over his handlebars) but he still has taken 8 wickets at 41 because of the rare delivery on target and the pace at which he bowls.
If he was the number 3 bowler in the lineup, the stock bowler, the Max Walker to Lillee and Thommo’, that would be bearable.
If Ricky Ponting had thrown the ball to a fast bowler or Simon Katich or flummed a final wicket at Cardiff, then there would be margin for error, a time for leeway and maybe another Test match for the ailing Johnson.
That of course is not the case. Australia are one down with three to play, time enough to hang onto the laurels but there has to be a massive reality check of just who is best equipped to win a Test match against an opponent that has gone from running scared to supremely confident in the matter of two weeks.
Stuart Clark must be in the starting XI. My spies on the scene tell me there is talk that Peter Siddle could make way for big Stuart and Johnson will be retained.
Visions of deckchairs on the Titanic flash before me followed by the sight of a monolithic (cricket) ship disappearing under the icy waves.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Thats sitting on the fence,JohnB. You have just made a very good case for retaining Johnson.
JohnB
Guest
FP - it's probably fair to say that Johnson was picked on a hunch. It's really gilding the lily to say Bolinger has "carved up" at shield level - someone who takes about 3.2 wickets per game is a good solid performer, not more. Possibly also could say that Johnson's figures in tests being better than his overall first class figures suggests there was something in the hunch. Figures never tell the full story, but comparing the 2, Johnson's overall figures shade Bolinger's except in terms of 5 wicket hauls (and a high proportion - nearly half - of Johnson's games have been tests): Johnson - 50 first class games (23 of them tests) 188 wickets, average 30.61, 12 x 4 wicket hauls, 4 x 5, 2 x 10 in a match Bollinger - 53 first class games (1 test) 171 wickets, average 30.38, 8 x 4, 9 x 5, 2 x 10 That doesn't of course address relative batting and fielding abilities - none of which is to say Johnson should be picked for the next test.
FIsher Price
Guest
Bollinger has carved up at Shield level for several years... Johnson was picked on a hunch without ever performing wonders for Qld.
Michael C
Guest
At the moment, Siddle is the only bowler bringing an ounce of aggression to the table, and has succeeded a couple of times in shaking up batsmen who then fell at the other end to his bowling partner. Johnson sadly, after learning to bowl good balls and wicket taking balls, is back to his pre summer of 08/09 worst where he bowled crap and it was the even crapper balls that had a happy knack of being mishit by disbelieving batsmen. Clark must come in for Johnson. North had no real compelling reason to retain his spot - but probably will. I'd love to see Andy McDonald in there, although, so long as Hauritz remains steady, then, he probably misses - and if Johnson is dropped then North will hold his place. McDonald could then only replace Hauritz - - that I guess is possible depending upon the pitch.
Jameswm
Guest
I reckon there are two scenarios. A. Pitch is expected to play pretty normally. SClark in for Johnson B. Pitch looks like a seamer's paradise - Johnson retains his spot, Watson comes in for North as 4th seamer cover, and SClark comes in for Siddle. This is Spencer's supposedly "just released" team.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
do you want an out of form strike bowler or a crock? Clark must play to put pressure on the batsman. McDonald is at least an honest reliable performer who is in form and wont break down in game. that would be a disaster at this point of the series. 0-1, that is recoverable. 0-2. thats not! They are your options. My team: 1.Katich 2. Hughes 3. Ponting 4. Hussey 5. Clarke 6. North 7. Haddin 8. Hauritz 9. Clark 10. Siddle 11. Hilfenhaus The logic is to show faith in the individual and remove Johnson from the spot light to get things, his head and his action, in that order, right for later in the series. At worst, the above team can get a draw and live to fight another day. On a good day, and england are not consistent or red hot themselves, the Aussies can beat England and retain the Ashes.
davido
Guest
I really cant comprehend Johnson making the squad. I would also drop Siddle for McDonald. Why shouldnt all the spots be competitive? I dont have a problem with Watson saying he is up for it. We need someone who wants to step up and bring it on.
Jacks Dad
Guest
Stuart Clark has to be in, unfortunately it would likely be at Siddles expense. Andy McD is in -go the ranga! He will slot into the all rounder role of Mitch Johno nicely. I must add that I am a big Mitch Johno fan, but he is seriously misfiring & the ashes are on the line. Shane Watson has made a strong case at Northants but struggles as an opener in the extended game. Perhaps Phil Hughes did enough to retain his spot but his confidence must be rattled. However the Australian selectors are likely to suprise all of us armchair experts. How Merv Hughes can be an Australian selector whilst leading supporters tours at the same time certainly strikes me as a conflict of interest.
Spencer
Guest
Team for the 3rd test (just released): Katich Hughes Ponting Hussey Clarke Watson Haddin Johnson Hauritz Hilfenhaus Clark Siddle (likely 12th man)
Justin
Guest
From what Neilsen said Johnson will play the next Test which to me says they will drop North for either Watson or McDonald. If they pick Johnson they HAVE to play an extra seamer incase his tour form continues. Either that or Hauritz cops it with it being a seaming deck but my money is on the former.
onside
Guest
Geoff, 1.what was your experience with the Duke ball , 2.what balls do they use in South Africa 3.should it ,or could it, make a difference (even for the better ?)
JohnB
Guest
Strikes me that a lot of people underrate Johnson's performances leading up to this tour, and greatly pump up Bollinger's. That said, if everyone is fit you'd have to think that Johnson right now is the 4th ranked pace bowler on tour. You just could not pick him in a 4 man attack, without either taking an immense leap of faith that everything would suddenly come right, or praying that the other mob got themselves out to the other 3 bowlers. You would think that a four man attack could only be Hilfenhaus, Siddle, Clark and Hauritz - which isn't bad, though perhaps lacking real pace and a bit of variety. The alternative is to go for 5 bowlers and squeezing out one of the batsmen. Seems to me you're then picking 3 out of Siddle, Clark, Johnson and Watson. The sameness of Siddle, Clark and Watson (in style, not quality) has to go against them going in as a bloc. If what Geoff Lawson's spies say has any legs, does that see Watson sneaking in ahead of Siddle? Talk about high risk strategies.
Chop
Roar Guru
Fisher I agree with you Bollenger should be there but not necessarily at the expense of Johnson. Bollenger is very impressive with the new ball, but not as good with the old one and I don't recall him bowling reverse swing. I couldn't believe he wasn't in the touring party, but he did bowl well in the A series. I would be dropping Siddle as well before Johnson.
FIsher Price
Guest
Bollinger is better Johnson, especially with the new ball. Always has been, if Shield performance is anything to go by. Siddle is a poor man's Merv Hughes. Not all Australia's bowlers can be "world class". If Watson was serious about being a Test batsman he would have given up attempting to bowl fast long ago.
Chop
Roar Guru
I think that quote was taken out of context regarding Watson, if i recall correctly Nick McCardle asked him is he was up to opening that batting. I hope they do drop Siddle for Clark, I can't believe Stuart Clark has sat through the first two test matches. Johnson needs to get back to his bowling in South Africa and soon. Otherwise we'll be leaving the ashes behind in England again.
Hansie
Guest
I agree with Geoff's comments on Shane Watson, aka The Walking Ego. Since when do team mates dance on the grave of an out of form colleague? I thought team mates were meant to support each other. Ironically, bowling coach Troy Cooley was England's hero in 2005 and, based on the form of Australia's bowlers, will be England's hero again in 2009!
Spiro Zavos
Expert
This is a good call from Geoff, and one he has been making consistently from before the Ashes series started. The famed coaching staff of Australia has had the incredible impact of turning a world class bowler, Mitchell Johnson, into a mediocrity that mediocre country cricketers are belting around. It was the coaching staff presumably that decided to give the new ball to Johnson even though throughout his career he has not been a devastating new ball bowler, especially in the first innings. They seemed to have done something to Peter Siddle, too, for he has not been at his best in the series so far. What is going on here?