Mitchell Johnson (Under Wraps)

[Quagmire]

He’s never going to play in another test match because he is not good enough with the red ball, he is not even in contention to play test cricket.

[Paoli]

Putting it down to the colour of the ball is just by the way...It's the fact that he's only useful in ODI Circumstances. He does alright for NSW though, so saying he's not in contention at all is a bit rash.

[acker]

Surprise Surprise

The overlooked and demoted Mitchell Johnson took 3-40 against England last night

Mitchell must consider himself extremely lucky and fortunate to get his spot in the team ahead of such world class bowling international non entities such as Stuart Clark and Nathan Bracken.

[Beny]

1. It was a ODI... It means virtualy nothing.

2. He bolwed slower than Watson- so much for being a 150km/h bowler.

[Quagmire]

He bowled well, is pace everything? Maybe like most good bowlers he doesnt try to run in and bowl his fastest, he moved the ball a little bit into the right handers then pushed the ball across batsman.

[Seamer]

Yep Johnson is quick enough, tall, more importantly left armer, and most importantly, Ponting wants him in the test XI. He will get a few tests this Ashes i reckon.

The short pitched tactic used by Johnson the other night by will work against the English this Ashes series too IMO. Remember all those crappy top edges that Flintoff hit that went for six on those small English grounds in 2005? Those will go straight down the outfielders throat in Australia and Johnson is the perfect man to successfully pull of the short pitched tactic

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Seamer

The short pitched tactic used by Johnson the other night by will work against the English this Ashes series too IMO. Remember all those crappy top edges that Flintoff hit that went for six on those small English grounds in 2005? Those will go straight down the outfielders throat in Australia and Johnson is the perfect man to successfully pull of the short pitched tactic

Freddie will just have to hit them harder... Good to see the old "England were lucky" broken record has returned.

When will you Aussies learn you lost the Ashes by being beaten by the better team over 5 Tests. If you win this winter (which I doubt) then you won't here me saying you were lucky, but that the best team won.

As for Johnson, he may be a very good bowler, and Ponting may want him in the team (as I would) but I am convinced that the Aussie selectors will over look him in favour of some has-been (or in the case of Stuart Clark - a never-was)

[Quagmire]

I dont think that seamer was saying that Flintoff was lucky it just was the conditions a lot of Pietersens and Flintoffs sixes during the ashes last year would have been caught in Australia. How many times have you seen sixes from miss hits in England and compare that with miss hits that go for six in Australia.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

How many times have you seen sixes from miss hits in England and compare that with miss hits that go for six in Australia.

It's the same for both sides - I have seen both Flintoff and Pietersen clobber the ball in the stands, that would be a six on any ground.

I don't doubt that Aussies players can do the same, so it does not really matter how large Aussie grounds are, it's how good the bowlers - bowl on them.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

It's the same for both sides - I have seen both Flintoff and Pietersen clobber the ball in the stands, that would be a six on any ground.

Quite right, if our grounds are so much smaller how come Gilchrist didn't find the boundary more often? He was found out by good bowling and couldn't hit the sixes he normally would hit.

Most of my points in this thread have been about the fact that I don't feel the Aussie selectors are bold enough in their selection and the old tried and tested players they will select for the Ashes will be found out, it was good to hear that Dennis Lillee has come to the same conclusion:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/6077190.stm

Originally Posted by Lillee

It doesn't matter how fit an individual is, his reflexes are not going to get better as he gets older, so problems are harder to hide.

And for me this is the problem

For me Australia need to get some of their young guys into the team, like Johnson, Cosgrove, Cullen, Tait and Watson, otherwise I have no doubt that they will struggle in the Test series. But I doubt they will, and this is where England will have an edge IMO

Originally Posted by Lillee

Mark my word, the England pace attack, mentally buoyed and on faster Australian wickets, will this summer be at their absolute peak age-wise.

And Geoff Lawson on the subject of McGrath adds:-

Originally Posted by Lawson

But when you get to that age, every time you bowl a bad spell people start casting aspersions. This is just a function of getting old. There is going to be an end but when is the end going to come? It's a pretty natural thing to talk about

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ml?CMP=OTC-RSS

Flintoff, Hoggard and Harmison are in their late-twenties (which is a peak age for a fast-bowler). Of the Aussie attack that will make up the Ashes Test team, only Lee fits into that category.

Ian Chappell questions though whether the players of the next generation are good enough

Every time Watson claims a victim, Australian players converge and the congratulatory ceremony leads you to assume he's performed a minor miracle and dismissed Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara with the same delivery.

And for me this is why the old guys are in the team, is that Australia had a golden generation of players, and frankly there is a worry that the next generation are not anywhere near the same level.