Mitchell Johnson (Under Wraps)

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Just remind me.... who was it that bowled that spell-of-the-series to exploit the slope at Lords at the beginning of the 2005 Ashes?

McGrath did take 5 wickets in that match yes, but I will also remind you that - so did Harmison.

Flintoff did the job throughout the Ashes, McGrath only might have done had he been fit.

England made the same mistake with Botham - they held on to him for two long expecting miracles.

I am taking nothing away from McGrath, but even he can't go on forever.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I am taking nothing away from McGrath, but even he can't go on forever.

Yes true but how can you negatively judge him if you haven’t really seen him bowl yet? The way Harmison is bowling at the moment is more of a concern than how McGrath is bowling, but all you pomes (except Rachael) are dismissing Harmisons bad bowling saying that it is just one day cricket, he will distroy in the Ashes. Well firstly McGrath doesn’t struggle to get the ball on the pitch, secondly McGrath has only been playing one day cricket as well so how can people be judge his test career.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Yes true but how can you negatively judge him if you haven’t really seen him bowl yet? The way Harmison is bowling at the moment is more of a concern than how McGrath is bowling, but all you pomes except Rachael

Not at all - he bowled rubbish in South Africa and came back - Fletcher was to blame there, but McGrath IMO is not capable of bowling a devastaing spell that Harmison [could] bowl.
Flintoff will still be the best of the 22 players on show IMO, now he can bowl under pressure, in fact before he was injured, he boled better as captain.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

secondly McGrath has only been playing one day cricket as well so how can people be judge his test career.

So has Harmison - in any case Harmison is not a one day player, anyone will tell you that - except Fletcher.

[Quagmire]

Your saying a man with 179 wickets at 28+ can bowl a devistating spell, and a man with 542 wickets at 21.55 can't. McGrath is 4th on the test bowling rankings and 6th on the ODI bowling rankings. To say that McGrath can't bowl a devistating spell and Harmison can is a joke. McGrath gets his wickets with accuracy and movement, you don't lose skill you just gain experience. Harmison relies on his pace and bounce he wont bowl at test level when he is over 32 years of age. Why isnt Harmison a one day player, his bowling average is only two more than his test. How can a pace bowler not be a one day players. So your saying hes not accurate enough to play one day cricket or just not good enough.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

McGrath is 4th on the test bowling rankings

More to the point, he has a ranking of 850+.

Ernest mentions Botham... but Botham was only in the 850+ bracket from 1978/9 until 1980/1: he started a slide in the West Indies in 1980, briefly rallied in 1981 (culminating in his Mumbai performance) and then sank without trace at the grand old age of... 25. By the end of 82 he'd all but lost the battle to keep his rating above 700 and for the remaining NINE years of his career he staggered along with a rating of that was mostly at around the 600 mark.

Botham DID tail off in his final years... but he was pretty ordinary for many, many years before he finally lost it completely.

A better comparison would be Hadlee... who had a rating of over 900 in his late 30s (and a rating of over 800 throughout his 30s) and who only 'declined' to a figure of 879 (a figure higher than Shoaib Akhtar and Steve Harmison have EVER reached).

[flanflinger]

Lets move back to the topic, as all of this is speculation and fairly pointless tit for tat debate. (McGrath is the best seam bowler in the world, no real debate IMO)

Should Australia get Johnson into the team for the Ashes, as many are suggesting. Or will they go for an "Experienced" seamer?

My thoughts are that the selectors will play 2 spinners rather than risk Johnson.. and I feel if they do they will not only damage their chances in this Ashes contest, but also the one to come.

The big question though refers back to this comment by Border

To me, we are starting to get to a point where we need to take a bit of a gamble with some young guys. We've got steady performers there, but that's just my thinking to throw someone in there who is a bit different.

When are Australia, for the sake of their future, going to introduce some of their younger players, at the expense of the older players like Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath.

I suspect they won't, and the reason is that the selectors are worried that the next generation are not good enough and that there is not as much talent coming through...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

So your saying hes not accurate enough to play one day cricket or just not good enough.

No I thin McGrath is now best suited to the shorted game, I don't doubt his accuracy for one moment.

What I am saying is that being accurate alone is just not good enough in Test cricket, and IMO Australia will only drag themselves down hanging on to him at his age - as a premier strike bowler.

His 5 wickets against England at Lords in 2005 was not IMO as good a performance as the 5 wickets taken by Steve Harmison, and the reason for that is obvious - Harmison was bowling to probably the best batting side in the World, McGrath was not, England are nowhere near as good as Australia at batting, and that alone should sound warning bells as to the make up of the Australia bowling attack.

Originally Posted by Rachael

More to the point, he has a ranking of 850+.

With respect Rachael these rankings count for nothing, my reason for saying that is I have seen long retired bowlers in the rankings for months, these points were earned when McGrath was near his best I think.

[Quagmire]

How can you judge McGrath being good enough when you have not even seen him bowl in a test match? He is still bowling exactly the same in ODI's as last year, what has changed?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

How can you judge McGrath being good enough when you have not even seen him bowl in a test match?

I have seen him lots of times in a Test match, if you mean this year then no I have not, but like I said he did get 5 wickets at Lords in 2005 (against a poorish England batting line up) - Harmison also got 5 wickets against far superior batting.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

He is still bowling exactly the same in ODI's as last year,

I mentioned above that I thought McGrath was better suited to the shorter game at this stage in his career, and gave him credit.

Originally Posted by Ernest

No I think McGrath is now best suited to the shorted game, I don't doubt his accuracy for one moment.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

what has changed?

His age - he is one and a half years older than the last Ashes - with respect he can't last forever, let the young ones come though.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I have seen him lots of times in a Test match, if you mean this year then no I have not, but like I said he did get 5 wickets at Lords in 2005 (against a poorish England batting line up) - Harmison also got 5 wickets against far superior batting.

McGrath took 24 wickets at 27.16 in 7 tests last season, Harmison took 21 at 32.52 in 6 test. But its not a McGrath Vs Harmison thing, its people assuming McGrath is finished with out even seeing him bowl. What about Warne hes even older?