5 slick Aussie pacemen coming to Ashes 2009 in England

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Hogg at 36 is in the past it stage.. IMO..

He'd cause us a few problems were he to play in the entire series. Mostly with the bat but he'd take a few wickets too.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Well we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I think Flemming has an excellent cricketing brain, and along with M.Waugh should be an Aussie selector.

As to your choice of spinners, i have no real problem with your choices. If Hogg gets his chance and you get to see him in action, maybe you will change your mind

Until then, once again we will have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

He'd cause us a few problems were he to play in the entire series. Mostly with the bat but he'd take a few wickets too.

At least i have a little support from Notts on this one

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Seamer

At least i have a little support from Notts on this one

Hey, I am not saying that Hogg isn't capable of picking up a few wickets... my argument is that he is not one of the top two to three spinners in the world right now!!

I have no doubt that he has ability, my problem is that at 36 maybe the opportunity has come to late? The problem with having one spinner spot, and Shane Warne in the mix, means that players like MacGill and Hogg do not get the opportunity that maybe they would have got had they been born 5 years later or in any other Test nation.

The bigger problem for Australia is - who are the long term candidates? Where are the next Warne, MacGill and Hogg? I personally haven't seen many candidates, and the fact that the only two candidates to replace Warne are both the wrong side of 35, means that for me, Australia may have a problem in two to three years time?

[greg]

I would be over the moon if Hogg comes to England in 2009 as the main spinner as he clearly isn't good enough as his record at Warwickshire showed.I would be far more worried about facing MacGill if he was to regain his form as at least he has a decent record to fall back on.

Hogg doesn't even average 2 wickets a match in his first class career,imagine how we would be ridiculed by the Aussies if our spinner had such a pathetic record.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I have no doubt that he has ability, my problem is that at 36 maybe the opportunity has come to late?

Well unlike McGill, it is not as if Warne held Hogg back. Three years ago, i would have laughed if someone suggested Hogg as a test player. But he has improved out of sight these days.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The bigger problem for Australia is - who are the long term candidates?

Well i am not deluding myself on the spin issue in regards to Australia. We have been shaking the spinner tree for years now and nothing is falling. Right now to my knowledge, the next best options are Cameron White or Nathan Hauritz and those guys are hardly likely to tear the cricketing world apart. Spin is not one of Australia's favorite subjects anymore, which is why we are talking up our pace options so much.

It is hoped down here that by the use of this attack, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Tait and Lee are not particularly that good IMO, but they are fast, and every team needs a fast man. Mitchel Johnson is special and i think he will cause many a headache for batsman for the next 8-10 years. You have not heard much about Hilfenhouse, but i can assure you his reputation is deserved. Bracken will be useful at times - especially in England. Most people agree that Clark is a fine bowler. And we have another guy by the name of Noffke who is just starting to ripen.

Australia is strong in batting, and will be for the foreseeable future. Our fast bowling stocks are very healthy. Our spin options are scant and a bit of a worry. This all adds up to a competitive Australia, but not as nearly a dominant one. Considering the doom and gloom forecasts after the retirement of Warne and McGrath, things are looking better than what they could have been.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by greg

Hogg doesn't even average 2 wickets a match in his first class career,imagine how we would be ridiculed by the Aussies if our spinner had such a pathetic record.

Probably as much as you guys are ridiculing him now. But if you had his fine ODI career to back him up, as well as his recent and current first class record, you would have a fine retort for us

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Australia is strong in batting, and will be for the foreseeable future. Our fast bowling stocks are very healthy.

If the batting continues to be strong, as indicated, the bowling will benefit. Defending first innings totals of 550 isn't very difficult. The batting side is immediately on the defensive and that enables bowlers who might not be brilliant to get the upper hand. Brett Lee isn't really that good yet he still averages only just over thirty at Test level. Were he playing for any of the other nations I suspect that average would be well over forty.

Hogg will have the advantage of bowling with men around the bat and pressure on the batsman. That gets you wickets as much as great bowling does.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

If the batting continues to be strong, as indicated, the bowling will benefit. Defending first innings totals of 550 isn't very difficult. The batting side is immediately on the defensive and that enables bowlers who might not be brilliant to get the upper hand. Brett Lee isn't really that good yet he still averages only just over thirty at Test level. Were he playing for any of the other nations I suspect that average would be well over forty.

I didn't think about that fact Notts - interesting take. But by the same token, if England bats first and spanks Lee and co around the park for 550+, the Aussie batsman will be the ones under pressure with batsmen all around them.

I don't hold any illusions. Australia will still win more than they lose, but they will cop a few more losses than what they have in the past. Particularly against teams with batsmen that will attack them.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Seamer

IBut by the same token, if England bats first and spanks Lee and co around the park for 550+, the Aussie batsman will be the ones under pressure with batsmen all around them.

I don't hold any illusions. Australia will still win more than they lose, but they will cop a few more losses than what they have in the past. Particularly against teams with batsmen that will attack them.

Very true. It will make for more interesting Test Matches. The Aussie batting is very strong and will probably withstand that pressure better than the majority of opponents.

I'll still be interested to see how Haydos gets on in the next Ashes series. He really didn't enjoy it last time out, did he? And that swing will still be around, which it wasn't Down Under last winter.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Seamer

.... which is why we are talking up our pace options so much.

Do the Aussies really have that many pace bowling options??

Originally Posted by Seamer

Mitchel Johnson is special and i think he will cause many a headache for batsman for the next 8-10 years. You have not heard much about Hilfenhouse, but i can assure you his reputation is deserved.

Johnson looks a decent bowler and does the little i've seen of Hilfenaus but as I've already mentioned are they really any better than Hoggard and Sidebottom??

Originally Posted by Seamer

Australia is strong in batting, and will be for the foreseeable future.

I agree there, the the Aussie top 7 is still awesome.

But i feel the next ashes series will be decided by the bowling attacks (as the 2005 series was) and at the moment i feel Englands will be stronger than the Aussies. This will allow the weaker English batting line up to post competitive scores.