My cricket watching days started well into Lillee's career and I've never read up on him as much as I should.. but my understanding was that whilst he could get some shape on the ball in his early career... and was deadly enough even then... a comparison between the 17 year old Lillee and the 17 year old Botham would have been a comparison between a guy getting a bit of shape on some deliveries and a genuine swing bowler.

Sure... once the pair hit their early 20's the trajectories of each player's bowling career was diametrically opposed, with one going on to greatness and the other sinking into mediocrity... but despite my limited regard for Botham... folk on this board have convinced me (perhaps wrongly) that his early career swing bowling was pretty much exemplary.

If I am mistaken in myunderstanding of Lille's early-career swing bowling then fair enough... but I'd still stand by the argument even if the example chosen turns out to be ill-judged: I just don't see Australia's current situation in terms of swing bowling as being that new.

ps. Johnson and Lee can get a bit of shape on the ball, but would you call either of them genuine swing bowlers? I suspect that in helpful conditions, a fully fit and in form Hoggard would pose more questions than either - and he's only half a swing bowler as he's got an action that seemingly prevents him swing the ball either way!

I, probably like you, have very grave concerns about the quality of this Australian bowling attack. The test will be when Australia leave these shores, then we will see what losing Langer (not to be underestimated), McGrath and Warne will truly be - I refuse to believe this team can continue to be undoubtedly the #1 team in the world losing that much talent and having such relative inexperience in the team. Obviously not a swing bowler, but a seam bowler, Stuart Clark IS the real deal, I have seen enough, he is a 24ish level bowler, one of the very best in the world. He is MUCH more like Shaun Pollock than Glenn McGrath and the McGrath comparisons really irritate me (I'm an irritable person when it comes to cricket, I take it extremely seriosuly ).

But to your point, Brett Lee is a mediocre Test bowler, he's having a superb summer, to be sure, but fast bowlers don't suddenly become dramatically better when they turn 31, it would be unprecidented in the history of the game. He IS a genuine new ball swing bowler with genuine pace - should be a fearsome combination - but he rarely attacks the stumps (very low unassisted wicket totals for his style) and does not use enough bouncers or yorkers (despite seemingly mastering this delivery at ODI level). That second point is probably the biggest difference this summer, a lot of excellent yorkers and particulary, bouncers, that have opened the pitch up for him much more and make batsmen less inclined to plant the front foot down the pitch and drive him with ease. He has been far, far too predictable in the past, a standard stock outswinger pitched two feet outside off which you simply do not have to play - he rarely possesses the ability to bring the ball back into right handers so most of Lee's career has been spent wasting the new ball. Still - a mediocre swing bowler is nonetheless a swing bowler. Sean Tait is also a new ball swing bowler, though his problems are many and he is unbelievably raw (think a raw Malinga, which is a frightening idea) - he was, amazingly, bowled for only 21 overs in this Test, in the second innings, he received three less overs than Michael Clarke! Mitchell Johnson is a seam bowler, who reminds me a great deal of Pedro Collins and has been inconsistant at best this summer.

Anyway, swing bowling has been a feature of Australian cricket, fast bowling in general. McGrath, a pure West Indian style, short of a length seam bowler, is the exception, not the rule. Our four best pace bowlers besides McGrath in history are Davidson, Lindwall, Lillee and Miller - all of which should be classified as new ball swing bowlers.

I like Hoggard a lot, always was much better than Harmison, whom English cricket fans hyped to a RIDICULOUS degree (#1 bowler in the world, ahead of McGrath, Muralitharan and yes, even the hallowed Warne, let alone Ntini who was the leading wicket taker in world cricket the previous year, UNBELIEVABLE! Almost as bad as Pieterson's #2 ranking). He is tough, bowls long spells, does, as you mention, get genuine swing both ways, and is an excellent bowler with the old ball for a swing bowler. He is only now getting the credit he deserves.

But again, Ian Botham, Dennis Lillee? Also bear in mind how much easier it is to bowl swing in England and New Zealand than anywhere else in the world. The only significant seam bowler I can think of in England's history is Brian Statham.

Stuart Clark is good but unfortunately due to his age his career will be short. Hence Johnson at 26 looks a better long term bet as does Hilfenhaus and Tait at 24.

Thats why Johnson and Tait are being afforded extended opportunity much the same way as McGrath and Warne got at the starts of their careers. Neither McGrath or Warne set the world on fire in their early days but the selectors persevered with them. As they rightfully should with johnson and Tait.

The biggest problem we have got is due to the last head selectors Trevor Hohns willingness to grab quick makeshift solutions with the bowling such as Bichel and Kasprowicz, to the detriment of Stuart Clark and other younger bowlers who should of got a shot back then.

That problem has thankfully now been addressed. But like with any toddler teething can be difficult.

Oh yeah, I have no problem with the selections of Johnson and Tait, I would almost definately have selected the same bowling attack. I DO have a problem with bowling Tait for just 21 overs in the match, that is poor captaincy - he is in the team to bowl, bowl him. You're totally on the ball about blooding young players - Test cricket is really hard, these guys MAY be Test class, they may not, but we will not know unless they play. They rightfully should be in this team and given a fair opportunity, but I don't have a great deal of faith in either of them, and I also think that is a fair enough opinion to have.

Also agree totally about your point regarding Australian's selectors, they have not cultivated the young talent Australia had well at all, and just expected them to just take to cricket and thrive...amazingly this has worked with Hussey and Clark but you're totally right at how lucky they have been about this.

I wouldn't say their shortcomings have been exposed yet but i await their next tour abroad with interest as it is clear that this attack is nowhere near as good as the one they had last year,how much of a difference there is we have yet to find out and only will over the next few years.

The problem lies in this. Between the 30 - 70 over mark, the seam is no longer proud the ball has lost it's shine. Couple that with a quick, true pitch and fast outfield and you are looking at disaster if you bowl someone like Tait or Johnson. And Lee for that matter.

So in that period, it is crucial to use the spinners. Unfortunately, Hogg was not available so Ponting (rightfully) used Symonds and Clarke. The results justified his decision.I can only imagine what would have happened of Tait had been given a run during that period.

Therein lies the problem. You have only certain windows of opportunity where the situation is optimal for the fast men, and you have to try share it around 4 bowlers. Tait was superfluous to requirements plain and simple. The fact that Ponting didn't use him proved that. One can only assume Tait had been foisted on Ponting, and Ponting was making a statement to the selectors - Give me back Hogg (Could have used him with the bat in the first innings too)

This i do not agree with. Well only in special cases anyway. Yes you can bring on a young guy, watch him make mistakes to learn from, and drop him again to be brought back at a later stage. Or you can go with experienced, seasoned cricketers who have already made their mistakes and learnt from them. Jacques had alrady knocked up 10000 first class runs, so he was ready. Hussey the same. And also Clark. The jump from first class cricket in OZ to tests is not that great, in many cases it is a step down.

How many cricketers can you think of that Australia has picked young, that have not had to be sent back to state cricket to get more experience? Not many. You can go that way, many nations do, but when you think of guys like Hussey, Jacques, Clark, Bichel, Kasprwicz, Lehmann, Martyn, Colin Miller ect - they have been brought in and have been up to standard from the word go, thus justifying Australia's current (or previous?) selection policy.

One must wonder why that young opener OZ brought in for this test (can't think of his name off the top of my head) was brought in ahead of D Hussey or S Kattich for that matter. What did that young guy get out of this test? Nothing. What did Australia get out of playing him? Nothing. They should have stuck to the old policy and gone with experience in Hussey or Kattitch would'nt you say?

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............

I disagree here Seamer. Lee has been superb all series and I am sure that he would be more threatening than Symonds and Clarke especially if he bowled in tandem with Stuart Clark.

I think that the real reason that Ponting bowled the 2 spinners is because of the over rate. Ponting would have received a match ban if he had continued with the fast men. This coupled with the fact that there were 4 fast bowlers are the reasons that Tait was under bowled. If you play 4 fast men then inevitably 1 of them will be underbowled unless of course these 4 bowlers are used exclusively. In this case, it was always likely that Symonds would bowl at least a few overs.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

I understand what you are saying, and generally agree with it, but Brad Hogg is no answer, and I don't think he is much better than the Symonds/Clarke tandem. I do think Mitchell Johnson can bowl with an old ball, he pitches short of a length and could generate seam movement with an old ball. I just think he's been awful in the last 2-3 Tests after a very promising performance against the Lankans. If you believe Tait is that one dimensional with the new ball (and I see your point but four or five overs after an eight over burst with the first new ball wouldn't hurt anyone and lighten the load on other bowlers) then he MUST open the bowling, he MUST and get 10 overs minimum with that 30 over new ball period.

Ponting should not be so stubborn as to lessen his chances of winning the Test match (by overworking his other bowlers and placing excessive burden on Clarke/Symonds and essentially playing 10 on 11) by making a point, if this is in fact that case - and I suspect you may be right Seamer.



It's not a step down, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe aside, it is not a step down, I think there is a dramatically overinflated sense of self importance in the first class competition in Australia. It is a step up, this is a hard, hard game to play and be successful at. The biggest issue here is that of ALL teams, Australia had a GREAT chance to cop a 20 odd batting average for 8-10 Tests on the chin for the betterment of a young player who can be a stable mid 40's man in the future. When there was injuries, it was Hodge, or Lehmann, or Kasprowicz who got the call, in massive victories this is simply a waste. We will see how much it will cost Australia - they are currently filling three holes in their team - big holes, new ball bowler, opening bat, slow bowler - with inexperienced Test players who may or may not succeed, rather than preparing these players for Test cricket and showing patience and long sightedness. Now yes, Clark and Hussey are two players where this has worked, but they are most definately the exception and not the rule.

Dropping Michael Clarke, for instance, and interrupting his Test schooling, could have been fatal. Anyone could see Clarke had excellent potential, he's got the quickest feet in the game and a superb front foot player with an acceptable technique. In addition to that he had a temprement that seemed to fit in ideally, there was no deer in the headlight moments for him. The problem? Some absolutely indefensable shots in horrible positions (particulary on the Indian tour if memory serves). That's something that most young players do grow out of and there was no justification for dropping him. It could have broken his confidence and then what? You're gonna go to Hodge? A band-aid solution if ever there was one. And Australia has always resorted to band-aid solutions, and my suspicion, is that this will lead to SEVERE growing pains at important positions. Have you noticed this is a pretty inexperienced side? IMO, this is not a great Indian side, at all. This bowling attack nearly surrendered (ok, nearly is a stretch but it still got one bad Sangakkara call away from being nearly) what, a 550 run lead? They allowed a depressingly over the hill Indian batting card put 530 on them. They have collapsed to 5/61 and 6/134 in back to back Tests against, again, an attack that hardly looks made to play at the WACA or MCG. For God's sake, the Indian pace attack at the WACA has, what, 40 Tests between them?

We shall see, they won two series at home they definately should have won, great, took care of business - the jury is out on how they have handled their young talent.

That young guy, btw, is 31 year old Chris Rogers, with like, 100 first class matches. They went with Rogers because no one else had significant Test experience, which is exactly the problem.

Lillee also spent much of his time bowling short - that was my point.

Also Botham was a swing bowler who got 300 wickets+, the difference between him and Lillee was the latter had much greater pace, also Botham bowled a fuller length than Lillee.
No Lillee was not overrated - how could he be?, also it's insulting to say Botham should not be compared to Lillee, because even if Lillee was the better bowler, the style of bowling between the two stands comparason - also Botham was also a great wicketv taker.
Nothing to do with me about Atherton, I never thought he was really competant against real pace anyway - look at his career average.

__________________
Ern

Lillee bowled full with regularity, mainly in order to claim unassisted wickets, of which he took a vast haul. Lillee took his wickets at a 5.1wpm rate and a 23.92 average. Botham took his at 3.8wpm with a 28.40 average. Admittedly those numbers are better than I expected, but there is no comparison. Lillee bowled full with regularity, hit stumps, moved the ball through the air dramatically, he was better at everything and anything Botham could do with the ball, the comparison, on any level, is absolutely insane.

Uh, because people regulary claim he was the best pace bowler of all time and that is patently untrue. He bowled in probably the second best bowling era of all time (as opposed to McGrath who has better average numbers in the best BATTING era of all time, for instance). His average is quite high for an all time great (over three runs higher than Marshall for instance) and he played 63% of his Tests at home. He was also relatively inconsistant over his career posting an average above 30 in four out of the thirteen years he played.

The wpm stuff is pretty awesome and some of this is nitpicking, but I do think Trueman, Marshall, Hadlee and definately McGrath (who I increasingly believe is the greatest fast bowler of all time) are all ahead. If you want to throw stats out the window and focus on aesthetics, there will never be a bowler in my mind, and I'm sure the mind of many, many cricket fans, who will ever do the stuff Wasim Akram was able to do on a cricket pitch, so there are five names, and I pretty much dare anyone to say Lillee tops them all, in addition to guys like Imran, Davidson, Ambrose even someone like Alec Bedser who faced many of the greatest batsmen of all time and came out smelling like a rose.