Hey Seamer. What ever happened to Ben Hifenhaus. from the little I saw of him, he looked a pretty decent swing bowler.

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

Has it not ever been thus? With both bat and ball?

OK, Lindwall gets mentioned as an all-time great master of swing (with tales of an ability to get the ball to move 12" either way from a near identical action). Lillee was perhaps more characteristic of the best of Aussie bowling though: he did eventually mature as a genuine swing bowler... but he was no Botham - he didn't, as a young man, have the mastery of swing that made the young Botham so devastating.

Batting-wise... Australia has long been the home of high backlifts, high hands, getting onto the front foot, taking the ball early and swinging through the line. I'm sure exceptions could be found but Aussies have not, as a rule, grown up having to linger on the back foot and play late with soft (low) hands to counter movement - and that has to have had an impact for more than just the current generation.

The swing issue is an issue with the 'keepers as well: the English tradition involves taking the ball with the hands up and infront of the face to maximise the chances of coping with late swing (after the ball has passed the bat)... whilst the Aussie backstops have (at least in more recent years) preferred a hands-down and take to the side of the body approach.

That is impressive but then again IMO, that side was comfortably the greatest ever to play test cricket.

Seamer is it a matter of the pitches in Aus not being best suited to swing at the moment?? I have visions of Australia mostly being a medium pacers graveyard

I do feel at the moment the Aussies week link is in their bowling. Lee is bowling well at the moment but he's no McGrath. Johnson I feel will never be a big wicket taker (I don't know why and cant justify it, its just a hunch ). Tait is just a poor man's Lee.

The Aussies biggest miss at the moment is the lack of even a half decent spinner.

Being fair to Australia their style of batting has evolved due to the nature of the pitches. They have always been harder and faster than English puddings and so require a different style of batting. Its the same for the swinging ball. Traditionally the ball swings less down under and the ball goes soft quicker, again leading to a different batting technique.

__________________
Mark.

Anyone else think that intense highly publicised media pressure revolving around serious issues about personal and team moral's and character. May have had an effect on the sides performance.

Not every week in test cricket that you are described as a "pack of wild dog's" on the front page of one of the nations leading papers.

Then to top that off your opposition who have probably watched a fair few "KFC" (Kentucky Fried Chicken) adverts on television here in Australia, which are highly inflamatory to the Indian's showing Australian players (mainly Ponting, Clarke, Hussey and Symonds) ordering their KFC lunch while batting during a match with a ridiculous score like 852/4 stuck in the corner of the screen, or while in the feild with the opposition at 7/8 or something like that in the corner of the screen. Fantastic ammunition for an opposition captain or coaching staff I would imagine.

Then we have the re-emergence of Rahul Dravids long missing form along with the re-emergence of Sehwag and Pathan. And putting Harbahjan away for the test (brilliant move)

Then the bowlers fired confidence is such a contagious thing, it started with Pathan then RP Singh, Sharma caught it and got Ponting and Anil Kumble strode confidently to his 600th wicket.

You win the toss and Hayden gets injured not match winning events, but events that make you happier rather than sadder.

I do think it would be pretty foolish to over read this test match as being due totally due to technical shortcomings within the Australian machine.

But their will be some naval gazing by Ponting, Hilditch, Boon and Hughes afterwards.

If you wat decent swing bowlers you need pitches that offer something off the seam when the conditions ain't great (a few cracks, potential for length deliveries to go through the top, a hint of uneven bounce), you need an outfield that gives the fielder a good chance of intercepting the ball before it hits the ropes and (crucially) you need a decent ball - one with a pronounced seam that is still standing proud and of help to the bowler some 20-25 overs into the innings rather than just for the first 6-8 overs.

The other obstacle is bat technology: swing bowlers traditionally considered thick edges great news as traditional bats had a small sweetspot and thick edges were likely to present chances. With modern bats, second rate baseball players like Symonds don't need to worry how much bat they get on the ball for most shots as the huge sweet spot sees the ball land safe (and as often as not go for four or six) off almost any part of the bat.

Well not the same problem. In 2005 Australia toured England late summer, not the best for conditions for swing in the UK.
I remember the posts asking why the series had not been played in early summer - when conditions are at there best for swing bowling.
Australia were undone by the reverse swing from pacemen Flintoff and Simon jones, as they were by the conventional swing of Hoggard.

Strange reaction to a couple of days play, Australia are not as good as before 2005 - but even if they lose this match, it's hardly a disaster.

India played well in these conditions, but there are many days when hit the deck bowlers are the order of the day - the lack of such bowlers have been Englands undoing of late.

__________________
Ern

You're right Rachael, Lillee was no Botham, he was an infinately better bowler...that's one of the most bizarre statement's I've ever heard about cricket "Lillee was no Botham" as though Botham was superior!!!

I think Rachael means as a swing bowler only. Lilee was a great bowler, but he was a great fast bowler.

__________________
Ern

Maybe if he had kept himself in top physical nick like D.K Lillee he may have got a bit closer to the moustached legend.

I don't really know what the difference is, Lillee WAS a swing bowler, swung the ball consistantly and prodiguously and was better at taking wickets, pretty much what being a great bowler is measured by. I do think Lillee was quite overrated, but comparing him to Botham in bowling, no matter what the standard, is insulting, quite frankly. I must say I also read some of the thread of Atherton bringing the best out of a bowler like Ambrose due to the "'challenge", which again, is absolutely one eyed and ridiculous. I agree with the Boycott love, big time, he's one of my favourite players and exactly what an opener should be (as opposed to the Sehwag's, Gayle's and Gibbs' of this world) but Michael Atherton was nothing more than a competant Test opener, nothing more.

That, and this statement about Botham makes me question the impartiality of analysis.

Lillee was a NEW BALL SWING BOWLER. This is an insane debate - YouTube - Dennis Lillee 5-58 & 5-123 / 5th Test, Ashes Series 1972

Note how many unassisted wickets there are here, that just does not happen if you cannot generate significant movement (which is why Wasim and Waqar took such a ridiculous amount of bowled/lbw)...I still can't believe I read what I read there.