Cricketics Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I know they got a powerhouse team especailly batting, but their bowling still looks weak to me. England bowling to me sometimes look better than Australians. I feel Australian bowling can be taken to cleaners and can lose them the game. I don't think this bowling attack is all that great. It will eventually cost them. It's not an ordinary attack, but definitely not the one which will test every opposition.
Marut Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 It is relatively weak, but still home conditions for them.
Bleed-Blue Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 It is Still Better Than Most. Starc And Johnson Are Very Good, I Think They Just Need Faulkner Back. They Good Bench Strength Aswell.
G_B_ Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 it does lack variety. But on these surfaces it does not matter.
Chalks Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Why I said toughest game for them (before knockouts) will be NZ @ Eden Park. If ever the relative sameness of their attack is going to be exposed, it's in the only game they play in NZ.
Scarves Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Eh they are fine. They have variety. Better than every attack in terms of variety and skill. SA have a better quick in Steyn but not as good in depth.
rkt.india Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Eh they are fine. They have variety. Better than every attack in terms of variety and skill. SA have a better quick in Steyn but not as good in depth. Steyn isnt that great in ODIs. Morkel is a better ODI bowler.
Vilander Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 what BS...Indians will get all out by Mitch ^2
bowl_out Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 You don't need to have the best bowling attack to win an ODI match or for the matter, even win a World Cup. MJ, Starc, Hazel, Faulkner, Marsh, Maxwell sounds like a very decent (above average) bowling attack... They can be lethal on some days and average on others... But they have home conditions and a long batting line up to cover up for those rare average days... India had no lethal bowlers, still won the World cup in 2011 with some disciplined bowling in familiar conditions
keith Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 The top 3 are good (I rate Hazlewood in particular) but Faulkner, Marsh and Maxwell are easy runs through the middle overs.
sweetaskandy Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 They have 2 wonderful bowlers in MJ and MS.
brendan07 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 The top 3 are good (I rate Hazlewood in particular) but Faulkner' date=' Marsh and Maxwell are easy runs through the middle overs.[/quote'] Faulkner and Marsh in our conditions are good. Maxwell is a pie thrower and should only bowl if absolutely essential!
vvvslaxman Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I know they got a powerhouse team especailly batting, but their bowling still looks weak to me. England bowling to me sometimes look better than Australians. I feel Australian bowling can be taken to cleaners and can lose them the game. I don't think this bowling attack is all that great. It will eventually cost them. It's not an ordinary attack, but definitely not the one which will test every opposition. Mitchell Starc is probably one of the most inform bowler in this tournament.
MCGGG Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Faulkner and Marsh in our conditions are good. Maxwell is a pie thrower and should only bowl if absolutely essential! Yes maxwells bowling is ordinary at best, and I think our bowling overall is a tad overrated, pattinson should have selected imo
angelina22 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I think this time Australian teams are in good form.
MCGGG Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I know they got a powerhouse team especailly batting, but their bowling still looks weak to me. England bowling to me sometimes look better than Australians. I feel Australian bowling can be taken to cleaners and can lose them the game. I don't think this bowling attack is all that great. It will eventually cost them. It's not an ordinary attack, but definitely not the one which will test every opposition. You need to realise we've made our bowling a tad weaker in favour of making our batting a lot stronger, if we wanted a real quality attack we would've selected Harris-Pattinson and Lyon, our bowling isn't exacly weak, we have 3 test quicks in our best 11 still, and Faulkner is a quality ODI bowler, 5th bowler is a problem but who hasn't got that problem?
JourneyMan Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 It's not exactly a complete bowling unit, but Starc and Johnson alone scare the hell out of most batting lineups at this WC (England, subcontinental teams, non-test sides) so the only time they are really going to be tested (in home conditions) is against NZ and possibly SA. In the context of Australian cricket their bowling attack might look under par. But if you start comparing it to every other WC team, they are still up there next to NZ and SA. Nobody else even comes close.
brendan07 Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Yes maxwells bowling is ordinary at best' date=' and I think our bowling overall is a tad overrated, pattinson should have selected imo[/quote'] No he shouldn't have! Pattinson is pretty average in 50 over cricket for staters let alone the fact we have a more important Ashes tour just after the WC.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now