tooextracool
International Coach
either way he cant be blamed for being dropped. hed bowled better than gillespie during that series and over the last year, if anything gillespie was the one that should have been dropped.marc71178 said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Dean Jones says England should produce seaming wickets
- Thread starter FaaipDeOiad
- Start date
tooextracool
International Coach
can you see the australians being troubled on a seamer friendly deck?zinzan12 said:
i sure as hell dont, and i wouldnt be putting any money on england scoring agaisnt mcgrath, gillespie and kaspa on seaming conditions. i would however be more willing to do that on flat conditions. we've seen on quite a few occasions in the past, teams outbat australia on flat conditions.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
As far as I can see these are the likelihoods...
If we prepare seaming pitches it's fairly obvious Aus will steamroller us. McGrath, and probably Gillespie and Kasprowicz too, will knock us over any day of any week on a green seamer. Yes, Hoggard will probably be a handful and would almost certainly knock-over the left-handed openers more often than not, but as for the rest - forget it. Ponting and Katich, and probably Martyn and Gilchrist too, will have no trouble against Flintoff and Harmison because they tend to bowl too short, and Jones because, well, he's hardly ever bowled in seaming conditions and frankly there's nothing in the way he's bowled so far in his career to suggest that he'd do anywhere near as well as M, G and K. And even in the almost impossible event that M, G and K all wasted the seaming conditions, Warne would probably mop-up the mess like he can in any conditions.
If we prepare flat pitches Aus will probably hammer us even worse than if we prepared seamers. Even though it'd give our batsmen a chance of combatting M, G and K I'd not bank on it and it'd not help much against Warne at all. And of course once you get a flat pitch it reduces our chances of knocking-over Australia to something close to zero, even if we don't drop a single catch all series. All Australia's batsmen are proven massive scorers on flat decks and we'd have little chance of exploiting the weakness of any, bar perhaps Hoggard using swing on the openers.
If we prepare turning, slightly uneven pitches that gives us our best chance. It does not make us favourites or anything close to it, but it brings Giles into the game. There's still, of course, a chance of Hoggard knocking-over Hayden early and if he can do that then I'd back Giles against Langer, Ponting, Gilchrist and Clarke. What really irritates me is the "what Giles can do Warne can do better" comment that always emerges here. Yes, we all know Warne is a better bowler than Giles. Does anyone seriously think that needs pointing-out? The point is a turning pitch will simply turn Warne from very dangerous to deadly, but will turn Giles from useless into highly effective. Hence this is what will close the gap most, and the unevenness also brings in the possibility (no more than that IMO) of Harmison and Flintoff entering the game. Of course, too, uneven pitch plays into the hands of M, and to a lesser extent G and K, but we know that.
The simple fact of the matter is, Australia have got more angles covered than us - we know that, they're the better side by far.
But please don't insult us by suggesting MacGill will have an influence!
If we prepare seaming pitches it's fairly obvious Aus will steamroller us. McGrath, and probably Gillespie and Kasprowicz too, will knock us over any day of any week on a green seamer. Yes, Hoggard will probably be a handful and would almost certainly knock-over the left-handed openers more often than not, but as for the rest - forget it. Ponting and Katich, and probably Martyn and Gilchrist too, will have no trouble against Flintoff and Harmison because they tend to bowl too short, and Jones because, well, he's hardly ever bowled in seaming conditions and frankly there's nothing in the way he's bowled so far in his career to suggest that he'd do anywhere near as well as M, G and K. And even in the almost impossible event that M, G and K all wasted the seaming conditions, Warne would probably mop-up the mess like he can in any conditions.
If we prepare flat pitches Aus will probably hammer us even worse than if we prepared seamers. Even though it'd give our batsmen a chance of combatting M, G and K I'd not bank on it and it'd not help much against Warne at all. And of course once you get a flat pitch it reduces our chances of knocking-over Australia to something close to zero, even if we don't drop a single catch all series. All Australia's batsmen are proven massive scorers on flat decks and we'd have little chance of exploiting the weakness of any, bar perhaps Hoggard using swing on the openers.
If we prepare turning, slightly uneven pitches that gives us our best chance. It does not make us favourites or anything close to it, but it brings Giles into the game. There's still, of course, a chance of Hoggard knocking-over Hayden early and if he can do that then I'd back Giles against Langer, Ponting, Gilchrist and Clarke. What really irritates me is the "what Giles can do Warne can do better" comment that always emerges here. Yes, we all know Warne is a better bowler than Giles. Does anyone seriously think that needs pointing-out? The point is a turning pitch will simply turn Warne from very dangerous to deadly, but will turn Giles from useless into highly effective. Hence this is what will close the gap most, and the unevenness also brings in the possibility (no more than that IMO) of Harmison and Flintoff entering the game. Of course, too, uneven pitch plays into the hands of M, and to a lesser extent G and K, but we know that.
The simple fact of the matter is, Australia have got more angles covered than us - we know that, they're the better side by far.
But please don't insult us by suggesting MacGill will have an influence!
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
i reckon the poms won't be giving giles much of a chance to get clarke out. you'd want clarke facing harmison and co. if you were english.Richard said:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
"harmison and co" - a reference to the pace bowlers of england. if anything, i guess hoggard would be ur best chance...actually, you could probably take any mediocre swing bowler from county cricket and you'd get clarke shnicking (going by recent results)
Do you think the England players and coach will have the same attitude towards MacGill, considering in his 6 tests against England he has 39 wickets @ 24.Richard said:
In one game he got MOM after taking 12 wickets including Hick twice.
I'm not suggesting he will play a big part in the ashes series but I think it fair to recognise that he could become a very dangerous bowler should he play.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
And in his first 4 games he had 27 at 17.70, in the days when England were notoriously terrible at playing wristspin however relatively poor.
In his next 2 he got 12 wickets at 40.50, when many England players' playing of spin had vastly improved; and on either side of these games he's been equally ineffective against the other Test-class nations - barring a couple of good Tests at Bridgetown 2003 and The SCG 2004\05.
So if MacGill plays, our chances are improved, and everyone connected with the team will know that.
In his next 2 he got 12 wickets at 40.50, when many England players' playing of spin had vastly improved; and on either side of these games he's been equally ineffective against the other Test-class nations - barring a couple of good Tests at Bridgetown 2003 and The SCG 2004\05.
So if MacGill plays, our chances are improved, and everyone connected with the team will know that.
Using the same logic Giles has only taken 11 wickets @ 40 in his last 5 tests.Richard said:And in his first 4 games he had 27 at 17.70, in the days when England were notoriously terrible at playing wristspin however relatively poor.
In his next 2 he got 12 wickets at 40.50, when many England players' playing of spin had vastly improved; and on either side of these games he's been equally ineffective against the other Test-class nations - barring a couple of good Tests at Bridgetown 2003 and The SCG 2004\05.
So if MacGill plays, our chances are improved, and everyone connected with the team will know that.
So Giles has no chance of havng an impact on this series.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, by all logic Giles has almost invariably got good figures on turning pitches and almost never when the pitches haven't turned.
So Giles' chances of making an impact on the series quite clearly depend on whether or not the pitches turn.
For MacGill, on the other hand, a turning pitch doesn't turn him from rubbish into good.
So Giles' chances of making an impact on the series quite clearly depend on whether or not the pitches turn.
For MacGill, on the other hand, a turning pitch doesn't turn him from rubbish into good.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, I do indeed.
The reasonable divisions for Giles' career are into matches on turners and matches on non-turners.
The reasonable division for MacGill's career is into post-inclusive-Adelaide2000\01 and pre-inclusive-WACA2000\01.
For both bowlers matches against Bangladesh and post-WC2003-Zimbabwe are excluded.
Into MacGill's you can make subdivisions of pitches that offered help to fingerspinners; into Giles' you can make no reasonable subdivisions because Giles is almost exactly the same bowler now as he was when he made his Test-debut in 1998.
Giles has played 13 matches on turning pitches: 8 in which he has come out with very good figures; 3 in which he's had reasonable figures; and 2 very poor ones.
Giles has bowled a reasonable amount in 23 matches on non-turners, and has come out with very poor figures in 19 of them.
So we can say almost beyond question that Giles' chances of having a positive impact for his side on the series depends entirely on the pitches.
MacGill's career periods contain an average of 22.90 for the first 47% of his career. This period finished over 4 years ago.
For the second 53% there is an average of 37.55, and out of 16 matches 9 were exceptionally poor, 5 reasonable and 2 good.
So we can say almost beyond question that MacGill has very little chance of having a positive impact for his side on the series.
For MacGill to do well, it requires something that happens very irregularly. For Giles to do well it requires something that has a possibility of happening - ie a turning pitch.
The reasonable divisions for Giles' career are into matches on turners and matches on non-turners.
The reasonable division for MacGill's career is into post-inclusive-Adelaide2000\01 and pre-inclusive-WACA2000\01.
For both bowlers matches against Bangladesh and post-WC2003-Zimbabwe are excluded.
Into MacGill's you can make subdivisions of pitches that offered help to fingerspinners; into Giles' you can make no reasonable subdivisions because Giles is almost exactly the same bowler now as he was when he made his Test-debut in 1998.
Giles has played 13 matches on turning pitches: 8 in which he has come out with very good figures; 3 in which he's had reasonable figures; and 2 very poor ones.
Giles has bowled a reasonable amount in 23 matches on non-turners, and has come out with very poor figures in 19 of them.
So we can say almost beyond question that Giles' chances of having a positive impact for his side on the series depends entirely on the pitches.
MacGill's career periods contain an average of 22.90 for the first 47% of his career. This period finished over 4 years ago.
For the second 53% there is an average of 37.55, and out of 16 matches 9 were exceptionally poor, 5 reasonable and 2 good.
So we can say almost beyond question that MacGill has very little chance of having a positive impact for his side on the series.
For MacGill to do well, it requires something that happens very irregularly. For Giles to do well it requires something that has a possibility of happening - ie a turning pitch.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
thier you go again with your philosphy that MacGill has no credential has a spinner, richard that is by no means an insult it could well an happen, he has bowled well in English conditions & has we all know that our lads aren't the greatest againts leg-spin bowling, MacGill partening Warne at any point of the ashes (even though its unlikely) could cause us trouble. I dont undestand why you rate blokes like Lee & MacGill so poorly when their records show they are clearly not soRichard said:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
And McGrath being just lucky. Don't forget him. Sooner or later his luck will run out and his figures will then reflect his ability. And Gillespie's hairstyle now means that the drag coefficient of wind resistance will increase to 0.671, meaning that he will no longer be able to... (insane rantings fading into the distance)aussie said:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
The other thing to consider with MacGill is that he usually plays only when conditions really suit the spinners. Therefore, one would expect him to have a good record if he is playing so often in conditions that suit.
Slats4ever
International Vice-Captain
you obviously haven't taken note of his recent record in the aus domestic comp... maybe in his few chances to perform recently in the test side it hasn't been up to his usual immaculate best but that's cos he barely gets a gomarc71178 said: