The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[DaRick]

I agree with a lot of this, particularly about Flintoff's batting not being all it's oft been cracked-up to be. However, it always irks me when people go on about basking in glory, especially when they bring other sports into the mix. There possibly could be argued to be a very small influx of this, but the injury factors (and the utter rubbishness of those selected to replace, most notably the Plunketts and Mahmoods) played an infinitely larger part. Take 5 or 6 of the best players out of any team, they'll struggle badly.

Also, Ashley Giles isn't a top-class wristspinner, obviously, but you won't find a particularly large number of better fingerspinners. Giles offers nothing on a non-turning surface, other than the ability to bowl accurately, but can pose a great threat on a turner and has done many times.

I've just noted the utterly inexplicable triumphialism that occurs every time the English emerge victorious in a sporting event. The aftermath of the 2003 Rugby World Cup was something to behold and I do acknowledge that England wen't badly partially because half of their players threw it in afterwards. But that's the fault of the English rugby union system for allowing so many players to retire simultaneously without giving a damn about the future - thus explaining why English rugby union has been largely appalling since. The celebrations for the 2005 Ashes, while different, were even more risible and exaggerated, with blokes like Gary Pratt and Paul Collingwood (!) getting MBE's - for doing very little.

As for Ashley Giles, I do agree that he's more threatening on a favourable pitch (really, what bowler isn't) - but I can still name a plethora of finger-spinners who are superior, even in England (overall, that is). Let's see: Harbhajan Singh and Saqlain Mushtaq (despite their ineptitude of late), Phil Tufnell (capable of running through sides, unlike Giles), Rob Croft (probably), Daniel Vettori (better use of flight and arm ball), Monty Panesar (more aggressive, turns the ball more and has a better arm ball). Paul Harris is arguably similar to Giles, too, although he is also a touch too defensive. I do think that Ashley Giles is far superior to Nicky Boje and Chris Gayle, though, although Boje could've been better had his role as a stock bowler not blunted his main strength: his use of flight. There are also other finger-spinners that Giles is obviously superior to, but there's no point mentioning them.

Don't forget fielders who can catch, more important than either.

Too true.

Anderson I'd agree with, but while neither Key nor Tremlett have ever exactly convinced me, they both undoubtedly have the potential to do better than several recent incumbants, IMO. Key is a far better bet than the Strauss of 2006 and 2007, and obviously Trescothick; and Tremlett is beyond question a better bowler, in the longer form of the game, than Anderson, Harmison, Plunkett, Mahmood, Broad and a few others who've been mentioned (Onions and Khan for example). The only seamers who should be ahead of him in the pecking-order right now are Hoggard and Sidebottom, and given Hoggard's injury problems (missed 7 out of 11 Tests in 2007) he could easily be one of the top two come 2009.

TBH, the last time I saw Chris Tremlett bowl was in 2005. Maybe he's improved in the years since (I feel sorry for you boys if he hasn't, that's for sure). Also, if Harmison is bowling at his best (quite rare for sure - I don't think he ever deserved to be #1, but anyway), he is much more damaging than Tremlett, IMO. If Harmison isn't at his best, I'd give Tremlett the nod, because there's palpably no-one better (if only Plunkett could combine the movement he can get with an actual line and length).

Sadly? What's wrong with a 4-man seam attack? Especially over here?

I was talking more about our spin stocks when I said that. There's obviously nothing (theoretically) wrong with a 4-man seam attack (unless Ponting falls behind on the over rates ala Perth 2008).

Rolleyes?

Meh...it can be similar to a smile, or it can be a sarcastic send-off.

 

[Richard]

I've just noted the utterly inexplicable triumphialism that occurs every time the English emerge victorious in a sporting event. The aftermath of the 2003 Rugby World Cup was something to behold and I do acknowledge that England wen't badly partially because half of their players threw it in afterwards. But that's the fault of the English rugby union system for allowing so many players to retire simultaneously without giving a damn about the future - thus explaining why English rugby union has been largely appalling since. The celebrations for the 2005 Ashes, while different, were even more risible and exaggerated, with blokes like Gary Pratt and Paul Collingwood (!) getting MBE's - for doing very little.

Pratt didn't get an MBE (though a flag waved by Michael Vaughan on the victory bus did indeed read "Gary Pratt MBE" - but it was just a piece of jest), and rightly so. Collingwood's MBE was a bit silly, along with Stephen Harmison's, Geriant Jones' and Ian Bell's, but I can sort of see why they did it. However, as I said, it irks me - the MBEs are no fault whatsoever of the cricket community, they're solely down to the govornment's wish for sporting honours as a publicity stunt. Silly and exaggerated, yes. The fault of the cricketers, no way.

As for Ashley Giles, I do agree that he's more threatening on a favourable pitch (really, what bowler isn't)

That's not the point, though. All you can ask of a fingerspinner is that they're effective on turners. Giles wasn't effective on non-turners, but nor will any fingerspinner be, really. He rarely let his side down when the pitch offered him something, and that makes him a good fingerspinner, for my money.

What made Giles' career so awful was the number of times he was picked when he shouldn't have been; when a fingerspinner was never going to be in the slightest effective. Just because of the "you must have variation" rubbish. I've always been of the opinion that you pick your best bowlers, and while Giles was certainly among England's best bowlers on a turning surface, he most definately wasn't close on non-turners.

but I can still name a plethora of finger-spinners who are superior, even in England (overall, that is). Let's see: Harbhajan Singh and Saqlain Mushtaq (despite their ineptitude of late), Phil Tufnell (capable of running through sides, unlike Giles), Rob Croft (probably), Daniel Vettori (better use of flight and arm ball), Monty Panesar (more aggressive, turns the ball more and has a better arm ball). Paul Harris is arguably similar to Giles, too, although he is also a touch too defensive. I do think that Ashley Giles is far superior to Nicky Boje and Chris Gayle, though, although Boje could've been better had his role as a stock bowler not blunted his main strength: his use of flight. There are also other finger-spinners that Giles is obviously superior to, but there's no point mentioning them.

Saqlain and Harbhajan are better, of course they are, they can bowl the Doosra. That makes them better than anyone. I disagree that Giles was much better than Tufnell, though. Croft, yes, maybe, but not by much. Likewise Panesar (who a lot of people are going to be very disappointed by at some point, because they've inflated expectations of him). Vettori, when fit (ie, excluding the entire Jan02-Jul04 period), is clearly better. But he alone among "normal" (ie, non-Doosra-bowling) fingerspinners stands out as clearly better, IMO.

TBH, the last time I saw Chris Tremlett bowl was in 2005. Maybe he's improved in the years since (I feel sorry for you boys if he hasn't, that's for sure). Also, if Harmison is bowling at his best (quite rare for sure - I don't think he ever deserved to be #1, but anyway), he is much more damaging than Tremlett, IMO. If Harmison isn't at his best, I'd give Tremlett the nod, because there's palpably no-one better (if only Plunkett could combine the movement he can get with an actual line and length).

I honestly believe Harmison's supposed best is greatly exaggerated. Harmison's success in those 7 Tests in early 2004 (in West Indies then home to New Zealand) was far more down to bad batting than good bowling, I said as much at the time, and said I never expected it to continue.

Tremlett, when he was picked for the Tests in 2007, I wasn't hopeful. But he bowled better than I'd ever imagined he could. And the way he's been dropped since has been nothing short of disgraceful. Not that I had big hopes for him to tear-up on Sri Lankan featherbeds. But the way he's just been shoved behind nothing bowlers in the pecking-order.

Those Tests against India might be one-offs. But for mine, he looked better than Harmison has almost ever done. And I really do believe he could do more than Harmison will ever do, because Harmison simply does not possess the skill to bowl accurately enough, and almost never has done.

Meh...it can be similar to a smile, or it can be a sarcastic send-off.

Mate, the Rolleyes is the worst smiley on vBulletin. Use it with great care. I was wondering if you were meaning to use the smiley and pressed the wrong shortcut, people do that occasionally. The Rolleyes says, in essence, "what a stupid comment".

 

[DaRick]

Pratt didn't get an MBE (though a flag waved by Michael Vaughan on the victory bus did indeed read "Gary Pratt MBE" - but it was just a piece of jest), and rightly so. Collingwood's MBE was a bit silly, along with Stephen Harmison's, Geriant Jones' and Ian Bell's, but I can sort of see why they did it. However, as I said, it irks me - the MBEs are no fault whatsoever of the cricket community, they're solely down to the govornment's wish for sporting honours as a publicity stunt. Silly and exaggerated, yes. The fault of the cricketers, no way.

Well, my mistake on Gary Pratt, then. I never said that it was the fault of the English cricketers - if anything, the more modest ones (the ones who felt as if they didn't really deserve it) would feel like frauds, which may affect their confidence. Similarily, the more boisterous ones would be having their egos massaged unnecessarily, which may have a positive effect, but would just as likely lead to dangerous over-confidence. This too, could negatively affect their gameplay, as they may feel like they don't have to improve their game anymore (no wonder English sports teams lose motivation after winning major sporting events). The only ones I would even consider giving MBE's (at a real stretch) would have been Michael Vaughan and Duncan Fletcher, but mostly for their on-and-off field efforts prior to the series. I would merely congraulate the rest, not ridiculously over-indulge them.

That's not the point, though. All you can ask of a fingerspinner is that they're effective on turners. Giles wasn't effective on non-turners, but nor will any fingerspinner be, really. He rarely let his side down when the pitch offered him something, and that makes him a good fingerspinner, for my money.

Well, I said that Giles is more threatening on a favourable pitch, did I not (his record on the subcontinent is good - by his standards)? Besides that, you can't really say that 'a fingerspinner will never be effective on a non-turner'. Cricket, as you should well know, is never that simple, even with an art as seemingly simplistic as finger-spin. A finger-spinner doesn't just need turn to succeed. They also need to grasp the notion of flight, variation in pace, line and length and deliveries like the arm ball and the doosra. That's why bowlers like Nathan Hauritz are generally inadequate, for while Hauritz does get some turn, he bowls too flat and doesn't vary his line and length enough. Also, Daniel Vettori averages more at home (in conditions usually conducive to pace) than away - if we eliminate Bangladesh/Zimbabwe from considerations. So I'm unsure about your 'non-turners' argument.

What made Giles' career so awful was the number of times he was picked when he shouldn't have been; when a fingerspinner was never going to be in the slightest effective. Just because of the "you must have variation" rubbish. I've always been of the opinion that you pick your best bowlers, and while Giles was certainly among England's best bowlers on a turning surface, he most definately wasn't close on non-turners.

Look, I agree...Giles did look much more of a threat on turners. But if he knew that he was going to bowl on an unsuitable pitch and thus harm his own average and - by extension - his team's chances, he should've put a word in - if nothing else - to the selectors.

Saqlain and Harbhajan are better, of course they are, they can bowl the Doosra. That makes them better than anyone.

Oh, no it doesn't! The doosra (as in Murali's case) can be a real asset...but only if used properly. It is reasonable to suggest that the doosra cut short Saqlain's international career - by the end of it, that delivery came first, at the expense of his stock delivery and also his flight. Batsmen could also read it more easily. Harbhajan is very much in danger of going the same way as Saqlain. The one-day game hasn't helped either.

Also, if the doosra automatically makes you such a great offie, then why isn't Dan Cullen up there? In Australia, innuendo abounds that he can actually bowl it (although I've yet to see much evidence of that). Food for thought, methinks.

I disagree that Giles was much better than Tufnell, though. Croft, yes, maybe, but not by much. Likewise Panesar (who a lot of people are going to be very disappointed by at some point, because they've inflated expectations of him). Vettori, when fit (ie, excluding the entire Jan02-Jul04 period), is clearly better. But he alone among "normal" (ie, non-Doosra-bowling) fingerspinners stands out as clearly better, IMO.

I say that Tufnell was better partially because he could flight the ball well, turn it on responsive pitches like Giles and also perhaps run through sides when in the mood (which wasn't very often). Both he and Giles have poor records partially because of ignominous ends to their careers.

It is true that ol' Monty isn't the saviour that England is looking for, but I believe, as a spinner anyway, he is a real improvement on Giles. Also, Vettori cannot bowl the doosra (although he, like Monty, has attempted to work on one, apparently).

I honestly believe Harmison's supposed best is greatly exaggerated. Harmison's success in those 7 Tests in early 2004 (in West Indies then home to New Zealand) was far more down to bad batting than good bowling, I said as much at the time, and said I never expected it to continue.

To be frank, I never expected his form to last, either - and I also felt that he was overrated. I remember the 'Harmy hype' disgusting me at the time, too (and I was only 14!). I also agree that some of his New Zealand wickets were down to some insipid shots (Vettori, for one, if I remember correctly).

Still, though, I think he can rip through sides when he's at his very best...but only when he's at his very best, not when he's near his best and certainly not when he bowls like he did in Brisbane 2006.

Tremlett, when he was picked for the Tests in 2007, I wasn't hopeful. But he bowled better than I'd ever imagined he could. And the way he's been dropped since has been nothing short of disgraceful. Not that I had big hopes for him to tear-up on Sri Lankan featherbeds. But the way he's just been shoved behind nothing bowlers in the pecking-order.

Typical English selection, then (not that I really think Moores is a good enough coach to advocate for the appropriate selections). I'll take your word on Tremlett, then - I never got to watch that England.vs.India series

Those Tests against India might be one-offs. But for mine, he looked better than Harmison has almost ever done. And I really do believe he could do more than Harmison will ever do, because Harmison simply does not possess the skill to bowl accurately enough, and almost never has done.

Overall, he'll probably be a hell of a lot more reliable than Harmison. At their respective peaks, I'd still go for Harmison, although I would have to have a crystal ball right beside me telling me that he's gonna be at his peak.

Mate, the Rolleyes is the worst smiley on vBulletin. Use it with great care. I was wondering if you were meaning to use the smiley and pressed the wrong shortcut, people do that occasionally. The Rolleyes says, in essence, "what a stupid comment".

It can do; I acknowledge it. I didn't mean it that way, but thanks for your advice.

 

[Richard]

Well, my mistake on Gary Pratt, then. I never said that it was the fault of the English cricketers - if anything, the more modest ones (the ones who felt as if they didn't really deserve it) would feel like frauds, which may affect their confidence. Similarily, the more boisterous ones would be having their egos massaged unnecessarily, which may have a positive effect, but would just as likely lead to dangerous over-confidence. This too, could negatively affect their gameplay, as they may feel like they don't have to improve their game anymore (no wonder English sports teams lose motivation after winning major sporting events). The only ones I would even consider giving MBE's (at a real stretch) would have been Michael Vaughan and Duncan Fletcher, but mostly for their on-and-off field efforts prior to the series. I would merely congraulate the rest, not ridiculously over-indulge them.

Would add Flintoff TBH. Flintoff far more deserving than Vaughan, for mine.

Matthew Engel, fairly accurately, described the "mass-gonging" as "a vehicle for the Prime Minister to show how cool he is".

Well, I said that Giles is more threatening on a favourable pitch, did I not (his record on the subcontinent is good - by his standards)? Besides that, you can't really say that 'a fingerspinner will never be effective on a non-turner'. Cricket, as you should well know, is never that simple, even with an art as seemingly simplistic as finger-spin. A finger-spinner doesn't just need turn to succeed. They also need to grasp the notion of flight, variation in pace, line and length and deliveries like the arm ball and the doosra. That's why bowlers like Nathan Hauritz are generally inadequate, for while Hauritz does get some turn, he bowls too flat and doesn't vary his line and length enough. Also, Daniel Vettori averages more at home (in conditions usually conducive to pace) than away - if we eliminate Bangladesh/Zimbabwe from considerations. So I'm unsure about your 'non-turners' argument.

Look, I wasn't saying "turner = fingerspinner-effective, non-turner = fingerspinner-not-effective". The latter is true, the former certainly isn't. The fingerspinner has to have the skill to do well on a turner, obviously, and that skill isn't just about putting revs on the ball. In saying "a fingerspinner can't be effective on a non-turner" I'm certainly not attempting to imply that "if a wicket turns, any fingerspinner will be effective".

Look, I agree...Giles did look much more of a threat on non-turners. But if he knew that he was going to bowl on an unsuitable pitch and thus harm his own average and - by extension - his team's chances, he should've put a word in - if nothing else - to the selectors.

Perhaps, and only perhaps, he should. But it's a brave man who says "I think it's in my team's (and therefore almost certainly my own) best interests for me not to play".

Oh, no it doesn't! The doosra (as in Murali's case) can be a real asset...but only if used properly. It is reasonable to suggest that the doosra cut short Saqlain's international career - by the end of it, that delivery came first, at the expense of his stock delivery and also his flight. Batsmen could also read it more easily. Harbhajan is very much in danger of going the same way as Saqlain. The one-day game hasn't helped either.

Also, if the doosra automatically makes you such a great offie, then why isn't Dan Cullen up there? In Australia, innuendo abounds that he can actually bowl it (although I've yet to see much evidence of that). Food for thought, methinks.

Haha, look, that probably wasn't phrased terribly well TBH - I wasn't suggesting that the Doosra automatically makes a bowler better than one who doesn't bowl it. More a case of that Saqlain and Harbhajan possess(\ed) pretty much all the skill of a Vettori or Panesar, plus the Doosra, thus making them clearly superior. The Doosra alone won't make a fingerspinner a good bowler, the skills with the basic Off-Break, plus lines, lengths, loop and drift are all more important. All I was saying was Doosra > no-Doosra.

Undoubtedly, incidentally, both Saqlain and Harbhajan overdid\do the delivery, and undoubtedly it's not helped them. However, I certainly feel Saqlain would have continued at international level and continued to perform but for injury.

And Murali isn't really comparable - he's a fingerspinner where Saqlain and Harbhajan (and others) are wristspinners, and though he calls his Wrong-'Un "Doosra" too it's not a remotely alike delivery. All it has in common is the direction it moves.

I say that Tufnell was better partially because he could flight the ball well, turn it on responsive pitches like Giles and also perhaps run through sides when in the mood (which wasn't very often). Both he and Giles have poor records partially because of ignominous ends to their careers.

It is true that ol' Monty isn't the saviour that England is looking for, but I believe, as a spinner anyway, he is a real improvement on Giles. Also, Vettori cannot bowl the doosra (although he, like Monty, has attempted to work on one, apparently).

I never really rated Tufnell terribly highly, though it's true that I don't even remember the game that was almost certainly his finest hour (the game in New Zealand in 1991\92), being just 6 myself at the time and having at that point no Sky. I've heard several fine judges talk in awe of that game. But I've always had something of a dislike for highly volatile players, believing them to have the potential to do one hell of a lot of harm to team morale and stability. It's true that Tufnell may have had some skills that Giles doesn't (MSP certainly does, incidentally) but I don't think the difference is as pronounced as some seem to.

BTW... wasn't attempting to suggest Vettori did bowl a Doosra - did I appear to do so?

Overall, he'll probably be a hell of a lot more reliable than Harmison. At their respective peaks, I'd still go for Harmison, although I would have to have a crystal ball right beside me telling me that he's gonna be at his peak.

Think (certainly hope) that we haven't seen the best of Tremlett yet. Maybe if we do, a few minds might change.

 

[DaRick]

Would add Flintoff TBH. Flintoff far more deserving than Vaughan, for mine.

Matthew Engel, fairly accurately, described the "mass-gonging" as "a vehicle for the Prime Minister to show how cool he is".

I was talking more about Vaughan's efforts prior to the series - lifting the team after they suffered an embarrassing loss to SA at home in 2003. But OK, why not Flintoff (even though we both know he faded after around March 2006)?

Look, I wasn't saying "turner = fingerspinner-effective, non-turner = fingerspinner-not-effective". The latter is true, the former certainly isn't. The fingerspinner has to have the skill to do well on a turner, obviously, and that skill isn't just about putting revs on the ball. In saying "a fingerspinner can't be effective on a non-turner" I'm certainly not attempting to imply that "if a wicket turns, any fingerspinner will be effective".

Hey, I know. If you look at what I wrote carefully, you'll find that I merely accused you of saying 'non-turner = useless offspinner' (which you did write). Aside from that, I agree with what you wrote above.

Perhaps, and only perhaps, he should. But it's a brave man who says "I think it's in my team's (and therefore almost certainly my own) best interests for me not to play".

True - I was going to make a comment on the fragile nature of English 'team spirit', but I decided that it wouldn't be prudent.

Haha, look, that probably wasn't phrased terribly well TBH - I wasn't suggesting that the Doosra automatically makes a bowler better than one who doesn't bowl it. More a case of that Saqlain and Harbhajan possess(\ed) pretty much all the skill of a Vettori or Panesar, plus the Doosra, thus making them clearly superior. The Doosra alone won't make a fingerspinner a good bowler, the skills with the basic Off-Break, plus lines, lengths, loop and drift are all more important. All I was saying was Doosra > no-Doosra.

I know - that's why I jumped on it. I agree with what you're saying now - of course any off-spinner would like to have a doosra in his/her (?) armoury. But whatever your intentions, you certainly did outwardly state that Harbhajan and Saqlain are better than anyone because they bowl the doosra. Look at your prior comments.

Undoubtedly, incidentally, both Saqlain and Harbhajan overdid\do the delivery, and undoubtedly it's not helped them. However, I certainly feel Saqlain would have continued at international level and continued to perform but for injury.

Look, maybe the injury helped to salvage his record. Once your command of flight and your offbreak are diminished, you become significantly less effective. Just ask Ashley Mallett, who has always banged on about the virtues of flight.

And Murali isn't really comparable - he's a fingerspinner where Saqlain and Harbhajan (and others) are wristspinners, and though he calls his Wrong-'Un "Doosra" too it's not a remotely alike delivery. All it has in common is the direction it moves.

Uh...of course...because he has a freakish action (not necessarily a throw).

I never really rated Tufnell terribly highly, though it's true that I don't even remember the game that was almost certainly his finest hour (the game in New Zealand in 1991\92), being just 6 myself at the time and having at that point no Sky. I've heard several fine judges talk in awe of that game.

I was aware of that performance (7/47; I was only 2 when it occured)...but another performance that I heard about was him taking 11 wickets against a decent (but not really strong) Australian line-up...on a pitch which (quality) pacemen made hay on, whereas Shane Warne took only (by his standards) four wickets.

But I've always had something of a dislike for highly volatile players, believing them to have the potential to do one hell of a lot of harm to team morale and stability.

I agree with that...his presence in Australia during 1994 and 1995 didn't help him or his team, for the most part. Still, I find it odd that the spin duties during his absence in the mid-90's were left to less talented spinners.

It's true that Tufnell may have had some skills that Giles doesn't (MSP certainly does, incidentally) but I don't think the difference is as pronounced as some seem to.

Well, Tufnell's command of flight was much better than Giles' was - plus there was his aforementioned ability to run through a side. Tufnell was also much more aggressive, beating the batsman in the air from around the wicket, rather than trying to stifle them from over the wicket, as Giles leant towards. Giles, on the other hand, had a much better temperament. The difference in their records isn't massive, though.

BTW... wasn't attempting to suggest Vettori did bowl a Doosra - did I appear to do so?

Well, I thought you did. When you said "he alone", I thought you were referring to Giles, not Vettori. My mistake, then.

Think (certainly hope) that we haven't seen the best of Tremlett yet. Maybe if we do, a few minds might change.

Such as...mine? We'll see.

 

[superkingdave]

Slightly OT but it looks like the England women's team might pull off a surprise and retain the Ashes. They are 96/3 at tea needing another 46 to win the only test of the series (though they only need a draw to retain it).

 

[aussie]

England were never gonna do that, IMO. They prefer to gloat and bask in their own glory (as could be seen by their largely dire performances after the 2003 Rugby World Cup).

I did, however, think that they could've represented a serious threat to Australian dominance, but even with an Australian attitude, they were never gonna be #1 for any meaningful period of time - their batsmen have too many obvious flaws for me.

Agreed overall, England definately if they didn't have all the injury worries post 2005 Ashes & it must be said some better selections they would have been a real challenge to Australia's position as number one.

The batsmen yea have flaws but i'd reckon the full English batting-lineup is better than what many other nations have ATM.

Plus, I couldn't help overcame the feeling that Flintoff's batting wasn't all it was cracked up to be (especially against spin).

Well IMO Flintoff's batting was maturing brilliantly since the Ashes. Yea even though he likes to think of himself as a batting all-rounder i don't think againts real quality attacks he would be a consitent test match #6 he is better off @ 7.

Going back to the maturity factor though, you talk about his game againts the spinners if you look at how he batted in India in 2006 when he was captain he totally changed him game & batted superbly in those conditions.

In addition, Jones doesn't convince with the new ball. That basically leaves...Hoggard and Flintoff as your two reliable bowlers, injuries permitting. Plus, at the time, they lacked a top-class spinner, which Ashley Giles isn't, I'm afraid.

Jones never was new-ball man though a bit of a one-series waqar younis in a way. A fully-fit Jones though would a have made a HUGE difference to England's bowling attack in sub-continental tours since the Ashes (but thats just wishfull thinking).

Yea Gilo was never anything special but as Richard is rightfully saying in the right conditons for most of his career especially in the sub-continent he proved to be very effective. But in due course Monty came along had a nice start but his having his first real test as a spinner. But again if all where fit i reckon England in most cases would have adapted an all-pace attack in most conditons.

Also, I think that Trescothick will be vulnerable if the Australians bowl accurately and take their catches (so does Cook, but he looks more likely to fix his technical faults than Trescothick, given his age - plus, there's the temperamental issues). That's a real dillema for England isn't it: the opening pair? If Andrew Strauss is in good form, I would pick him over Trescothick, for he's better equipped to deal with accurate pace bowling. Plus, he won't have to face off against quality spin, which he struggles to cope with. Hopefully, we won't get to the stage where we have Rob Key, Chris Tremlett and James Anderson in the mix (I don't know enough about Ravi Bopara or Stuart Broad). .

Yea fingers are definately crossed that England haven't seen the last of Trescothick IMO. I'd be devasted since he clearly has an awful lot yet to offer England in both forms of the game.

On the highlighted part I know people have there views about Anderson on how he has lost that intial quality that made him such as hit when he first arrived on the international scene which is true. But i based on what i've seen of him last summer vs India he was very good on overall some pretty flat pitches, he won't ever be a world beater but he is still one of better bowlers in England one full-fit.

On the rest of them well based on what i saw of Key in the past i have my doubts of him againts top-quality bowling, Tremlett would make a good test match bowler IMO, Broad also has great potential to be something good but whether he will be test match material when the Ashes arrives is the question, Bopara lets just say he still has a lot of work to do but a good talent no doubt.

I agree. Our boys occassionally play loose shots when faced with quality swing (i.e: Phil Jaques). That being said, you guys hardly handled the likes of Zaheer Khan and RP Singh with aplomb, so basically what is problematic for us may be problematic for you, as well.

Word out, could be a series for the bowlers then...

That's if Tait returns.

Would think he would, i see his situtation as a temporary thing unlike Trescothick where i'm just holding out hope but with inner doubt.

seriously hope that they don't select Hodge - his playing of the ball moving away from him doesn't really inspire confidence, nor does his ability to kick on with his starts.

Don't get why people don't dig Hodge's flow TBH. I really didn't see anything wrong with him vs SA in 2005/06. People talk about his technique againts high quality quicks etc but you compare him to another Lehmann another prolific domestic batsmen in Australia & well his technique againts pace IMO was far worst than hodge.

Hodge's axing for the SA tour was just a case of the selectors wanting to make up for their absolute shocking decision to drop Martyn after the Ashes defeat since they wanted him for the Ashes re-match.


Katich has already been tried with sporadic (at best) success in England, while Rogers' tendency to walk across his stumps makes him vulnerable to the inswinger. Phil Hughes (?) may still be a bit too young. Also, Michael Di Venuto isn't even playing Australian state cricket anymore.[/QUOTE]

Yea Katich failed in the Ashes due to the swing, can't say whether he has improved his game to compat it if he gets a chance again. But he will definately be in the reckoning given his recent domestic form.

I agree on Rogers i caught that flaw on his debut that why i have my doubts whether he can transform his domestic form unto the test level cause if people reckoned Hayden technique was bad againts the moving ball & it took him a potential career ending ashes series (which was compounded by the fact that he was in a year long slump between Bangalore 2004 to Trent Bridge 2005) to correct i would say 70% of his flaws it would be tough work for Rogers.

Don't know much about Hughes but other Australians who have been seeing him seem to think highly of him, but even so i reckon even if he has a superb domestic season next time around i think the Ashes would be a bit too soon for him.

Forgot Divenuto retired the other day, what your position on Dighton as a possible opener of do you think he is just short of international quality.

 

[Richard]

I was talking more about Vaughan's efforts prior to the series - lifting the team after they suffered an embarrassing loss to SA at home in 2003.

Loss? Y'mean 2-2 draw? Should have been a loss, sure (maybe even a 5-0 one if the stars had aligned in South Africa's favour) but it was actually a 2-2 draw, which really rather flattered us.

But OK, why not Flintoff (even though we both know he faded after around March 2006)?

'Cos said fading hadn't happened yet. In September 2005, he was a superman (and yeah, I know you weren't saying he wasn't).

Hey, I know. If you look at what I wrote carefully, you'll find that I merely accused you of saying 'non-turner = useless offspinner' (which you did write).

Yeah, I know. I did, and I do believe it. No fingerspinner has the ability to turn the ball significantly without something in the surface to allow him to. And while turn isn't all there is to spin-bowling, if the ball doesn't turn no spinner offers a great deal.

I know - that's why I jumped on it. I agree with what you're saying now - of course any off-spinner would like to have a doosra in his/her (?) armoury. But whatever your intentions, you certainly did outwardly state that Harbhajan and Saqlain are better than anyone because they bowl the doosra. Look at your prior comments.

Look, you're going to have to get used occasionally to the fact I say stuff - or, at least, appear to say stuff - that isn't exactly what I mean. You seem, vis-a-vis Best case, to have already grasped as such.

Uh...of course...because he has a freakish action (not necessarily a throw).

His deformed wrist and unusual accuracy indeed makes him one of a kind. He is like no other wristspinner and certainly like no fingerspinner.

I was aware of that performance (7/47; I was only 2 when it occured)...but another performance that I heard about was him taking 11 wickets against a decent (but not really strong) Australian line-up...on a pitch which (quality) pacemen made hay on, whereas Shane Warne took only (by his standards) four wickets.

I've always been somewhat dubious about this one - not because it wasn't an excellent performance, but because a few odd stories seem to be told about the wicket. That pitch definately had plenty in it for both seam and spin (some sort of rough parrallell would be Mumbai 2004\05). Warne, who had been excellent for most of the summer (APU), had an off-day, and Tufnell had one of his very best.

Well, Tufnell's command of flight was much better than Giles' was - plus there was his aforementioned ability to run through a side. Tufnell was also much more aggressive, beating the batsman in the air from around the wicket, rather than trying to stifle them from over the wicket, as Giles leant towards. Giles, on the other hand, had a much better temperament. The difference in their records isn't massive, though.

You see, this "Giles = flat and defensive" stuff has always been a bugbear of mine, too. Not only did Giles demonstrate that over-the-wicket, bowled well, can be an attacking ploy on a turning surface, but he also did (especially earlier on in his Test career) bowl around-the-wicket plenty. What's more, I've seen Giles beat countless batsmen with loop and dip. As many as Tufnell or MSP over equivalent timescales? No. But plenty enough to suggest he had far more skill with flight than many give him credit for. As I've said - Tufnell's flight skills were excellent, MSP's generally very good, Giles' merely pretty good. I don't think Tufnell was "much better" in that department than Giles. Tufnell and MSP, of course, are natural spinners; Giles was a seamer until the age of 17. To even attain the skills of flight he did achieve was a phenominal effort (and yeah, I realise this doesn't actually impact on who's better, but I wonder how many people are truly aware of it).

Such as...mine? We'll see.

You're certainly far from the only one to express such sentiments. As I say - Tremlett certainly hasn't exactly convinced me so much as once in his career, domestic or international, four\five-day or one-day. I do, nonetheless, feel rather more hopeful about him than I ever felt about Harmison.

 

[DaRick]

Agreed overall, England definately if they didn't have all the injury worries post 2005 Ashes & it must be said some better selections they would have been a real challenge to Australia's position as number one. The batsmen yea have flaws but i'd reckon the full English batting-lineup is better than what many other nations have ATM.

Yes, I agree, but they were never gonna be #1 for any significant period of time, due to the reasons I listed...which you agree with. Also, England's batting line-up isn't better than Australia's...that's what matters in this case. Neither opening partnership (in the case of both teams) is yet established, although as batsmen, Hayden>>modern-day Vaughan, while Cook>Jaques, if only because of the age and experience (in Cook's favour, internationally speaking), plus their respective technical faults (Jaques doesn't convince me against quality swing and spin, while Cook has that offstump problem).

Ponting>>>Bell, no question.
Hussey>Pietersen because of temperamental factors. We are also still at the stage where a 'quiet' series by Hussey - i.e India 2007/08 would constitute a relative success on Pietersen's part.
Clarke>Collingwood. Collingwood is still less wasteful than Clarke, but Clarke Mach II has tightened up his psychological outlook (not without lapses, though) to the point where Clarke's superior technique and more substantial talent is too insurmountable for Collingwood to overcome.
Symonds>>Bopara - alhough Symonds (though, as a fan, I'm loathe to say this) still relies on some generosity from the umpires and is thoroughly scratchy at the start of an innings. Still...at least he can turn his fortune into runs, whilst Bopara couldn't even turn anything into runs in Sri Lanka.
Prior the batsman=modern-day Gilchrist the batsman - Not talking about their keeping skills (this is a discussion of each side's batting line-up), but Gilchrist's Test batting has been mediocre (save the odd scorcher) for a while, to the point where it no longer looks as enthralling (although it still can be) as it does immature.

Plus our tail blasts theirs out of the water - Hoggard, Anderson and Panesar are all rabbits and while Sidebottom does show admirable fortitude, he is an inferior batsman to Hogg/Lee/Johnson.

Well IMO Flintoff's batting was maturing brilliantly since the Ashes. Yea even though he likes to think of himself as a batting all-rounder i don't think againts real quality attacks he would be a consitent test match #6 he is better off @ 7.

Going back to the maturity factor though, you talk about his game againts the spinners if you look at how he batted in India in 2006 when he was captain he totally changed him game & batted superbly in those conditions.

I never saw that England.vs.India series, so I'll take your word for it. During the 2005 Ashes, his idea of footwork mainly entailed dashing lead-footed down the pitch like a deranged madman.

Jones never was new-ball man though a bit of a one-series waqar younis in a way. A fully-fit Jones though would a have made a HUGE difference to England's bowling attack in sub-continental tours since the Ashes (but thats just wishfull thinking).

Yes, I agree - he would have. Comparing him to Waqar Younis, though, is pretty uninformed, even when talking on a series-by-series basis. Waqar, you see, was known (in his prime, anyway) for delivering reverse-swinging yorkers at express pace. Simon Jones was merely known for his reverse-swing. Also, Waqar was an accomplished new-ball bowler, while Jones patently wasn't.

Yea Gilo was never anything special but as Richard is rightfully saying in the right conditons for most of his career especially in the sub-continent he proved to be very effective.

I don't dispute this. His record in the sub-continent, by his fairly low standards, stands out like a flower in a pile of manure.

But in due course Monty came along had a nice start but his having his first real test as a spinner. But again if all where fit i reckon England in most cases would have adapted an all-pace attack in most conditons.

If they were wise, they would have, yes. Knowing England though, they would've found some excuse to place a spinner in there somewhere. Then again, Perth 2008 exposed the potential dangers of having an all-pace attack on a supposedly suitable pitch.

Yea fingers are definately crossed that England haven't seen the last of Trescothick IMO. I'd be devasted since he clearly has an awful lot yet to offer England in both forms of the game.

Given his ability to cash in on poor bowling attacks and his relative (but overstated) competence against spin, he may still have a lot to offer England. Be warned, though - he also has a lot to offer bowlers who can bowl accurate swing and seam-up and also to competent fielders. That is why I don't really rate him that highly.

On the highlighted part I know people have there views about Anderson on how he has lost that intial quality that made him such as hit when he first arrived on the international scene which is true. But i based on what i've seen of him last summer vs India he was very good on overall some pretty flat pitches, he won't ever be a world beater but he is still one of better bowlers in England one full-fit.

I've never rated Anderson as a Test bowler, TBH, although he has at times been mishandled by England (i.e: playing when he shouldn't have ala Johannesburg 2005). Still, whenever I've seen him, he's been too erratic and too adventurous in his pursuit of swing - he's also gone for 4+ RPO on a disturbingly frequent basis (42% of the time) as a result. Of course he's significantly more effective when he's fully fit - what bowler isn't?

Also, about that series in England, he was also outbowled by Zaheer Khan (who's improved significantly, although still lacking the consistency needed for him to truly kick on) and RP Singh (a very overrated swing bowler who becomes cannon fodder when not swinging the ball - partially due to an over-reliance on favourable conditions and a somewhat erratic line-and-length).

On the rest of them well based on what i saw of Key in the past i have my doubts of him againts top-quality bowling, Tremlett would make a good test match bowler IMO, Broad also has great potential to be something good but whether he will be test match material when the Ashes arrives is the question, Bopara lets just say he still has a lot of work to do but a good talent no doubt.

Key has not proved himself against anything other than weak bowling line-ups. Take out his 221 (?) against WI (a decent knock in the face of ordinary bowling by Tino Best, Omari Banks and friends, who didn't respond adequtely to Strauss/Key milking them or hitting over the top) and he averages just 23. I agree on Broad and Bopara (albeit on an instinctual basis), although neither has done much at international level. Like I said, Tremlett had better be more effective than he was in 2005; if he isn't, I don't think he will be.

Word out, could be a series for the bowlers then...

Maybe, maybe...

Would think he would, i see his situtation as a temporary thing unlike Trescothick where i'm just holding out hope but with inner doubt.

Yeah, Tait is still young, unlike Trescothick.

Don't get why people don't dig Hodge's flow TBH. I really didn't see anything wrong with him vs SA in 2005/06.

Hmm...well aside from his 203*, which was a good, but not necessarily chanceless knock on a placid pitch (but admittedly against a decent attack), his next highest score was just 41. In fact, most of his scores were between 15-41, indicating a relative inability to kick on once he gets a start.

People talk about his technique againts high quality quicks etc but you compare him to another Lehmann another prolific domestic batsmen in Australia & well his technique againts pace IMO was far worst than hodge.

No...I was talking about his technique against the ball moving away from him, which can be suspect at times (and also against decent spin). Bowlers as diverse as Dilhara Fernando and Shaun Pollock have picked up on this, dismissing him in the slips after driving at wide, full, moving deliveries. His technique against pace without movement is fine, as his 203* shows.

As for Darren Lehmann, while he was probably inferior against sheer pace to Hodge, he was a far better player of spin (maybe not swing, given his tendency to shuffle across the crease). Besides, Lehmann and Hodge played international cricket in different times and both were selected for different purposes.

Hodge's axing for the SA tour was just a case of the selectors wanting to make up for their absolute shocking decision to drop Martyn after the Ashes defeat since they wanted him for the Ashes re-match.

Look, I admit that dropping him was very harsh (though not as harsh as may be first apparent), even though Damien Martyn's selection did turn out to be inspired in the short-term.

Yea Katich failed in the Ashes due to the swing, can't say whether he has improved his game to compat it if he gets a chance again. But he will definately be in the reckoning given his recent domestic form.

I would pick him in conditions where he has been a proven success (i.e: India and Sri Lanka) not places where he's a proven failure (i.e: England), if at all.

I agree on Rogers i caught that flaw on his debut that why i have my doubts whether he can transform his domestic form unto the test level cause if people reckoned Hayden technique was bad againts the moving ball & it took him a potential career ending ashes series (which was compounded by the fact that he was in a year long slump between Bangalore 2004 to Trent Bridge 2005) to correct i would say 70% of his flaws it would be tough work for Rogers.

Look, I'm as sceptical about Rogers as you are. He's not gonna be anything other than a pale successor to Hayden's throne unless he rectifies that, IMO.

Don't know much about Hughes but other Australians who have been seeing him seem to think highly of him, but even so i reckon even if he has a superb domestic season next time around i think the Ashes would be a bit too soon for him.

Yes, so why bother bringing his name up?

Forgot Divenuto retired the other day, what your position on Dighton as a possible opener of do you think he is just short of international quality.

I didn't realise Dighton was an opener - I always thought of him as a middle-order batsman. So, probably not suitable.

Loss? Y'mean 2-2 draw? Should have been a loss, sure (maybe even a 5-0 one if the stars had aligned in South Africa's favour) but it was actually a 2-2 draw, which really rather flattered us.

Yes, but I was talking on a match-by-match basis. Vaughan lifted the team to that 2-2 margin after spluttering to a heavy defeat the game before. That's what I meant. I know, too, that they were lucky to draw that series

Yeah, I know. I did, and I do believe it. No fingerspinner has the ability to turn the ball significantly without something in the surface to allow him to. And while turn isn't all there is to spin-bowling, if the ball doesn't turn no spinner offers a great deal.

I don't think I ever said that a fingerspinner didn't need the help of the pitch to turn the ball a noticable distance. There is certainly truth in what you're saying - spinners don't offer as much on unfavourable pitches, obviously - but quality off-spinners and leg-spinners will still make batsmen cautious by virtue of flight, drift and variation even if the pitch lacks turn. Thus, they are still in with a chance to pick up wickets - or give them to bowlers who benefit more under those conditions by building pressure. So saying that they don't offer a great deal seems a little harsh.

Look, you're going to have to get used occasionally to the fact I say stuff - or, at least, appear to say stuff - that isn't exactly what I mean. You seem, vis-a-vis Best case, to have already grasped as such.

Doesn't mean that I have to like it, though. That trait seems to be unintentionally misleading at best and disingenuous at worst - plus it has already forced you to rectify your statements a lot, which can make you look like pandering if you do it too much.

His deformed wrist and unusual accuracy indeed makes him one of a kind. He is like no other wristspinner and certainly like no fingerspinner.

Not to be rude, but duh. He would still consider himself an offspinner regardless.

I've always been somewhat dubious about this one - not because it wasn't an excellent performance, but because a few odd stories seem to be told about the wicket. That pitch definately had plenty in it for both seam and spin (some sort of rough parrallell would be Mumbai 2004\05). Warne, who had been excellent for most of the summer (APU), had an off-day, and Tufnell had one of his very best.

I don't think that the wicket would have been as bad as Mumbai 2004. That wicket was one of the worst I've ever seen. After the first few hours, it gave absolutely no help to seamers (before that, it did) and way, way too much to spinners (to the point where Michael Clarke, a part-timer who utilises flight better than turn, turned the ball square and absolutely cleaned up). Besides, the scores in Mumbai 2004 were even lower than those at The Oval 1997. Still, you said that it was merely a rough parallel, so I'll lay off.

Besides, we both agree that The Oval wicket was one on which quality seamers made hay, right?

You see, this "Giles = flat and defensive" stuff has always been a bugbear of mine, too. Not only did Giles demonstrate that over-the-wicket, bowled well, can be an attacking ploy on a turning surface, but he also did (especially earlier on in his Test career) bowl around-the-wicket plenty. What's more, I've seen Giles beat countless batsmen with loop and dip. As many as Tufnell or MSP over equivalent timescales? No. But plenty enough to suggest he had far more skill with flight than many give him credit for. As I've said - Tufnell's flight skills were excellent, MSP's generally very good, Giles' merely pretty good. I don't think Tufnell was "much better" in that department than Giles. Tufnell and MSP, of course, are natural spinners; Giles was a seamer until the age of 17. To even attain the skills of flight he did achieve was a phenominal effort (and yeah, I realise this doesn't actually impact on who's better, but I wonder how many people are truly aware of it).

Well, for the most part, Giles did = 'flat and defensive', for various reasons, not all of which were really his fault. That's why you'll have that bugbear for a long time.

I do, however, agree that he was much more effective on favourable subcontinental turners than he was elsewhere. Sadly, I'm too young to remember him bowling around-the-wicket on a regular basis. I did see him do it against Australia a couple of times in Tests and one-dayers, but he usually looked no more threatening when he did. I also never said that Giles never beat batsmen in the flight. I just don't think he did it nearly as often as he should have. As you admit, Tufnell had him in the department and so do many other international finger-spinners.

Surprisingly, though, I've always seen Monty as a bowler with a flattish trajectory whose flighted ball was one of his variations. I think Monty>Giles for other reasons, which I laid out earlier.

I'm aware that Giles was a seamer once, but I'm not taking that into account. This is simply because one, using that line of reasoning, could argue that Brad Hogg is a superior Test bowler to Stuart MacGill because Hogg didn't take up wrist-spin seriously until he was around 23 while MacGill was playing around with it when he was younger than that. I'm not saying that you went by that logic though, because you have more intelligence than that.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

DaRick not dissuaded in the least by blatant post-dissecting tactics from Dickinson. Success attend you.

 

[DaRick]

DaRick not dissuaded in the least by blatant post-dissecting tactics from Dickinson. Success attend you.

I enjoy debating with him, if that's what you mean. He seems like a very astute (albeit sometimes misleading, unintentionally or otherwise) poster.

 

[Richard]

DaRick not dissuaded in the least by blatant post-dissecting tactics from Dickinson. Success attend you.

Ay, 'twas he who did it first this thread, and good on him. Proves that broken-down quotes don't have to be war. But of course, we already knew that.

Presuming, of course, that you've read mine, Colin's and aforementioned DaRick's posts. Whelan being the graduate he is now, can't shake the feeling laze might have set in.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but I was talking on a match-by-match basis. Vaughan lifted the team to that 2-2 margin after spluttering to a heavy defeat the game before. That's what I meant. I know, too, that they were lucky to draw that series

Aha, I see.

I don't think I ever said that a fingerspinner didn't need the help of the pitch to turn the ball a noticable distance. There is certainly truth in what you're saying - spinners don't offer as much on unfavourable pitches, obviously - but quality off-spinners and leg-spinners will still make batsmen cautious by virtue of flight, drift and variation even if the pitch lacks turn. Thus, they are still in with a chance to pick up wickets - or give them to bowlers who benefit more under those conditions by building pressure. So saying that they don't offer a great deal seems a little harsh.

Different fingerspinners offer different amounts - perhaps saying they don't offer a great deal in terms of ability to take wickets off their own back and through their own good bowling (vis-a-vis non-turning surfaces) would be most accurate.

Quality wristspinners, though, can turn the ball on almost any surface. And use loop and drift.

Doesn't mean that I have to like it, though. That trait seems to be unintentionally misleading at best and disingenuous at worst - plus it has already forced you to rectify your statements a lot, which can make you look like pandering if you do it too much.

True, though I wasn't suggesting "get it, accept it!" if that's what you thought. It's a flaw on my part that, as I mentioned elsewhere, has caused more than one problem in the past.

Not to be rude, but duh. He would still consider himself an offspinner regardless.

Only to right-handed batsmen. He's a legspinner to left-handers. Either way, I've never been fond of the "off" and "leg" spin definition, not only because it makes the presumption of a right-hander on strike but also that it presumes the bowler has only his stock-ball. Stating the obvious again here, but Murali's Doosra is a legspinner to the right-hander.

I don't think that the wicket would have been as bad as Mumbai 2004. That wicket was one of the worst I've ever seen. After the first few hours, it gave absolutely no help to seamers (before that, it did) and way, way too much to spinners (to the point where Michael Clarke, a part-timer who utilises flight better than turn, turned the ball square and absolutely cleaned up). Besides, the scores in Mumbai 2004 were even lower than those at The Oval 1997. Still, you said that it was merely a rough parallel, so I'll lay off.

Besides, we both agree that The Oval wicket was one on which quality seamers made hay, right?

Oh, undoubtedly. And I certainly wasn't suggesting it was quite as helpful to bowlers, of any kind, as Mumbai 2004\05, just that that was the first wicket which came to mind that offered liberal assistance to spin and seam, even if it didn't stay constant throughout the match. I've never seen an Oval surface offer anywhere near that much to either seam or spin as in that 1997 Test. And I haven't seen that many that managed to offer liberal amounts of both during the same match.

Well, for the most part, Giles did = 'flat and defensive', for various reasons, not all of which were really his fault. That's why you'll have that bugbear for a long time.

I do, however, agree that he was much more effective on favourable subcontinental turners than he was elsewhere. Sadly, I'm too young to remember him bowling around-the-wicket on a regular basis. I did see him do it against Australia a couple of times in Tests and one-dayers, but he usually looked no more threatening when he did. I also never said that Giles never beat batsmen in the flight. I just don't think he did it nearly as often as he should have. As you admit, Tufnell had him in the department and so do many other international finger-spinners.

Surprisingly, though, I've always seen Monty as a bowler with a flattish trajectory whose flighted ball was one of his variations. I think Monty>Giles for other reasons, which I laid out earlier.

The time he did best of bowling around-the-wicket was indeed in Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2000\01. The first time I noticed that he was doing more over-the-wicket than he should be was in the Ahmedabad Test of the following winter, when he took 5 in the first-innings but offered negligable threat in the second. Then came the next game at Bangalore, on a surface that offered nothing to spin, and the infamous Tendulkar incident.

Bangalore onwards, the only time I can remember him bowling extensively around-the-wicket was in the First and Second Tests in Sri Lanka in 2003\04. Even the following home summer, when he unearthed 3 consecutive turning pitches (taking 25 wickets in the 3 games), he mostly attacked from over-the-wicket, though it's importan to remember that there were a litany of left-handers involved.

I'm fairly resigned to the fact I'll have said bugbear for a while, it's been notable even the last couple of years. But more than anything, more than even the fault of the bowler, it's the fault of those who picked him time and again when he could offer no attacking threat, and used him instead in a defensive role, as it was the only one the conditions allowed him to play.

Maybe things might ease a little when Panesar is forced into a similar role for a few Tests in a row.

I'm aware that Giles was a seamer once, but I'm not taking that into account. This is simply because one, using that line of reasoning, could argue that Brad Hogg is a superior Test bowler to Stuart MacGill because Hogg didn't take up wrist-spin seriously until he was around 23 while MacGill was playing around with it when he was younger than that. I'm not saying that you went by that logic though, because you have more intelligence than that.

LOL, I thought I made a decent job of conveying that I wasn't trying to claim Giles' past made any impact on how good he became. Just that what he became was a little more notable on an effort-required level, because of being forced to change tack in his late teens.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Ay, 'twas he who did it first this thread, and good on him.

Takes two to tango.

Proves that broken-down quotes don't have to be war. But of course, we already knew that.

Think there's a blue moon in the sky tonight.

Presuming, of course, that you've read mine, Colin's and aforementioned DaRick's posts.

Skimmed them, though even that was a tall order. It's like reading a Venetian blind.

Whelan being the graduate he is now, can't shake the feeling laze might have set in.

I'm allowed one vice, aren't I?

 

[Richard]

Takes two to tango.

But he'd not be dissuaded by something which was of his commencement now, would he?

Think there's a blue moon in the sky tonight.

There's been a fair few down the years, then.

Skimmed them, though even that was a tall order. It's like reading a Venetian blind.

Ind33d. My point exactly.

I'm allowed one vice, aren't I?

Just that all these bloody graduates are the same.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

But h[e'd not be dissuaded by something which was of his commencement now, would he?

Yes, but I wonder whose inundatory style convinced him that such conduct was acceptable protocol?

There's been a fair few down the years, then.

Yeah. A few. Ergo the joke.

Just that all these bloody graduates are the same.

Gracious, sorry I haven't made 50,000 posts and planning my wedding at 22.

Actually, now that I list it like that it does seem impressive.








Because they'd normally be mutually exclusive?

 

[DaRick]

Ay, 'twas he who did it first this thread, and good on him.

Uh...I was directing my opinions at another poster; you then decided to wade into it. No problem, though.

Different fingerspinners offer different amounts - perhaps saying they don't offer a great deal in terms of ability to take wickets off their own back and through their own good bowling (vis-a-vis non-turning surfaces) would be most accurate.

More accurate than leg-spinners, obviously. I also agree that off-spinners are still less threatening on non-favourable pitches (greentops) than favourable pitches and I have throughout our debate.

Quality wristspinners, though, can turn the ball on almost any surface. And use loop and drift.

Depends on what you define as a 'quality wristspinner' really. Any decent wristie will get loop and drift, certainly, but so will decent offspinners. Somebody like Shane Warne will definitely turn it on almost any surface (and Stuart MacGill, too, although he has other faults).

That being said, what about blokes like Danish Kaneria and Mushtaq Ahmed, who weren't known so much for their legbreaks (Kaneria doesn't turn it away that far even on helpful pitches) as for their googlies? Are they 'quality wristspinners' or do they fall short under your criteria above?

True, though I wasn't suggesting "get it, accept it!" if that's what you thought. It's a flaw on my part that, as I mentioned elsewhere, has caused more than one problem in the past.

Meh, I'll get over it. It's just off-putting, that's all.

Only to right-handed batsmen. He's a legspinner to left-handers.

I know, but that isn't really the point. Point is, he's listed as an offspinner and would consider himself as such.

Either way, I've never been fond of the "off" and "leg" spin definition, not only because it makes the presumption of a right-hander on strike but also that it presumes the bowler has only his stock-ball. Stating the obvious again here, but Murali's Doosra is a legspinner to the right-hander.

What would you term him to be, then (sans the terms 'right-arm chucker', 'freak', 'random right arm spinner' - just in case you think he throws)?

Oh, undoubtedly. And I certainly wasn't suggesting it was quite as helpful to bowlers, of any kind, as Mumbai 2004\05, just that that was the first wicket which came to mind that offered liberal assistance to spin and seam, even if it didn't stay constant throughout the match. I've never seen an Oval surface offer anywhere near that much to either seam or spin as in that 1997 Test. And I haven't seen that many that managed to offer liberal amounts of both during the same match.

The time he did best of bowling around-the-wicket was indeed in Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2000\01. The first time I noticed that he was doing more over-the-wicket than he should be was in the Ahmedabad Test of the following winter, when he took 5 in the first-innings but offered negligable threat in the second. Then came the next game at Bangalore, on a surface that offered nothing to spin, and the infamous Tendulkar incident.

Bangalore onwards, the only time I can remember him bowling extensively around-the-wicket was in the First and Second Tests in Sri Lanka in 2003\04. Even the following home summer, when he unearthed 3 consecutive turning pitches (taking 25 wickets in the 3 games), he mostly attacked from over-the-wicket, though it's importan to remember that there were a litany of left-handers involved.

Didn't get to see either of those series, for various reasons. Maybe they're on Youtube...

I'm fairly resigned to the fact I'll have said bugbear for a while, it's been notable even the last couple of years. But more than anything, more than even the fault of the bowler, it's the fault of those who picked him time and again when he could offer no attacking threat, and used him instead in a defensive role, as it was the only one the conditions allowed him to play.

I already communicated my thoughts on him being selected in those conditions earlier.

Maybe things might ease a little when Panesar is forced into a similar role for a few Tests in a row.

Perhaps. On the other hand, I feel that Monty's variations are more dangerous than Giles' ever were.

LOL, I thought I made a decent job of conveying that I wasn't trying to claim Giles' past made any impact on how good he became. Just that what he became was a little more notable on an effort-required level, because of being forced to change tack in his late teens.

You did do a decent job of conveying that...I was just glad that you didn't try to use his past as an excuse, then demonstrating why I thought that.

 

[Perm]

Richard, Robert Key is not a better Test match batsman than Marcus Trescothick. Nor is Chris Tremlett a better Test match bowler than Steve Harmison. Potentially better, yes, but not at this stage.

 

[Richard]

What I meant by that comment was that, for mine, they have the potential to do better from this moment on. Trescothick, right now, seems highly unlikely to play Tests again, so it's a given that anyone, really, is a better bet than him - even Stephen Stubbings.

 

[Richard]

Uh...I was directing my opinions at another poster; you then decided to wade into it. No problem, though.

That's what I tend to do best really. Being a public forum, people wade into other people's one-to-one discussions quite a bit.

Depends on what you define as a 'quality wristspinner' really. Any decent wristie will get loop and drift, certainly, but so will decent offspinners. Somebody like Shane Warne will definitely turn it on almost any surface (and Stuart MacGill, too, although he has other faults).

That being said, what about blokes like Danish Kaneria and Mushtaq Ahmed, who weren't known so much for their legbreaks (Kaneria doesn't turn it away that far even on helpful pitches) as for their googlies? Are they 'quality wristspinners' or do they fall short under your criteria above?

Mushtaq certainly did spin the ball plenty, both Leg-Break and Googly, and could turn it on anything, a la Warne, MacGill, Murali, etc. He was only top-quality for a short while, sadly, but that for reasons other than amount of spin.

However, Kaneria, no (and Kumble is another one, or at least, was until recently, though he's different again in that he doesn't bowl standard Leg-Break deliveries anywhere near as often as most wristspinners), I wouldn't consider him top-drawer. Kaneria simply doesn't spin the ball enough, and that's always something that's disappointed me about him. And I wonder, if he did spin it more, would he lose some of his accuracy? I guess that's the reason he never seems to have tried.

I know, but that isn't really the point. Point is, he's listed as an offspinner and would consider himself as such.

What would you term him to be, then (sans the terms 'right-arm chucker', 'freak', 'random right arm spinner' - just in case you think he throws)?

I don't, FTR, and never have, even pre-2004. I honestly would not even bother trying to classify him. He's one of a kind, there's highly unlikely ever to be another like him. I'd just say "wristspinner", and leave it at that, with the "very unorthodox" quid-quo-pros.

Didn't get to see either of those series, for various reasons. Maybe they're on Youtube...

I've long been meaning to get around to putting the things on there myself, I've a fair amount of highlights on tape.

Perhaps. On the other hand, I feel that Monty's variations are more dangerous than Giles' ever were.

Oh, they are, undoubtedly, but I still don't expect them (or anything else) to result in him offering much threat on non-turning surfaces. And I think many people are expecting him to do so.