Interesting that you'd class Kallis, Prince, de Villiers and Boucher as tailenders.His 2 Tests so far have gone really similar. Bowled crap early, bowled better later, but got a few tailenders. Feel for Oram, though - really deserved more than that.
Agree with this bit.His 2 Tests so far have gone really similar. Bowled crap early, bowled better later, but got a few tailenders. Feel for Oram, though - really deserved more than that.
Pietersen and Collingwood also, it would seem.Interesting that you'd class Kallis, Prince, de Villiers and Boucher as tailenders.
'T'll teach me to work from memory without checking 'cards I guess.Interesting that you'd class Kallis, Prince, de Villiers and Boucher as tailenders.
Last year?When he (Gillespie) came out to Australia a few years ago he looked like he was gonna be the goods.
Disagree that two spinners would be more effective. Perhaps would've kept the runs down (since Martin and Gillespie were expensive) but would they have created as many problems as a swinging/seaming ball like we've seen? No. Patel would've been bowled and wasted on this surface.Still reckon two spinners would be more effective, but Gillespie certainly didn't waste his chance. Got some good wickets along with those of the tail, he's wild but Martin, Mills and Oram aren't so it does provide "variety".
Somebody had to get those tailenders out. Gillespie did. The fact he got 4 wickets when Oram got 3 and bowled better is a tad 'unfair' but then Mills and Martin also could've picked up those tail end wickets, but failed to do so.'T'll teach me to work from memory without checking 'cards I guess.
Not saying Gillespie didn't bowl well for his wickets in either Test BTW, the Collingwood and Pietersen ones were both good balls, but there's no arguing that half his wickets here were tailenders.
Any one who is not Bradman is a tail ender.
That's true, but neither here nor there really. Actually I remember once hearing that a very highly rated bowler had an unusually high number of tailenders in his wicket tally, but I can't remember who. McGrath maybe?'T'll teach me to work from memory without checking 'cards I guess.
Not saying Gillespie didn't bowl well for his wickets in either Test BTW, the Collingwood and Pietersen ones were both good balls, but there's no arguing that half his wickets here were tailenders.
Disagree that two spinners would be more effective. Perhaps would've kept the runs down (since Martin and Gillespie were expensive) but would they have created as many problems as a swinging/seaming ball like we've seen? No. Patel would've been bowled and wasted on this surface.
Yeah, agreed. Vettori hardly bowled himself (8 overs?), so can't see that a second spinner was the way to go.Disagree that two spinners would be more effective. Perhaps would've kept the runs down (since Martin and Gillespie were expensive) but would they have created as many problems as a swinging/seaming ball like we've seen? No. Patel would've been bowled and wasted on this surface.
Thought it made perfect sense, tbh.The last sentence of my above post went nowhere, really.