*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[marc71178]

um no. Bell was out about 3 or 4 times but was not given out. Katich has not been out at all so far.

3 or 4 times?

Granted the one on the 2nd day should've been given, but can't remember 2 or 3 more.

 

[Ikki]

Heh, you're contradicting yourself so badly here. If Swann doesn't show he's superior to Hauritz in this series then he isn't, but if Australia don't show they're superior to England in this series it's because their mindset was wrong or they picked the wrong team.

Frankly, don't know why I'm bothering ITBT.

There is no contradiction. I said: when we look for a spinner, we are looking for more than someone like Hauritz or Swann who are handy and nothing more. So even if you think Swann is better - which even someone like Warne disagrees with, showing you it's possible you're overrating Swann - it doesn't matter because it's unlikely that AUSTRALIA would be content with such a bowler. Maybe England might be, but Australia is won't be. As I said, Hauritz is simply a few beltings away from getting changed. We have better options.

The funny thing is, for all intents and purposes I follow both teams in question. I certainly do whenever they aren't paying each other - with roughly equal interest - so if you're going to use this "fans' expectations" argument, I'd possibly be one of the most relevant people to ask to compare the two bowlers. Mind want to stray away from that one in future.

I'd compare their First Class records but knowing you, you'd almost certainly just say something as asinine as "County Cricket is roughly the equivalent of Sydney 5th Grade cricket where Hauritz recently spent some time due to his rank ineffectiveness anywhere higher and averaged a respectable 35". The standard of cricket is higher in Australian First Class cricket, but certainly not a 15 run bowling average difference no matter how you try and spin it.

Country Cricket is quite inferior, but that's not really the point. Hauritz was picked on potential, not First Class Cricket. A la Warne - not that they expect him to be Warne, but just showing you how irrelevant that is. But if Hauritz does not meet expectations...he'll be a goner, it's as simple as that. England may be content with spinners like Panesar, Swann or Giles...Australia aren't. If you accept that then you'll understand what I am saying.

Agree, but don't really see how it's relevant to anything I've said. Australia has a better team and Australia has more depth.. I understand this. This doesn't mean England can't win the Ashes though as the difference between the two teams isn't England isn't that great anymore. Form can easily overthrow the gap that exists, much as it did in the second and (so far) third Tests without Australia ****ing up royally. It's unlikely but most certainly possible.

So you think for the reasons of possibility, England can kinda fluke it and win the Ashes. This is Test cricket. A 5 test series, goes on for a month, etc. This isn't 90 minute football. If Australia lose, they have fundamental problems to look at. Because with all that they have at their disposal, they should win if they play to their potential because they are simply more talented.

If the English players were to simply up it, and play marvelously, at least for a series, I think it would be a bit more obvious than the tripe our batsmen are serving us these days. England are batting well, but not that well. They are bowling well, but not that well. So I am sorry, again, if it sounds arrogant that I cannot put it to simply being outclassed, but that we have quite a few problems that we need to take care of, and had we it wouldn't have come to this. You might say the English can also say this, to an extent they can, but to Australia's extent they can't. Australia can expect themselves to do more because they are currently more talented.

 

[PhoenixFire]

So having a test average in the low 20's in Test matches is better than having a low 30 test average?

Just because Watson has batted well in this Test doesn't mean we should discount his prior exploits in Test Cricket.

Well he hasn't been given an extended run at the top of the order TBF. Put it this way; if they both played the same number of games batting at number 4 say, batting against the same attacks, I'd back Watto to make more runs and average in the mid to high 40s.

 

[Ikki]

Then you clearly have no right to be so damn arrogant about them all.

I am not arrogant about our players as individuals or anything of that nature. But I know the standard of Australian cricket and if they are being picked they have to step up to the plate. From the coaching staff to the selectors, they have to get it together because they have all the resources to do so.

 

[Prince EWS]

There is no contradiction. I said: when we look for a spinner, we are looking for more than someone like Hauritz or Swann who are handy and nothing more. So even if you think Swann is better - which even someone like Warne disagrees with, showing you it's possible you're overrating Swann - it doesn't matter because it's unlikely that AUSTRALIA would be content with such a bowler. Maybe England might be, but Australia is won't be. As I said, Hauritz is simply a few beltings away from getting changed. We have better options.

I don't know how much First Class cricket you watch, but you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think Australia have a better spinner than Swann in domestic cricket. The selectors themselves have faced this by picking Hauritz knowing that even if he is about as penetrative as a newspaper is to a bushfire, he won't get slapped around as often as the other options.

Have you been living under a rock during the spin crisis? FMD.

 

[91Jmay]

No way he'd average that high IMO.

End of the day he has failed against New Zealand, India, West Indies. Not exactly lethal bowling attacks.

Its all conjecture though isn't it, theres no way we can say what his average would have been. So i'll take someone who has 3800 tests runs over someone who has 350.

Bottom line, both players at full fitness, Flintoff can dominate a match with bat or ball. Watson can be a great batsmen but his bowling is so average its untrue.

 

[Ikki]

Katich averages about 53 as opener.

 

[Prince EWS]

No way he'd average that high IMO.

End of the day he has failed against New Zealand, India, West Indies. Not exactly lethal bowling attacks.

Its all conjecture though isn't it, theres no way we can say what his average would have been. So i'll take someone who has 3800 tests runs over someone who has 350.

Bottom line, both players at full fitness, Flintoff can dominate a match with bat or ball. Watson can be a great batsmen but his bowling is so average its untrue.

I'll take someone who has played and nine Tests (regardless of his performances in them) and a First Class average of 46 in Australia and England over someone with a Test average of 31 after 77 Tests and a First Class average of 33. Without question.

Anyone who thinks Flintoff's a better batsman than Watson is kidding themselves as much as the guy who thinks Watson's the better cricketer.

 

[Ikki]

Not really a joke. Broad is quite obviously (from how he batted today and from how he batted before) a proper batsman. Straight driving Johnson at 92mph with a swinging ball is no mean feat and he has he batting well for a while now. Has Johnson scored runs on pitches that aren't hard and flat like the ones in SA, rather like Hughes? Calling it a joke suggests that there is a large margin of difference, which I don't think there is.

Putting the batsmanship aside, how about their bowling? Yes, it is a joke to compare the two.

 

[91Jmay]

I'll take someone who has played and nine Tests (regardless of his performances in them) and a First Class average of 46 in Australia and England over someone with a Test average of 31 after 77 Tests and a First Class average of 33. Without question.

Anyone who thinks Flintoff's a better batsman than Watson is kidding themselves as much as the guy who thinks Watson's the better cricketer.

Flintoff is nearer Watson as a batsmen than Watson to Flintoff as a bowler.

 

[Ikki]

Yawn, again you prove that you only choose different time frames to suit your arguments. Pietersen averages more over his career than Clarke and has scored more 100s.

I was talking about current form all along. We are talking about current sides, so obviously they are there on current form. Do you think Michael Clarke was brought in to average low-mid 40s? No. The reason he is there is because he has banked on his talent. If you recall, he was actually dropped .

 

[PhoenixFire]

Putting the batsmanship aside, how about their bowling? Yes, it is a joke to compare the two.

I don't think anyone with half a brain cell is going to suggest that over their careers and at the current time, that Johnson isn't vastly superior to Broad as a Test bowler at the moment. I was talking about their batting originally though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Flintoff is nearer Watson as a batsmen than Watson to Flintoff as a bowler.

Indeed, I never said otherwise. Flintoff's definitely the better allrounder of the two but that doesn't mean he's the better bat which is what you were asserting before.

 

[Ikki]

I don't know how much First Class cricket you watch, but you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think Australia have a better spinner than Swann in domestic cricket. The selectors themselves have faced this by picking Hauritz knowing that even if he is about as penetrative as a newspaper is to a bushfire, he won't get slapped around as often as the other options.

Have you been living under a rock during the spin crisis? FMD.

Hauritz has been pushed along with a lot of backing from Warne - who thinks he is as good if not better than Swann. Would you suggest that Warne is kidding himself? If they wanted someone to simply tie an end they had both North and Clarke.

 

[91Jmay]

Indeed, I never said otherwise. Flintoff's definitely the better allrounder of the two but that doesn't mean he's the better bat which is what you were asserting before.

Never asserted that, just said fully fit i'd take the proven test performer in this case.

 

[four_or_six]

Katich averages about 53 as opener.

Katich averages 53 since May 2008, Strauss averages 55 since May 2008.

Can make stats say all sorts of things.

 

[Ikki]

Flintoff is nearer Watson as a batsmen than Watson to Flintoff as a bowler.

Disagree, it is much bigger than that IMO. Watson could get into (and actually has) the Australian side purely as a batsman. Do you think Flintoff could?

 

[Prince EWS]

Would you suggest that Warne is kidding himself?

Reckon he's telling porkies to get Hauritz's confidence up, myself.
Failing that though, yes he would be kidding himself. You don't have to be clueless to kid yourself; just biased. As you've shown, many times.

 

[91Jmay]

Hauritz has been pushed along with a lot of backing from Warne - who thinks he is as good if not better than Swann. Would you suggest that Warne is kidding himself? If they wanted someone to simply tie an end they had both North and Clarke.

Where has Warne said Haurtiz is as good as Swann.

All i've heard him say is how impressed he has been with Swann and how he has never seen someone bowl as fast and turn the ball as much.

Which other spinners could Australia pick?

Bryce McGain? Terrible
Cameron White? more of a batsmen isn't he, or is he just that bad a bowler?
Beau Casson
Jason Krezja

Wouldn't even want them in an English squad.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Disagree, it is much bigger than that IMO. Watson could get into (and actually has) the Australian side purely as a batsman. Do you think Flintoff could?

No, but Flintoff could get into the England side if he couldn't bat, but Watson couldn't get into the Aussie side if he couldn't bat.