*Official* Fourth Test at Headingley

[GIMH]

Haha, you changed your avatar again, WAG

 

[Pizzorno]

Yeah, I realised it would be tempting fate to have a crim there.

On another note i'm predicting that we'll win the Ashes at Headingley because i've already been put through an FA Cup final defeat and life would just be completely unfair if we lost the Ashes too.

 

[GIMH]

IIRC this is what will happen:

Martyn says (23:31):
will take 18-6 in the match
england win by an innings and 700 runs

The bowler in question is Sidebottom, FTR

 

[Uppercut]

That happened last summer against Saffa pretty much, gloomy Friday saw them swing us out, then they racked up what felt like a thousand

The ball did actually swing a bit for England in that game. Ashwell Prince and AB De Villiers just were on top of it. 350 would have been par, not 512. You generally do get a little bit of a chance at Headingley even in sunshine. The forecast is good, but I still expect a result.

Remember that game well. England's first innings was comically inept tactically. Facing a bleedingly obvious plan to pitch the ball up, let it swing and invite the batsman to drive in order to take an edge, nine English wickets fell caught behind the wicket driving loosely. The other was dragged on, driving loosely.

I can't help but feel England are overdue a bit of a collapse.

 

[JBH001]

Broad's time is up it seems with the inclusion of Trott and Sidebottom in the squad. Although if Fred is out, I reckon he will still play. Looking at England's bowling statistics only Anderson and Onions really stand out - Fred has 7 @ 47, and Swann and Broad 6 @ 57 (Anderson and Onions have 12 @ 31 and 8 2 27 respectively). Been a little disappointed in Swann tbh, heard he did a real good job in WI, but has been far too inconsistent in this series (even given good batting decks) apart from the occassional good over. Hope for more from him as the series progresses, but so far I really dont see what all the fuss is about.

Probably better for England if they play 6 specialist bats, with Prior at 7, Swann at 8 can hold a bat, and with 6 specialist bats, tail end batting should not be a concern (although a major reason England has done well so far has been their lower order batting). The other option though, if Headingley turns out to be a good seamers deck, is to drop Swann and retain Broad - certainly if figures are anything to go by, there is little to separate their bowling in this series.

Still, all this depends on Fred dropping out (as he should given the way he looked on the last day).

 

[Pothas]

The ball did actually swing a bit for England in that game. Ashwell Prince and AB De Villiers just were on top of it. 350 would have been par, not 512. You generally do get a little bit of a chance at Headingley even in sunshine. The forecast is good, but I still expect a result.

Remember that game well. England's first innings was comically inept tactically. Facing a bleedingly obvious plan to pitch the ball up, let it swing and invite the batsman to drive in order to take an edge, nine English wickets fell caught behind the wicket driving loosely. The other was dragged on, driving loosely.

I can't help but feel England are overdue a bit of a collapse.

Yeah agree with that, due at least one for the series. Batting has done fairly well this series but it is still a tad thin and I do worry if we lose Strauss and Cook early on.

 

[Richard]

Agree with Pattinson, but not with Broad... don't have enough knowledge about Amjad Khan. And given he's now being kept out by Onions and Sidebottom, I definitely think that's fair.

Sidebottom has always been ahead of him, pretty much since he returned to action. Onions being picked ahead of him this season is obviously absolutely fair. But no-one else has done better than him nor looked better than him.

Honestly, baffles logic that Broad is supposedly better because he looks better and consistently averages 15-20 runs per wicket higher.

Surprising that he looked fitter though, Gough was on one leg and about to retire.

Gough, however unfit, has always been able to bowl with pace and has always been able to put everything into a short spell.

 

[Richard]

Had to just check cricinfo for this test, because i wasn't mixing it up for the game Dravid scored 217, but looking at the scorecard. I am getting back some memories of this test & are you sure it swung much then?. I am sort of remembering a wicket similar to when Monty took 5 vs PAK in 06?

As I say, the wicket and how much it swings are different matters. Swing is to do with the ball; the wicket controls how much seam there is. And there was certainly seam, all match, for those who bowled with the right seam and those who hit good areas caused problems. Both England and Indian seamers. Then the India spinners cleaned-up on the final day when England threw the last few wickets away.

For the most part though, bowlers that Test bowled quite dreadfully, especially England ones.

 

[aussie]

Nope seamed around plenty when Butcher was at the crease. Which is why there were plenty of runs that were scored behind the wicket, particularly over the slips (remember if you are going to slash, slash hard) and its a reason why Butch's knock is rated so highly.

Yea i remember that. But the pitch was flat at the end clearly, overall though was nothing like WI 2000 or SA 98 for instance. Now thats was a serious seamers deck.

Seamed around all game, with both sides bowling poorly and too short throughout. The amount of movement off the pitch increased steadily as the game wore off, with Richardson getting a peach of a delivery to get dismissed in the 2nd inning off Hoggard.

It didn't seam around all game. It was very flat until the NZ second innings. Saggers "the horses for courses" selection wasn't as effective as ENG had hoped because of the flat pitch.

Seamed around plenty when Steyn and Morkel bowled even if not so much thereafter.

Thats 1st innings batting performance was due to poor batting although Steyn bowled. As the match went it, the pitch was very solid batting. Broad's baitng in the 2nd innings proves that.

Anyhow, there is enough evidence over the years to disprove your theory that the wickets haven't seamed at all this decade.

I never said it didn't seam AT ALL after 2000, just that none of the pitches was the historical Leeds "green seamer" that swung for 5 days straight. All the above you listen where just various instances during each respective test in which it swung.

England have frequently bowled poorly at Headingley, and far too often they have bowled too short when they should have been pitching it up. As a result, Im fearful about the next test because I think if there is one pitch they were likely to struggle on this series it would be at Headingley. Furthermore, given the Australian bowlers affinity towards helpful pitches, this is their best chance to get even in the series.

All true if its a true green seamer. I am expecting as the overhead conditions fluctuate vs a flat deck, we will have a similar surface to Edgbaston.

 

[Richard]

Don't think either side has batted well when it's swung tbh. When Australia finally got the ball to talk a bit at Edgbaston, they had England 5 for 150 odd.

If it's consistently cloudy, can see this being something of a low scoring thriller tbh. Really looking forward to it.

'Tis my hope as well TBH. Hopefully padded-out over five days by enough rain to give a minumum of 20 overs on each.

 

[pup11]

Yeah, don't disagree with that. More that if it moves around both sides' batting is potentially frail.

Also interesting that in recent times, the Aussie attack has produced when there's something in the deck. As far back as India and at home last summer they struggeld to contain, let alone penetrate, on flat decks. Personally wouldn't mind, as HJ suggested, Ronnie in for Horrie and Clark for Sid. Can never say with certainty of course, but that attack at least seems more disciplined than the one which has been doing the rounds of late.

As I said before, I would rather play both Siddle and Clark in a four man pace attack, and surely won't be picking Macca ahead of any one of the other fast bowler, Macca is a pretty useful cricketer, but his bowling isn't that good for him to play as a front-line bowler, and neither is his batting such a factor that it would give him an edge over one of the bowlers.

Anyways, it goes without saying that the Poms are talking bit a risk going into Headingley, by banking on just swing bowling to win them the game there, and the batting line-up too with the likes of Bopara, Bell, Trott looks a bit shaky.

 

[social]

Go on then, why don't you tell everyone the last time Australia murdered a traditional 'off spin' bowler who didnt bowl a doosra outside of the subcontinent? I think you'll have a hard time proving that Australia LOVE traditional off spin bowlers, because they havent played any. There are few right handed finger spinners going around in international cricket.

Your logic that Australia struggle against left arm twirlers but not right handed ones is inane given that they both bowl exactly the same thing except with a different hand. Yes, traditionally there have been more successful SLAs than RAO, but thats only because there are more right handed batsmen than left handed batsman and batsmen are more susceptible to the ball going away than the ball coming in. Considering that half of Australia's top 8 currently are left handers, there is enough for any traditional RAO to work with.

Swann and it's been oh so predictable

BTW, why do you think there arent many conventional offies playing international cricket

Because they get hammered in fc cricket by all and sundry

It's not rocket science ffs!

 

[Pigeon]

Swann and it's been oh so predictable

BTW, why do you think there arent many conventional offies playing international cricket

Because they get hammered in fc cricket by all and sundry

It's not rocket science ffs!

You are a tad generalising there am afraid. Plenty of offies are doing well in FC cricket of the subcontinent.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Swann doesn't bowl full tosses because he tries too much variation. It's a technical deficiency with his front arm, he pulls it down too quickly which means that his bowling arm is sailing without a rudder for the last part. It's why his length varies too much.

Warne's mentioned a few times about his ability to spin the ball when bowling quick. It's an asset, but the batsmen read his length so much better when he's >90km/h. When he's in the 80s, you can see the doubt about coming forward or back, and he gets so much more bounce.

 

[Uppercut]

Swann doesn't bowl full tosses because he tries too much variation. It's a technical deficiency with his front arm, he pulls it down too quickly which means that his bowling arm is sailing without a rudder for the last part. It's why his length varies too much.

Warne's mentioned a few times about his ability to spin the ball when bowling quick. It's an asset, but the batsmen read his length so much better when he's >90km/h. When he's in the 80s, you can see the doubt about coming forward or back, and he gets so much more bounce.

Swann varies his pace a lot though. A little too much IMO. A typical over will be a mix of flighted deliveries, quicker deliveries, arm balls... etc. He's bowling like a one-day bowler. IMO he'd be much better served bowling a series of flighted deliveries and a surprise quicker ball (or a surprise flighted ball), trying to set the batsman up.

 

[jackster83]

These are the lineups I would pick:

Australia
1. Hughes
2. Katich
3. Ponting
4. Clarke
5. North
6. Watson
7. Haddin/Manou (depending on injury)
8. Johnson
9. Hauritz
10. Clark
11. Hilfenhaus

England
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Bell
4. Bopara
5. Collingwood
6. Prior/Trott (Trott to bat at 6 if Flintoff is out)
7. Flintoff/Prior
8. Swann
9. Anderson
10. Onions
11. Harmison (only English bowler remotely capable of getting Michael Clarke out)

Us having 2 all rounders (and no backup specialist batsman) in the squad was a dumb move IMO. Jacques should have been in the squad instead of either McDonald or Watson.

England must be regretting not picking Michael Vaughan in their squad. Ravi Bopara is the worst test no. 3 that I've seen. Poor footwork, poor shot selection and doesn't even seem to have a pressure releasing trademark shot (e.g. Hussey with his pull shot). Bell is okay but his conversion rate of starts to 100s is terrible. Vaughan can convert starts and unlike Bopara, has made runs against better teams than the pathetic current West Indies side (who would struggle against a side made up of 8 year old kids).

 

[JBH001]

Swann doesn't bowl full tosses because he tries too much variation. It's a technical deficiency with his front arm, he pulls it down too quickly which means that his bowling arm is sailing without a rudder for the last part. It's why his length varies too much.

Warne's mentioned a few times about his ability to spin the ball when bowling quick. It's an asset, but the batsmen read his length so much better when he's >90km/h. When he's in the 80s, you can see the doubt about coming forward or back, and he gets so much more bounce.

Never having seen Swann bowl before this series I was really surprised at how quick he bowls it. Also the fact that his action is so busy, and the source of the speed at which he puts the ball through the air. Now, I havent seen much of Swann but he seems to me to be the kind of bowler who really needs to be in rythm to bowl the good and consistent spells a good spinner (especially an offie) should. Reckon his action is a little too uncontrolled, its hardly the classical sauntering delivering type over a braced front leg, and that allows for the fact that he suddenly seems to bowl poor lengths - unless, of course, everything is in sync.

 

[simmy]

These are the lineups I would pick:

Australia
1. Hughes
2. Katich
3. Ponting
4. Clarke
5. North
6. Watson
7. Haddin/Manou (depending on injury)
8. Johnson
9. Hauritz
10. Clark
11. Hilfenhaus

England
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Bell
4. Bopara
5. Collingwood
6. Prior/Trott (Trott to bat at 6 if Flintoff is out)
7. Flintoff/Prior
8. Swann
9. Anderson
10. Onions
11. Harmison (only English bowler remotely capable of getting Michael Clarke out)

Us having 2 all rounders (and no backup specialist batsman) in the squad was a dumb move IMO. Jacques should have been in the squad instead of either McDonald or Watson.

England must be regretting not picking Michael Vaughan in their squad. Ravi Bopara is the worst test no. 3 that I've seen. Poor footwork, poor shot selection and doesn't even seem to have a pressure releasing trademark shot (e.g. Hussey with his pull shot). Bell is okay but his conversion rate of starts to 100s is terrible. Vaughan can convert starts and unlike Bopara, has made runs against better teams than the pathetic current West Indies side (who would struggle against a side made up of 8 year old kids).

England team is spot on imo

 

[GIMH]

Vaughan is retired

 

[pup11]

Swann and it's been oh so predictable

BTW, why do you think there arent many conventional offies playing international cricket

Because they get hammered in fc cricket by all and sundry

It's not rocket science ffs!

C'mon mate lets get a bit real here, when we had guys like Hayden, Langer, Symmo, Gilchrist in the side, then Australian side could have been rated as the most scary batting line-ups for any spinner to bowl too.

In the current Australian side though, one can't say that anyone else apart from Clarke, Haddin, Hughes and Katich, play spin all that well, and reason for that is simple, there just aren't any decent spin bowlers around in the Aussie FC arena anymore, which hardly allows the upcoming Aussie batsmen to hone their batting skills against spin bowling.

This has even started to show in the way our batsmen have struggled against almost every half-decent spinner they have come across in the recent times.

Swann has struggled in this series because he has bowled badly, its as simple as that, he hasn't really been blown away by the Australian batsmen, it just that Swann has fed them with plenty of loose balls and to their credit they have manged to put those bad balls away, but its also for everyone to see that whenever Swann has bowled a decent spell (which hasn't been too often in this series), he has troubled the Australian batsmen.