Ashes 2006/07 = Walkover?

[howardj]

Are you a clown?
you initially state something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and when corrected you end up saying oh i didnt mean that i meant their overall ability to win the Ashes. Whether or not you were trying to make a point with your post, which apparently you werent, i was by saying that Vaughan's batting is something that was disposable to the England side. You should be honored by the fact that i even read what you post.

No sense? Clearly you have trouble with the English language.

Anyway, 9 thousand odd posts in two years - kind of says everything about you.

 

[howardj]

As for his batting being disposable, clearly you think guys like Bell and Collingwood are better options out here in Australia. Thatreflects pretty poorly on your knowledge of the game.

 

[tooextracool]

Even so, that doesn't make him disposible. Because, whether you like it or not, when his knee can hold the weight of his body he is in the best 6 batsman (actually, the best) in England, which means he is not disposible.

i dont know about you, but all the other 6 batsman have much better records than Vaughan has over the last 3 years. Hes nowhere near the best in England, he might have been 4 years ago, but as i said Vaughan is a better player without the captaincy, if they give him a run like that i think we'd see better performances from him.
and being an injury hazard only make him even more dispensable.

 

[tooextracool]

As for his batting being disposable, clearly you think guys like Bell and Collingwood are better options out here in Australia. Thatreflects pretty poorly on your knowledge of the game.

Speaking of English language, you clearly have excelled yourself here.
ive never said that guys like Collingwood and Bell are better options. But im damn sure that id pick Cook and Butcher ahead of Vaughan any day of the week.

 

[Top_Cat]

I might not have played professional cricket before, but i've certainly played some high level local games, and as a wicket keeper i've even kept wicket for 2 consecutive games on the same day. Which anyone whos kept wicket would know is extremely exhausting especially for someone whos not a professional player. As such ive never dropped a straight forward chance because i was too tired. I dont buy into the excuse about him being 35 years old or being stiff and sore, because he didnt even have to move to take that catch, it came straight to him. As i said, the only thing that might have dropped was his concentration level, and he wasnt focussing. There is no excuse however for that.

Mate, to say that your experience and a Test series are worlds apart is redundant.

As a coach or captain, when 2 or more players drop a catch you have to talk to both of them. You cant just tell one person off and tell the other that it was ok because hed done more for the cause before that.

Never said it was okay for Warnie to drop that catch, or even did I excuse it. I just said it was understandable.

As ive said before a mistake is a mistake no matter who does it and when its comitted. Warne may have done a lot more for the cause, but the fact that he dropped the most important catch of the series, was something that cost Australia the game. And i dont think i would consider Warne as a great slipper anyways.

So the rubbish bowling after the drop didn't cost Australia the game? Putting it all down to Warnie is ridiculous considering how much of the day was left. It's true that Pietersen didn't give another chance but as important as taking chances is generating them. And the fact that Australia didn't generate any more wasn't due to conservative batting by Pietersen; the bowling was pretty ordinary. So because Australia's bowlers bowlers didn't generate any more chances, your only recourse is to go back to the last chance given and that was the Warnie drop. It'd be like blaming Ponting for losing the second Test; he started it by bowling first on a belter but there were many, many other more relevant reasons why Australia did eventually lose. Same with Warnie's drop.

i disagree. He didnt bowl well in Australia last time, because quite frankly he wasnt good enough. He had no variety in his bowling, too often he tried to pitch it up when there was no swing and would hence end up being mince meat for the batsmen. Only recently(only after the Ashes) has he started to develop a bit of variety in his bowling and the ability to bowl intelligently(his 2 card trick against Inzamam in Pakistan is the perfect example) and even more recently on the tour to India hes developed the ability to bowl reverse swing which makes him even more dangerous.

Reverse swing might be a new thing for him but saying the rest of his bowling (variety, intelligent bowling, etc.) is new is too great a stretch considering how well he bowled on his first tour of India but most importantly, why. On that tour he impressed because he had variety (swinging the ball both ways) and bowled well. Sorry but I stand by my comments that he bowled pap in Australia last time because he wasn't in great form and when he was exposed didn't adapt quickly enough. Doesn't mean he was a rubbish bowler, just that he wasn't bowling very well. Everything he had on his first Indian tour he didn't just spontaneously lose upon arrival in Brisbane. To support this even more, when the ball was swinging a little on the first morning of Brisbane (and it was only a little), he was the only bowler who looked capable of exploiting it and I distinctly remember he had Justin Langer in a great deal of trouble in the first hour. So he still had the ability to bowl well but just didn't use it well enough hence, he lost form. He wasn't a rubbish bowler at that time.

 

[tooextracool]

Mate, to say that your experience and a Test series are worlds apart is redundant.

I never said it was, it was you who asked me if ive ever played cricket before.

So the rubbish bowling after the drop didn't cost Australia the game? Putting it all down to Warnie is ridiculous considering how much of the day was left. It's true that Pietersen didn't give another chance but as important as taking chances is generating them. And the fact that Australia didn't generate any more wasn't due to conservative batting by Pietersen; the bowling was pretty ordinary. So because Australia's bowlers bowlers didn't generate any more chances, your only recourse is to go back to the last chance given and that was the Warnie drop. It'd be like blaming Ponting for losing the second Test; he started it by bowling first on a belter but there were many, many other more relevant reasons why Australia did eventually lose. Same with Warnie's drop..

it might not have been down to warne no, but he played a role in it. Australias rubbish bowling after the drop was a hallmark of Australia throughout the series, so it came as no surprise. As far as im concerned, Ponting did lose the 2nd test, if that makes you feel any better. His decision to field first was absolutely ridiculous, and had they batted first i have no doubt that Australia would have won. My point though is not to blame Warne for the loss of the series, but one cannot deny that had he taken that catch Australia would have drawn the series. Hence it was a very big mistake and one that cannot be put down as 'understandable'.

Reverse swing might be a new thing for him but saying the rest of his bowling (variety, intelligent bowling, etc.) is new is too great a stretch considering how well he bowled on his first tour of India but most importantly, why. On that tour he impressed because he had variety (swinging the ball both ways) and bowled well. Sorry but I stand by my comments that he bowled pap in Australia last time because he wasn't in great form and when he was exposed didn't adapt quickly enough. Doesn't mean he was a rubbish bowler, just that he wasn't bowling very well. Everything he had on his first Indian tour he didn't just spontaneously lose upon arrival in Brisbane. To support this even more, when the ball was swinging a little on the first morning of Brisbane (and it was only a little), he was the only bowler who looked capable of exploiting it and I distinctly remember he had Justin Langer in a great deal of trouble in the first hour. So he still had the ability to bowl well but just didn't use it well enough hence, he lost form. He wasn't a rubbish bowler at that time.

you dont find it at all of a coincidence then that whenever he played in conditions that werent there for swing bowling he 'lost his form' then? Even in the last Ashes series he got absolutely pasted in all of the first 3 test matches, largely because the conditions didnt help him(and how many people on here were calling for his place during that time?). No what has impressed me most about Hoggard on the tour to both Pakistan and India is the way in which hes changed his length. Hes now bowling far more often in Mcgraths corridor of uncertainity rather than pitching the ball up and hoping for it to swing.
And i question whether you watched his first indian tour. other than the performance in Bangalore where the ball swung all over the place, he was distinctly mediocre for all the other games, and his record(an average of 40 in the 2 games before that) flatter him IMO.
Yes i know Hoggard could swing the ball, and i know he could swing the ball both ways, hes been doing that for years.so to point out the first session of a test match with the new ball against a player who is weak against swing is only going to tell me what i already know. Hoggard is and always has been a great conventional swing bowler, but other than that he had nothing else. That is not the same anymore.

 

[Top_Cat]

As far as im concerned, Ponting did lose the 2nd test, if that makes you feel any better. His decision to field first was absolutely ridiculous, and had they batted first i have no doubt that Australia would have won.

Nothing but a total guess. I don't deny it was a ridiculous decision but there's no way anyone can know what would have happened had he batted instead. One can make some inferences based on experience about what might have happened but one can never know for sure so you can't say you have 'no doubt' and be credible.

My point though is not to blame Warne for the loss of the series, but one cannot deny that had he taken that catch Australia would have drawn the series.

Of course one can deny it. Had Pietersen been out early-on, who's to say Freddie might not have stepped up yet again and batted well? The way that series went, even if England had batted badly and only gotten 120 in front, who's to say that one of the bowlers wouldn't have then stepped-up and bowled Australia out? The point? The same incident, happening at a different point in a match, changes everything that follows thereafter. There's no way of knowing what would have happened at all and any speculation is nothing but another guess.

 

[tooextracool]

Nothing but a total guess. I don't deny it was a ridiculous decision but there's no way anyone can know what would have happened had he batted instead. One can make some inferences based on experience about what might have happened but one can never know for sure so you can't say you have 'no doubt' and be credible.

Of course one can deny it. Had Pietersen been out early-on, who's to say Freddie might not have stepped up yet again and batted well? The way that series went, even if England had batted badly and only gotten 120 in front, who's to say that one of the bowlers wouldn't have then stepped-up and bowled Australia out? The point? The same incident, happening at a different point in a match, changes everything that follows thereafter. There's no way of knowing what would have happened at all and any speculation is nothing but another guess.

no but its quite likely that the same incidents that happened after the dropped catch would have happened even if there wasnt a dropped catch. of course no one can be certain about anything that might have happened, but given the situation- Australia being one up in the series, given the flatness of the pitch, you would have expect Australia to score more than what they got had they batted first. and Warne bowling last would have been an even greater handful than Warne bowling in the 3rd innings.

 

[Mister Wright]

Speaking of English language, you clearly have excelled yourself here.
ive never said that guys like Collingwood and Bell are better options. But im damn sure that id pick Cook and Butcher ahead of Vaughan any day of the week.

At least the English selectors' jobs are safe if you're going to pick Butcher ahead of Vaughan.

 

[tooextracool]

At least the English selectors' jobs are safe if you're going to pick Butcher ahead of Vaughan.

Well done in providing such a logical response with so much factual back up to it as well.
and as we all know, englands selectors are doing such a fabulous job picking kabir ali, bresnan, mahmood and plunkett in the same side and then losing 11 out of their last 12 ODIs and being incapable of beating SL at home.
oh and looking at Butchers record since 2001:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

and looking at vaughans record since taking over captaincy:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

an average of 43(butcher) vs an average of 34(vaughan), How could i possible ponder such a ridiculous change?

 

[howardj]

Speaking of English language, you clearly have excelled yourself here.
ive never said that guys like Collingwood and Bell are better options. But im damn sure that id pick Cook and Butcher ahead of Vaughan any day of the week.

Butcher ahead of Vaughan?

On any measure - captaincy; batting; presence - that's a bit of a joke.

 

[howardj]

an average of 43(butcher) vs an average of 34(vaughan), How could i possible ponder such a ridiculous change?

I think you've left out the bit where, under Vaughan's stewardship, England became the second best Test side in the world, and vanquished the World Champions. But that's irrelevant when we're talking about one of the gun batsmen in World cricket, in Mark Butcher! Averaging a whole 33 against Australia, over 20 Test Matches, is awesome. Get The Butch in there!

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Who else would you suggest as Vaughan's replacement, then?

 

[howardj]

Vaughan's replacement is a separate issue from whether Butcher should be in ahead of him. But, if Vaughan's out, my Ashes lineup would be:

Strauss
Tres
Cook
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff

 

[Mister Wright]

Well done in providing such a logical response with so much factual back up to it as well.
and as we all know, englands selectors are doing such a fabulous job picking kabir ali, bresnan, mahmood and plunkett in the same side and then losing 11 out of their last 12 ODIs and being incapable of beating SL at home.
oh and looking at Butchers record since 2001:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

and looking at vaughans record since taking over captaincy:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

an average of 43(butcher) vs an average of 34(vaughan), How could i possible ponder such a ridiculous change?

You obviously don't have anyway of making your own mind up about things if you are going to use stats for all your arguments. You obviously have no feel for the game or the processes that go along with it. With someone like Vaughan in your side not only do you get a world class batsman, but arguable the best leader England may have had, certainly the best leader of the last 15 or so years. So yes, the notion of picking Butcher ahead of Vaughan (despite what statistics say) is an absurd notion and one that any true observer of the game would never make. Another thing not in the favour of Butcher is that he doesn't want the captaincy, something Vaughan would never be accused of.

If you actually watched the game you would see that there is no way that Butcher could even be classes in the same class as Vaughan. I can't remember Butcher ever 'owning' an attack and having things completely in his control for an entire series. I can at least remember Vaughan doing it, even if it was 4 years ago. He may not have the same results as a batsman, but that is more than made up for his wonderful captaining abiltiy, which also shows you know nothing of the game if you want him to stand down as captain.

Hide behind your statistics if you want, it is the classic way for people to not use their minds and their own judgement.

 

[tooextracool]

Butcher ahead of Vaughan?

On any measure - captaincy; batting; presence - that's a bit of a joke.

well done in using stats from nearly 10 years ago on butcher when he clearly was not good enough. clearly that proves a lot. anybody can see that vaughan hasnt been good enough since the ashes 02/03, and for you to quote stats from his golden run only shows your desperation.

 

[tooextracool]

I think you've left out the bit where, under Vaughan's stewardship, England became the second best Test side in the world, and vanquished the World Champions. But that's irrelevant when we're talking about one of the gun batsmen in World cricket, in Mark Butcher! Averaging a whole 33 against Australia, over 20 Test Matches, is awesome. Get The Butch in there!

i was referring to their batting alone. Ive stated a billion times that Trescothick is at least competent enough to take over the captaincy instead of Vaughan. Vaughan cannot put down a place in the side for captaincy alone and dont even think about bringing up the Brearly b/s

 

[tooextracool]

Vaughan's replacement is a separate issue from whether Butcher should be in ahead of him. But, if Vaughan's out, my Ashes lineup would be:

Strauss
Tres
Cook
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff

Soo much experience in that side aint it?
Lets get rid of the player whos consistently averaged 40+ over the last 4 years of his career and replace him with, why someone who hasnt even played test match cricket for a year.

 

[tooextracool]

You obviously don't have anyway of making your own mind up about things if you are going to use stats for all your arguments. You obviously have no feel for the game or the processes that go along with it. With someone like Vaughan in your side not only do you get a world class batsman, but arguable the best leader England may have had, certainly the best leader of the last 15 or so years. So yes, the notion of picking Butcher ahead of Vaughan (despite what statistics say) is an absurd notion and one that any true observer of the game would never make. Another thing not in the favour of Butcher is that he doesn't want the captaincy, something Vaughan would never be accused of.

If you are a true observer of the game, you would have realised by now that Vaughan has been failing miserably in test match cricket for a long time now. Statistics may not always tell the truth, but in this case when someone average nearly 10 runs more than another, its quite clear that one player is better.
Vaughans leadership maybe amazing, but you'd have to be downright lunatic if you think its anywhere near as good as Martin Crowes, Hansie Cronje's or even Nasser Hussains(Brisbane excluded). He won an Ashes series, doesnt make him the best captain ever. And as ive said some billion times before Trescothick can replace vaughan, he was responsible for nearly half of what happened during the Ashes anyhow.

If you actually watched the game you would see that there is no way that Butcher could even be classes in the same class as Vaughan. I can't remember Butcher ever 'owning' an attack and having things completely in his control for an entire series. I can at least remember Vaughan doing it, even if it was 4 years ago. He may not have the same results as a batsman, but that is more than made up for his wonderful captaining abiltiy, which also shows you know nothing of the game if you want him to stand down as captain.

Hide behind your statistics if you want, it is the classic way for people to not use their minds and their own judgement.

Just curious have you seen Butcher bat before? Butcher in form is about as classy as any batsman you'll ever see, his cover drives, flicks and cuts among the best in the world and if it werent for his temperament, hed be amongst the very best players in the world. For someone to claim that Butchers batting lacks class is the most ludicrous thing ive ever heard. If butcher never managed to own attacks, i find it hard to imagine how he did this:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBat.asp?PlayerId=2099&Series=0493

or this:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBat.asp?PlayerId=2099&Series=0450

or this http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBat.asp?PlayerId=2099&Series=0401

As far as Vaughan is concerned, do you not realise that he was averaging 50+ with the bat before he dropped captaincy? Im sorry but his golden run ended the moment he dropped the captaincy and AFAIC id rather have those 20 extra runs with Trescothick taking over the captaincy than Vaughan taking over the captaincy and playing all around straight balls from Brett Lee.

 

[howardj]

i was referring to their batting alone. Ive stated a billion times that Trescothick is at least competent enough to take over the captaincy instead of Vaughan. Vaughan cannot put down a place in the side for captaincy alone and dont even think about bringing up the Brearly b/s

Obviously an overall judgement has to be made about what each player brings to the table. In determining who should be in the team, you don't 'refer to batting alone'. It's broader than that - and you know it. And mate, even if you take Vaughan's absolute worst batting against Australia (average of 32 in 2005) it is still as good as Butcher's overall record against Australia (33).

As I say, in 20 Tests against Australia (not an insignificant number) he has averaged 33. Those attacks featured Warne, McGrath and Gillespie - exactly the same chaps who will be gunning for him next summer. Add in Vaughan's captaincy, and on any objective assessment, Australia would prefer to face Butcher. However, myself and I dare say 95% of cricket experts must be wrong, and Tooextracool is right.