bring back alex tudor!!!

[marc71178]

However, there is little dispute that White in the summer of 2000 and most of the winter of 2000\01 bowled exceedingly well, even if he didn't quite get the figures in Pakistan or Sri Lanka.

Yet by the same token, when some people have said that Flintoff has bowled well but not got the figures he deserved you've disputed it?

One rule for one...

 

[Richard]

No, not one rule for one - my judgement.
I judge that Flintoff hasn't deserved wickets, I judge that White did.
I have the right to do that.
As far as I'm concerned Flintoff didn't bowl as to deserve wickets. White did.
Some might think otherwise, of course.

 

[marc71178]

Yet you have said that a bowler isn't good without a good average, and White most definitely doesn't have a good average (except for 1 series - the only time he averaged under 30)

Some might say we're entitled to remove that from his records as an anomaly.

 

[sledger]

isnt this meant to be a thread about alex tudor and how hes better than simon jones?

 

[steds]

yeah, but Richard will start any argument, anywhere

 

[Son Of Coco]

I can't believe you are going to have much trouble with Hoggard, Anderson or Jones, either. You will almost certainly have trouble with Giles if any of the pitches turn as much as those for the third, fourth and fifth Tests of last summer did. And I'll see how much trouble South Africa have with Harmison before predicting anything there.

We've never had much trouble with Hoggard. We've played decent spinners before on turning pitches so I suppose that'll be up to individual batsmen on the day and how they choose to play Giles. I wouldn't imagine that decent players of spin will treat him any differently to the way they've treated Murali at home, the Indian spinners in India etc. I agree on Harmison though, he looks much improved, but his efforts against SA and Aus will be interesting to watch.

 

[marc71178]

isnt this meant to be a thread about alex tudor and how hes better than simon jones?

All threads evolve.

Besides that he's not.

 

[Richard]

Yet you have said that a bowler isn't good without a good average, and White most definitely doesn't have a good average (except for 1 series - the only time he averaged under 30)

Some might say we're entitled to remove that from his records as an anomaly.

Wouldn't you do better to remove only the games in which he did well in that series (the Third and Fourth)? And the following game.
Far better to remove game-by-game stuff.
Personally I'd say treat his pre-1997 stuff as different to his 2000-and-post stuff as different periods, anyhow. Then deal with any removing.
And I'll say it again - I've never said White proved a good bowler, he was a big disappointment in the end.
But IMO circumstances conspired against him.

 

[Richard]

We've never had much trouble with Hoggard. We've played decent spinners before on turning pitches so I suppose that'll be up to individual batsmen on the day and how they choose to play Giles. I wouldn't imagine that decent players of spin will treat him any differently to the way they've treated Murali at home, the Indian spinners in India etc. I agree on Harmison though, he looks much improved, but his efforts against SA and Aus will be interesting to watch.

All your batsmen bar Hayden have had trouble with the turning ball.
If we get some turners next summer I'd back Giles to trouble them all.
And if we're lucky Hayden's in-swing weaknesses might be exploited and the new-ball might dispose of him.

 

[Son Of Coco]

All your batsmen bar Hayden have had trouble with the turning ball.
If we get some turners next summer I'd back Giles to trouble them all.
And if we're lucky Hayden's in-swing weaknesses might be exploited and the new-ball might dispose of him.

Well we played SL ok at home last series, and they seemed to have a decent spiner in their side if I remember rightly - Giles is not in the same class. Gilchrist doesn't look as good against spin admittedly, but Lehmann is above average and yeah Hayden was the guy I was thinking of especially when you mentioned that. As for Hayden, I'm not sure about the in-swing weakness thing........but who's going to exploit it?

 

[Richard]

Somehow managed to forget Lehmann - he's almost in the same class as Hayden, and far better against seam and swing, too.
But yes, you ended-up winning in Sri Lanka (Murali still took 28 wickets at 23.17), but all your batsmen had problems:
Symonds, not that I think many supported his selection ahead of Katich, averaged 13.25 in 4 innings.
Ponting made one 92 in the penultimate innings and did not much besides (ave 21.20).
Langer saved himself at the last possible moment with 166 (hitherto he averaged 15), and that owed a lot to a dropped catch IIRR.
Gilchrist played one 144 and otherwise averaged 14.25.
Martyn scored one very impressive century at Galle, and one wholly unimpressive one at SSC, which needed at least 3 let-offs. Otherwise, he did nothing.
So you'll see why I don't think many of them are that good against spin.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Somehow managed to forget Lehmann - he's almost in the same class as Hayden, and far better against seam and swing, too.
But yes, you ended-up winning in Sri Lanka (Murali still took 28 wickets at 23.17), but all your batsmen had problems:
Symonds, not that I think many supported his selection ahead of Katich, averaged 13.25 in 4 innings.
Ponting made one 92 in the penultimate innings and did not much besides (ave 21.20).
Langer saved himself at the last possible moment with 166 (hitherto he averaged 15), and that owed a lot to a dropped catch IIRR.
Gilchrist played one 144 and otherwise averaged 14.25.
Martyn scored one very impressive century at Galle, and one wholly unimpressive one at SSC, which needed at least 3 let-offs. Otherwise, he did nothing.
So you'll see why I don't think many of them are that good against spin.

Fair enough, but if they were that poor then wouldn't the obvious way to beat them be to just have two quicks and 4 spinners (throw in a couple of part-timers too? I'll admit there's enough chinks in the armour there to suggest that if the players who play well against spin fail there could be trouble. I don't think Giles will cause nightmares though.....

 

[tooextracool]

All your batsmen bar Hayden have had trouble with the turning ball.

all their batsmen bar hayden,lehmann, martyn and katich(if he plays).

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, at their best, however Cork peaked sometime around 1995-7, and was a shadow of that come 2000, and White's peaks were so very occasional...

whites peak lasted from the WI series in 00 to the SL series in 01. the figures might not tell the story but anyone who watched any of those series would know that he was just about as instrumental in their success as gough or anyone else bar thorpe was.
sadly he suffered a serious injury after that and in the ashes series in 01 and in india we saw that he was only half the bowler he had been. he managed to work his way around that against australia in 03 though.

 

[tooextracool]

You took a temporary death from August 2000 to May 2001, then?
Sorry, nothing will ever convince me that Trescothick, Strauss, Key, Vaughan, Bell, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Hoggard, Anderson, Harmison is a better side than Atherton, Trescothick, Hussain, Vaughan, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, White, Cork, Caddick, Gough (yes, I know, that side never actually played together but they almost certainly would have but for injuries).

the major difference between the 2 sides right there is flintoff.
the problem with that side of 2001 is that there were too many players who were past their prime/ inconsistent to make it as successful as it should have been.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough, but if they were that poor then wouldn't the obvious way to beat them be to just have two quicks and 4 spinners (throw in a couple of part-timers too? I'll admit there's enough chinks in the armour there to suggest that if the players who play well against spin fail there could be trouble. I don't think Giles will cause nightmares though.....

Well, I'd never play six bowlers (unless you've got two all-rounders, I suppose) but yes, if the pitches are turning then I'd play two spinners against Australia - if they're good enough. And there aren't even that many good fingerspinners around ATM.
Of course, playing fingerspinners in Australia is largely pointless, because fingerspinners won't trouble any of the Australian batsmen on typical pitches in Australia (other than The SCG).
And equally, you don't see that many turning surfaces anywhere else - there are too few in the subcontinent ATM, even.
And part-timers are always unlikely to cause top-class batsmen much trouble, they're too wayward.

 

[Richard]

all their batsmen bar hayden,lehmann, martyn and katich(if he plays).

Katich is not an especially brilliant player of spin and Martyn has never been great shakes against it either.

 

[marc71178]

Of course, playing fingerspinners in Australia is largely pointless, because fingerspinners won't trouble any of the Australian batsmen on typical pitches in Australia (other than The SCG).

Tell that to the King of Spain last time he was out there on a state visit.

 

[tooextracool]

Katich is not an especially brilliant player of spin

and where is the evidence to suggest this?
i seem to remember him playing quite a brilliant knock on a turner at sydney against india and then averaging 50(albeit he only played 1 game because the selectors thought symonds would be better) in SL.
so basically it all comes down to the fact that you dont like him and despite the fact that katich has never shown any visible weaknesses against spin bowling(and has in fact shown all the skills required to succeed) he must still be totally useless against spin

and Martyn has never been great shakes against it either.

martyn has never been particularly uncomfortable against spin either....

 

[Richard]

Tell that to the King of Spain last time he was out there on a state visit.

Eh?