England vs Australia - Who has the best depth?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes, the same amount of time as since he last batted at three for Australia, amazingly enough.

Depends where you look, really. As I said, Langer began his career as an opener, and was pushed down to number 3 because that was where he was most needed in a time when there were many quality openers in Australian domestic cricket (Hayden, Slater, Taylor, Blewett, Marsh, Elliot etc). When he has played in England, for example, he has always opened, from the mid 90s when he first signed with Middlesex until now.

Langer might be an opener, he might not be, but IMO he's certainly not one of the top openers in The World in any case, I've said that before.
I still think that if he's played the greater part of his career at three, regardless of what's been most recent, he's not an opener, but a manufactured one.

Who exactly is better? Hayden is arguable and the distinction would usually be made on form, Sehwag also is on par at best, Smith hasn't done anything particularly impressive against a good attack in a long time, so who else is there? Strauss, Trescothick, Gayle, De Villiers? Hardly.

 

[aussie]

it seems that you have overlooked several "little"details.

pertaining to what?

 

[aussie]

Langer might be an opener, he might not be, but IMO he's certainly not one of the top openers in The World in any case, I've said that before.
I still think that if he's played the greater part of his career at three, regardless of what's been most recent, he's not an opener, but a manufactured one.

Langer is by no means a manufactured one, those stats that Faaip gave you show that plus i knew that before hand that he opened in the intial part of his FC career. Right now Langer is definately one of the best openers in the world the only 2 who could argue to be possibly better than him are Hayden & Sehwag.

 

[Richard]

A world XI at the moment would far likely see Langer in then not.

Yes, it would. That just says that opening isn't too difficult at present. There are plenty of successful openers around, and it says a lot that someone as successful as Graeme Smith still gets talked down plenty.
I just don't understand how people can think that Langer might be as good as people like Atherton, Kirsten, Anwar, Slater, Taylor, etc. when opening is just so easy at the current time compared to most of Test history.

 

[Richard]

Sri Lanka certainly aren't better players of spin on the whole than Australia, except relative to their ability against pace. In fact, most spin bowlers dominate Sri Lanka, Warne, Kaneria, Giles etc have all done so.

Err, yes, that's because Sri Lanka is a good place to bowl spin. As such, their players are generally pretty good at playing it, same as the Indians. Good spinners will go to India and Sri Lanka and get wickets - poor spinners will go there and be mauled.
Australia have almost invariably had problems when touring the subcontinent and facing quality spin.

Regarldess, I'm focusing on the Ashes because it contains several obvious examples of pitches which took turn on which Giles did nothing in particular. Obviously Giles is sometimes very good on turners, but he's certainly not all the time, or even very close to it, which is why he has all things considered the worst statistical record of any frontline bowler in test history.

Err, what? Worse than Rawl Lewis?
As I say - Giles is very likely to have a poor record, because he's useless on non-turning pitches, and those have been in the vast majority of the matches he's played. I can assure you - no fingerspinner would ever have got wickets on most of the pitches he's failed on.

And Boje definately turns the ball more than Giles, as most fingerspinners do. The pitches in the first two tests in South Africa turned a bit, but they weren't raging turners by any means, and Boje moved them a long way on both pitches. Giles is a better bowler because he is massively more accurate, where Boje gives you a four ball at least every couple of overs if not more, Giles rarely loses his probing length and he's usually pretty good in terms of line as well. In terms of spin, he doesn't do a great deal, and even on turning wickets he only spins it just enough to be dangerous.

Giles, I can categorically assure you (whether you've seen it or not) is capable of spinning the ball a mile (and taking wickets doing so). Just because you happen to have seen Boje turning the ball more often and further than you've seen Giles do, you've come to the conclusion that one's a bigger spinner. Try actually watching the ball come out of their hands in slo-mo. Then you'll get a better picture. Or, as I suggested, you could compare them when they were bowling on the same pitch (as they did several times in South Africa last winter).
Just for clarity - how many Giles Tests have you seen? Did you see the subcontinent tour of 2000\01? The Ahmedabad game of 2001\02? The 3 middle Tests in 2004?

 

[Richard]

Depends where you look, really. As I said, Langer began his career as an opener, and was pushed down to number 3 because that was where he was most needed in a time when there were many quality openers in Australian domestic cricket (Hayden, Slater, Taylor, Blewett, Marsh, Elliot etc). When he has played in England, for example, he has always opened, from the mid 90s when he first signed with Middlesex until now.

Err, no. Langer certainly didn't open ahead of Strauss and Roseberry\Hutton when they were together for Middx (just one or two examples; hell, even Robin Weston, Shah and wicketkeeper David Nash were opening ahead of him; so was Ramprakash, very often, at the start of 2000; there are many more games in 2000 I could show you where Strauss and Roseberry opened with him at three).

Who exactly is better? Hayden is arguable and the distinction would usually be made on form, Sehwag also is on par at best, Smith hasn't done anything particularly impressive against a good attack in a long time, so who else is there? Strauss, Trescothick, Gayle, De Villiers? Hardly.

The fact that two manufactured openers and someone who's been a flat-track bully for almost all his career are talked of as the best openers says something about the quality.
If Atapattu was less stupidly prone to playing idiotic shots early none of them would be fit to lace his boots.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, what? Worse than Rawl Lewis?
As I say - Giles is very likely to have a poor record, because he's useless on non-turning pitches, and those have been in the vast majority of the matches he's played. I can assure you - no fingerspinner would ever have got wickets on most of the pitches he's failed on.

I mean of course among bowlers who have played a significant number of tests. There's freak instances all over the place, but if you look at guys with a decent number of wickets, the only people with higher averages than Giles are guys like Hooper, Tendulkar, Grant Flower etc.

Giles, I can categorically assure you (whether you've seen it or not) is capable of spinning the ball a mile (and taking wickets doing so). Just because you happen to have seen Boje turning the ball more often and further than you've seen Giles do, you've come to the conclusion that one's a bigger spinner. Try actually watching the ball come out of their hands in slo-mo. Then you'll get a better picture. Or, as I suggested, you could compare them when they were bowling on the same pitch (as they did several times in South Africa last winter).
Just for clarity - how many Giles Tests have you seen? Did you see the subcontinent tour of 2000\01? The Ahmedabad game of 2001\02? The 3 middle Tests in 2004?

I didn't see the subcontinent tours, but yes I saw the 2004 home tests. I've seen all his tests against Australia, the ones against South Africa, the West Indies and New Zealand series recently and a few others scattered about the place that have been shown here.

Anyway, Giles simply isn't a huge turner of the ball. Yes obviously he turns it on particularly helpful surfaces, but most fingerspinners in the world including Harbhajan, Boje, and even to a lesser extent Vettori (though Vettori as well doesn't give the ball a huge rip, though I consider him a significantly better bowler than Giles) turn it more than Giles does. It doesn't mean he's a poor bowler (not on its own, that is), he just isn't a huge spinner of the ball, simple as that. Some fingerspinners, believe it or not, turn the ball more than others, just like wristspinners.

 

[Richard]

Langer is by no means a manufactured one, those stats that Faaip gave you show that plus i knew that before hand that he opened in the intial part of his FC career. Right now Langer is definately one of the best openers in the world the only 2 who could argue to be possibly better than him are Hayden & Sehwag.

And I say it again - it says a lot that 2 manufactured openers and a flat-track bully are considered at the top of the tree.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The fact that two manufactured openers and someone who's been a flat-track bully for almost all his career are talked of as the best openers says something about the quality.
If Atapattu was less stupidly prone to playing idiotic shots early none of them would be fit to lace his boots.

My apologies on the Middlesex error. I just looked at the scorecards from his early games there and his last games there and saw he opened in those and assumed it was the same in between.

Anyway, whether he is "manufactured" or not, Langer is clearly a test opener of the highest calibre, and his record at test level since he began opening is spectacularly good. If anything, he's one of the most classical openers around at the moment, given the way he relishes seeing off the new ball and tends to perform when the rest of the team struggles. To compare him to Atapattu is laughable.

The only openers in test cricket at the moment who can reasonably compare to Langer for a world XI are Sehwag and Hayden, and I'd rate him ahead of either of them in the traditional openers role of seeing off the new ball in difficult conditions. Certainly he's miles better than the likes of Smith, Trescothick and Atapattu in such circumstances.

 

[Richard]

I mean of course among bowlers who have played a significant number of tests. There's freak instances all over the place, but if you look at guys with a decent number of wickets, the only people with higher averages than Giles are guys like Hooper, Tendulkar, Grant Flower etc.

Few have been victims of such poor selection as Giles.
I could name you countless Tests that he's played when I knew for absolute certain he was never going to do anything noteworthy before a ball was even bowled.

I didn't see the subcontinent tours, but yes I saw the 2004 home tests. I've seen all his tests against Australia, the ones against South Africa, the West Indies and New Zealand series recently and a few others scattered about the place that have been shown here.

Anyway, Giles simply isn't a huge turner of the ball. Yes obviously he turns it on particularly helpful surfaces, but most fingerspinners in the world including Harbhajan, Boje, and even to a lesser extent Vettori (though Vettori as well doesn't give the ball a huge rip, though I consider him a significantly better bowler than Giles) turn it more than Giles does. It doesn't mean he's a poor bowler (not on its own, that is), he just isn't a huge spinner of the ball, simple as that. Some fingerspinners, believe it or not, turn the ball more than others, just like wristspinners.

Err, yes. Giles, though, is more than capable (even if you've never seen obvious examples of it) of doing so every bit as much as Harbhajan, Saqlain and Boje.
You've just demonstrated fully why you can't really be expected to grasp that. The best you've seen Giles turn the ball is in 2004 - and I can assure you, he didn't bowl as well in those 3 Tests as he bowled at Karachi 2000\01, SSC 2000\01 or Galle 2003\04.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Few have been victims of such poor selection as Giles.
I could name you countless Tests that he's played when I knew for absolute certain he was never going to do anything noteworthy before a ball was even bowled.

Err. And? Other players play on roads and so on as well. That's like me saying that McGrath shouldn't have been picked this summer at the WACA because he wasn't in great form, the batting lineup was good and the pitch was a total road, so he wasn't likely to do well.

Err, yes. Giles, though, is more than capable (even if you've never seen obvious examples of it) of doing so every bit as much as Harbhajan, Saqlain and Boje.
You've just demonstrated fully why you can't really be expected to grasp that. The best you've seen Giles turn the ball is in 2004 - and I can assure you, he didn't bowl as well in those 3 Tests as he bowled at Karachi 2000\01, SSC 2000\01 or Galle 2003\04.

I never claimed to have seen all of his best matches, but I've seen quite a bit of Giles bowling and he turns the ball less than several other fingerspinners around. I mean, Michael Clarke doesn't turn the ball at all usually, but he was turning them square at Mumbai. Does that mean he turns it as much as Harbhajan?

Besides, it's not the be-all and end-all of being a spinner, you know? Kumble turns the ball a hell of a lot less than MacGill, but he's not a poorer bowler. Tim May turned the ball more than Daniel Vettori, but Vettori is a much better bowler.

 

[Richard]

My apologies on the Middlesex error. I just looked at the scorecards from his early games there and his last games there and saw he opened in those and assumed it was the same in between.

Anyway, whether he is "manufactured" or not, Langer is clearly a test opener of the highest calibre, and his record at test level since he began opening is spectacularly good. If anything, he's one of the most classical openers around at the moment, given the way he relishes seeing off the new ball and tends to perform when the rest of the team struggles. To compare him to Atapattu is laughable.

Why? I'd say - certainly until Langer's normal pattern changed in The Ashes - there are very deep similarities between the two. Both often get out early but, once they get in, bowlers can usually forget it.
I'd certainly not class Langer as "classical" - his technique against the short ball is poor, at least so far as avoiding it is concerned. This is particularly suprising for a WAn. Langer has surely been hit more times than any batsman 1998\99-2005\06 - and I'd reckon it'd be more by quite a distance, too.
I've seen Langer go hell-for-leather, much faster than Hayden, more times than I'd care to name. He's certainly not in the "see off the new-ball" mode. About the only classical-opener thing he has is his struggles against spin.
I'd question whether Langer would've done anywhere near as well if he'd faced opening attacks the like of which Atherton, Kirsten, Anwar, Slater, Taylor and co. were charged with repelling.

The only openers in test cricket at the moment who can reasonably compare to Langer for a world XI are Sehwag and Hayden, and I'd rate him ahead of either of them in the traditional openers role of seeing off the new ball in difficult conditions. Certainly he's miles better than the likes of Smith, Trescothick and Atapattu in such circumstances.

Better than Smith and Trescothick, maybe, but certainly not better than Atapattu. If the right Atapattu turns-up, he can blunt any attack. It's just about half the time he seems not to want to be out there and chips it to mid-on or whatever. Rarely have I seen Atapattu especially troubled by seam and swing (a rare thing these days, of course). Langer was made to look pretty average by Agarkar, of all people, 2 years ago - not dissimilar to Hayden's rather surprising struggles with Kyle Mills.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Better than Smith and Trescothick, maybe, but certainly not better than Atapattu. If the right Atapattu turns-up, he can blunt any attack. It's just about half the time he seems not to want to be out there and chips it to mid-on or whatever. Rarely have I seen Atapattu especially troubled by seam and swing (a rare thing these days, of course). Langer was made to look pretty average by Agarkar, of all people, 2 years ago - not dissimilar to Hayden's rather surprising struggles with Kyle Mills.

Are you serious? Langer is head and shoulders above most other people in the world at playing quality fast bowling. There's no doubt he has some flaws in his technique, but you'll find that relatively few of the tough opener types have great techniques, they just possess great mental strength and a solid enough techique to get by. The obvious exceptions are Boycott and Gavaskar. Langer can fall over a bit when the ball swings in to him, he gets hit on the body quite a lot (though he almost never gets out to the short ball, which shows that he doesn't struggle against it really), and while he's a decent player of spin when he gets set he's very vulnerable against it early on.

Despite all that, Langer's probably the best guy in the world to pick if you wanted someone to see off a tough spell and then capitalise later, and regardless of whether or not Agarkar got him out, I'd say it's much more relevant that he can do things like he did at Perth in 2004, where Shoaib was on fire and knocked over the entire Australian top order only to have Langer come through it on about 30 not out at lunch and make a near-double century.

In other words, he's a classical sort of opener.

 

[Richard]

Err. And? Other players play on roads and so on as well. That's like me saying that McGrath shouldn't have been picked this summer at the WACA because he wasn't in great form, the batting lineup was good and the pitch was a total road, so he wasn't likely to do well.

No, it's not. It's nothing like it and you know it. We couldn't know that McGrath wasn't bowling too well before that WACA match - had he played much in the intervening time? In any case, it's not like you can drop all-time great bowlers just because "he's out of form the last game or 2". Giles was clearly never secure in the side and never before 2004 could there have been any complaints if he were left-out of a Test in England. It was stupid selection to play him whenever they did, based solely on the "variation" argument which I've pointed-out enough times is a load of old helmet.

I never claimed to have seen all of his best matches, but I've seen quite a bit of Giles bowling and he turns the ball less than several other fingerspinners around. I mean, Michael Clarke doesn't turn the ball at all usually, but he was turning them square at Mumbai. Does that mean he turns it as much as Harbhajan?

On that pitch, maybe? I didn't see that match, would have been fascinated to, mind.
You can only say that Giles has turned it less when you've seen him. You haven't seen him at his best - and only rarely have you seen him at close to it.
You clearly have a mis-formed opinion on Giles and I'm trying to get you to reform it. I can gurantee you you'd probably be mind-boggled at how much he turned in in Pakistan in 2000\01, and at Ahmedabad in 2001\02. Because it was even more than in 2004. You've seen Harbhajan on plenty of big-turning pitches - it's easy to assume he spins it more than Giles.
But the only way make a true comparison is to compare them on a comparable pitch (ie in the same match). Yes, that repetition was deliberate. I can assure you, when Giles and Harbhajan played together (only happened twice) it happened that neither got the ball off the straight nor looked like doing. One of the pitches (Bangalore 2001\02) was a seaming paradise, the other was as flat as a pancake (The Oval 2002). Harbhajan actually got a five-for at The Oval, but it contained just 2 top-order wickets and certainly he never looked like turning anything. Nor did Kumble. Nor did Giles. It was the same at Bangalore, and India for some inexplicable reason picked just 1 seamer. The 3rd spinner, Sarandeep (one of my favourites and incredibly poorly treated by the selectors), got 3 wickets but also never looked like turning a ball.

Besides, it's not the be-all and end-all of being a spinner, you know? Kumble turns the ball a hell of a lot less than MacGill, but he's not a poorer bowler. Tim May turned the ball more than Daniel Vettori, but Vettori is a much better bowler.

Yes, but Tim May didn't threaten on non-turning pitches, did he? (Indeed, did he even threaten that often on turners?)
You can't be a good spinner without turning the ball - it's no coincidence that Kumble has only ever been effective on turners or those pitches with uneven bounce. Anyone will tell you that's his career pattern. No, X being a bigger spinner of the ball than Z won't make X a better bowler, but if Z is a fingerspinner and X a typical (wayward) wristspinner, clearly neither are going to be that good and it doesn't really matter if one is "pretty poor" and the other is "a bit less poor" or whatever.

 

[Richard]

Are you serious? Langer is head and shoulders above most other people in the world at playing quality fast bowling. There's no doubt he has some flaws in his technique, but you'll find that relatively few of the tough opener types have great techniques, they just possess great mental strength and a solid enough techique to get by. The obvious exceptions are Boycott and Gavaskar. Langer can fall over a bit when the ball swings in to him, he gets hit on the body quite a lot (though he almost never gets out to the short ball, which shows that he doesn't struggle against it really), and while he's a decent player of spin when he gets set he's very vulnerable against it early on.

Very few players get out to the short-ball - it's not something that causes many problems, especially to WAns. Langer, though, has a poor technique that means he gets hit a lot (thereby both gaining some pain and missing run-scoring opportunities). No, it doesn't actually matter a hell of a lot if it's not getting you out, but surely he'd prefer be knocking it into the leg-side for a single or a couple than being hit in the chest or on the arm?
Langer might be head-and-shoulders above most in playing pace without movement (not surprising, being a WAn brought-up on high bounce) but he sure has had problems against the inswinger. Not, of course, incredibly unusual for a left-hander but I'd be truly amazed if one or all of the great attacks of the 1990s weren't to have sorted him out.

Despite all that, Langer's probably the best guy in the world to pick if you wanted someone to see off a tough spell and then capitalise later, and regardless of whether or not Agarkar got him out, I'd say it's much more relevant that he can do things like he did at Perth in 2004, where Shoaib was on fire and knocked over the entire Australian top order only to have Langer come through it on about 30 not out at lunch and make a near-double century.

In other words, he's a classical sort of opener.

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Langer being dropped at least twice in that knock? Please correct me if so.
Being an opener isn't just about the odd fire-with-fire performance like Perth 2004\05, it's about consistently seeing-off the new-ball (of course, you're never going to do it every time) and IMO Langer isn't the greatest at that task. Or, at least, he wasn't before 2005.

 

[shankar]

Just for clarity - how many Giles Tests have you seen? Did you see the subcontinent tour of 2000\01? The Ahmedabad game of 2001\02? The 3 middle Tests in 2004?

In that Ahmedabad game, while he got a fiver in the first inning it was just the tail-enders and that of Laxman slogging when batting with the tail. Infact in the second innings when India were batting to save the test, he didnt pick up any wickets.

 

[Richard]

Yes, because
a) the pitch got slower and slower as the match progressed (the Indian spinners only got wickets in the second-innings because England were chasing quick runs) and
b) he bowled over-the-wicket too much; if he'd gone around IMO he might've been a bit more successful
In the first-innings with the pitch offering turn and bounce he bowled extremely well - starting with an excellent looping delivery to lure Dasgupta into a sweep, then it turned and bounced and he got a top-edge which was caught. The Kumble ball might only have been to Kumble but there's no way anyone would have played it. It was an absolutely magnificent ball. Yes, the Harbhajan and Laxman wickets were just poor strokes, but the Srinath ball was a pretty decent one. All in all, I'd say Giles bowled well, starting his work with 2 good deliveries. I'd say he deserved the 2 wickets from slogs - unlike someone who'd bowled rubbish all innings and then got away with 2 end-of-innings wickets. Giles bowled extremely well and tied all the batsmen down.

 

[shankar]

The Kumble ball might only have been to Kumble but there's no way anyone would have played it. It was an absolutely magnificent ball.

It was made to look a great ball by Kumble while a top-order batsman would not have played it from the crease with the ball clearly turning a fair bit. Overall i'd say he performed a decent defensive role bowling over the wicket but was very lucky to get the figures he got in the end.

 

[aussie]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Langer being dropped at least twice in that knock? Please correct me if so.

So what if he was dropped twice i saw that but it doesn't take away how superb and innings it was giving the circumstances Australia were in.

 

[Swervy]

just skimming through all this at the moment...Giles spins the ball as much as Harby...is that a joke????