England vs Australia - Who has the best depth?

[Sanz]

No, That's sledging. Richard's way.

 

[Richard]

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.

Watch that Kumble ball at the same time as the Inzamam ball at Lahore the previous season.
There's no difference.
Both were magnificent balls that neither Inzamam nor Kumble was ever going to keep out.
Both looped, drifted in, then turned enormously away. Whether you step out or stay back, doesn't make much difference.
I'd say Giles bowled enough good wicket-taking balls to be said to have deserved the first-innings figures he got.

 

[Richard]

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.

Err, any drop takes away from any innings - regardless of the circumstances.
Because regardless of the circumstances, an innings still wouldn't have happened but for the drop.

 

[Richard]

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

Nope...
What compelling evidence have you to disprove it then? You watched all 3 of Ahmedabad 2001\02 (when both turned it plenty), Bangalore 2001\02 (when neither turned it an inch) and The Oval 2002 (when neither turned it an inch) did you? You noticed what happened?
If so, you clearly wouldn't come to the conclusion that Harbhajan has some magical gift to spin the ball more than the human hand normally allows.

 

[shankar]

Watch that Kumble ball at the same time as the Inzamam ball at Lahore the previous season.
There's no difference.
Both were magnificent balls that neither Inzamam nor Kumble was ever going to keep out.
Both looped, drifted in, then turned enormously away. Whether you step out or stay back, doesn't make much difference.
I'd say Giles bowled enough good wicket-taking balls to be said to have deserved the first-innings figures he got.

I don't recall the Kumble delivery exactly, so I won't comment further on it. But even including it it's still just 2 deserved wickets - Anyone could have gotten Laxman the way he was slogging at the end and Srinath and Harbhajan's wickets are obviously not any great achievment - Infact just a few posts ago you've dismissed Harbhajan's five-for at Headingley saying that it contained only 2 top order wickets.

 

[Richard]

The Oval, not Headingley.
It contained just 2 top-order wickets and a sum-total of 0 wicket-taking deliveries.
I feel that Giles bowled 2 deliveries that were very much wicket-taking, 1 decent one and 2 that were the result of very poor batting.
Which I feel deserves a five-for if it happens to get one.
If you cut-out every dismissal that doesn't come from a wicket-taking ball you won't have many left. What I make an issue of is when you get bowlers taking 3 or 6 wickets in an innings without a single wicket-taking ball. If you bowl 2 in an innings, I'd say you pretty much deserve any good figures you get.

 

[shankar]

The Oval, not Headingley.
It contained just 2 top-order wickets and a sum-total of 0 wicket-taking deliveries.
I feel that Giles bowled 2 deliveries that were very much wicket-taking, 1 decent one and 2 that were the result of very poor batting.
Which I feel deserves a five-for if it happens to get one.

Please, there was nothing special about the ball that got Srinath. In the end it's still just one top-order wicket of a very mediocre batsman and 3 tail-enders! I'd say it was a decent defensive spell of bowling but nothing special wicket-taking wise.

 

[Richard]

I didn't call the Srinath ball a wicket-taking one. Clearly, though, it was better than the Harbhajan and Laxman ones.
I'd say it was a good spell of bowling - I'm not a big one for "attacking" \ "defensive" bowling.

 

[Golaxi]

phil Jacks

HA HA Phil Jaques! I swear he plays French cricket?

and i love the way now its Flintoff who carries the team and the only half decent player, sorry who was it last time?

...

did you say, S.Jones, Pieterson or maybe even Harmison?

before the ashes even England fans were saying if he's on form he's our only hope, and he did whitewash the Aussie batsmen in the ODIs from his ten overs per match and in the first test, first innings just before he went off form again Auss were crippled at 187 or so ALL OUT!

That's the problem with pretty much most of the England team though (incosistency) and i haven't seen them ever change and i don't expect them to neither but they usually pull together for the big games.

The England middle order batting consistency is shocking first choice or not (and to be fair to England they've played ALL of their games since the Ashes with most their team missing).

Englands pace bowling first choice bowling is breathtaking and with so many of them injured the youthfull depth has had to come good and they have, under a losing team (proving they're up to it) which is completely the opposite compared to the Aussie backup pensioners who manage to return half-decent figures under a pressureless winning team when they get the chance against West Indies who id expect my Grandma to beat.

apart from Lee and possibly Tait pushing it Australias pace attack is mediocre at best.

and of course medium pacer Mgrath is world class if he can still get out of bed but then he'll probably tread on a ball again

Australia has got the best batting and spin bowling and id definately give them the edge

it's a shame they're still seeming to under-estimate their Ashes victors and rivals which could lead to their downfall again.

England definately with the better pace attack AND backup and maybe the injuries to most of the team (batsmen and bowlers) will serve them well.

good luck our Aussie Counter-Parts (your gonna need it).

 

[Son Of Coco]

I was unwilling to give him the credit you wanted him to get after Lord's 2005, too - and I was right...
Having catches fall short, obviously, means the batsmen are doing something right, usually playing softly. Beating the bat, as I've said time and again, simply happens - the good bowlers, when it does happen to them, just keep bowling and eventually get their rewards. Equally, constantly beating the bat can mean you're pitching too short. Usually, having lbws constantly turned-down means you're not getting batsmen out lbw. If you're being denied lots of clearly out lbws, that's just unlucky, and for me you can count them as wickets.
But... funny thing... I don't actually remember Lee being denied any lbws that he should've got.
Even the wickets he did get were mostly poor strokes - none more so than the Kallis one where I was virtually screaming at the telly "YORKER COMING-UP!!!!" it was that predictable.

If the standard offered Worldwide is poor, bowlers get undue praise.
Simple fact is, there are certain thresholds - and especially for wristspinners, these remain pretty unchanged in any circumstances. Wristspinners don't need turning surfaces.
All the best wristspinners (who have been few - because wristspin is exceptionally difficult to bowl to Test standard) have averaged under 30 - usually had exceptional averages. The best fingerspinners used to average 25 or so, too (sometimes even lower) because there used to be far more fingerspin-friendly pitches than there are now. In the modern era, bowlers like Bedi have averaged 23 at home, on fingerspin-friendly pitches, and much less away.
A bowler with an average over 30 can't be taken seriously, in my estimation, as a Test-class bowler - and as far as I'm concerned, MacGill's early record says far more about poor batsmanship than good bowling. When the batting's been better - ie post-Adelaide-2000\01 - his average has gone up. Recently, it's come down again - but much of that, as I've said, has been down to cheap wickets, whether tail-enders or batsmen going for quick runs approaching a declaration.

33 is his average (against Test-class teams) since Adelaide 2000\01.
A considerable number of Tests, and a pretty consistent(ly poor) run after his initial good introductory record.

I'll put this fairly simply as a long-winded reply simply isn't worth the time and effort - I don't think you know that much about bowling.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

33 is his average (against Test-class teams) since Adelaide 2000\01.
A considerable number of Tests, and a pretty consistent(ly poor) run after his initial good introductory record.

Yet MacGill's strike rate remains around 50, which is indisputably the most important statistic when you consider the role he plays in the team.

 

[Golaxi]

spin

Yet MacGill's strike rate remains around 50, which is indisputably the most important statistic when you consider the role he plays in the team.

Yeah but Giles economy rate is indisputably the most important statistic when you consider the role he plays in the team

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah but Giles economy rate is indisputably the most important statistic when you consider the role he plays in the team

Giles economy rate is nothing special though. In fact, it's worse than most of the other good spinners in world cricket.

Economy rates, for comparison:
Murali - 2.38
Kumble - 2.62
Warne - 2.64
Vettori - 2.67
Harbhajan - 2.79
Giles - 2.85
Kaneria - 3.04
MacGill - 3.15

Now, strike rates...
MacGill 52.07
Murali - 55.99
Warne - 57.51
Kaneria - 61.16
Harbhajan - 64.90
Kumble - 65.79
Vettori - 77.45
Giles - 83.49

It really is remarkable how good MacGill's is, which is why people bring it up so much. To find a spinner with a strike rate like that, you have to go back to the 19th century.

 

[Richard]

I'll put this fairly simply as a long-winded reply simply isn't worth the time and effort - I don't think you know that much about bowling.

I think I do.

 

[Richard]

Yet MacGill's strike rate remains around 50, which is indisputably the most important statistic when you consider the role he plays in the team.

Not so - even given the recent improvement in his figures, his SR since Adelaide 2000\01 is 61.7, which is very much average.
And before the most recent 6 games it was up at 71.

 

[Richard]

Giles economy rate is nothing special though. In fact, it's worse than most of the other good spinners in world cricket.

Economy rates, for comparison:
Murali - 2.38
Kumble - 2.62
Warne - 2.64
Vettori - 2.67
Harbhajan - 2.79
Giles - 2.85
Kaneria - 3.04
MacGill - 3.15

Now, strike rates...
MacGill 52.07
Murali - 55.99
Warne - 57.51
Kaneria - 61.16
Harbhajan - 64.90
Kumble - 65.79
Vettori - 77.45
Giles - 83.49

It really is remarkable how good MacGill's is, which is why people bring it up so much. To find a spinner with a strike rate like that, you have to go back to the 19th century.

And you can clearly split it into 3 parts - 47.4, 70.9 and 40.6.
Giles doesn't tend to be that economical when batsmen go after him on non-turning pitches - best demonstrated by South Africa in 2003.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think I do.

Well...the ball's in your court.

The best way you could prove it to stop talking about it IMO. Otherwise the evidence for the negative just keeps growing.

 

[Richard]

The ball's certainly not in my court if you've put the "shut up or you're just digging yourself" proposition to me.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The ball's certainly not in my court if you've put the "shut up or you're just digging yourself" proposition to me.

You're right, it's a bit unfair

 

[Richard]

You're in a mood of late...
I've counted 4 or 5 of those in this forum in your most recent replies...