I think Aus should play Warne and Macgill in tandem as of now?

[tooextracool]

That, my friend, is a big if.
Yes, Crawley and White might have got a few more, but I reckon they'd have had to get a LOT more if England were to be in with a big shout..

i never said they were in with a big shout, i just said they would have had a chance.

And I can't help doubting in the extreme that they'd have sunk so low had they been chasing a more challenging target - not to mention that Langer's wicket was only due to another dubious Tiffin decision.

dont see how that changes anything, whether or not langer got a doubtful decision is irrelevant, because its not the issue at hand.
and you cant assume that australia would have played better had they got a higher total to chase.

 

[Richard]

It makes a certain amount of sense. His bowling is rather tempting and when he comes on after some good bowlers, obviously, the batters want to go after him and lose their wickets in the process. That said, I still think he is a better bowler than some of the members here suggest.

On turning pitches he's got batsmen out whether they've tried to go after him or whether they've played him conservatively.

 

[Richard]

dont see how that changes anything, whether or not langer got a doubtful decision is irrelevant, because its not the issue at hand.
and you cant assume that australia would have played better had they got a higher total to chase.

Why not?
Australia have regularly proved shaky when chasing simple targets and not often when chasing slightly more difficult ones.
And with a rubbish attack like England's I can't see that 250 would have troubled them, never mind 200.
And Langer getting a dubious decision is important as 4-down and 5-down makes a difference to how something's perceived.

 

[Swervy]

On turning pitches he's got batsmen out whether they've tried to go after him or whether they've played him conservatively.

you still really havent addressed the issue of what a turning pitch is..please have a read of the post I made a bit back on this thread and try and tell me what you consider a turner is!!!

 

[King_Ponting]

Runs W/R Ct St I R Match
DNB - - - 4
- 7/104 1 0 1 W 5th Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Sydney [1527]

- 0/88 0 0 3

20 - - - 1 W 3rd Test v SA in Aus 2001/02 at Sydney [1582]
- 3/51 0 0 2
- 4/123 1 0 3

DNB - - - 1 W 4th Test v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Melbourne [1634]
- 2/108 0 0 2
- 5/152 0 0 3

- 2/106 0 0 1 L 5th Test v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Sydney [1636]

- 3/120 0 0 3

- 2/49 0 0 1 W 1st Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Georgetown [1638]

- 3/140 0 0 3

W 2nd Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Port of Spain [1639]
- 2/98 0 0 2

- 2/53 0 0 4
W 3rd Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Bridgetown [1643]
- 4/107 0 0 2
- 5/75 0 0 3

L 4th Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at St John's [1645]
- 1/7 0 0 2

- 1/149 0 0 4
- 2/21 0 0 1 W 1st Test v BD in Aus 2003 at Darwin [1650]

- 5/65 1 0 3
- 5/77 1 0 1 W 2nd Test v BD in Aus 2003 at Cairns [1652]

- 5/56 0 0 3
W 1st Test v Zim in Aus 2003/04 at Perth [1661]
- 2/54 0 0 2
- 0/10 0 0 3
1st Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Brisbane [1671]
- 4/86 0 0 2

- 0/32 0 0 4
L 2nd Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Adelaide [1673]
- 2/143 2 0 2

- 2/101 0 0 4
W 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Melbourne [1678]

- 2/68 0 0 3

- 0/146 0 0 1 D 4th Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Sydney [1680]

- 1/65 0 0 3

W 1st Test v SL in SL 2003/04 at Galle [1685]
- 1/69 0 0 2

- 4/74 0 0 4
W 2nd Test v SL in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1688]
- 0/20 0 0 2

- 0/69 0 0 4
- 5/87 0 0 1 W 3rd Test v Pak in Aus 2004/05 at Sydney [1731]

- 3/83 0 0 3



Umm i cant really see how he's been rubbish at all except against india and one game against sri lanka..... Care to explain?

 

[Richard]

I think the issue with this is how one classes a pitch a turner or not.

At Lords,Giles didnt turn it..Warne turned it loads...was Lords a pitch that took spin?

The fact is,most pitches at some point will give something in the way of turn for most spinners.

I think some people on this forum only assume a pitch takes turn (without watching the test themselves) if in hindsight,the spinners have done really well. Unfortunately for them, sometimes spinners dont take wickets with deliveries that spin , they take wickets using all sorts of different tools (flight,variations of pace etc) without the ball spinning much.

So when people say Player A has an average of X on turners and and average of Y on non-turners, those figures are totally useless because there are varying degrees between what would be considered a turner and a non-turner.

Also, grouns which are traditionally thought to be big turners may sometimes not be so responsive to spin, and other grounds that are traditionally considered unresponsive to spin may sometimes take spin well. Without watching the individual match itself, you just cant make judgements on how a pitch has played based on the spinners figures for the game...other considerations that must be accounted for are how much bounce there was,was the turn out of the footmarks (were there any left arm bowlers in the game who produced footmarks on the pitch that might help an off spinner more than usual) or was the turn of the pitch itself, how quickly did the pitch develop to take spin throughout the match (was the pitch usually dry compared the what it normally is etc ).

There are so many factors involved, that this notion that, when looking back on a spinners figures and saying he is crap on non-turners and great on turnersis rendered completely useless.

The only way to tell if a bowler has played well is to watch the game itself,and understand the conditions (overhead and of the pitch) and the context in which the bowler was bowling in (was the main priorty taking wickets or containment, something we as the general public may rarely know, because we dont know what the captain/coach has in mind)

When "turning" pitches are referred to it's obviously referring to fingerspin - any wristspinner can turn it on anything, as was demonstrated at Lord's where the pitch wasn't a turner, yet Warne still got it to turn loads.
Fact is, the only tool a fingerspinner can get wickets with other than the turning ball is poor strokes. And it's quite unusual for a fingerspinner to get enough poor strokes to get good figures on a turning pitch. It does happen, of course.
Anyone who's watched all the Tests of Giles' career - me, for instance - can tell very easily that Giles is a very, very fine bowler on a turner and only a complete dunce would disagree. Equally, when the pitches haven't turned for the fingerspinners, Giles has been useless.
And I don't know how many times it has to be said - Test-cricket is not about bowlers who can contain and not take wickets in themselves. If someone takes 0 for 60 off 30 overs in a Test, even if "the captain wanted him to defend" he's still not been effective, regardless of whether he's done the job someone wanted him to do.

 

[Richard]

Runs W/R Ct St I R Match
DNB - - - 4
- 7/104 1 0 1 W 5th Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Sydney [1527]

- 0/88 0 0 3

20 - - - 1 W 3rd Test v SA in Aus 2001/02 at Sydney [1582]
- 3/51 0 0 2
- 4/123 1 0 3

DNB - - - 1 W 4th Test v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Melbourne [1634]
- 2/108 0 0 2
- 5/152 0 0 3

- 2/106 0 0 1 L 5th Test v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Sydney [1636]

- 3/120 0 0 3

- 2/49 0 0 1 W 1st Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Georgetown [1638]

- 3/140 0 0 3

W 2nd Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Port of Spain [1639]
- 2/98 0 0 2

- 2/53 0 0 4
W 3rd Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Bridgetown [1643]
- 4/107 0 0 2
- 5/75 0 0 3

L 4th Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at St John's [1645]
- 1/7 0 0 2

- 1/149 0 0 4
- 2/21 0 0 1 W 1st Test v BD in Aus 2003 at Darwin [1650]

- 5/65 1 0 3
- 5/77 1 0 1 W 2nd Test v BD in Aus 2003 at Cairns [1652]

- 5/56 0 0 3
W 1st Test v Zim in Aus 2003/04 at Perth [1661]
- 2/54 0 0 2
- 0/10 0 0 3
1st Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Brisbane [1671]
- 4/86 0 0 2

- 0/32 0 0 4
L 2nd Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Adelaide [1673]
- 2/143 2 0 2

- 2/101 0 0 4
W 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Melbourne [1678]

- 2/68 0 0 3

- 0/146 0 0 1 D 4th Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Sydney [1680]

- 1/65 0 0 3

W 1st Test v SL in SL 2003/04 at Galle [1685]
- 1/69 0 0 2

- 4/74 0 0 4
W 2nd Test v SL in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1688]
- 0/20 0 0 2

- 0/69 0 0 4
- 5/87 0 0 1 W 3rd Test v Pak in Aus 2004/05 at Sydney [1731]

- 3/83 0 0 3



Umm i cant really see how he's been rubbish at all except against india and one game against pakistan..... Care to explain?

Try this...
36 7 173 2 4.81 W 3rd Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Adelaide [1523]
67 18 192 7 2.87 W 5th Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Sydney [1527]
65.2 19 174 7 2.66 W 3rd Test v SA in Aus 2001/02 at Sydney [1582]
84 20 260 7 3.10 W 4th Test v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Melbourne [1634]
85 16 226 5 2.66 L 5th Test v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Sydney [1636]
43 9 189 5 4.40 W 1st Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Georgetown [1638]
47 10 151 4 3.21 W 2nd Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Port of Spain [1639]
75.5 19 182 9 2.40 W 3rd Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at Bridgetown [1643]
38.2 8 156 2 4.07 L 4th Test v WI in WI 2002/03 at St John's [1645]
30.1 4 118 4 3.91 D 1st Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Brisbane [1671]
68.4 11 244 4 3.55 L 2nd Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Adelaide [1673]
41.5 8 138 5 3.30 W 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Melbourne [1678]
54 6 211 1 3.91 D 4th Test v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Sydney [1680]
38.2 6 143 5 3.73 W 1st Test v SL in SL 2003/04 at Galle [1685]
17 1 89 0 5.24 W 2nd Test v SL in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1688]
47 7 170 8 3.62 W 3rd Test v Pak in Aus 2004/05 at Sydney [1731]
That's 9 utterly rubbish games, 4 reasonable ones and a mere 3 good ones.
Very poor, in other words.

 

[Richard]

you still really havent addressed the issue of what a turning pitch is..please have a read of the post I made a bit back on this thread and try and tell me what you consider a turner is!!!

Done.
Don't jump in - chances are I'll respond to a post, but don't expect me to respond to yours before everyone else's.

 

[Swervy]

When "turning" pitches are referred to it's obviously referring to fingerspin - any wristspinner can turn it on anything, as was demonstrated at Lord's where the pitch wasn't a turner, yet Warne still got it to turn loads.
Fact is, the only tool a fingerspinner can get wickets with other than the turning ball is poor strokes. And it's quite unusual for a fingerspinner to get enough poor strokes to get good figures on a turning pitch. It does happen, of course.
Anyone who's watched all the Tests of Giles' career - me, for instance - can tell very easily that Giles is a very, very fine bowler on a turner and only a complete dunce would disagree. Equally, when the pitches haven't turned for the fingerspinners, Giles has been useless.
And I don't know how many times it has to be said - Test-cricket is not about bowlers who can contain and not take wickets in themselves. If someone takes 0 for 60 off 30 overs in a Test, even if "the captain wanted him to defend" he's still not been effective, regardless of whether he's done the job someone wanted him to do.

well if the captain has asked a bowler to do a particular job, and the captain/coach/selectors deem it that he has done his job effectively, then yes he has been effective..you may not agree, but your opinion counts for little in that situation. A bowlers worth is how he has played in the context of how the captain wants him to bowl..and not always whether he has taken wickets or not

 

[Richard]

Quite right Swervy. It is useful sometimes though, for the point of argument, to differentiate between how a spinner performs on a dusty turner in Sri Lanka as compared to the WACA, which would barely turn at all under any circumstances.

Certainly though, there is a huge grey area here, like in most other instances where one is discussing pitch conditions.

No, there isn't.
It's pretty easy to see which pitches allow fingerspinners to turn it and which ones don't. Occasionally there are pitches that change in quality, but they're rare.
As for The WACA barely turns... Jeezus.

 

[King_Ponting]

So your rubbish games are games in which he has taken less than 5 wickets for the match?

 

[Richard]

well if the captain has asked a bowler to do a particular job, and the captain/coach/selectors deem it that he has done his job effectively, then yes he has been effective..you may not agree, but your opinion counts for little in that situation. A bowlers worth is how he has played in the context of how the captain wants him to bowl..and not always whether he has taken wickets or not

No, it's not.
In Test-cricket, bowling is about taking wickets.
Do you really think a bowler who has not taken a single Test-match wicket in, say, a 5-match career will ever be judged to be effective just because his captain thought he was effective at the time, and (say) every match was won?

 

[marc71178]

If someone takes 0 for 60 off 30 overs in a Test, even if "the captain wanted him to defend" he's still not been effective

What rubbish.

He has clearly been extremely effective.

 

[Richard]

So your rubbish games are games in which he has taken less than 5 wickets for the match?

No, they're ones where he's taken 2\173, 7\260, 5\226, 5\189, 4\151, 2\156, 4\244, 1\211 and 0\89.

 

[Richard]

What rubbish.

He has clearly been extremely effective.

Nope, he's not.
Test-cricket is about taking wickets.
ODI cricket is the one that's about bowling economically.

 

[Swervy]

Done.
Don't jump in - chances are I'll respond to a post, but don't expect me to respond to yours before everyone else's.

yes sir....

to be honest I am not entirely certain if you answered my points in full..how do YOU determine whether a pitch is a turner. Are you just judging that from figures of games retrospectively, or are you actually watching the games themselves (I doubt you are watching every test match that is being played, so I doubt whether you actually know how each pitch has played from day to day, let alone session to session)

You cant just go on someones say that a pitch is a turner either..if I had only watched Warnes spell in the first test where he got Bell and Flintoff, I would have been convinced that pitch was a really turner..if I had have only watch Giles bowl I would have been convinced that there was nothing in it for the spinner..the reality is that it was a pitch that did offer some turn,and a number of off spinners on the world (say like Harby) would have gotten some response from it.

When you say all wrist spinners can get turn from even the least responsive pitches, then surely for them all pitches are turners, and therefore it is useless to break their careers down into performance on turners and non-turners..or am I missing someting here

 

[King_Ponting]

Nope, he's not.
Test-cricket is about taking wickets.
ODI cricket is the one that's about bowling economically.

Test cricket is about pressure, pressure causes wickets and that is why mcgrath is sooo effective in test cricket.... He creates the pressure and more often tha not the bloke at the other end will pick up the wicket

 

[marc71178]

Nope, he's not.
Test-cricket is about taking wickets.
ODI cricket is the one that's about bowling economically.

No, actually both games require wickets to be taken.

However Test matches can involve a longer plan, and if one bowler is told to tie the game up so as to create pressure, the bowler at the other end may benefit - hence if a bowler comes out with 30-12-60-0 when he's been asked to keep it tight, he's been damn effective.

 

[Swervy]

No, it's not.
In Test-cricket, bowling is about taking wickets.
Do you really think a bowler who has not taken a single Test-match wicket in, say, a 5-match career will ever be judged to be effective just because his captain thought he was effective at the time, and (say) every match was won?

we dont always get to know what goes on behind closed doors...if the captain is happy with that bowlers perfomance then yes he has done his job well.

On watching a bowler bowl, it is quite easy to tell if he is doing the job that is being asked of him...but you have to watch the game..you cant go back and look at figures 3 years later and just say he bowled crap coz he got no wickets, you have to understand the context

 

[tooextracool]

Why not?
Australia have regularly proved shaky when chasing simple targets and not often when chasing slightly more difficult ones..

and 180 odd is still a relatively simple target IMO.

And with a rubbish attack like England's I can't see that 250 would have troubled them, never mind 200.

even though you just said that australia struggles with the simpler targets? and englands bowling might not have been brilliant, but both harmison and caddick were bowling quite brilliantly on that day.

And Langer getting a dubious decision is important as 4-down and 5-down makes a difference to how something's perceived.

no, the fact is that the decision was given. whether or not the bowler deserved the wicket is not the issue, the issue is that it got england closer to winning the game.