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

[Richard]

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)

I know every Giles one, certainly - and I've not spoken with quite such authority about anyone else.
As for how it's played session to session, day to day - hardly any pitches go from being non-turners to turners, and certainly none that Giles has played on has.

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

No, you should never judge a pitch just by seeing a wristspinner bowl on it.
The Lord's pitch, as you can tell by watching Giles bowl, offered nothing to fingerspin. No fingerspinner would have got a thing out of it, I can say that with total authority.
For instance - I watched Omari Banks on the first day at Lord's last year, and even by the bowling of such a belief-defyingly rubbish bowler I could tell that Giles was well positioned to have a good game - and lo-and-behold... he did.

 

[Richard]

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

No, slow scoring doesn't make good batsmen feel under pressure.

 

[Richard]

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.

Except that good batsmen don't feel any pressure in Tests just because the scoring's slow.
Whereas in a ODI if every bowler comes out with 10-35-0 the total will be eminently chaseable.

 

[Richard]

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

Sometimes you have to disobey the captain to do the best thing for yourself (and as a result for the team).
But mainly bowling economically will give you the best chance of taking wickets, unless you're doing it by spearing it down the leg all the time.

 

[Richard]

and 180 odd is still a relatively simple target IMO.

It's simple, but not as simple as 107 and I reckon they might've lost just 2 or 3 if they'd been chasing 180.

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.

No, Harmison (7nb in 11.1 overs) certainly didn't bowl well and neither really did Caddick.
Just that, for once in that series, Australia's batting wasn't quite so good and they lost 1 to a poor decision.

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.

It didn't, by that wicket the game was gone (indeed it was gone even before the run-chase started). No-one can possibly lose 6 wickets for 17 runs when chasing that sort of target.

 

[aussie]

No, slow scoring doesn't make good batsmen feel under pressure.

what , explain why thats not the case????

 

[Swervy]

Sometimes you have to disobey the captain to do the best thing for yourself (and as a result for the team).
But mainly bowling economically will give you the best chance of taking wickets, unless you're doing it by spearing it down the leg all the time.

no way...the captain is the man who ultimately takes responsibilty for how things go on the field of play. Any captain worth his salt would take any bowler who is disregarding his directives straight out of the attack...a bowler is not in a position is decide that what is best for the team, especially if he thinks that what is best for him is best for the team.

And that is sometimes the problem when you get a subordinate (ie a player) who is more powerful on the field than the captain (Botham springs to mind, quite often he would almost refuse to be taken off despite bowling shite and getting smacked all over the place,the captain (Willis springs to mind) would bck down....Botham doesnt get the wicket he thinks he is owed..game over..England lose....see England vs WI 1984 when WI chased 340 in 2 sessions...see when Hadlee scored 99 out of 300 vs England when England were bowled out for less than 100 in each innings)

 

[Swervy]

It's simple, but not as simple as 107 and I reckon they might've lost just 2 or 3 if they'd been chasing 180.

No, Harmison (7nb in 11.1 overs) certainly didn't bowl well and neither really did Caddick.
Just that, for once in that series, Australia's batting wasn't quite so good and they lost 1 to a poor decision.

It didn't, by that wicket the game was gone (indeed it was gone even before the run-chase started). No-one can possibly lose 6 wickets for 17 runs when chasing that sort of target.

and yet it has happened in the past

 

[Richard]

Yes, it has:
1) exceptionally rarely
2) not with bowling of the low calibre of England's

 

[Richard]

no way...the captain is the man who ultimately takes responsibilty for how things go on the field of play. Any captain worth his salt would take any bowler who is disregarding his directives straight out of the attack...a bowler is not in a position is decide that what is best for the team, especially if he thinks that what is best for him is best for the team.

And that is sometimes the problem when you get a subordinate (ie a player) who is more powerful on the field than the captain (Botham springs to mind, quite often he would almost refuse to be taken off despite bowling shite and getting smacked all over the place,the captain (Willis springs to mind) would bck down....Botham doesnt get the wicket he thinks he is owed..game over..England lose....see England vs WI 1984 when WI chased 340 in 2 sessions...see when Hadlee scored 99 out of 300 vs England when England were bowled out for less than 100 in each innings)

And there's a difference between refusing to be taken off and bowling in a different way to how someone's telling you to.
A bowler is every bit as well positioned to know what's best for the team and if he feels the captain's orders are wrong he should say so. And generally what's best for the bowler is best for the team.

 

[Richard]

what , explain why thats not the case????

Not difficult.
The First-Class game has no over limitation.
What matters is not how quick you score, but how many you score.
Unlike in the one-day game where you have to compromise on the two.

 

[aussie]

Not difficult.
The First-Class game has no over limitation.
What matters is not how quick you score, but how many you score.
Unlike in the one-day game where you have to compromise on the two.

weren't you refering to test cricket???

 

[Swervy]

And there's a difference between refusing to be taken off and bowling in a different way to how someone's telling you to.
A bowler is every bit as well positioned to know what's best for the team and if he feels the captain's orders are wrong he should say so. And generally what's best for the bowler is best for the team.

what if the bowler is wrong.

Of courrse the bowler should speak to the captain..but if the captain doesnt agree, then the bowler, at international level, has to go with the skipper.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, it has:
1) exceptionally rarely
2) not with bowling of the low calibre of England's

i think 4th innings collapses of the magnitude you are talking about actually happen more often than exceptionally rarely

 

[Richard]

weren't you refering to test cricket???

I was referring to First-Class cricket - of which Test cricket is amongst.

 

[Richard]

what if the bowler is wrong.

Of courrse the bowler should speak to the captain..but if the captain doesnt agree, then the bowler, at international level, has to go with the skipper.

The bowler and captain have an equal chance of being wrong.

 

[Richard]

i think 4th innings collapses of the magnitude you are talking about actually happen more often than exceptionally rarely

Go on, then... name a few instances, and I'll probably name 5 to every 1 of yours.

 

[aussie]

I was referring to First-Class cricket - of which Test cricket is amongst.

ok well i agree...

 

[Swervy]

Go on, then... name a few instances, and I'll probably name 5 to every 1 of yours.

a 5 to one ratio hardly makes an event exceptionally rare does it

 

[Swervy]

The bowler and captain have an equal chance of being wrong.

but the skipper has been charged with the ultimate responsibilty..he will take the flak..and so all players should go with what he says