***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[vic_orthdox]

Is it possible that Tait - who manages to get fairly significant movement at Adelaide Oval, one of the flatter tracks going around - might have a problem in the seam friendly conditions with control, where his action, which is pretty highly conducive to movement, will make the ball harder to control, thus his dismal performance in England last time?? And why he manages to be so successful in Australia??

Anyone inform me of Tait's figures in the match where SA were bowled out for 29? I guess this would be the best way of dismissing this fairly primitive theory...

 

[King_Ponting]

good point mate. although i find it hard to believe that a pace bowler can have no trouble on flat decks and struggle on green tops. just doesnt make any sense to me

 

[vic_orthdox]

good point mate. although i find it hard to believe that a pace bowler can have no trouble on flat decks and struggle on green tops. just doesnt make any sense to me

I know, but when your inexplicably up as late as me, then your mind stops making sense.

And looking at Tait, he's not exactly a bowler who sticks to convention.

 

[marc71178]

possibility of Tait making his debut for australia if two quicks go down or if one of the quicks goes down and they're on a green top and play 4 quicks.

Yes, and have a tail starting at 7 - nice!

 

[social]

And playing sporadically, so often looked at as a disadvantage for him, has almost certainly worked in his favour.

Didnt you just say that his form had deteriorated markedly since 2001.

Funny how that coincides with the period where he's only been picked sporadically. Makes you think that it may not have been in his favour.

 

[social]

did you even watch the 3rd test? i'll give you that jones bowled rubbish in the 2nd, but to say that he bowled tripe in the third is absolutely ludicrous.
and they obviously picked they wrong bowler, given what came from jones after that game.

Watched the whole series.

Jones performed well in one innings of the 1st test and 1 innings of the 5th test.

The rest of the time, like Harmison, he would have struggled to hit the side of the proverbial barn door. This might have made for fairly economical figures but, had you watched the series, you would know that he barely threatened the batsmen and resulted in him being justifiably dropped from the team.

 

[Top_Cat]

i dont think it has anything to do with left arm spinners. i think its because of the fact that a few of their players are poor against the turning ball.

Well that explains the successive series losses in Sri Lanka and India................ oh wait.............no they won those.

The Aussie line-up may not be the best players of spin but surely two successive series wins in countries which oppostion sides are just generally happy to not be hammered in means they've at least improved a lot. Other than resurrecting the Ponting debate, surely guys like Martyn and Katich can be considered as rather more than merely 'poor' players of spin, which is quite weird considering they both originate from WA! Langer is certainly far better than he used to be, Hayden was going through a bad patch but is generally considered to be a very good player of spin and Lehmann's performances in both series was, if not expected, outstanding.

 

[The Argonaut]

Yes, and have a tail starting at 7 - nice!

It is unlikely to happen especially as Watson is not in the squad. If it does I would not be so worried. Warne is handy and Gillespie has been a rock over the last 2-3 years. The 9, 10 and 11 aren't much but if you are banking on them scoring runs then you're in trouble.

 

[tooextracool]

Watched the whole series.

Jones performed well in one innings of the 1st test and 1 innings of the 5th test.

The rest of the time, like Harmison, he would have struggled to hit the side of the proverbial barn door. This might have made for fairly economical figures but, had you watched the series, you would know that he barely threatened the batsmen and resulted in him being justifiably dropped from the team.

so now its 2 innings is it?
and i dont think you watched closely enough. because if you had, you would have heard how every commentator talked about how he produced the spell of the inning in the 1st inning of the 3rd test, and of course you would have seen that he produced an excellent spell of tight bowling during the 2nd inning when england needed to slow the scoring rate as slow as possible.
and i dont see how anything the english selectors do can be used as a guide to anything.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What I didn't understand about the 4 prong pace attack was that it seemed to be in reference to a green top. Now, unless the poster was meaning that they should drop Warne, which would not happen no matter how pace friendly the pitch, the inclusion of a fourth pace bowler would be compeletely unnecessary. In bowling friendly conditons, there's no need to call for bowling reinforcements, and when you look back to the other times that Australia has played 5 out-and-out bowlers, it has been on very flat tracks (e.g. the last series Aus played in the Windies) where you back the batsmen to score enough runs with only 6 in the side to make a competitive total.

 

[tooextracool]

Well that explains the successive series losses in Sri Lanka and India................ oh wait.............no they won those.

oh wait, i didnt claim that all their players were poor against spin
and of course it isnt possible that they won both those series because their bowling was far ahead of the opposition's?

The Aussie line-up may not be the best players of spin but surely two successive series wins in countries which oppostion sides are just generally happy to not be hammered in means they've at least improved a lot. Other than resurrecting the Ponting debate, surely guys like Martyn and Katich can be considered as rather more than merely 'poor' players of spin, which is quite weird considering they both originate from WA! Langer is certainly far better than he used to be, Hayden was going through a bad patch but is generally considered to be a very good player of spin and Lehmann's performances in both series was, if not expected, outstanding.

ok let me just get this straight. I never said that the entire australia batting lineup was weak against spin! i stated that a few of them were, and i certainly think that the aussie lineup is far weaker against spin than they are against pace.

 

[tooextracool]

Warne lets Strauss know that he is looking forward to bowling to him.

http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/208954.html

its good to see warne getting over ****y before this ashes, sprouting more rubbish than usual.
"He says he knows he'll knock Graham Thorpe over, for instance, and that maybe England should choose some batters who aren't used to being dominated by Australia."

yes thorpe, who averages 45 with 8 50s and 3 100s against them

 

[Top_Cat]

oh wait, i didnt claim that all their players were poor against spin
and of course it isnt possible that they won both those series because their bowling was far ahead of the opposition's?

Yes the bowling was far ahead but the Aussies weren't saved by their bowling by any stretch; their batsmen also managed to put on big totals which is largely why the won, considering they'd been unable to do this in previous series.

ok let me just get this straight. I never said that the entire australia batting lineup was weak against spin! i stated that a few of them were, and i certainly think that the aussie lineup is far weaker against spin than they are against pace.

This is true but in reality, I can only think of one of them who is relatively 'poor' (Langer). The rest are at least competant these days and in Martyn, Katich and Clarke, outstanding.

its good to see warne getting over ****y before this ashes, sprouting more rubbish than usual.
"He says he knows he'll knock Graham Thorpe over, for instance, and that maybe England should choose some batters who aren't used to being dominated by Australia."

yes thorpe, who averages 45 with 8 50s and 3 100s against them

In fairness, Thorpe scored the last of those tons almost 8 years ago (1997 home series). In fairness to Thorpe, he's had many issues to deal with since then and hasn't been a consistent member of Ashes sides since.

Interesting note; Thorpe's first ton came in his first Test and almost gave England a win in 1993 (I saw that knock; was a fantastically confident knock from a guy playing his first Test) and his third was pivotal in partnership with Hussain in annihilating Australia in the 1st Test in 1997. I guess that's why he's persisted with as much as he is; scores hundreds which do most to win games.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes the bowling was far ahead but the Aussies weren't saved by their bowling by any stretch; their batsmen also managed to put on big totals which is largely why the won, considering they'd been unable to do this in previous series.

yes they were, because players like katich, martyn, lehmann and clarke all stepped up.
but it would be ludicrous to say that the aussie batting was better than SLs or indias, its just that they had better bowlers.

This is true but in reality, I can only think of one of them who is relatively 'poor' (Langer). The rest are at least competant these days and in Martyn, Katich and Clarke, outstanding..

clarke had one outstanding series, we'll see what hes going to do in the future.
and ponting isnt anything special on a turner, and gilchrist is very very poor against spin anywhere in the world.

In fairness, Thorpe scored the last of those tons almost 8 years ago (1997 home series). In fairness to Thorpe, he's had many issues to deal with since then and hasn't been a consistent member of Ashes sides since.

good god hes played 1 ashes game since then! in 3 games prior to 2001, he had scores of 53 ,*82 ,27 ,62,77 and 9. and in the last 4 games hes been dismissed a whole 1 time! and all this while warne was in what is arguably his best phase of his career.
certainly warne has no idea what hes talking about, and hes just dishing up more and more pre-ashes banter, which is becomng more and more stupid day by day. wouldnt be surprised if by the start of the ashes series, he'd have said that all the english batsman are weak against spin either.

 

[archie mac]

clarke had one outstanding series, we'll see what hes going to do in the future.and ponting isnt anything special on a turner, and gilchrist is very very poor against spin anywhere in the world..

First we had Ponting poor against spin and now we have Gilchrist very very poor against spin. Players who average in the mid 50s are not very poor against any sort of bowling.
I watched Gilly destroy Saqlain on the last day of a Test, when everyone was saying he would run throught the rest of the batting line up.
Last series against NZ he looked in all sorts of trouble against left arm spin.

 

[social]

First we had Ponting poor against spin and now we have Gilchrist very very poor against spin. Players who average in the mid 50s are not very poor against any sort of bowling.
I watched Gilly destroy Saqlain on the last day of a Test, when everyone was saying he would run throught the rest of the batting line up.
Last series against NZ he looked in all sorts of trouble against left arm spin.

Stop talking logic, TEC doesnt understand it.

 

[tooextracool]

First we had Ponting poor against spin and now we have Gilchrist very very poor against spin. Players who average in the mid 50s are not very poor against any sort of bowling.
I watched Gilly destroy Saqlain on the last day of a Test, when everyone was saying he would run throught the rest of the batting line up.
Last series against NZ he looked in all sorts of trouble against left arm spin.

oh yes in hobart, what a turner that was!
seriously just look at gilchrist's record in every series hes played. hes had the odd good game, followed by a string of failures.
in india in 01, he had 122,0, 0 , 1, 1( 1 success 4 failures)
in pakistan in 02(despite playing against no quality spinners), he had 66*, 5, 17, 34(1 success 3 failures)
against india in aus in 03/04 he had 0, 29, 43, 14, 6 ,4(6 failures)
in SL in 04 he had 4,0,0 144,22,31*(4 failures, 1 success)
in india 04 he had 104,26, 3, 49,2, 3*, 26 and 5(1 success, 1 decent score and 5 failures)

so its fairly obvious that hes more hit and miss against spin.....if he gets a start he goes on, otherwise he fails miserably.

 

[archie mac]

oh yes in hobart, what a turner that was!
seriously just look at gilchrist's record in every series hes played. hes had the odd good game, followed by a string of failures.
in india in 01, he had 122,0, 0 , 1, 1( 1 success 4 failures)
in pakistan in 02(despite playing against no quality spinners), he had 66*, 5, 17, 34(1 success 3 failures)
against india in aus in 03/04 he had 0, 29, 43, 14, 6 ,4(6 failures)
in SL in 04 he had 4,0,0 144,22,31*(4 failures, 1 success)
in india 04 he had 104,26, 3, 49,2, 3*, 26 and 5(1 success, 1 decent score and 5 failures)

so its fairly obvious that hes more hit and miss against spin.....if he gets a start he goes on, otherwise he fails miserably.

Hold on you said he was poor against spin bowling any where in the World?

I n OZ 03/04 the pitches were all flat tracks, Gilly was hardly needed so nothing to do with spin.

In the last series in India the last Test was a joke pitch I think Bradman and WG would have struggled.

In SL he showed real signs that he was mastering the attack towards the end of the series.

In Pakistan you have 34 as a failure.

So I will give you India 2001, Gee I wonder why the selectors keep picking him

 

[Top_Cat]

so its fairly obvious that hes more hit and miss against spin.....if he gets a start he goes on, otherwise he fails miserably.

I don't think that conclusion is as obvious as you'd like to believe. I, personally, don't think we can rule out that Gilchrist is apt to rest on his laurels after a good score, rather than being bamboozled by good spin. I mean geez, he smacked the spinners to all parts in the first Test of both series' he's played in India. How can one player make the same spinners who dismiss him later look so very ordinary? You may be right but I don't think we can rule out lesser concentration levels for the rest of the series. Not to mention the fact that a ton in India, considering the more humid conditions, takes a fair bit more out of one than a ton in, say, freezing cold Hobart. Maybe at 34 yrs, Gilchrist just isn't able to physically back up for three Tests after a good knock in the first?

 

[archie mac]

I don't think that conclusion is as obvious as you'd like to believe. I, personally, don't think we can rule out that Gilchrist is apt to rest on his laurels after a good score, rather than being bamboozled by good spin. I mean geez, he smacked the spinners to all parts in the first Test of both series' he's played in India. How can one player make the same spinners who dismiss him later look so very ordinary? You may be right but I don't think we can rule out lesser concentration levels for the rest of the series. Not to mention the fact that a ton in India, considering the more humid conditions, takes a fair bit more out of one than a ton in, say, freezing cold Hobart. Maybe at 34 yrs, Gilchrist just isn't able to physically back up for three Tests after a good knock in the first?

Yes I think Gillys success rate of hitting a ton in the first Test of a series would be just about the best of all time?
Lets not forget that he also has to keep wicket, which must be very enervating especially in India.