You surely mean the rest of his life, right??I'll bet Warney's going to be unbearable for the next few days.
i meant against quality bowlers any where in the world. saqlain isnt quality on a non turner. nor is he particularly brilliant on a turner these days.archie mac said:Hold on you said he was poor against spin bowling any where in the World?
thats a joke right? australia nearly lost that series to india, and katich had to save them from the embarassment. hardly neededarchie mac said:I n OZ 03/04 the pitches were all flat tracks, Gilly was hardly needed so nothing to do with spin.
yet in the first 3 tests, other than the 100, he had 3 failures and ordinary scorearchie mac said:In the last series in India the last Test was a joke pitch I think Bradman and WG would have struggled.
in a whole 1 test!archie mac said:In SL he showed real signs that he was mastering the attack towards the end of the series.
and that is of course a success is it?archie mac said:In Pakistan you have 34 as a failure.
and maybe just maybe it might be that he is extremely poor against spin when he first comes in?Top_Cat said: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?
he wouldnt be picked if he wasnt playing as well as he used to. because no matter how stupid the aussie selectors are they wouldnt drop someone who was averaging 73 in the last calendar year.Top_Cat said:Yes but whilst he had his personal problems, it would have been easy for the English selectors to not pick him again. Best batsman or not, I would imagine that had he been an Aussie, he wouldn't be picked to play at 35.
umm waugh played till he was 38, and mcgrath is already 35.cameeel said:I dont know about that, Australia doesnt seem to have a problem with playing old players, Lehmann has only recently stopped playing internationally, steve waugh played until he was 35 and Glenn McGrath is 30 something
and who is this better batsman then?Top_Cat said:Sure Thorpe has previously been England's best batsman but is he now? I have my doubts.
and could it be that australia wouldnt have been in that position if they hadnt batted poorly in the first place?Mister Wright said:Yet Australia were behind on the first innings in all three test. That means that the batsman would have had to put up a good fight in the 2nd innings when the pitches would have been more suited to spin bowling.
the reason why australia won in india and SL this time around was because they batted better than they usually do and they bowled far better than they usually do.aussie said:Both this and top cat's point were reasons why australia won in both India & Sri lanka tec
they had bigger totals because they played a significantly worser attack. i'd like to see how much australia would have scored had they played warne,mcgrath kaspa and gillespie.aussie said:what do you mean the aussies batter wasn't better than neither IND or SRI?, they had bigger totals than both of them in the respective series so i don't really understand what you mean by that.
It would hardly have been embarrassing had the Aussies lost that series. India played really well and capitalised on Australia missing Warne and McGrath. You don't mind being beaten by a better side.thats a joke right? australia nearly lost that series to india, and katich had to save them from the embarassment. hardly needed
Possible. Doesn't mean he's rubbish against spin in general and no need to be a smartarse about it because this is the first time I've seen you say this (check the thread; you've just said Gilchrist is rubbish against spin in general, not just when he comes in so it's not as if you're repeating yourself). In fact, when he gets past that initial period, Gilchrist tends to savage most bowlers, including the really good spin bowlers.and maybe just maybe it might be that he is extremely poor against spin when he first comes in?
You seriously underestimate the stupidity of the Aussie selectors, I reckon. It was many years ago now but Dean Jones was easily Australia's best batsman on the 1992 tour of SL (when the Aussies nearly blew that series, Jones averaged around 70) and was dropped for the following home series against the WI. They cited poor form but just about all of Victoria's grade matches had been washed out right before that season and the state team had only played one or two games from memory.he wouldnt be picked if he wasnt playing as well as he used to. because no matter how stupid the aussie selectors are they wouldnt drop someone who was averaging 73 in the last calendar year.
I would have thought Strauss would be considered the form player right now.and who is this better batsman then?
Yes, it was a vast improvement from the numerous tests/series that Aus has lost recently.tooextracool said:the reason why australia won in india and SL this time around was because they batted better than they usually do and they bowled far better than they usually do.
it would have been embarassing for several reasons.Top_Cat said:It would hardly have been embarrassing had the Aussies lost that series. India played really well and capitalised on Australia missing Warne and McGrath. You don't mind being beaten by a better side.
i dont remember saying that he was rubbish against spin, if i did, then i meant that he was extremely poor against spin. and i think thats a fair claim given that his average against india and SL over the last few years or so stands at 27.Top_Cat said:Possible. Doesn't mean he's rubbish against spin in general and no need to be a smartarse about it because this is the first time I've seen you say this (check the thread; you've just said Gilchrist is rubbish against spin in general, not just when he comes in so it's not as if you're repeating yourself). In fact, when he gets past that initial period, Gilchrist tends to savage most bowlers, including the really good spin bowlers.
Before a batsman 'gets his eye in', he generally has to rely on a combination of good luck and good technique to survive. Gilchrist's technique as far as playing straight and with soft hands is somewhat deficient which might explain why he's vulnerable early on. Once he gets past that, well barely any bowler in the world can trouble him other than in pretty helpful conditions..
ok then, so the aussie selectors are stupider than i thought. i know they have problems with age, and you can almost guarantee that the next time mcgrath has one poor series, there'd be plenty of dirt going around about how hes completely past it and should be dropped. and if he has a poor ashes series(as unlikely as that is), you can guarantee 100% that he wont end up playing another test match.Top_Cat said:You seriously underestimate the stupidity of the Aussie selectors, I reckon. It was many years ago now but Dean Jones was easily Australia's best batsman on the 1992 tour of SL (when the Aussies nearly blew that series, Jones averaged around 70) and was dropped for the following home series against the WI. They cited poor form but just about all of Victoria's grade matches had been washed out right before that season and the state team had only played one or two games from memory.
hes the form player, but it doesnt make him the better player, especially considering hes averaged more than thorpe in a whole 1 series. not to mention that hes barely faced a quality spin bowler in his career yet.Top_Cat said:I would have thought Strauss would be considered the form player right now.
i was referring to the last time they toured the sub continent. where they managed to lose to both SL and india.social said:Yes, it was a vast improvement from the numerous tests/series that Aus has lost recently.
no the reason they won was because of kaspa + gillespie + mcgrath + warne, and to a lesser extent their improved batting.social said:The reason Aus won in India was because they changed their strategy from 2001. Rather than blasting away at 4 - 5 per over or stacking the slips cordon and attempting to bowl the Indians out, they were far more patient and sweated upon Indian mistakes.
What's your point? The Australian's, who you claim to be poor against spin, would have had to bat better and make more runs in the 2nd innings when the decks would have been more conducive (spell check please) to spin. It kind of dispells your theory.tooextracool said:and could it be that australia wouldnt have been in that position if they hadnt batted poorly in the first place?
my theory that 'a few of their players are poor against spin'?Mister Wright said:What's your point? The Australian's, who you claim to be poor against spin, would have had to bat better and make more runs in the 2nd innings when the decks would have been more conducive (spell check please) to spin. It kind of dispells your theory.