• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Steulen

International Regular
Ashes in the balance:

Warne finally scores a FC century

Flintoff takes a wicket in his first 5-over spell after injury.

Things are heating up nicely, folks
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
i dunno, Flintoff taking wickets you would sorta expect but Warne hitting a fast hundred looks a little ominous :p
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
Which had reduced the top order to 130-7, with KP 600 getting a measly 1.

I'll bet Warney's going to be unbearable for the next few days.

Cheers,

Mike
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Yes, it had reduced the top order to 130-7, but in the grand scheme of things, there's only 2 decent players in that line-up, and 1 is still a bit raw.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'll bet Warney's going to be unbearable for the next few days.
You surely mean the rest of his life, right??

And what's the bet Shane Warne will extrapolate the whole '600' thing to mean how many runs he's also going to score in the series now.............
 

tooextracool

International Coach
archie mac said:
Hold on you said he was poor against spin bowling any where in the World?
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:
I n OZ 03/04 the pitches were all flat tracks, Gilly was hardly needed so nothing to do with spin.
thats a joke right? australia nearly lost that series to india, and katich had to save them from the embarassment. hardly needed 8-)

archie mac said:
In the last series in India the last Test was a joke pitch I think Bradman and WG would have struggled.
yet in the first 3 tests, other than the 100, he had 3 failures and ordinary score

archie mac said:
In SL he showed real signs that he was mastering the attack towards the end of the series.
in a whole 1 test!
give him a medal, especially considering how he was completely embarrased before that game, and didnt do anything significant after either.

archie mac said:
In Pakistan you have 34 as a failure.
and that is of course a success is it?
i mean how many good players average 34 8-)
 

tooextracool

International Coach
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?
and maybe just maybe it might be that he is extremely poor against spin when he first comes in?
its quite ludicrous to say something like he is apt to rest on his laurels when murali and harbhajan(in 01) made him look like an absolute novice outside of his 2 centuries. not to mention of course that kumble caused him all sorts of problems in the series in australia.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
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.
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.
looks at kaspa's ODI record last year, nevermind ignore that comment.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
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
umm waugh played till he was 38, and mcgrath is already 35.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
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.
and could it be that australia wouldnt have been in that position if they hadnt batted poorly in the first place?
 

tooextracool

International Coach
aussie said:
Both this and top cat's point were reasons why australia won in both India & Sri lanka tec
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.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
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.
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.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
thats a joke right? australia nearly lost that series to india, and katich had to save them from the embarassment. hardly needed
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.

and maybe just maybe it might be that he is extremely poor against spin when he first comes in?
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.

You know what TEC? As I think I've said to you before, you generally make really good points but frankly, your method of making them sucks.

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.
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.

and who is this better batsman then?
I would have thought Strauss would be considered the form player right now.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
Yes, it was a vast improvement from the numerous tests/series that Aus has lost recently. 8-)

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.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
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.
it would have been embarassing for several reasons.
a) it was steve waughs last series
b) they went in with absolutely no plan whatsoever, and they're lucky that they got out of that one safely
c) they nearly lost to a side whos bowling attack consisted of pathan,balaji, khan, kumble and agarkar.
d) they selected bracken and williams over kasparowicz, which after the tour to SL would have had egg on the selectors faces.


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..
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:
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.
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:
I would have thought Strauss would be considered the form player right now.
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.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
social said:
Yes, it was a vast improvement from the numerous tests/series that Aus has lost recently. 8-)
i was referring to the last time they toured the sub continent. where they managed to lose to both SL and india.

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.
no the reason they won was because of kaspa + gillespie + mcgrath + warne, and to a lesser extent their improved batting.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
tooextracool said:
and could it be that australia wouldnt have been in that position if they hadnt batted poorly in the first place?
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

International Coach
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.
my theory that 'a few of their players are poor against spin'?
i claimed that they batted better than they did last time around, but they certainly arent better players of spin or in the subcontinent as the indians and SL batters are.
 

Top