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

[Top_Cat]

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.

a) Disappointing for him, yes. Embarrassing, well *I* don't think so but hey that's a personal perception thing

b) They? Who, the Aussies or India?

c) Don't forget Nehra. I see what you're saying but should the WI side of 1995 feel embarrassed by being beaten by an Aussie team with a bowling attack of Reiffel, Julian, McGrath (very much unproven at that time) and Warne? Or did those bowlers just bowl REALLY well and that should be acknowledged (much like the Indian attack)? It's quite similar really; Warne was the only truly world-class bowler, as was Kumble, in an attack of very good or unproven bowlers. On paper, they look ordinary but maybe out on the field, they played above themselves.

The big difference was that, yes it was India's batting which did most of the damage (whereas the Aussie bowlers probably did the damage in 1995) but the bowlers still had to bowl well and Kumble certainly did in Adelaide and Sydney. The others were quite capable back-ups (Khan bowled really well in Brisbane and Pathan took some really key wickets when the Aussies just didn't wan to lose them).

d) Fully agree; not picking Kasper was just criminal.

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.

Indeed, maybe I'm under-rating Thorpe. Certainly he's the side's most accomplished and allround player.

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

Their bowling tactics were different, though. They did attack the stumps far more rather than the usual '3 slips, 2 gullies, ball moving away' tactic. REALLY accurate bowlers like McGrath, Gillespie and Kasper were perfect for that. They certainly didn't slow down the batting, though.

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

Your claim was that the bowlers won them the series, and I'm saying without the runs that the 'poor players of spin' scored in the second innings when conditions were good for spin then the bowlers wouldn't have been able to show they were better.

 

[tooextracool]

a) Disappointing for him, yes. Embarrassing, well *I* don't think so but hey that's a personal perception thing.

perhaps so, but i think that would have more to do with part b, c and d.

b) They? Who, the Aussies or India?

australia. it was glaringly obvious when they bowled to the indian batsman that they had no gameplan whatsoever. yes so b.lee, bichel, bracken etc can barely carry out a plan but still it was just poor viewing to watch their bowlers have absolutely no clue where to bowl to any of the indian batsmen. especially considering the amount of planning that was evident before the recent series in india. there was certainly a good deal of overconfidence and ****iness that went in at the start of that test series.

c) Don't forget Nehra. I see what you're saying but should the WI side of 1995 feel embarrassed by being beaten by an Aussie team with a bowling attack of Reiffel, Julian, McGrath (very much unproven at that time) and Warne? Or did those bowlers just bowl REALLY well and that should be acknowledged (much like the Indian attack)? It's quite similar really; Warne was the only truly world-class bowler, as was Kumble, in an attack of very good or unproven bowlers. On paper, they look ordinary but maybe out on the field, they played above themselves.

there was really only 1 poor bowler in julian. mcgrath might not have been proven, but as he showed during that series he was and still is an excellent bowler. and paul reiffel, he might not be special, but certainly an average of 26 demands that he cant be placed in the same category as pathan,nehra, khan, agarkar and the like

The big difference was that, yes it was India's batting which did most of the damage (whereas the Aussie bowlers probably did the damage in 1995) but the bowlers still had to bowl well and Kumble certainly did in Adelaide and Sydney. The others were quite capable back-ups (Khan bowled really well in Brisbane and Pathan took some really key wickets when the Aussies just didn't wan to lose them).

australia were unfortunate in brisbane, they clearly got some extremely good bowling conditions for a short period during that test. they threw away nearly half their wickets in adelaide though,especially in the 2nd inning.
sydney again,they batted extremely poorly in both innings, and it was left to katich to save them in that situation. and well we all know what the aussie selectors rewarded katich with after that.

Their bowling tactics were different, though. They did attack the stumps far more rather than the usual '3 slips, 2 gullies, ball moving away' tactic. REALLY accurate bowlers like McGrath, Gillespie and Kasper were perfect for that. They certainly didn't slow down the batting, though.

no they didnt, but they certainly did bat poorly on several occasions the last time they were in india. take langer in the 2nd test in calcutta. did he really think that they could chase 384 runs in less than 90 overs of the final day of a test in india?

 

[tooextracool]

Your claim was that the bowlers won them the series, and I'm saying without the runs that the 'poor players of spin' scored in the second innings when conditions were good for spin then the bowlers wouldn't have been able to show they were better.

so what your saying is that if the aussie players had batted poorly their bowlers wouldnt have been able to win the game.......whatever thats supposed to prove.

 

[Mister Wright]

so what your saying is that if the aussie players had batted poorly their bowlers wouldnt have been able to win the game.......whatever thats supposed to prove.

You're a good one at contradicting yourself and turning other people's words around. You started off by saying that it was only because the bowlers were better than the Sri Lankan's that Australia won the test series, after you have been saying that Australia's batsmen are poor against spin. Then I said that if Australia's bastmen were so poor against spin then they wouldn't have won the test series because the team required these 'poor players of spin' to get big scores in turning conditions.

 

[tooextracool]

You're a good one at contradicting yourself and turning other people's words around. You started off by saying that it was only because the bowlers were better than the Sri Lankan's that Australia won the test series, after you have been saying that Australia's batsmen are poor against spin. Then I said that if Australia's bastmen were so poor against spin then they wouldn't have won the test series because the team required these 'poor players of spin' to get big scores in turning conditions.

i havent been turning anything around. i claimed that a FEW players are poor against spin, and then went on to name them( gilchrist, ponting and langer).
and i said that the reason australia won the test series was SIGNIFICANTLY due to their bowling, but also because their batting performed better. it doesnt however mean that their batters performed brilliantly, because they clearly didnt.

 

[Top_Cat]

australia. it was glaringly obvious when they bowled to the india batsman that theyhad no gameplan whatsoever. yes so b.lee, bichel, bracken etc can barely carry out a plan but still it was just poor viewing to watch their bowlers have absolutely no clue where to bowl to any of the indian batsmen. especially considering the amount of planning that was evident before the recent series in india. there was certainly a good deal of overconfidence and ****iness that went in at the start of that test series.

With Lee, I think you are spot on but with the others, I don't think the problem was a lack of planning but just a wrong plan. I was at the oval when Dravid scored his double ton (well, 199; selfish bugger blocked out the last over and got his 200 the next day leaving us in the crowd with the cricketing equivalent of blue balls Trust him to be professional and not go for glory!) and the plan was obvious; off-stump line trying to move the ball away. They didn't reckon with Dravid actually being capable of leaving the good balls and smacking the half-volleys time after time through cover. In terms of technique, tactics and absolute dominance, that was one of the best knocks I've seen. So was Laxman's but he ruined it by getting out late in the day.

As for the overconfidence, well I just couldn't agree with you more. I think the selectors thought they could throw any bowler on the paddock and he'd succeed against the Indians. Oops..........

there was really only 1 poor bowler in julian.

Who did bowl well above himself that series, especially in the first Test.

mcgrath might not have been proven, but as he showed during that series he was and still is an excellent bowler.

You're preaching to the converted here with regards to McGrath but before that series, he wasn't rated all that highly by anyone other than in 'potential' terms. That series, in fact, was when he actually stepped up.

paul reiffel, he might not be special, but certainly an average of 26 demands that he cant be placed in the same category as pathan,nehra, khan, agarkar and the like

You wouldn't rate Khan as highly as Reiffel? Hmmmm, maybe you're right but I think Khan is getting close, depsite his higher average. Still, Reiffel was certainly a vastly more consistent performer.

sydeny again,they batted extremely poorly in both innings, and it was left to katich to save them in that situation. and well we all know what the aussie selectors rewarded katich with after that.

Yeh, a couple of tours and then a 'Thanks for coming!' Katich is one player who has been pretty shoddily treated in my view.

no they didnt, but they certainly did bat poorly on several occasions the last time they were in india. take langer in the 2nd test in calcutta. did he really think that they could chase 384 runs in less than 90 overs of the final day of a test in india?

Well, history suggests not but then history suggested no team had won 16 Tests in a row, that they wouldn't be able to chase 360-odd in Hobart, etc. This example was certainly at the "No fricken' way!" end of the "Is it possible?" scale but you have to at least give it a go.

 

[social]

i was referring to the last time they toured the sub continent. where they managed to lose to both SL and india.



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

Naturally you need the players capable of implementing a strategy, but its well documented how they changed their approach.

 

[tooextracool]

With Lee, I think you are spot on but with the others, I don't think the problem was a lack of planning but just a wrong plan. I was at the oval when Dravid scored his double ton (well, 199; selfish bugger blocked out the last over and got his 200 the next day leaving us in the crowd with the cricketing equivalent of blue balls Trust him to be professional and not go for glory!) and the plan was obvious; off-stump line trying to move the ball away. They didn't reckon with Dravid actually being capable of leaving the good balls and smacking the half-volleys time after time through cover. In terms of technique, tactics and absolute dominance, that was one of the best knocks I've seen. So was Laxman's but he ruined it by getting out late in the day.

well as far as im concerned, the plan doesnt just come from the bowlers it comes from the captain as well as the coach. it comes with field placings for the right batsmen. none of which happened during that series, all of which happened in the more recent series. the bowlers simply bowled outside the off stump, because that is what they thought was the best thing to do, it didnt help them of course, as you've just indicated.

You wouldn't rate Khan as highly as Reiffel? Hmmmm, maybe you're right but I think Khan is getting close, depsite his higher average. Still, Reiffel was certainly a vastly more consistent performer.

no i wouldnt rate khan at all, and i think that with his action you can almost guarantee that he isnt going to succeed at the test match level. he'll have the odd good spell, but on the whole he'll be extremely inaccurate and incapable at the international level. not to mention the fact that he spends more time off the field than on it.

Yeh, a couple of tours and then a 'Thanks for coming!' Katich is one player who has been pretty shoddily treated in my view.

a couple of tours? he was dropped for the very next test match!!

Well, history suggests not but then history suggested no team had won 16 Tests in a row, that they wouldn't be able to chase 360-odd in Hobart, etc. This example was certainly at the "No fricken' way!" end of the "Is it possible?" scale but you have to at least give it a go.

oh come now, theres a point between hope and insanity. believing that you can score 384 runs at over 5 runs an over on a last day pitch against harbhajan and co is bad enough, considering that when langer came in they needed 6 runs an over is simply insane.

 

[aussie]

and i said that the reason australia won the test series was SIGNIFICANTLY due to their bowling, but also because their batting performed better. it doesnt however mean that their batters performed brilliantly, because they clearly didnt.

how can you say that the australian batters surely performed brilliantly on tours to SRI & IND, not consistently but when they had to put their heads down to bat they did it.

 

[tooextracool]

how can you say that the australian batters surely performed brilliantly on tours to SRI & IND, not consistently but when they had to put their heads down to bat they did it.

because it was martyn, clarke, lehmann and katich who performed well in the 2 series. considering that clarke didnt play in india, lehmann didnt do much in india and katich only played a game in Sl, id say its a safe bet that their batsmen just did better than usual.

 

[aussie]

because it was martyn, clarke, lehmann and katich who performed well in the 2 series. considering that clarke didnt play in india, lehmann didnt do much in india and katich only played a game in Sl, id say its a safe bet that their batsmen just did better than usual.

oh ok, now i get you....... and i think you may have made a mistake when you said that clarke didn't play in IND you meant SRI

 

[archie mac]

i thats a joke right? australia nearly lost that series to india, and katich had to save them from the embarassment. hardly needed )

I watched every ball of that series two live at the ground, Aust. lost one Test after making 500 and only than to one piece of great bowling (not spin)

Aust had no worries saving that last Test, in fact they could have started another Test after the 5th day. Kumble bowled well on occasions, which was a good effort, considering those pitches.

The same old arguments from you when he succeeds non turner, when he fails turner.
They were all flat track Wickets ask Dizzy and Blee.
What I think you should say is Gilly prefers speed to spin, I agree, but not that he is very very poor. Now thats a joke

 

[tooextracool]

I watched every ball of that series two live at the ground, Aust. lost one Test after making 500 and only than to one piece of great bowling (not spin)

you seriously call that spell of bowling from agarkar great
count the number of wickets that were thrown away in that inning.

Aust had no worries saving that last Test, in fact they could have started another Test after the 5th day. Kumble bowled well on occasions, which was a good effort, considering those pitches.

oh yes 374/6 with gillespie just in, clearly they could have batted for a whole day. and if katich hadnt scored 125 and 77 odd, they wouldnt have even come close to saving that game.

The same old arguments from you when he succeeds non turner, when he fails turner.
They were all flat track Wickets ask Dizzy and Blee.

because obviously pacers can tell me whether a track is a turner or not.
and i agree, the first 3 pitches were flat, it was the last one that turned.

What I think you should say is Gilly prefers speed to spin, I agree, but not that he is very very poor. Now thats a joke

so his average going down to 27 odd against india and SL over the last few years isnt a coincidence then?

 

[archie mac]

you seriously call that spell of bowling from agarkar great
count the number of wickets that were thrown away in that inning.



oh yes 374/6 with gillespie just in, clearly they could have batted for a whole day. and if katich hadnt scored 125 and 77 odd, they wouldnt have even come close to saving that game.



because obviously pacers can tell me whether a track is a turner or not.
and i agree, the first 3 pitches were flat, it was the last one that turned.



so his average going down to 27 odd against india and SL over the last few years isnt a coincidence then?

I thought he bowled really well, a couple of gems and yes some ill-discipline shots.
Blee and Dizzy are Test Match Cricketers so I am sure they could tell you if a pitch is a turner.
The last Test at the SCG featured MaGill a far bigger turner of the ball than Kumble, remind me again how many the Indians scored, flat as a road, I had the Glasses on him for every ball, yes turn but very slow.

Katich did play well, and I think Aust were really going for the runs on the last day. I never had any concerns that they were in trouble. And I am a bit panicy when things become tight.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

and that is of course a success is it?
i mean how many good players average 34

This Bloke

 

[tooextracool]

I thought he bowled really well, a couple of gems and yes some ill-discipline shots.
Blee and Dizzy are Test Match Cricketers so I am sure they could tell you if a pitch is a turner.

well if you can manage that, then go ahead and ask them.

The last Test at the SCG featured MaGill a far bigger turner of the ball than Kumble, remind me again how many the Indians scored, flat as a road, I had the Glasses on him for every ball, yes turn but very slow.

indians scored runs against macgill for 2 reasons:
1) because he isnt anything special
2) because they are very good players of spin

Katich did play well, and I think Aust were really going for the runs on the last day. I never had any concerns that they were in trouble. And I am a bit panicy when things become tight.

you're kidding right? following on, losing 4 wickets with still a long way to go till the end of days play?

 

[tooextracool]

This Bloke

should have said in the modern era.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Should have.

 

[archie mac]

indians scored runs against macgill for 2 reasons:
1) because he isnt anything special
2) because they are very good players of spin



you're kidding right? following on, losing 4 wickets with still a long way to go till the end of days play?

And 3) the pitch was flat as a tack
The only way wickets were falling was if the batsman did something wrong, draw never in doubt, did you watch this game? What follow on?