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

[tooextracool]

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?

ok then the follow on was not enforced but they still fell 200 runs short.
and no the ways the wickets were falling was because kumble was bowling well, and kumble was bowling well because it was turning, not significantly, but turning nonetheless.

 

[archie mac]

ok then the follow on was not enforced but they still fell 200 runs short.
and no the ways the wickets were falling was because kumble was bowling well, and kumble was bowling well because it was turning, not significantly, but turning nonetheless.

Will let you go on the follow on
I think I said Kumble bowled well
I think I said there was turn, just slow turn
Australia was trying to chase a ridiculous target on the last day, and were playing some very risky shots. Waugh out going the tonk, is one that comes to mind.

"Ganguly could have enforced the follow on but with his bowlers freshness and the state of the pitch in mind he batted again"
David Frith (will delete if copyright)

 

[tooextracool]

Will let you go on the follow on
I think I said Kumble bowled well
I think I said there was turn, just slow turn
Australia was trying to chase a ridiculous target on the last day, and were playing some very risky shots. Waugh out going the tonk, is one that comes to mind.

exactly, it was slow turn, which is largely what you get in the sub continent too. its more than enough for good spin bowlers to exploit.

 

[archie mac]

exactly, it was slow turn, which is largely what you get in the sub continent too. its more than enough for good spin bowlers to exploit.

He bowled okay, but they did not win the Test in fact the only Test they did win was thanks to the bowling of Agarkar.

 

[tooextracool]

He bowled okay, but they did not win the Test in fact the only Test they did win was thanks to the bowling of Agarkar.

your point being? it doesnt change the fact that sydney was the only pitch that turned in any sort of way.

 

[social]

your point being? it doesnt change the fact that sydney was the only pitch that turned in any sort of way.

Just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true.

Sydney was one of the worst wickets prepared for test cricket in Australia in living memory.

It had nothing in it for anybody and did nothing at all.

 

[tooextracool]

Just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true.

Sydney was one of the worst wickets prepared for test cricket in Australia in living memory.

It had nothing in it for anybody and did nothing at all.

i think you must have sydney confused with all the other wickets australia have been preparing off late. sydney didnt have much particularly on the first 2 days, but it definetly had turn in it for the last 3.

 

[archie mac]

your point being? it doesnt change the fact that sydney was the only pitch that turned in any sort of way.

My point is you named this as a series where Gilly struggled against spin, but now you admit that only the last Test took spin

SO as I said Gilly was not really needed in this series, because the wickets were flat including the last one. imho he just did not have a great series nothing at all to do with a fallibility against spin.

 

[Link]

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

do not lose faith, watch the video at the bottom of my signiture
Always hoping mate, always

 

[tooextracool]

My point is you named this as a series where Gilly struggled against spin, but now you admit that only the last Test took spin

SO as I said Gilly was not really needed in this series, because the wickets were flat including the last one. imho he just did not have a great series nothing at all to do with a fallibility against spin.

ok then he failed in a series that had 1 turner
and how in the world can you say that hes not needed when australia nearly lost that series.

 

[archie mac]

ok then he failed in a series that had 1 turner
and how in the world can you say that hes not needed when australia nearly lost that series.

The only Test Australia did lose in that series, was the one they scored over 500 in the first innings, if it was SA for instance it would have been a certain draw.

They may have lost the 5th Test if the Indian Captain had a bit of backbone and inforced the follow-on. But I still doubt it very much, I think Aust. would have still drawn that game.

So what I am saying is Gilly was not needed in all but one Test and he top scored in that innings when Australia were in REAL trouble.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

i think you must have sydney confused with all the other wickets australia have been preparing off late. sydney didnt have much particularly on the first 2 days, but it definetly had turn in it for the last 3.

Funny that nobody except you seems to remember this turn. Personally, I remember that test very clearly because it was one of the worst pitches I have EVER seen, on par with the farce that South Africa and the West Indies met on the other day.

 

[Top_Cat]

Funny that nobody except you seems to remember this turn. Personally, I remember that test very clearly because it was one of the worst pitches I have EVER seen, on par with the farce that South Africa and the West Indies met on the other day.

Gotta be honest and say that I watched all 5 days of that match (the only Test I was able to that summer!) and for the first three days, it was certainly the road you speak of. I remember thinking after day 3 that the match would barely reach a 3rd innings at that rate.

However, day 4 it started to grip ever so slightly (with Kumble's great bowling) and on day 5 from what I remember, it was turning a bit and displayed some elements of uneven bounce. It still didn't appear as if it was terribly difficult to bat on but I distinctly remember enough turn and uneven bounce to at least keep the spinners interested. It was no raging turner and certainly well below what one would expect from Sydney, though.

As for the rest of the decks, I remember them like this;

'Gabba: road, for one rainy day minefield and then a road again.
Melbourne: Road.
Adelaide: ROAD!!!

 

[Richard]

Most of the time when MacGill gets pick for the one test, he outperforms Warne. In the games that I can remember anyway.

Indeed, most of the times they've been picked together it's resulted in Warne bowling very poorly.

 

[Richard]

Murali in 03/04 - didn't trouble him at all. He is now very willing to use his feet against spinners, and his favourite shot (clip through midwicket) is extremely effective against right arm off spinners.

You'll notice I mentioned orthodox fingerspinners. Not Murali - Murali (for whatever reason, and I can't think of one) has never caused him any problems. As far back as 1999 he scored against Murali in Sri Lanka.
But whenever he's faced orthodox fingerspin on turners, right or left-arm, he's struggled.

 

[Richard]

anybody who'd seen the tour to SL and the ODIs in india(yes i know ODIs arent related to tests, but he still played the spinners with absolute ease), could tell that he was a good player of spin.
i'd like to know where this martyn is a poor player of spin comes from, because as far as i remember, hes never shown any problems against spin at the international level.

He's been a good player of spin for certain since SL 2003\04. I can't think when the last time before then when he'd have been tested against quality spin would have been.
But he certainly used to be poor against spin, any Australian who watched his early career will tell you that. It's not exactly surprising given his home, and how many WA batsmen have been poor against spin.

 

[Richard]

I'm interested to hear your explanation for why because I would have thought being in and out of the Test side would be a distinct disadvantage.

It's not been uncommon for him to get good figures in a single Test of a series.
Had he bowled more teams would have had more of a chance to get used to him and I think Dec02-Mar04, when he was finally found-out for good as substandard, demonstrates this well as he was rarely out of the side then.

 

[Richard]

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

No, I said his form did nothing, he was just worked-out from Adelaide 2000\01 onwards.

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.

Nope, it does the opposite - between December 2002 and March 2004 he played 12 in a row, something he's never done before. Closest he came was 11 out of 12 in 1998\99.

 

[Richard]

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.

Martyn and Katich have both improved from being very poor players of spin. But for that improvement in both of them I'm near certain they'd have lost both series.

 

[Richard]

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.

Thorpe since 1997 has played 2 Ashes Tests out of 15.
Hardly means anything, particularly given that he scored 77 in the 1st.