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

[marc71178]

That's an interesting way of looking at things Mike - and I wonder if that's one of the reasons batsmen tend to find it easier to settle into the side for Australia than anyone else - there's less pressure on them to be the "key" man.

Unfortunately Pietersen, when he does make his debut, will be under immense pressure to score runs as the "new saviour".

 

[chaminda_00]

Unfortunately Pietersen, when he does make his debut, will be under immense pressure to score runs as the "new saviour".

Reminds me a bit of Greame Hick

 

[marc71178]

Yes - there are some very worrying similarities.

 

[wpdavid]

That's an interesting way of looking at things Mike - and I wonder if that's one of the reasons batsmen tend to find it easier to settle into the side for Australia than anyone else - there's less pressure on them to be the "key" man.

Unfortunately Pietersen, when he does make his debut, will be under immense pressure to score runs as the "new saviour".

He'll be under pressure, but not as some sort of saviour of the England side. Whatever happens against Aus this summer, it's obvious that we have a decent side, and KP should be just one of a reasonably settled lineup of proven test batsmen. IMHO if KP could cope with all the unpleasentness from those nice people in SA, then he should be able to handle the pressures of test cricket. He knows that he will be given a decent run in the side by the current regime. It may also help that his first full series should be away from these shores. If, however, he does get to play in much or all of the Ashes, I suspect he'll cope. There may be some idiots in the tabloids writing him up as how we will beat the Australains, but I don't think any serious cricket fans think that.

There are significant differences between him & Hick. For a start, Hick had to wait far longer before being able to make his debut, so there was longer for expectations to rise. Also, the side that Hick joined had been hopeless for most of the previous 5 years, so there was a greater need for him to come to the rescue of English cricket. In particular, the middle order had been dreadful (Gower excepted) in Aus the previous winter, and Hick was widely seen as The Answer to our batting problems. And, as we saw in SA, it seems that KP is made of rather sterner stuff than GH.

 

[badgerhair]

Hick was widely seen as The Answer to our batting problems. And, as we saw in SA, it seems that KP is made of rather sterner stuff than GH.

Yes, Hick has said that he was totally unprepared for the venom with which some of the press turned on him when he wasn't the second Bradman, and it's not hard to see how that would have fatally wounded an essentially kind and shy man. If KP turns up in England's Test team and fails to start with, tabloid jeering will only make him more determined to score next time out.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't think pieterson is looked upon as the 'new Bradman' like Hick was. The pressure on Hick was ENORMOUS whereas with Pieterson, I get the impression he's looked upon as an exciting hitter rather than the guy who's going to lead the English batting for the next decade.

I mean, Pieterson played well last season but with Hick, there was 5 seasons of consistently great batting and 57 FC hundreds by that point. So when he qualified for the Test side and then didn't do so well, you never saw the press turn on a player so damn fast. Totally unfair which wasn't helped by the fact that Hick generally makes batting look so easy so should automatically score bucketloads in the eyes of many.

I would have to say that Hick is surely one of the most naturally gifted players to average in the mid-30's at Test level.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So... Vaughan and Thorpe have the blatant weaknesses against seam and spin that Hayden and Gilchrist respectively have, and Langer to an extent has both?
Gilchrist is more destructive, Hayden is a better flat-track bully, by far, than either - but they both have straightforward weaknesses that Vaughan and Thorpe don't have.

You know what's funny? You go on constantly about how the only reason most people on here think your views are complete rubbish is because they don't stick to convention, and yet you judge batting ability purely by how conventional their style is. If a batsman averages 40 with a conventional style and another batsman with an unorthodox style averages 55, you believe the previous one is better. It's quite amazing.

Anyway, neither Vaughan or Thorpe are weak against an entire style of bowling, but neither of them are as good as Hayden or Gilchrist, and their records prove that, not only in their entirity, but in small portions as well. The only reason nobody craps on about, say, Vaughan being a "flat track bully" is because he doesn't average in the mid 50s and give people a reason to need to poke holes in his record.

Hayden scores 9 more runs per innings than Vaughan does. He scores 10 more runs per hundred balls than Vaughan does. He has 20 centuries in 67 tests compared to 13 in 55 tests for Vaughan. He has 2 double centuries to Vaughan's 0. He's also a far better fielder than Vaughan, being decent in the slips and a very good gully fieldsman, with 77 catches compared to Vaughans 34. And, for all the talk about Hayden being a flat track bully, he averages 80 at the Gabba in tests and 60 there in first class cricket, where it was certainly never a flat track in the 90s. He's also a far better player of spin than Vaughan, as Harbhajan will vouch for, after he rated Hayden's the most valuable wicket in the world to take. Explain to me then, how exactly it is that you have decided Vaughan is a better player?

As far as Gilchrist is concerned, I'm not sure how directly a wicket-keeper/batsman can be compared to any of those you mentioned, but Gilchrist is clearly a fantastic batsman and while he is more inconsistent against spin than pace, such a weakness only matters if your opposition can actually exploit it... eg bring on a spinner and get you out. For every country except India, this hasn't worked, and Stephen Fleming and Daniel Vettori can tell you all about it.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

yes because drawing that series at home to a clearly inferior side is such an achievement isnt it? gilchrist was needed, and the fact that they nearly lost that series had a lot to do with his disappointing series.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

then clearly you didnt watch the test
because as i said earlier, it was dead flat on the first 2 days and then it started to turn, not significantly but it was slow turn, which means good bowlers will always trouble batsmen and good batsmen will be able to score runs. the other wickets on the tour stayed dead flat throughout the 5 days. to put it on par with the farce of the SA and WI game is an absolute joke.
and yes apparently someone decided to back me up.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

even though that makes absolutely no sense.
because its quite preposterous to suggest that someone would struggle to an orthodox finger spinner when that orthodox spinner turns in the same direction but turns it less.

 

[tooextracool]

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

well apparently the english selectors think just like warne, given that graveney actually mentioned that the last spot was decided between thorpe and pieterson for the first test against b'desh. gotta love our selectors, considering dropping our best batsman

 

[tooextracool]

Which simply shows the idiocy of the idea of basing much on those rankings because Strauss, Vaughan and Thorpe are all clearly better all-round batsmen than Gilchrist, Langer and Hayden.

vaughan?????!!!!
are you insane?
the same person whos averaged below 40 in 5 out of his last 6 test series?
and he was a failure in all bar one test against the WI too.
and gilchrist ATM is a far better batsman than the above mentioned.

 

[tooextracool]

Presuming you mean forced rather than focused - the only reason they retired was because they were not performing any more. And in Stephen's case even from his 2nd series after his 36th birthday onwards he still averaged 37.76 (against Test-class opposition) - he was clearly not quite the batsman of his magnificent pre-2001\02 but he was still just about good enough to keep his spot and did so. He retired on his own terms, not because he was forced to do so.

err no. waugh retired because of the pressure from the selectors. he suggested in his last interview that he thought he was good enough to carry on playing, not to mention of course that he'd said several times that he was determined to win a series in india before he retired. anybody who thinks that he retired because he wanted to, clearly wasnt following too closely.

 

[tooextracool]

So you reckon Australia would drop Martyn in a few years time even if he's still averaging 50?

nope, they'll drop him just as soon as he has a couple of bad series, just so that they have the excuse of saying that he was past his prime. much the same way they did with bevan, lehmann and m.waugh.

 

[tooextracool]

And you know that because the last time he bowled on a turner was so recent, wasn't it?
He's played 1 Test in the last 3 years, that on a pitch that could fairly be called as flat as possible.
What the pitch at Bulawayo was like when he took 10-155 I haven't a clue, it may just be that Zimbabwe were useless against the slow delivery.
By all reports both the pitches at Sharjah were very flat and the heat unfit for playing cricket; so the last 4 turning pitches he's played on have produced good figures. Just they were 3 years before his next Test is likely to be.
Personally I'm going to wait until the next time I see him before writing him off.

b'desh had no problems dealing with, nor did SA, nor of course did australia. he had a good few overs against NZ, but in the series before that the WI hammered him too. i think its fairly obvious that in the last 4-5 years of his international career hes been rubbish, and if you take out that doosra of his, hes never looked like being very capable anyways.

 

[tooextracool]

i know martyn used to be poor againts spin early in his carrer but since when Katich has been poor againts spin?

since the one game 5 years ago when he was troubled by ian salisbury.

 

[Richard]

I dont think Hayden is weak againts spin, his record in the sub-continent isn't that bad, i agree that Thorpe is a decent player of spin while Gilchrist & Langer have clear weakness againts spin.

When u say seam, what exactly do mean, is it where the ball is moving around or fast bowling if either i dont think Gilchrist is weak on either aspects

Wrong way around - Gilchrist is weak against spin and Hayden against seam.
Of course Hayden is a brilliant player of spin, quite brilliant, and has been for a long time.

 

[tooextracool]

I've managed it plenty of times.

and i'd be delighted to hear about these 'plenty of times'.
and dont try to think too hard, because that clearly isnt your style.

 

[Richard]

I have been reading how seemingly all the Australians have a weaness against spin bowling so I looked up the stats of most spinners to see how they went against Australia.

Most spinners except Harbhajan (all but one of his tests against Australia have been in India) have higher averages against australia than other teams.

I would like to know which spinners Ponting, Langer, Hayden and Gilchrist have a weakness against.

Hayden has weakness against no spinners, obviously.
And the fact that most spinners have higher averages against Australia than the rest doesn't neccessarily mean much, you need to take their averages on turning pitches only, not on any surface.
And it's fairly obvious to everyone that Ponting, Langer and Gilchrist go worse against spin than they do against seam, regardless of how worse spinners go against their team.
As usual you've managed to find something that misreprisents the situation and makes Australians look best.

 

[tooextracool]

So... Vaughan and Thorpe have the blatant weaknesses against seam and spin that Hayden and Gilchrist respectively have, and Langer to an extent has both?
Gilchrist is more destructive, Hayden is a better flat-track bully, by far, than either - but they both have straightforward weaknesses that Vaughan and Thorpe don't have.

and strauss has proven so much in his illustrous career, thats hes already managed to prove that he has no weakness against spin or pace, and that hes better than proven players like gilchrist and langer.
and vaughan, no he has no weakness at all, he just doesnt score the runs.