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

[Richard]

At the end of the day, it's all about scoring runs.

Langer, Hayden and Gilchrist score substantially more, at a better average, and generally at a quicker rate than the Englishmen that you've mentioned (Strauss should not even enter this discussion as his test career is still in its' infancy). As aresult, thet're better players.

It is indeed, and as such Gilchrist is clearly a better batsman than any Englishmen. Langer is, of course, sometimes better than anyone and sometimes wholly average. Hayden is wholly average whenever he plays seaming conditions and better than anyone on a flat pitch.
But nonetheless Vaughan and Thorpe are more rounded batsmen and given an equal variety of conditions will probably do better.

 

[Richard]

Would Laxman and Ganguly still have the figures they do if they hadn't spent so much time batting with Dravid and Tendulkar, for instance? Playing in a weaker line-up, I suspect Ganguly would now have an average more like 37 than 40, since I don't think he's any better than Nasser Hussain.

Ganguly certainly, but Laxman is clearly a cut above the norm.

 

[Richard]

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.

It makes no sense, no - neither does Chaminda Vaas being able to do an immensely complex art (cut and reverse-swing) and not being able to do a ridiculously simple one (seam and conventional-swing).
Sometimes in cricket things happen which make no sense.
But there's absolutely no disputing the fact that Murali has NEVER caused Ponting any problems, whereas orthodox fingerspinners (right and left-arm) always have.
Jnr.'s idea was that orthodox-right-arm-fingerspin has caused Ponting trouble in the past and doesn't any more. My idea is that he simply hasn't faced any orthodox right-arm-fingerspin of any quality (on a turning pitch) for quite a while.

 

[Richard]

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.

Vaughan's been very poor recently, yes.
Nonetheless he's proven against spin and seam - Gilchrist is proven poor against spin.
I'm not saying Vaughan is the better batsman, not at all, simply the more rounded batsman if he plays like he can.

 

[Richard]

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.

I haven't heard that interview.
If so it's a real shame, because while he wasn't quite the player of 1991-2003 he was still probably just about good enough to carry on.

 

[Richard]

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.

Mark Waugh 2001\02-2002\03: 17 innings, 518 runs at 30.
While the other two were wholly stupid, Mark Waugh was justified and he admitted as much himself.

 

[tooextracool]

It makes no sense, no - neither does Chaminda Vaas being able to do an immensely complex art (cut and reverse-swing) and not being able to do a ridiculously simple one (seam and conventional-swing)..

its happened tonnes of times to many bowlers. not seam of course, because almost any fast bowler at the international level can seam the ball around, which of course largely relies on the pitch. with regard to swing, it all depends your bowling action, some actions are just more conducive towards getting the ball to swing and some arent. and guess which category vaas falls in?

Sometimes in cricket things happen which make no sense.
But there's absolutely no disputing the fact that Murali has NEVER caused Ponting any problems, whereas orthodox fingerspinners (right and left-arm) always have.
Jnr.'s idea was that orthodox-right-arm-fingerspin has caused Ponting trouble in the past and doesn't any more. My idea is that he simply hasn't faced any orthodox right-arm-fingerspin of any quality (on a turning pitch) for quite a while.

no whats far more likely is the idea that hes weak against spin from both ends, because i dont see how you could say something like hes weak against orthodox spin and not against murali, when murali is just a mutated, yet far more efficient version of an orthodox right arm finger spinner.

 

[Richard]

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.

No, of course he hasn't, but you can hardly take out the Doosra because he's never been unable to bowl it.
Bangladesh, SA and Aus had no problems with him on flat pitches, no - is that surprising?
Aus had enough problems with him when he was taking 8-182 and 4-83 against them; WI had enough problems when he took 5-117 (and I highly doubt either of the 2 pitches in Sharjah were turners, and he certainly was not hammered while going at 2.15 and 2.87-an-over).
The fact of the matter is Saqlain since 2001\02 simply hasn't bowled on many turning pitches so hasn't had as many games where he's been effective. His potency on turners hasn't been reduced at all.

 

[Richard]

no whats far more likely is the idea that hes weak against spin from both ends, because i dont see how you could say something like hes weak against orthodox spin and not against murali, when murali is just a mutated, yet far more efficient version of an orthodox right arm finger spinner.

So are you seriously saying Murali has ever caused him problems?
Because he hasn't.
Why he hasn't makes no sense at all, but he hasn't, and there's absolutely no disputing that.

 

[Richard]

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

And another 2 years ago where he was troubled by Graeme Swann and Jason Brown, and the fact that plenty of people talked of his being weak against spin.

 

[tooextracool]

Mark Waugh 2001\02-2002\03: 17 innings, 518 runs at 30.
While the other two were wholly stupid, Mark Waugh was justified and he admitted as much himself.

i was referring to his ODI career. he had 2 excellent ODI series, and then 2 poor ones and was dropped from the ODI side.

 

[tooextracool]

And another 2 years ago where he was troubled by Graeme Swann and Jason Brown, and the fact that plenty of people talked of his being weak against spin.

wow so we have a whole 2 games!!

 

[tooextracool]

So are you seriously saying Murali has ever caused him problems?
Because he hasn't.
Why he hasn't makes no sense at all, but he hasn't, and there's absolutely no disputing that.

no im saying that hes weak against spin, because its glaringly obvious that both harbhajan and kumble made him look like a complete novice against spin. why murali hasnt caused him the same kind of problems i cant explain, and id certainly like to see him against a quality left arm spinner on a turner sooner, rather than later.

 

[Richard]

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?

Because of the simple fact that dismissing Hayden is very easy - he's an opener, and openers should face seam and swing most. Hayden, of course, hasn't most of the time.
Vaughan and Thorpe are obviously far less good than Hayden at battering popgun bowling on pitches offering no seam. If you put either on a seamer they'll outdo Hayden just about every time. Go on about The 'Gabba's seamers all you want - fact is all his innings have come since 2000\01 and seam and swing in all have been pretty rare.
And OF COURSE Hayden is a better player of spin than pretty much anyone - please don't insult my intelligence by telling me that as if I don't know.

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.

Yet Vettori has got him out - he just hasn't got the credit for it. And Sri Lanka have certainly caused him every bit as many problems as India have.
Of course he's still a better batsman than Vaughan, but there's absolutely no disputing who's the better player of the turning ball.

 

[Richard]

i was referring to his ODI career. he had 2 excellent ODI series, and then 2 poor ones and was dropped from the ODI side.

Right, that was indeed a stupid decision, but it's not anything unusual.

 

[Richard]

wow so we have a whole 2 games!!

Which were 3 years apart and saw no change between them.
We also, of course, have assurances from people who have watched him bat far more often and are good at telling that people are poor against spin.

 

[Richard]

no im saying that hes weak against spin, because its glaringly obvious that both harbhajan and kumble made him look like a complete novice against spin. why murali hasnt caused him the same kind of problems i cant explain, and id certainly like to see him against a quality left arm spinner on a turner sooner, rather than later.

And I don't doubt it'll see him score not many.
All I'm saying is that you can't say he's no longer weak against right-arm fingerspin because he hasn't had any problems against right-arm fingerspinners recently. The simple fact is, he hasn't faced any. And that Murali hasn't troubled him doesn't prove anything, because Murali has never troubled him. And if you can't explain it - who can?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Because of the simple fact that dismissing Hayden is very easy - he's an opener, and openers should face seam and swing most. Hayden, of course, hasn't most of the time.

But that's exactly the point, he hasn't because he hasn't had the chance, in TEST cricket. Since Hayden's emergance at test level in 2001, how many genuine seamers has he played on? Hardly any.

In his first class career he played on them constantly and did extraordinarily well. So well in fact that he was far and away the best player in the country in the lethal Gabba greentops of the 90s. To say he can't play swing or seam is extremely dubious. At the very least you could say that in the very few times he has played on seaming pitches in his test career he has not done as well as he has on flatter tracks. Hardly a crime of course, and certainly not proof that he isn't capable of it, especially in the face of his incredible first class record.

As a point of comparison, if a player had played half their first class career at Headingly and done amazingly well (average around 60), it would be ridiculous to claim that they were poor players of seam and swing because they had say 4 or 5 poor tests on seaming wickets. Besides, the last time Hayden faced prodigous swing he was the top scorer aside from a rampaging Gilchrist (edit: and Martyn, forgot about him), in the second test in New Zealand recently.

 

[Richard]

A very simple pattern can be established in Hayden's career - if the bowlers can move the ball back into him (or, occasionally, bounce him effectively early) he doesn't last long.
Hayden's early Test-career was at a time when seaming pitches were more common - he was a failure. Almost every single one of his Tests since 2001\02 has been on pitches offering nothing to seam, and not surprisingly he's bashed it around considerably. Of course, on the 1 or 2 occasions he's faced a seamer it's apparent nothing has changed?
You'll forgive me for being unwary of the happenings of Basin Reserve 2004\05, but I find it something close to impossible that anyone, even Australia, could score 503\5 on a pitch offering any real seam, even against an attack as dire as NZ's.

 

[tooextracool]

Right, that was indeed a stupid decision, but it's not anything unusual.

yes i know, and its been happening for quite a while amongst australian selectors....hence why people suggest that they drop people with age.