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

[tooextracool]

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?

all im saying is that hes either not weak against spin or not. he cant be weak against orthodox finger spin and not be weak against murali, because that contradicts the theory in itself.

 

[Richard]

It does indeed - he is certainly weak against spin if you ask me, you know that, but for whatever reasons he's never had problems with Murali.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

you suggested that basing player ability on rankings was completely useless and used vaughan as an example of it, even though hes been very very ordinary since the tour of australia in 02/03.
what really surprises me is the fact that not too long ago, you claimed that you were not convinced of vaughan as a test class opener just yet, and now, when things have only gotten worse for vaughan, you're here singing praises about him.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

it was at the post match presentation in sydney.
and while he may have been good enough to carry on, his being under pressure by the selectors was more than justifiable, given that he hadnt been anything brilliant since the ashes series in england and that there was pressure from players like katich.

 

[marc71178]

Because of the simple fact that dismissing Hayden is very easy

Which is obviously why he averages well over 50 isn't it?

 

[aussie]

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.

maybe vaughan may be a better player of the turning ball than Gilly but he doesn't really have the big scores to back it up. Gilly may not have done it consistently but he has a few big scores

 

[archie mac]

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.

Where have you been? I thought you may have come to some sense and given up arguing with me, as you are clearly a long way behind on points.

I don't remember writing that it was a great achievement for Aust. to draw that series. Full marks to India though. When was Gilchrist needed? Except for the Test they lost they won or drew the others easily.

 

[JBH001]

It does indeed - he is certainly weak against spin if you ask me, you know that, but for whatever reasons he's never had problems with Murali.

Murali has always had trouble against left handers - its one of the reasons he is so keen on the doosra as a weapon (though now it seems to be taking over his mind as his main attacking weapon and not the stock offie, but thats another story).

Thorpe, Fleming and Lara - especially - have handled him pretty well.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

The pitch was fairly flat but on the first morning there was a lot of movement in the air and a bit off the wicket. Martin and Franklin were both swinging it a mile, and while Franklin bowled rubbish and wasted the conditions Martin was quite decent as he usually is when the ball is swinging and bowled quite well. After lunch the movement died down a bit and by tea it was largely gone, although the new ball did a bit off the wicket throughout the test.

 

[tooextracool]

Where have you been? I thought you may have come to some sense and given up arguing with me, as you are clearly a long way behind on points.

well then you clearly havent been following any of my other arguments on the forum.


I

don't remember writing that it was a great achievement for Aust. to draw that series. Full marks to India though. When was Gilchrist needed? Except for the Test they lost they won or drew the others easily.

err, you just answered the question yourself.
and do you not realise that the tests that they drew, they might have won had gilchrist scored?

 

[tooextracool]

The pitch was fairly flat but on the first morning there was a lot of movement in the air and a bit off the wicket. Martin and Franklin were both swinging it a mile, and while Franklin bowled rubbish and wasted the conditions Martin was quite decent as he usually is when the ball is swinging and bowled quite well. After lunch the movement died down a bit and by tea it was largely gone, although the new ball did a bit off the wicket throughout the test.

the movement lasted for barely a session and surprisingly enough hayden looked all at sea during the first session and could barely score a run. as the pitch flattened he started to score at a quicker pace and accumulated some runs.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

the movement lasted for barely a session and surprisingly enough hayden looked all at sea during the first session and could barely score a run. as the pitch flattened he started to score at a quicker pace and accumulated some runs.

What, you expect him to belt it around at 5 an over when the ball is swinging a foot? The point is that he batted through a session when the ball was moving a hell of a long way, scored 20 or so runs and didn't get out or give a chance, which is exactly what you want from an opener being sent in when the ball is moving. Langer had a few close calls, but Hayden was largely fine. He looked uncomfortable, but so would anybody else in those conditions.

 

[SJS]

Murali has always had trouble against left handers - its one of the reasons he is so keen on the doosra as a weapon (though now it seems to be taking over his mind as his main attacking weapon and not the stock offie, but thats another story).

I am not sure thats true.

In his last series against Australia he had in just 3 test matches :

- Lehmann 4 times (out of 6 completed innings)
- Hayden 3 times(out of 6 innings)
- Gilchrist 3 times(out of 5 innings)
- Katich 2 times(out of 2 innings.

The only one who did not get out to him was langer in his 6 innings but thats partly because 4 times out of 6 he was gone before Murali came on to bowl !!

By the way, same is true for 2 of Haydens dismissals to other bowlers too.

12 left handers in 28 wickets he took and this includes all the top players from Australia.

and more importantly, 12 of the 19 wickets of left handers that fell after he came on to bowl !!

And the doosra is mainly for right handers and not left handers.

The offie who has trouble bowling to left handers is Harbhajan Singh and thats because he has problems bowling round the wicket.

 

[social]

It does indeed - he is certainly weak against spin if you ask me, you know that, but for whatever reasons he's never had problems with Murali.

Maybe because he's not as bad a player of spin as some people make out.

Maybe it's the conditions in India rather than the bowling type that's been the cause of his problems.

His performances elsewhere are testimony to that.

 

[archie mac]

Not unless Gilchrist could bowl the two Tests that were drawn Aust. only took 12 wickets in the first Test and only 9 in the fourth. So one Test they won without him, and in the 2nd, as I said when they did need him he top scored.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Maybe because he's not as bad a player of spin as some people make out.

Maybe it's the conditions in India rather than the bowling type that's been the cause of his problems.

His performances elsewhere are testimony to that.

Exactly. Ponting has never struggled against spin anywhere else in the world. If anything he has a very good record against it. Kumble and Harbhajan have dismissed him 7 times and 5 times respectively and stand 2nd and 4th among his highest dismissers, and the next highest spinners are Vettori, Kaneria, Adams and Tufnell with two each, none of whom ever troubled him significantly. Murali has dismissed him just once. And of course, when has faced the Indian spinners outside of India he has dominated them. The team he has the lowest average against is Bangaldesh from just two tests, followed by England (41.72), not a renowned side for quality spinners, and Sri Lanka with 47.40, where his problems (if you can say he has had any) have been caused far more by Chaminda Vaas than any of the spinners, who he has usually scored heavily against and rarely been dismissed by.

 

[tooextracool]

What, you expect him to belt it around at 5 an over when the ball is swinging a foot? The point is that he batted through a session when the ball was moving a hell of a long way, scored 20 or so runs and didn't get out or give a chance, which is exactly what you want from an opener being sent in when the ball is moving. Langer had a few close calls, but Hayden was largely fine. He looked uncomfortable, but so would anybody else in those conditions.

you really are a master of the art of exaggeration arent you?
there was movement yes, but there certainly wasnt anywhere near as much as you seem to be indicating and most of it was in the air rather than off the pitch, and considering that both franklin and martin bowled absolute tripe for most of it and were largely wayward throughout the session it was barely a surprise that hayden survived. of course if the entire game were played in the same conditions hayden wouldnt have got close to 50.

 

[tooextracool]

Not unless Gilchrist could bowl the two Tests that were drawn Aust. only took 12 wickets in the first Test and only 9 in the fourth. So one Test they won without him, and in the 2nd, as I said when they did need him he top scored.

your point being? jus because he top scored, it doesnt mean that his 43 was a job well done. not to mention of course that had he scored more in the 1st inning, australia would have had a higher total and had a greater chance of winning the game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

there was movement yes, but there certainly wasnt anywhere near as much as you seem to be indicating and most of it was in the air rather than off the pitch, and considering that both franklin and martin bowled absolute tripe for most of it and were largely wayward throughout the session it was barely a surprise that hayden survived. of course if the entire game were played in the same conditions hayden wouldnt have got close to 50.

I mentioned that Franklin bowled poorly, although I think Martin did fairly well in his first spell. He wasn't brilliant or anything, but he was pretty accurate and used the conditions well, and was unlucky not to get Langer out.

And as far as me being the master of exaggeration is concerned, I think it's more you being the master of arguing with strawmen. I never claimed Hayden played a brilliant, inspirational knock against the modern equivalent of Imran and Lillee on a deadly minefield. I said the ball was swinging around a hell of a lot (which it was), moving a bit off the seam (which it was), one of the bowlers did a decent job (which he did) and Hayden didn't get out or give a chance (which he didn't). I said in my first post that the conditions eased after lunch and the swing was all but gone by tea, by which time Hayden was out anyway. The fact is that Richard claimed that when the ball is moving Hayden struggles, and I pointed out that the last time the ball was moving to a large degree in a test he did pretty well and made 60 odd. Nothing more, nothing less.

And as far as I'm concerned, claiming that someone is so totally inept as to be all but useless in seaming conditions when they dominated (and I do mean dominated) in domestic cricket on the most-seamer friendly wicket in Australia throughout the 90s is ludicrous. If you think he has a bit of a weakness against the ball swinging into him, fine, but the amount of ridiculous exaggeration that comes from the two of you about Hayden's supposed ability to play in seaming conditions is ludicrous. If he would have averaged in the 20s in the 80s because of the frequent seaming conditions, how the hell did he average 60 at the Gabba for 10 years? Did he just never face any good bowling? He got out every time the wicket was green and made a triple century once every 10 games when it wasn't? It's just nuts.

 

[tooextracool]

I mentioned that Franklin bowled poorly, although I think Martin did fairly well in his first spell. He wasn't brilliant or anything, but he was pretty accurate and used the conditions well, and was unlucky not to get Langer out..

no as far as i remember martin was wayward and wasted most of the conditions despite getting the odd good ball here and there.

I And as far as me being the master of exaggeration is concerned, I think it's more you being the master of arguing with strawmen. I never claimed Hayden played a brilliant, inspirational knock against the modern equivalent of Imran and Lillee on a deadly minefield. I said the ball was swinging around a hell of a lot (which it was), moving a bit off the seam (which it was), one of the bowlers did a decent job (which he did) and Hayden didn't get out or give a chance (which he didn't). I said in my first post that the conditions eased after lunch and the swing was all but gone by tea, by which time Hayden was out anyway. The fact is that Richard claimed that when the ball is moving Hayden struggles, and I pointed out that the last time the ball was moving to a large degree in a test he did pretty well and made 60 odd. Nothing more, nothing less...

he got the 60 odd only because the conditions eased, he wouldnt have come anywhere close otherwise. and the ball barely moved off the seam, it just moved in the air. AFAIC he survived a session, against poor bowling in conditions conducive for swing barely scoring anything, hence it isnt anywhere near a success and can in no way be used to prove that hes capable of scoring on seamer friendly conditions.

And as far as I'm concerned, claiming that someone is so totally inept as to be all but useless in seaming conditions when they dominated (and I do mean dominated) in domestic cricket on the most-seamer friendly wicket in Australia throughout the 90s is ludicrous. If you think he has a bit of a weakness against the ball swinging into him, fine, but the amount of ridiculous exaggeration that comes from the two of you about Hayden's supposed ability to play in seaming conditions is ludicrous. If he would have averaged in the 20s in the 80s because of the frequent seaming conditions, how the hell did he average 60 at the Gabba for 10 years? Did he just never face any good bowling? He got out every time the wicket was green and made a triple century once every 10 games when it wasn't? It's just nuts.

again, id have a better explanation if i'd got the chance to watch aussie domestic cricket. fact of the matter is that hes not looked anywhere near capable on seaming wickets at the international level, hence whatever he did at the domestic level is irrelevant.