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

[Richard]

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.

I've never, ever been convinced of Vaughan as a Test-class opener and I'm still not, I still maintain he's better at four.
Nonetheless, he's proven as a far, far better player of spin than Langer, Ponting and Gilchrist.

 

[Richard]

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.

I wonder... who'd you prefer to see lining-up this summer against us? Clarke or Stephen Waugh? Because I'd prefer Clarke every time.
While he wasn't anywhere near as good as 1991-2001 in 2001\02-2003\04, as I've said several times, and while the pressure was justifiable to some extent, and while there is absolutely no question Katich deserved a place in the side ahead of pretty much anyone, it was still possible to fit both of them into the side. It would, of course, have meant dropping Martyn, which at the time was not unthinkable, and later it would have meant dropping Lehmann, which has happened anyway.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've never, ever been convinced of Vaughan as a Test-class opener and I'm still not, I still maintain he's better at four.
Nonetheless, he's proven as a far, far better player of spin than Langer, Ponting and Gilchrist.

Langer has improved against spin, as evidenced by his demolition of Daniel Vettori and his fantastic century against Murali in Sri Lanka, although he's still not great he certainly holds his own fairly well, even if he is the weakest against it in the current Australian lineup. Ponting has an excellent record against spin everywhere outside of India and always has, including against the same Indian bowlers in Australia. It's clearly the conditions and not the style of bowling he struggles with. He has handled Murali with ease on big turners in Sri Lanka, and never had any problems with any spinner other than Harbhajan and Kumble in his career. Gilchrist is not a bad player of spin at all when he gets going, he just struggles early in his innings against quality spin on turning pitches. Again, it's not his strongest point, but to suggest that it is some sort of glaring weakness which takes him down to a major degree in terms of his value as a batsman is ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

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

So 152 at Adelaide Oval (got out on 19 but batted extremely well against an attack including Warne thereafter), 145 at MCG against MacGill where he was one of a few players to make MacGill look the wholly average bowler he is, 183 at The SCG where the same thing happened again, and most of all 52 and 105 at Kandy where very few got to grips with the turning ball are not big scores to back it up?
You can also include big scores on turning pitches Lord's 2004, but the quality of spin-bowling there was so execrable the turning pitch really didn't matter.

 

[Richard]

Ponting has an excellent record against spin everywhere outside of India and always has, including against the same Indian bowlers in Australia. It's clearly the conditions and not the style of bowling he struggles with. He has handled Murali with ease on big turners in Sri Lanka, and never had any problems with any spinner other than Harbhajan and Kumble in his career.

So... how many other times in his career has he faced quality spin on turners? Kaneria at The SCG 2004\05... of course we all know that Kaneria got him out then. I've seen Saqlain cause him problems of times, though his record against him is good, how many turners he's faced him on I'm not sure.
As I've already said, why Murali has never caused him problems is a mystery to me, but the fact remains that he's very rarely batted against the turning ball and more often than not when he has he's struggled.

Gilchrist is not a bad player of spin at all when he gets going, he just struggles early in his innings against quality spin on turning pitches. Again, it's not his strongest point, but to suggest that it is some sort of glaring weakness which takes him down to a major degree in terms of his value as a batsman is ridiculous.

So... if you can almost gurantee that someone'll be out cheaply (and you can - in 11 out of his 15 innings on what could fairly be described as remotely tricky turning conditions he's been out for sub-30 scores) it's not a glaring weakness which takes his value as a batsman down to a major degree?
It's a shame he's made such massive scores when he has got in against spin, because otherwise it'd be even more glaringly obvious than it is.

 

[Richard]

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.

But... Ponting's a right-hander.

 

[Richard]

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.

There's no disputing Murali used to have a similar problem, though.
He's now pretty good over and round the wicket to lefties, but one thing Saqlain has over Harbhajan every time is that he's always comfortable around-the-wicket and Harbhajan is well-known for not being so.

 

[Richard]

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.

So conditions in Sri Lanka are extraordinarily different to India, are they?

 

[Richard]

And of course, when has faced the Indian spinners outside of India he has dominated them.

Is that a surprise? Has he ever faced turning pitches (which both Harbhajan and Kumble need to be good bowlers) outside India?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So... how many other times in his career has he faced quality spin on turners? Kaneria at The SCG 2004\05... of course we all know that Kaneria got him out then. I've seen Saqlain cause him problems of times, though his record against him is good, how many turners he's faced him on I'm not sure.

Not sure about Saqlain myself, but certainly he's never dismissed Ponting, so the problems can't have been that big. And even if you do believe Kaneria "got Ponting out", which he didn't, Ponting still scored a bloody double hundred. What score did he get him out on? I'd say even if you count that as a dimissal and split his double hundred in two he has a pretty good average against him.

As I've already said, why Murali has never caused him problems is a mystery to me, but the fact remains that he's very rarely batted against the turning ball and more often than not when he has he's struggled.

Murali hasn't caused him problems because Ponting PLAYED HIM WELL. Ponting has always played spin well, on turners and flat wickets alike, everywhere except for India, his record backs this up conclusively as there is not ONE example of Ponting strugglign against the turning ball aside from against Kumble and Harbhajan in India.

So... if you can almost gurantee that someone'll be out cheaply (and you can - in 11 out of his 15 innings on what could fairly be described as remotely tricky turning conditions he's been out for sub-30 scores) it's not a glaring weakness which takes his value as a batsman down to a major degree?
It's a shame he's made such massive scores when he has got in against spin, because otherwise it'd be even more glaringly obvious than it is.

Haha. So, it's a shame when you can't apply a single bullet theory to a complex issue, is it? Gilchrist's tendancy to either get out cheaply or make a big score against spin indicates that he struggles against the turning ball early in his innings, but not when he is set. This is not an inability to play spin entirely. He has made three match-winning hundreds against quality spinners in turning conditions, in India in 2001 and again in 2004, and in Sri Lanka in 2004. This is more than most batsmen can claim, "poor against spin" or not. Gilchrist's problems with the turning ball are obviously a lot more complicated than just him being no good against it. Unless of course those three fantastic hundreds were just "lucky"?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Anyway, here's the spinners Ponting has faced in the subcontinent, and at Sydney, and how he went. Obviously not all of them are turning wickets, but they mostly are.

India 1996 (Kumble, Joshi, Kapoor)
14 & 13

Sydney vs South Africa 1998 (Symcox, Adams)
62 & DNB

India 1998 (Kumble, Chauhan, Venkatapathy Raju)
18 & 2
60 & 9
16 & DNB

Pakistan 1998 (Mushtaq Ahmed)
76* & 43 (very flat pitch)

Sri Lanka 1999 (Murali, Chandana, Herath)
96 & 51
1 & DNB
105* & DNB

Sydney vs India 2000 (Kumble)
141* (not a turner)

India 2001 (Harbhajan, Kumble)
0 & DNB
6 & 0
0 & 11

Sydney vs South Africa 2002 (Henderson, Boje)
14 (run out)

Pakistan in Bangladesh and UAE 2002 (Saqlain, Kaneria)
141 & 7
44 & DNB
150 & DNB
(turners - Warne took over 20 wickets at about 14 in this series)

Sydney vs England 2003 (Dawson)
7 & 11 (not a turner)

Sydney vs Zimbabwe 2003 (Price, Ewing)
169 & 53* (turned a bit, but rubbish bowlers)

Sydney vs India 2004 (Kumble)
25 & 47 (not a big turner)

Sri Lanka 2004 (Murali, Chandana, Herath)
21 & 28
10 & 27
92 & 20

India 2004 (Kumble, Harbhajan, Kartik)
11 & 12 (ferocious turner)

Sydney vs Pakistan 2005 (Kaneria, Afridi)
207 & 4*


I'm excluding games where no full-time spinner played on one of these wickets, eg against the West Indies at Sydney where only Hooper and Adams bowled spin.

Anyway, you'll notice a pattern that his results are pretty good, aside from that one series in India. He's done will in Sri Lanka, well against Pakistan in the subcontinent, and well at Sydney, and well against all spinners on non-turning wickets, and well against spinners when he has faced them on turners elsewhere in the world too. The only place he has failed has been India.

 

[Richard]

Not sure about Saqlain myself, but certainly he's never dismissed Ponting, so the problems can't have been that big. And even if you do believe Kaneria "got Ponting out", which he didn't, Ponting still scored a bloody double hundred. What score did he get him out on? I'd say even if you count that as a dimissal and split his double hundred in two he has a pretty good average against him.

On 32, Ponting edged him to slip. Now unless I'm very much mistaken edges to slip tend to result in dismissal. That the catch was dropped is no reflection on either Ponting or his ability to play Kaneria.

Murali hasn't caused him problems because Ponting PLAYED HIM WELL. Ponting has always played spin well, on turners and flat wickets alike, everywhere except for India, his record backs this up conclusively as there is not ONE example of Ponting strugglign against the turning ball aside from against Kumble and Harbhajan in India.

So... why did he struggle in India? What was special there? Did he have food-poisoning, or does he have a phobia of India? Or could he just have been exposed for being a poor player of spin there while not being on the 1 or 2 other occasions he's faced spinners other than Murali? Why he's played Murali so well I cannot tell you for a million dollars, but it certainly ain't because he's a good player of normal spin-bowling.

Haha. So, it's a shame when you can't apply a single bullet theory to a complex issue, is it? Gilchrist's tendancy to either get out cheaply or make a big score against spin indicates that he struggles against the turning ball early in his innings, but not when he is set. This is not an inability to play spin entirely. He has made three match-winning hundreds against quality spinners in turning conditions, in India in 2001 and again in 2004, and in Sri Lanka in 2004. This is more than most batsmen can claim, "poor against spin" or not. Gilchrist's problems with the turning ball are obviously a lot more complicated than just him being no good against it. Unless of course those three fantastic hundreds were just "lucky"?

I don't recall any dropped catches in the latter two - if there were any, fairly obviously the innings were lucky. The one in 2001, of course, was lucky, involving 2 missed chances off consecutive deliveries in the 60s.
Yes, Gilchrist tends to score lots when he's set against spinners - why that is, who knows. He certainly NEVER looks convincing in doing so, and often scores at such a rate there's rarely time to draw breath. Before you know it, he's got a century.
Of course he's much better when he gets in - there are enough dismissals early on to show that he's quite abysmal when he's facing it first-up. So regardless of the fact that he's nowhere near as bad when he's set, it's still a huge flaw in his game.

 

[Richard]

Pakistan in Bangladesh and UAE 2002 (Saqlain, Kaneria)
141 & 7
44 & DNB
150 & DNB
(turners - Warne took over 20 wickets at about 14 in this series)

Warne taking wickets is NOT proof of pitches being turners. By all accounts The First Test turned a little, just enough to make Saqlain dangerous, The Second I haven't a clue, and The Third was as flat as you'll see.

Sydney vs England 2003 (Dawson)
7 & 11 (not a turner)

Well I don't know what you were watching, but that pitch, as well as breaking-up completely, turned from day-one. Yes, MacGill and Dawson were far too rubbish to exploit it, but the problem was inaccuracy not lack of turn.

Sydney vs Zimbabwe 2003 (Price, Ewing)
169 & 53* (turned a bit, but rubbish bowlers)

Price is certainly not a rubbish bowler on a turner. It hardly turned as much as normal SCG pitches from what I remember either.

 

[social]

So 152 at Adelaide Oval (got out on 19 but batted extremely well against an attack including Warne thereafter), 145 at MCG against MacGill where he was one of a few players to make MacGill look the wholly average bowler he is, 183 at The SCG where the same thing happened again, and most of all 52 and 105 at Kandy where very few got to grips with the turning ball are not big scores to back it up?
You can also include big scores on turning pitches Lord's 2004, but the quality of spin-bowling there was so execrable the turning pitch really didn't matter.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, you're not really judging apples against apples when comparing these two.

However, if you had to make a decision, 999 out of 1000 would take Gilchrist over Vaughan in any conditions.

Gilchrist has scored match-turning 100s in all areas of the globe against all types of bowlers. Further, he generally scores them in the first innings of the first test meaning Aus goes straight to the front. This pattern is no less pronounced against the turning ball.

I like Vaughan as a player (despite the fact that his technique has deteriorated markedly in the past 12-18 months) but Gilchrist, although inconsistent in the sub-continent, gets my vote every time.

 

[Top_Cat]

Errr, anyone who's saying that Gilchrist is weak against spin early on ever consider the possibility that he's actually a nervous starter against any bowling generally? Certainly his ODI record says so; several hundreds but an average of just over 30 suggests a 'hundred or nothing' type of player and in Tests, I would reckon it would be similar.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced it's spin alone which causes him problems. I've seen him belt too many good spinners in both turning and non-turning conditions to say he's hopeless against spin. He sure plays pace better but I'm not convinced, certainly not by any argument put forward here, that he has a genuine weakness against spin. Robin Smith in the 80's and 90's a genuine spin problem. In my book Gilchrist does not.

 

[Top_Cat]

Why he's played Murali so well I cannot tell you for a million dollars, but it certainly ain't because he's a good player of normal spin-bowling.

How can you possibly know for sure?

Well I don't know what you were watching, but that pitch, as well as breaking-up completely, turned from day-one. Yes, MacGill and Dawson were far too rubbish to exploit it, but the problem was inaccuracy not lack of turn.

I watched it, the ball didn't turn much at all. It played very inconsistently by the last day but other than that, it was a great batting deck. I've got Steve Waugh on video saying as much and considering he batted on it...............

 

[Scallywag]

Unless England can get Harbhajan into their side and play the series in India they wont be able to exploit an Australian weakness against spin.

 

[aussie]

So 152 at Adelaide Oval (got out on 19 but batted extremely well against an attack including Warne thereafter), 145 at MCG against MacGill where he was one of a few players to make MacGill look the wholly average bowler he is, 183 at The SCG where the same thing happened again, and most of all 52 and 105 at Kandy where very few got to grips with the turning ball are not big scores to back it up?
You can also include big scores on turning pitches Lord's 2004, but the quality of spin-bowling there was so execrable the turning pitch really didn't matter.

yeah i've seen all these knocks so i'll take you on this one, except that i saw every ball of his 183 & 145 and the SCG pitch didn't turn that much it was bascially a decent batting track, that became incosistent has the match went on.

But Vaughan doesn't have the ability to destroy spinners on a turning track has Gilchrist has shown

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

On 32, Ponting edged him to slip. Now unless I'm very much mistaken edges to slip tend to result in dismissal. That the catch was dropped is no reflection on either Ponting or his ability to play Kaneria.

Sometimes they do... when the catches are taken. This catch wasn't taken, so it wasn't out. It's just like risky singles sometimes result in run-outs, except when the batsman isn't run out. Funny that. Anyway, even if he had been dismissed on 32, he still added another 173 runs after that without Kaneria giving him any trouble on a turner.

So... why did he struggle in India? What was special there? Did he have food-poisoning, or does he have a phobia of India? Or could he just have been exposed for being a poor player of spin there while not being on the 1 or 2 other occasions he's faced spinners other than Murali? Why he's played Murali so well I cannot tell you for a million dollars, but it certainly ain't because he's a good player of normal spin-bowling.

I'd say he struggles with the conditions, and quality spin from both ends. He also struggled with the pressure somewhat following on from some bad performances there, and he is quite clearly Harbhajan's bunny, and after that one poor series has never had the chance to redeem himself. I mean, for all TEC talks about it being "four poor series", it's not that simple. He had two one off tests, and two series. The first series he wasn't THAT bad, he merely had a fairly poor one when he wasn't the quality batsman he is today, but no worse than a few other Australian batsmen on that tour. The second series was an absolute disaster, and he mostly looked clueless for about 5 balls and then got out. In his most recent series, he couldn't play until Mumbai, and scoring 11 and 12 on that wicket is nothing remarkably awful. Ponting usually plays all bowling with very hard hands, and gets a big stride in and effectively lunges at the ball, which is why his straight drive and front-foot pull shots are so devastating. One of the reasons he struggles so much in India is that there due to both the pitches and the tactics of the Indians this gets you out. Harbhajan and Kumble are both effective at getting catches close to the bat on home pitches, and Ponting's style means that his standard defensive push runs a high risk of being caught a bad pad, where most of his dismissals have come. Elsewhere, where one does not have spin from both ends, the spinners are of a different sort or the pitches don't turn so much, he doesn't have this problem. Murali does not usually operate with as many bat pad fieldsmen and when he does his bigger turners often take them out of play. He also bowls a more attacking line, allowing Ponting to use his feet and score rather than try and defend, where his work against the spinners is much better. Quite simply, Ponting is not a poor player of spin, he has been a poor player in Indian conditions, particularly against Harbhajan. If he was a poor player of spin then some other spin bowler somewhere would have troubled him, when they haven't. He has faced plenty of them in varying conditions and always done well, aside from in India.

Yes, Gilchrist tends to score lots when he's set against spinners - why that is, who knows. He certainly NEVER looks convincing in doing so, and often scores at such a rate there's rarely time to draw breath. Before you know it, he's got a century.
Of course he's much better when he gets in - there are enough dismissals early on to show that he's quite abysmal when he's facing it first-up. So regardless of the fact that he's nowhere near as bad when he's set, it's still a huge flaw in his game.

Never looks convincing? Gilchrist's two most recent hundreds on turners he absolutely MURDERED the bowlers. At Bangalore last year and Sydney this year, are two of his greatest innings. Against Murali he never looked troubled either. By what possible stretch does he not look convincing? He doesn't mishit them, he doesn't play and miss, he doesn't sit back in his crease and watchfully defend, he goes after them and scores at will, and in the three cases I mentioned scores a hundred. He quite clearly can play spin bowling, he just struggles against it on turners before he is set. Yes it's a flaw, but it's not a major one, and it does NOT, as you claimed, indicate that he cannot play spin. Someone who cannot play spin doesn't smash run a ball hundreds when their team is in trouble against quality spinners in India.

 

[Jnr.]

So... how many other times in his career has he faced quality spin on turners? Kaneria at The SCG 2004\05... of course we all know that Kaneria got him out then.

Kaneria has called Dravid, Ponting and Martyn master players of leg spin. “Without any doubt they are the best batsmen I ever bowled to. All of them are master players of leg-spin.” Link

He edged Kaneria, between keeper and slip, but from memory neither got a hand to it.