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

[tooextracool]

Okay will explain it to you again; Australia were going the 'tonk' towards the end, chasing a ridiculous target, set by the Indian captain. They probably felt sorry for the crowd, after a complete joke of a Test where the game was loaded in favour of the batsman.
So those last couple of wickets were gifts (Gilly & Waugh)..

im sure they were, and im sure india only lost the test at the mcg because they wanted to make it a close series. get over it, 16 wickets fell, gilchrist struggles against spin on a turner and australia if it werent for katich, would have lost with half a day to spare.

I can't remember a Test in OZ where the spinners could not at least turn the ball by day 4. So your slow turn was nothing special, it was normal. So not a turner, a joke..

except that there was a lot more than just normal turn, there was enough for a good spin bowler to get a bucket load of wickets.

I have even mentioned men from Mars, just to try and give you a hint, that people are sick of hearing about TURNERS, but hear (deliberate word) we are again.

possibly because you cant diffrentiate between what is a turner and what isnt.

 

[Pratters]

Thorpe v Sri Lanka 49.92; Thorpe in Sri Lanka 45.20
Thorpe v Pakistan 51.61, Thorpe in Pakistan 56.80
Thorpe v India 35.37, Thorpe in India 42.50

He's one of the strongest players of spin in the England team.

Ricky Ponting has been dismissed 14 times by Gough and Vaas...

Thorpe is indeed a top batsman and I was surprised doubt over his spin playing abilities was brought up.

 

[tooextracool]

When dismissed by Murali: 27.57 (7)

to be fair, most of those wickets came in the last series, when murali was using a questionable delivery and when not many people knew much about how to face the doosra.

 

[tooextracool]

And you'd also see that the centuries that he's scored have virtually all been in the first innings of the first test of each series AND have been the major catalyst for Australian victories in those games.

Given the above, Id say that Gilchrist, in conditions that dont favour him, makes major contributions to Aus victories in a third of the games he plays.

There are probably, what, 6 players in history that can make that claim.

What a bum! Drop him immediately.

it might take you a while to realise it, but i never said that he should be dropped, nor have i said that he hasnt played a few valuable innings against spin. but the fact of the matter is that hes failed miserably in almost all the other innings bar those 100s, and has thus been a major catalyst in their downfall too. a player who barely averages 30 against SL and india cant claim to be anything other than weak against spin. and if you look at it in terms of innings, it would be 3 innings out of about 15, which makes it a lot worse than 1/3.

 

[tooextracool]

His overall average against India exceeds 50.

which changes the fact that hes weak on turners only how? its like saying if someone got 100s in math, chemistry, biology and physics but got 50 in history, surely he cant be poor in history because his overall average is 90.

He has dominated every spinner from every country in all conditions bar India for 88 tests.

During that time, he's scored nearly 7000 runs at 56.5.

I think that there's more than enough evidence to state that he's an exceptional player of ALL types of bowling..

except the fact that hes rarely faced spinners on turners outside of india and SL.

Oh, hold on, he did have the gall to criticise one of the worst wickets produced for test cricket in recent memory. And, gasp, that wicket was in India.

That changes everything!

He's crap! Drop him immediately!

no he had the gall to criticise a wicket in india and even take it as far as the icc, yet he didnt have the gall to criticise another similar wicket and in fact talked it up about how it helped the game, while the one in india didnt. no surprise either that the wicket he talked up was in australia, while the one that he did criticise was in india, in a game which his team lost.

And given the fact that your poster-boy Dravid criticised the same wicket, he should be consigned to the same scrap-heap.

and did he claim that a similar wicket was test class? no.
if ponting were in dravids shoes he would have claimed that mumbai was test class, and that the game needed wickets like this......no? bit surprising that he did that in darwin then.

BTW, please dont trot out your tired old argument about Rahul averaging over 40 in every year of his test career in an attempt to save him. Averages dont cut it hear at CW.

oh its not just 40 in every year, its over 40 in every country, its over 40 against every country.
you wish ponting could make that claim, but alas even the great murali averages more than him in india.

 

[wpdavid]

I can't see Jones being displaced just yet.

Me neither. SA was his most consistent series to date, and if the upwards trend continues he's going to be a very useful performer. There would be no point in replacing him now unless someone was doing something quite exceptional in the CC.

 

[archie mac]

possibly because you cant diffrentiate between what is a turner and what isnt.

Yes I am sure that is it I don't agree with your assessment so it must be my lack of understanding. Keep telling yourself that
It was nothing special (turn) Kumble out bowled everyone else, still thought it was going to be a draw, from the time India did not enforce the follow on.
You did not think Aust were going all out at the end chasing a silly target?

 

[marc71178]

Jones is just 26 and why do you think he may be displaced in some time (get the feeling you think that when you said just yet)

What I meant was that he's clearly a man in possession and Tremlett will need to improve a lot to displace him.

 

[Pratters]

What I meant was that he's clearly a man in possession and Tremlett will need to improve a lot to displace him.

okay cool.

 

[badgerhair]

What I meant was that he's clearly a man in possession and Tremlett will need to improve a lot to displace him.

I suppose this is reminiscent of our semantic disagreement over KP and how much he needs to "improve".

What can be said for definite about Tremlett v Jones is that Tremlett does not do what Jones does better than Jones does. Furthermore, England are not so desperate to have Tremlett in the team that they are prepared to rethink their game plan to accommodate him as a banker and then see what else you need to make up a good XI.

Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff are established as the three main quick bowlers. Jones has an advantage as the fourth not only because he is the man in possession but because he has proven some worth with the old ball, which Hoggard isn't very good with so Jones complements him.

It might be that to bring Tremlett in for Jones would necessitate another change, such as bringing in Lewis for Hoggard (before marc explodes, this is more of a theoretical illustration than a serious suggestion) in order to cover the range of bowling you want available, especially given a particular opposition.

As with KP and Thorpe. it's not just a question of who is "better" is isolation, but which has the qualities needed to complete the palette for England's picture.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[social]

which changes the fact that hes weak on turners only how? its like saying if someone got 100s in math, chemistry, biology and physics but got 50 in history, surely he cant be poor in history because his overall average is 90.

But the student in question still achieves entry to his/her university of choice which is, after all, the ultimate goal.

except the fact that hes rarely faced spinners on turners outside of india and SL.

Firstly, he averages over 50 in SL, so Im not sure how that helps your argument.

Secondly, he has played on as many turners as anyone else outside the sub-continent and, in general, scored as heavily as anyone else.

no he had the gall to criticise a wicket in india and even take it as far as the icc, yet he didnt have the gall to criticise another similar wicket and in fact talked it up about how it helped the game, while the one in india didnt. no surprise either that the wicket he talked up was in australia, while the one that he did criticise was in india, in a game which his team lost.

Your acting as though the wicket in Mumbai was in any way, shape or form acceptable for test cricket. Unfortunately, this is at odds with the opinion of virtually everyone who saw the game.

and did he claim that a similar wicket was test class? no.
if ponting were in dravids shoes he would have claimed that mumbai was test class, and that the game needed wickets like this......no? bit surprising that he did that in darwin then.

The main difference was that long-term survival was virtually impossible in Mumbai.

That was not the case in Darwin.

In fact, it is beyond belief that you even compare the 2. Darwin was a slow, seaming wicket complemented by a heavy outfield. If anything, it did as much to help the Sri Lankans as they did not have to confront the bounce that is normally their down-fall in Australia and their attack was heavily oriented towards seam because of the absence of Murali.

Talk about grasping at straws!


oh its not just 40 in every year, its over 40 in every country, its over 40 against every country.
you wish ponting could make that claim, but alas even the great murali averages more than him in india.

It is still hypocricy.

And btw, check out Murali and Warne's bowling performances in India. Maybe then you'll understand that its' not turn that confounds batsmen such as Ponting in India.

Indian conditions offer turn but they are also slow and do not bounce as much as elsewhere. As a result, bowlers such as Warne and Murali have to bowl quicker and with more top-spin to achieve results. Look at the way Harbi and Kumble bowl as an example. Minimal turn, great accuracy, and bounce produced by top-spin.

Im quite happy to admit that Ponting has been incredibly poor in India but to say that he cannot play on turners remains a nonsense.

It is also true that Harbijhan made him look like a novice in India but the same could be said for the way in which Harbijhan has been made to look away from home.

Unfortunately, you continue to let your bias against Ponting on a personal basis colour your opinion of him as a player.

 

[parttimer]

Harby prolly gave Ponting a little extra elbow flex than usual, considering he is the aussie captain. Like he bowled in Mumbai...

 

[archie mac]

im sure they were, and im sure india only lost the test at the mcg because they wanted to make it a close series. .

Yes I think India through away a great chance in Melbourne, one bad session cost them that Test imo.
I thought India the better side overall and should have won the series 1-0. It would have been a better test of skill if the pitches were not all roads.

I thought the series in India a much better test of the teams, with only one pitch to much in favour of one of the disciplines. A pity the 3rd Test was washed out, looked set up for a great finish. I was that upset with the result, I even penned a poem.

 

[marc71178]

As with KP and Thorpe. it's not just a question of who is "better" is isolation, but which has the qualities needed to complete the palette for England's picture.

And I'd say a key quality at this point is familiarity with the rest of the team.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes I am sure that is it I don't agree with your assessment so it must be my lack of understanding. Keep telling yourself that
It was nothing special (turn) Kumble out bowled everyone else,?

and of course i said it was special turn didnt i?
i said that there was enough turn in the wicket for a quality bowler to pick up wickets, which is in fact what happened.

still thought it was going to be a draw, from the time India did not enforce the follow on.
You did not think Aust were going all out at the end chasing a silly target?

no i dont. they were 6 wickets down, they were trying to survive instead of chasing the total.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes I think India through away a great chance in Melbourne, one bad session cost them that Test imo.

really? and which bad session are you referring to? when they fell from 278/1 to 366? or when they let australia get 558? or when they collapsed to 286 in their 2nd inning?
far as i remember they were poor throughout the test, bar sehwag noone did anything of substance in the first inning and they certainly didnt score enough on a flat track in the 2nd inning either.

 

[tooextracool]

But the student in question still achieves entry to his/her university of choice which is, after all, the ultimate goal..

and your point is? it does not change the fact that hes weak in history. ive never claimed that gilchrist is not great, if thats your point. you keep refusing to accept the fact that gilchrist is weak on turners, simply because his overall average is good.
in pontings case the example is completely different, you could say that instead of 50 in history you could say he got 20, in which case the student failed.

Firstly, he averages over 50 in SL, so Im not sure how that helps your argument..

ive already explained this, he had one good series in SL, and as i've mentioned above hes barely ever faced spinners outside of india and SL on turners.

Secondly, he has played on as many turners as anyone else outside the sub-continent and, in general, scored as heavily as anyone else...

how many times has he played quality spinners on turners outside of ind and SL? very very rare indeed.

Your acting as though the wicket in Mumbai was in any way, shape or form acceptable for test cricket. Unfortunately, this is at odds with the opinion of virtually everyone who saw the game....

and i've said that the complaints against the wicket werent justified where exactly?
you seem to have problems reading, because the problem i have with ponting is that when australia produces non-test class wickets he seems to be extremely happy with them and talks them up, when india does the same and his side loses, he complains like a baby. and if it wasnt bad enough that he complained about mumbai and not darwin, he decided to take it as far as the ICC and expected dravid to stand by his side, why should dravid do that i ask you? when everybody claimed that darwin was not test class did he stand by gilchrist and attapattu?

The main difference was that long-term survival was virtually impossible in Mumbai.

That was not the case in Darwin.....

thats absolute garbage. dravid batted 104 balls in the first inning without being dismissed, martyn batted 114, laxman batted 127 and tendulkar batted 83.
in darwin the most number of balls anyone batted was gilchrist who batted 123, jayawardhene batted 114, martyn survived 107 and no one else managed to survive over 100.
instead of making rubbish claims like this why dont you actually watch the 2 games?
the fact that one eyed aussies like you cant accept the fact that india played better, bowled better and australia batted and bowled poorly in the 2nd inning simply makes you more and more intolerable. but of course, how could the world's best team bat and bowl poorly? oh treason, it must be the pitch.

In fact, it is beyond belief that you even compare the 2. Darwin was a slow, seaming wicket complemented by a heavy outfield. If anything, it did as much to help the Sri Lankans as they did not have to confront the bounce that is normally their down-fall in Australia and their attack was heavily oriented towards seam because of the absence of Murali.
Talk about grasping at straws!.

oh yes with bowlers like vaas, malinga and zoysa, their attack is clearly so suited to seam. the pitch didnt help the SL at all, it seamed about all over the place, and given that almost all their batsmen are incapable on seaming wickets its quite ludicrous to say that it suited them.

It is still hypocricy.

And btw, check out Murali and Warne's bowling performances in India. Maybe then you'll understand that its' not turn that confounds batsmen such as Ponting in India.!.

why? you clearly cant accept the fact that india played them well can you? ponting is rubbish in india because he cant play spin, otherwise he wouldnt be dismissed as many times by harbhajan singh and kumble, simple as that.

Indian conditions offer turn but they are also slow and do not bounce as much as elsewhere. As a result, bowlers such as Warne and Murali have to bowl quicker and with more top-spin to achieve results. Look at the way Harbi and Kumble bowl as an example. Minimal turn, great accuracy, and bounce produced by top-spin.

oh so murali and warne, who have had success everywhere in the world, including on similar wickets in SL cant bowl in india because of the pitches . brilliant deduction sherlock.

Im quite happy to admit that Ponting has been incredibly poor in India but to say that he cannot play on turners remains a nonsense.

It is also true that Harbijhan made him look like a novice in India but the same could be said for the way in which Harbijhan has been made to look away from home..

point being? has anyone claimed that harbhajan is great? or has anyone claimed that hes a good player on non turners?

Unfortunately, you continue to let your bias against Ponting on a personal basis colour your opinion of him as a player.

no, i continue to let his poor performances prove to me that he isnt very good on turners. you call me biased, yet you seem absolutely insulted, when somone criticises anyone from australia. it is you who is biased, because you cant accept the fact that not all your players are perfect.

 

[wpdavid]

I suppose this is reminiscent of our semantic disagreement over KP and how much he needs to "improve".

What can be said for definite about Tremlett v Jones is that Tremlett does not do what Jones does better than Jones does. Furthermore, England are not so desperate to have Tremlett in the team that they are prepared to rethink their game plan to accommodate him as a banker and then see what else you need to make up a good XI.

Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff are established as the three main quick bowlers. Jones has an advantage as the fourth not only because he is the man in possession but because he has proven some worth with the old ball, which Hoggard isn't very good with so Jones complements him.

It might be that to bring Tremlett in for Jones would necessitate another change, such as bringing in Lewis for Hoggard (before marc explodes, this is more of a theoretical illustration than a serious suggestion) in order to cover the range of bowling you want available, especially given a particular opposition.

As with KP and Thorpe. it's not just a question of who is "better" is isolation, but which has the qualities needed to complete the palette for England's picture.

Cheers,

Mike

I have no problem with that line of thought where bowlers are concerned, and 100% agree with your logic re. Jones/Lewis/whoever. When we're talking about middle order batsmen, though, isn't that over-complicating things? Ultimately it's about who will score the most runs at number 5, and whilst some sort of balance between right & left handers and/or biffers &nurdlers is a bonus, if someone is clearly the better batter, then that should pretty much be that, I should have thought. So at present I'd pick Thorpe, not because of his nuggety tendancies, but because I still think he'll do a better job against Aus than anyone else. Just, anyway. However, if Thorpe picks up his usual Ashes injury, I'd happily throw in KP ahead of any other nudger & nurdler you care to name and see what happens.

With Thorpe, I feel we're in one of those situations where I'm really glad he's retiring soon as I'm not entirely sure he's worth a place in the side and the future looks brighter without the current version of him - shades of Stewart in 2003 & Hussain 12 months ago. I wouldn't drop him, but I'm not entirely confident that he's still up to it.

 

[badgerhair]

I have no problem with that line of thought where bowlers are concerned, and 100% agree with your logic re. Jones/Lewis/whoever. When we're talking about middle order batsmen, though, isn't that over-complicating things? Ultimately it's about who will score the most runs at number 5, and whilst some sort of balance between right & left handers and/or biffers &nurdlers is a bonus, if someone is clearly the better batter, then that should pretty much be that, I should have thought. So at present I'd pick Thorpe, not because of his nuggety tendancies, but because I still think he'll do a better job against Aus than anyone else. Just, anyway. However, if Thorpe picks up his usual Ashes injury, I'd happily throw in KP ahead of any other nudger & nurdler you care to name and see what happens.

With Thorpe, I feel we're in one of those situations where I'm really glad he's retiring soon as I'm not entirely sure he's worth a place in the side and the future looks brighter without the current version of him - shades of Stewart in 2003 & Hussain 12 months ago. I wouldn't drop him, but I'm not entirely confident that he's still up to it.

I see we're pretty much in agreement re the Thorpe/Pietersen thing, although not quite.

I don't think it's quite who's going to make the most runs at number five, but who will score the most runs when they're most needed at five.

I would like a rock in the middle order: with Bell as yet untested and Vaughan's recent form being uncertain, I'm a little afraid of following them with Pietersen, Flintoff and Jones, because I can see us being 115/7 in no time flat, and I'm happier about the idea of Thorpe being there to arrest the slide and shepherd the tail through to a reasonable total. With Flintoff at six, we have someone easily capable of capitalising on a tiring attack if the top order fires, and maybe even Jones if he ever redeems Vaughan and Fletcher's faith in him, so we don't necessarily need someone to push things along at five. Thorpe has the proven experience and quality to be the rock.

That's because I'm cautious and want to cover my rear.

There have been attack-minded captains who would assess the Australian threat and decide that the way to win is to mount a full frontal assault, which would argue for throwing away the insurance policy Thorpe represents and going for the bazooka in Pietersen.

Against the 80s WI, I think I'd pick Pietersen, but against a side with McGrath and Warne, the risks seem to me to outweigh the benefits.

After this series, Thorpe can quite happily retire having done a good job over all. It would be nice if it didn't end with him being seen as the weak link who lost us the Ashes.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

The thing about Thorpe is that in 2004 he did average 73.15 with 8 scores over 50 in 20 knocks - so he's been quietly doing the job!