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

[marc71178]

And you must have rued work on Ashes days so much. I would have wanted to watch each ball of this series despite having no association with England or Australia.

No, I didn't rue it one bit.

Holiday comes in useful.

 

[Mister Wright]

I did.

Then why did you just pick out that one sentence from my post. In context that sentence makes sense when reading it in the whole post because I had reasons, I wasn't just stupidly making comments.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, I've been mulling this over for a few days now but bugger it, I'm going to say it (particularly since my prediction in a thread early this year about England winning the Ashes and Trecothick being a big part of it seems to be heading that way....).

Brett Lee will take a bag this Test regardless of whether it's a quick deck or not.

And I'm sticking to my prediction that he'll be in the top 5 Test bowlers within two years.

 

[Mister Wright]

Punter risks Test ban

Just one thing I want to highlight from the article is this sentence - "But because of the crucial nature of the final Test, no penalty was likely last night."

Why should it matter if it is the most important test match of the last 20 years? The situation of the series should have no bearing, if a suspension fits the crime then it should happen if it is the first test against Zimbabwe or the deciding test in an Ashes series.

 

[marc71178]

I guess it's the fact that by having someone else skipper, England would be penalised?

 

[Pratters]

Punter risks Test ban

Why should it matter if it is the most important test match of the last 20 years? The situation of the series should have no bearing, if a suspension fits the crime then it should happen if it is the first test against Zimbabwe or the deciding test in an Ashes series.

Yep. Ponting has only himself to blame for his irresponsible behaviour.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Well, I've been mulling this over for a few days now but bugger it, I'm going to say it (particularly since my prediction in a thread early this year about England winning the Ashes and Trecothick being a big part of it seems to be heading that way....).

Brett Lee will take a bag this Test regardless of whether it's a quick deck or not.

And I'm sticking to my prediction that he'll be in the top 5 Test bowlers within two years.

The guy is averaging over 33 in this series and probably bowled as well as he can. If he ever makes it to the top 5 in the world then world cricket is poorer atm than even i thought

 

[SquidAU]

The guy is averaging over 33 in this series and probably bowled as well as he can. If he ever makes it to the top 5 in the world then world cricket is poorer atm than even i thought

Despite Lee going for plenty, he usually comes back to take a few quick wickets in the 2nd innings to keep his average down..somewhat.

What I can't understand is, why doesn't he bowl in the first innings like he bowls in the second innings?

Same could be said of Warne as well.

 

[Slats4ever]

IMO Brett Lee has bowled well this series and has been very unlucky. He's had a host of drop catches, many near misses and he's bowled people off no-balls. I think his avg of 33 is a bit've a blow-out of what it really should be on.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The guy is averaging over 33 in this series and probably bowled as well as he can. If he ever makes it to the top 5 in the world then world cricket is poorer atm than even i thought

A whole 2 runs more than Flintoff. Who's to say if Lee had've had the top quality support that Flintoff has had, he wouldn't be averaging even better?

Flintoff has still bowled much better, mind you.

 

[Top_Cat]

The guy is averaging over 33 in this series and probably bowled as well as he can. If he ever makes it to the top 5 in the world then world cricket is poorer atm than even i thought

Example number #8934563697397689363746 for why averages don't always tell the whole story. Let's not forget that it's not as if Lee has had a year or two of solid form at Test level against Test-standard batting attacks to build on; he only just made it back into the side this series after two years on the sidelines playing FC cricket. This, in fact, looks to be the platform which he'll build on for the next year.

Anyway, he's taken 19 wickets for the series which puts him equal second for both sides with Flintoff behind Warne. Considering his attacking nature, it's expected he'll go for some runs. He's there to take wickets and if the number of wickets is any indication, he's done the job well.

What I can't understand is, why doesn't he bowl in the first innings like he bowls in the second innings?

Inconsistency caused by being on the sidelines for so long, I'd imagine. He's only just starting to realise what being a Test bowler is all about; week-in, week-out good performances and not just when the side is up against it. See McGrath.

 

[SquidAU]

Inconsistency caused by being on the sidelines for so long, I'd imagine. He's only just starting to realise what being a Test bowler is all about; week-in, week-out good performances and not just when the side is up against it. See McGrath.

Maybe.

I just hope after his last performance, he can rip through the top order early in the 5th test and stop bowling no balls.

Well, maybe once every 10 overs or so.

The Aussies are gonna need him and McGrath to get early wickets if we are to win.

 

[sqwerty]

lol at all you aussies biting the flam-bait. I was just saying that people should not just question the form of a batsmen against a good bowling attack but also his skill aswell. Hayden's inability to cope with swing his hard to put completely down to form but is more likely down to a fundamental problem with his game. I know all batsmen have faults, but this one has been key to the series along with his inability to try and combat it. The same goes (to a lesser extent) to Gillys refusal to try and dig in against the round the wicket approach, hence eventual flashes outside off and knicks etc. A talent of a batsmen shouldnt just be measured on how well he plays with his natural ability but how he deals with the times when things arent going his way due to one reason or another.

The only Australian player who has performances can be completely put down to either lack of form or decline can be Gillespie.

The way people carry on on this website you'd think Matty Hayden had never faced a swing bowler in his life, England have the only bowlers in the world who swing a ball and suddenly Gilchrist has got a problem outside the off stump that all bowlers in world cricket will now exploit and it will prove to be the deathknell of his career !!!

Turn it up!!

Hayden has opened the batting for the last 10 years and he's dominated the new ball and swing bowling before. Yeah sure the England attack is bowling well together and have planned well and yeah Hayden has looked ordinary but it's a bit disrespectful to the other nations in world cricket to think that Australia haven't faced one decent attack in the last 10 years. Hayden is out of form and was so well before he faced up to England. When you're out of form your confidence and technique goes and you've got to work hard to set it right.

As for Gilly.....he's in the same boat. Bowling attacks around the world have tried to exploit an apparent weakness coming around the wicket for years with success at times while other times they've been punished.

Like Hayden, he'll sort out his problem. 2 months ago he was considered by all to be the greatest wicketkeeper batsman to ever play the game. He still is.

This England attack is good enough (particularly at home) but it's a bit of a stretch to say they've proven that both Gilly and Hayden haven't faced a decent attack in 10 years.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hayden has opened the batting for the last 10 years and he's dominated the new ball and swing bowling before. Yeah sure the England attack is bowling well together and have planned well and yeah Hayden has looked ordinary but it's a bit disrespectful to the other nations in world cricket to think that Australia haven't faced one decent attack in the last 10 years. Hayden is out of form and was so well before he faced up to England. When you're out of form your confidence and technique goes and you've got to work hard to set it right.

Hayden's problems against swing have been documented on this forum LONG before this tour. Its not something new, and its not just a bad patch of form, either.

 

[honestbharani]

Your comparing the current Eng bowling line-up to attacks containing at least 2 greats?

Get over yourself.

Gilchrist is by far the best ever in his position.

Hayden has averaged over 50 in over 70 tests yet you compare him unfavourably to Tresco who has averaged way less than that in both his career AND in this series (where he has played well but benefitted massively from McGrath's absence, Gillespie's off-form and numerous let-offs).

On this basis, Strauss, Bell, and Vaughan are similarly incompetent batsmen whilst Giles must be amongst the worst bowlers ever.

You know, Hayden himself has not been making the runs against tough bowling by any stretch of the imagination. In the 2001 series in India, we had only one bowler called Harbhajan and he countered him well. I am pretty sure he never faced Ambrose/Walsh or Wasim/Waqar or Donald/Pollock at their primes (atleast, I am sure he didn't make many runs). So what you said about Tresco can be said about Hayden as well, except that Tresco has to face the brilliant Aussie attack and Hayden doesn't.

 

[honestbharani]

What?

Either that or Aus said "OK, we don't like NZ, so we're going to go slow and make sure they don't qualify". Either way it's out of order.

Actually, it was because if WI went through, Australia would take 2 points into the super six as they would have a win against WI. But if NZ went through, Aus would go in with 0 points, which is what happened.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think many batsmen hit their peak two months away from being 34, somehow.

I was reading an article last night by Malcolm Conn that was referencing the ages of the Aussie batsmen. Apparently just about every regular opener prior to Langer and Hayden were gone by the age of 33 - none of them had held their position after turning 35 since Bill Brown 60 years ago. Only two other top-order regulars, Mark Taylor and Ian Redpath, made it to 34 (prior to this team). Some of these guys, along with Keith Stackpole and Geoff Marsh, felt that moving past 32 meant a substantial depreciation in speed and reflexes. Perhaps Hayden's problem in this regard has been more of a stubborness to accept this and adjust his game, and is why he so often looks impatient and gets out doing that arrogantly looking step down the pitch.

Brian Lara seems to have done that.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Brian Lara seems to have done that.

Probably because he ain't an "opener"

 

[honestbharani]

IMO Brett Lee has bowled well this series and has been very unlucky. He's had a host of drop catches, many near misses and he's bowled people off no-balls. I think his avg of 33 is a bit've a blow-out of what it really should be on.

I don't think you can call him unlucky to have bowled no balls. That is basically his fault. But I do agree that he has bowled better than what his figures suggest. I am just worried what it will do to his confidence to see a deep cover when he is about to bowl his first ball.

 

[honestbharani]

Probably because he ain't an "opener"

lol...yeah. But SL only said "batsmen",