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

[marc71178]

I would find it hard to believe that Collingwood would have been worse than Bell has been this series if he'd have played in his place.

Had Collingwood got those 4 balls in the first 2 Tests he'd probably have scored so few runs.

However I doubt he'd have got 2 fifties at Old Trafford.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Haha, check this out......

Surely there's someone who deserves his ticket more than he does.......

*jealous*

 

[Tom Halsey]

Had Collingwood got those 4 balls in the first 2 Tests he'd probably have scored so few runs.

However I doubt he'd have got 2 fifties at Old Trafford.

I also doubt he'd have played that shot at Trent Bridge.

That said, Bell has been unlucky.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I also doubt he'd have played that shot at Trent Bridge.

That said, Bell has been unlucky.

Really? The 59 he got while Vaughan took the bowling apart at the other end was very lucky - and then he played a stupid shot (which he's managed to get out with again) and got out the next morning.

 

[matty1818]

This post would have worked a lot better if you hadn't gotten so nervous that Australia would get 600, 'cause you appear to spend too much of it making excuses for if they do.

FWIW, I don't have the slightest expectation that Australia will score 600+. But England bowling below par and Australia "firing", aren't zero-sum games.

i got nervous when? i still think its possible that they will, everything is possible. Especially now jones is out, just think its naive that people always think that the next test the Aussies are going to do it, plainly underestimating the england bowling each time. Claiming that its just form and lack of mental strength at present and that if they 'sort' that, or whatever that means, then it will all be hunkydory and ponting will get a double tonne, hayden will smash us down the ground for half a day, 'pup' will be a 'blood hound' as so eloquently put by dean jones and so on.

 

[Barney Rubble]

anyone who's seen Bell play this summer would see his batting is worse than Collingwood's. .

I disagree completely. The man has received some good balls, and he has played some bad shots, but his two half-centuries at Old Trafford show he is willing to graft for his runs, something Ramprakash never did. Bell will come good, and will be a fixture in the England side for many years - there's a reason why Collingwood has only played two Tests.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I disagree completely. The man has received some good balls, and he has played some bad shots, but his two half-centuries at Old Trafford show he is willing to graft for his runs, something Ramprakash never did. Bell will come good, and will be a fixture in the England side for many years - there's a reason why Collingwood has only played two Tests.

Something Ramprakash never did?!?!?!? The same Ramprakash that has a lower strike rate than Mike Atherton in Test cricket? That was his problem, he had all the shots at his disposal in county cricket and wouldn't play any of them in Test cricket.

 

[Pothas]

I have no idea if i would play Colingwood or Anderson. England having 5 bowlers has been absoloutly key to their success in this series and i woud really like them to keep that format into the last test, however is really dont trust Anderson to perform. On the other hand i do trust colingwood to put in a solid performance but him and bell really dont cut it is as the 5th bowler and his selection i feel will put England on the back foot right from the start.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Something Ramprakash never did?!?!?!? The same Ramprakash that has a lower strike rate than Mike Atherton in Test cricket? That was his problem, he had all the shots at his disposal in county cricket and wouldn't play any of them in Test cricket.

I always thought Ramps' problem was not knowing when to play the shots in Test cricket - he played them, but always at the wrong times. He grafted when he could have played with more fluency, and he threw his wicket away when he should have grafted. Hence all his low scores came quickly, and most of his high scores came slowly. But I probably haven't seen enough of his career to make a properly informed judgement, I think I'm a little young. I only really remember 1997 onwards.

Anyway, whether it turns out to be true or not, I think describing Bell as the new Ramps at this stage is a little premature. The selectors have made it clear that they're going to persevere with him - let's reserve judgement for the next year or so. If he does turn out to be the next Ramps, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong - but I don't think that'll be the case.

 

[Pothas]

Something Ramprakash never did?!?!?!? The same Ramprakash that has a lower strike rate than Mike Atherton in Test cricket? That was his problem, he had all the shots at his disposal in county cricket and wouldn't play any of them in Test cricket.

Yes poor old ramps one of my favourite players and most of his failure can be put down to a poor mentality. I remember he grafted some 50s against newzealand but got heavily critisized for it and then in response when he next got picked hideously came down the pitch to warne. The problem was he was constanly in and out the side and i think a really long run he would have come good

 

[Scaly piscine]

I always thought Ramps' problem was not knowing when to play the shots in Test cricket - he played them, but always at the wrong times. He grafted when he could have played with more fluency, and he threw his wicket away when he should have grafted. Hence all his low scores came quickly, and most of his high scores came slowly. But I probably haven't seen enough of his career to make a properly informed judgement, I think I'm a little young. I only really remember 1997 onwards.

Well he had a LOT of low scores (he had a habit of making 20s), so they can't have come that quickly or his career strike rate wouldn't have been 36.

 

[open365]

bell is an international standard player but he was always too inexperienced to play in the ashes this year.

i agree with giving young players a chance but it would have been thorpe's last test series so bell would have plenty of time in the future to assert himself.

thorpe should have been playing,a 150 against bangladesh is uncomparable to the ashes.

 

[aussie]

What is this crap about big averages against Zimbabwe? Do you know how many tests Australia has played against Zimbabwe in the last decade? THREE. And against Bangladesh? Two.

Hayden has never dominated a great attack, but how many players do? For some reason, everybody has this idea that every other period in test history has been like the 90s with 4 or 5 all-time great attacks, but it's really not true at all. He has, however, done the business against India in Indian conditions where he scored 500 runs in a three test series, scored a brilliant career-defining century in sweltering heat on a turning pitch against an attack of Waqar/Shoaib/Razzaq/Saqlain/Kaneria, and dominated test cricket the world over in a purple patch that saw him average in the 70s for a period of several years. His average was not "about 75 after the triple century against Zimbabwe", it was about 57 then and has fallen in his slump since. Your short memory with him also doesn't seem to extend as far back as the LAST Ashes series, where he scored three centuries against a a varying bowling attack that included Hoggard, Harmison and Giles at various points, as well as Caddick who is obviously a perfectly decent bowler.

Hayden isn't the best test opener of all time or anything, but you don't average 50+ for 71 tests and 57 odd in a first class career that includes years of batting on green tops without being a good player, and to say that Strauss who is unproven in test cricket and certainly struggles against spin and Trescothick who has been a career-long walking target against bowlers who can move it away from him are "much better" is absolutely ridiculous.

And as far as Gilchrist goes, well that's even worse. Gilchrist has always been an inconsistent batsmen as fits his playing style, but the fact that he's been consistent enough to average in the mid 50s and maintain a strike rate in the 80s is testament to how incredible he has been. Gilchrist is, quite simply, a once in a lifetime cricketer who has single-handedly redefined the position he plays. To suggest this England attack is so good that the guys he has scored against in the past like Donald/Pollock/Ntini and Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib are useless village bowlers that he just bullied is absolutely insane.

Frankly, this whole discussion about the Australian team is going further and further off the planet. This England team is a good team, but they have a hell of a long way to go to even be worthy of comparison to a team that has dominated test cricket for a dozen years. And for all the talk of how Australia have just been a pack of overrated hacks living off weak attacks, it's funny that nobody else in the world has managed to beat every other team and have 3 or 4 batsmen averaging in the 50s, isn't it? I don't suppose it could be that the Australian team has actually been incredibly, amazingly good and they've just been outplayed in one series?

Dont know if it has been mentioned before but i reckon this is the best post i've seen on CW in my 7 months on this site, just perfectly summed up, well done sean

 

[Barney Rubble]

Well he had a LOT of low scores (he had a habit of making 20s), so they can't have come that quickly or his career strike rate wouldn't have been 36.

Fair enough - bear in mind I'm probably the one who's wrong about this, I usually am.

 

[aussie]

well a fair lot has happended in the last week with regards to this series & it has had me thinking on what team i think Australia should field on thursday. What i think is that Australia may well & field the same batting line-up & the change will be made in the bowling attack since it doesn't seem as if Watson will be called up, which in a way now i think is risky to pick an inexperienced but extremely TALENTED player for a the most important test match Australia have played in a LONGGGGGGG time, i reckon England are thinking in that direction as well sice they picked my fellow club-mate Anderson over the fast progressing Tremlett.

Australia batting has failed this series but i get the gut feeling that knowing whats at stake that might be all that they need to get them going . Australia's team should be:

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Katich
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Tait/MaCgill - either two could work but its up to the selectors
McGrath

Now with Jones out of the it will be interesting to see if Colly or Jimmy boy is picked, though Anderson is likely to play i reckon. So i'll have me radio in school following everything 2-2 & end England's Ashes hopes Come on Australia...............

 

[Neil Pickup]

So i'll have me radio in school following everything 2-2 & end England's Ashes hopes Come on Australia...............

Do you want us to make your funeral arrangements for you should that happen?

 

[aussie]

Do you want us to make your funeral arrangements for you should that happen?

ha, got to find me 1st neil

 

[tooextracool]

I don't know from what I saw Flintoff didn't see that fired up at Trent Bridge. I mean he wasn't as fired up as he was at Lords, Edgbatson, and OT when he was bowling.

probably because the pitch and the conditions didnt suit him and it appeared as though he was smart enough to realise it and bowl within himself. flintoff cannot and never will be able to swing the ball conventionally with his current bowling action. even simon jones bowled well within himself in the first innings, just trying to focus on accuracy+swing instead of pace.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Flintoff can, does and has swung the ball conventionally - just inswing.

 

[tooextracool]

No. Watch Clarke against spin, he is a brilliant player of spin. He is definite with his foot work, he's forward and his back, which gives him wonderful postition to play shots against spin. With the quicks he is left stranded, the front foot doesn't come forward enough on most occasions and he gets caught, and often has to feel for the ball outside off stump. When the ball is pitched either full or short of a good length that is when he gets into a lot of trouble.

if his front foot came fully forward he would pull a hayden and have himself plumb lbw. its obvious that his half forward technique is working for him because only twice in his career hes got himself out lbw, and on one of those occasions he failed to read which way the ball was going.
as far as the feeling for the ball outside off stump is concerned, i dont see it being technical, i think he just needs to choose which ball he needs to play and which ball he needs to leave.

It is a technical flaw when you play away from your body. Look at the best batsman to have ever played the game; Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh etc, they all played from their body. Even though Lara's backlift took his hands well away from his body, as the bat comes down he plays with an arc with his hands coming from his body when he plays a shot. It is something Clarke, Martyn, Langer & Gilchrist do a lot, play away fromt their body and it is their most common dismissal to the quicks. You rarely see batsman like Hayden & Ponting play away from their body, they usually get out snicking with poor shot selection rather than any technical flaws. That has more to do with temprement than technical weakness, which Clarke definitely has against the spinners.

are you serious?
steve waugh played from his body? ive seen waugh on plenty of occasions play without any footwork and away from his body(unless you mean mark waugh). you dont always have to have the best footwork, you just need to get yourself in a comfortable position to be able to play your shot. clarke's footwork might not be very good, but he still gets himself into a good enough position to be able to play his shots.





.

That's because he usually gets out nicking or bowled. However if he continues to play half-forward, half back we will see him out LBW more often..

will we really? i dont see it happening to be honest. the best way to play swing is to get your front pad out of the way and play it late both of which clarke has been far more adept at doing than anyone else including ponting in the australian side.

More a case of the other batsman not being on top of their games and the bowlers being excellent than Clarke performing exceptionally well.

so what your saying is that by averaging nearly 40 against this 'excellent bowling', he still isnt ready for test cricket and should be dropped?
just analyse his dismissals all series:
Lords-failed to read an inswinger, lbw. 2nd inning score 91 before unluckily edging a ball onto his stumps
Edgbaston- out to giles 1st innings, played all around a slower ball yorker in the 2nd
OT- comes straight off the sick bed and doesnt pick a slower ball and hits it straight to flintoff, 2nd innings lets a searing reverse inswinger go onto his stumps
TB- 1st innings was the only instance of him being lbw to a ball coming in on the angle(which you've been indicating is his weakness), he had 36 on the board already.
2nd inning gets a perfect outswinger that he edges, again he had 56 on the board by then and had batted a very long time.

other than 1 occasion it appears as though every other instance was a case off poor temperament.