-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)
- Thread starter James
- Start date
tooextracool
International Coach
err what?croft averaged 24 away from home, and if he were playing, we wouldnt have disgraceful bowlers like batty and dawson getting picked for the test side.
tooextracool
International Coach
yes he was a poor bowler at home, but he was extremely effective on a turner and would have made a fairly useful back up to giles, and you only really need to look at the series in SL in 01 where croft completely outperformed giles and was primarily responsible for us winning the series. batty's overall test average is 68.9, while dawsons stands at 61, both of whom compete with salisbury for being the most disgraceful bowlers picked at the international level.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
And if you take out the uncharacteristic turners at Trent Bridge, Lord's and Edgbaston last year Giles averages 58.28 at home and has taken a grand total of 29 wickets in 18 games.marc71178 said:
Croft, exactly like Giles, is a terribly poor bowler on a non-turner but is every bit as good as Giles on a turner and unquestionably infinately better than Dawson and Batty.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard said:
Meh...
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Les Dawson?tooextracool said:
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Had Croft retired from test cricket by 2002/03? I know that he has done at least twice, but the exact dates escape me.Richard said:
As for the India tour, I'd be very surprised if Dawson and Croft were originally in the squad as well as Giles. I can't remember any other Asian tour recently when we've taken more than two spinners.
tooextracool
International Coach
he did? as far as i remember he retired after the tour to SL in 03/04 because he didnt get a single game.wpdavid said:
giles was in the squad, but he was still not fully fit from his Achilles injury and even missed the first test in india. they picked 2 off spinners in richard dawson and martin ball, both of whom were horrible.wpdavid said:
tooextracool
International Coach
yes he in fact was in the squad in SL, but didnt get to play a single game. however he most certainly wasnt in contention for the WI tour, he retired immediately after they came back from SL.aussie said:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Alright. Being dead bored and all, here are my thoughts on the Ashes.
1. England bowlers, not batmen, hold the key. Australia loves to be the bullys, especially with the bat. When they post a big score in their first innings, they are rarely beaten. It doesn't matter if you post a 350+ score against Australia when your batting first. So many times we've seen Australia pile on scores of 500 plus to demoralise their opponents.
If England can roll Australia cheaply the first time around, it places a lot more pressure on Australia than making a big score, IMO. While it is a lot easier said than done, rarely have Australia faced a five man bowling attack in recent times, and even when they attack one of them, and it will invariably come off during stages of the series, they are able to cover that and employ another fully-recognised bowler, something that most teams have not been able to do successfully so far. It also damages the psyche of the bowlers, suddenly they aren't able to attack so freely because htey don't have runs behind them, fields are more defensive and starts easier to come by.
Therefore in my eyes, the key to England winning the Ashes lies in the hands of Hoggard and Harmison. This is because a number of the Australians (Langer, Hayden, Clarke, and even Ponting) have had problems in the past against the swinging ball (supplied mainly by Hoggard), while some (Clarke, Hayden vs Shoaib last series) do seem worried about pace and more so bounce (supplied mainly by Harmison). If these two are on song, then England will win 2 tests.
2. Singles. Many people talk about how vulnerable Australia looked in that series against New Zealand in 2000/01. Not many talk about how many singles New Zealand took during that series. While they may have left a lot more of McGrath and Gillespie alone than normal, what they also didn't allow them to do was settle in on a line and length, they were all over any chance to drop and run. It is even more so important against Warne, who adores the chance to work over a batsman, which can be denied especially when the field is attacking, with two men close in, etc. If England can do this, then suddenly they're making 400 instead of 290 - 320.
3. Gilchrist. So many times against Australia they are at 5 for "not enough" only for Gilchrist to blast runs. Maybe not 100, but enough to make sure Australia has a competitive total. Gilchrist does not have the greatest record in England (re: 1999 world cup, last Ashes he was giftwrapped a lot of runs), so if any team has a chance of curbing Gilchrist, it is this English side over in the mother country.
4. Ashley Giles. Against so many teams, he churns out overs, building pressure from one end. Historically, Australia does not let that happen. If Australia get on top of hiim, and take him "downtown", suddenly a lot more pressure is put on England's fourth seamer, Jones/Anderson/whoever, who is yet to be proven and will also be targetted.
Once again, historically, younger pups don't succeed versus Australia. Even look at Pathan, who everyone raved about when he played them in 02/03. Look at the Pakistani players (in the tests) this year at home. If they are exposed, then you'd back Australia to savage them, England would be taking in these bowlers thinking htat if they go for 4 an over but take 2 wickets, its probably a win for them. If they do get taken to, your suddenly down to three bowlers, one of them batting at 6, who has the responsibility of saving a batting lineup when its in trouble, as well as shouldering much of the bowling. Something's gotta give there, and its more likely to be England.
However, if Giles is sending down overs, then this gives England the chance to rotate its bowlers and ensure that each one is fresh at the start of each spell, meaning that Australia is copping a more relentless and consistent bowling attack all day, and less likely to have one of those one hour bursts which take the game away from the opposition like we see so often (e.g. clarke and gilchrist, vs new zealand at the Gabba).
5. Finally, luck. England needs to take screamers, have a few lucky poles at crucial times and for decisions to go their way. And as the saying says, fortune favours the brave. They have to be entering each game in an attacking frame of mind. And no matter the circumstance, at the end of the hour they can always reassess, and continue attacking. No team seems to have done that to Australia since India in 2002/03.
Here's hoping for a wonderful series. And that this is the last of my nonsensical ravings at 3:17 in the morning.
1. England bowlers, not batmen, hold the key. Australia loves to be the bullys, especially with the bat. When they post a big score in their first innings, they are rarely beaten. It doesn't matter if you post a 350+ score against Australia when your batting first. So many times we've seen Australia pile on scores of 500 plus to demoralise their opponents.
If England can roll Australia cheaply the first time around, it places a lot more pressure on Australia than making a big score, IMO. While it is a lot easier said than done, rarely have Australia faced a five man bowling attack in recent times, and even when they attack one of them, and it will invariably come off during stages of the series, they are able to cover that and employ another fully-recognised bowler, something that most teams have not been able to do successfully so far. It also damages the psyche of the bowlers, suddenly they aren't able to attack so freely because htey don't have runs behind them, fields are more defensive and starts easier to come by.
Therefore in my eyes, the key to England winning the Ashes lies in the hands of Hoggard and Harmison. This is because a number of the Australians (Langer, Hayden, Clarke, and even Ponting) have had problems in the past against the swinging ball (supplied mainly by Hoggard), while some (Clarke, Hayden vs Shoaib last series) do seem worried about pace and more so bounce (supplied mainly by Harmison). If these two are on song, then England will win 2 tests.
2. Singles. Many people talk about how vulnerable Australia looked in that series against New Zealand in 2000/01. Not many talk about how many singles New Zealand took during that series. While they may have left a lot more of McGrath and Gillespie alone than normal, what they also didn't allow them to do was settle in on a line and length, they were all over any chance to drop and run. It is even more so important against Warne, who adores the chance to work over a batsman, which can be denied especially when the field is attacking, with two men close in, etc. If England can do this, then suddenly they're making 400 instead of 290 - 320.
3. Gilchrist. So many times against Australia they are at 5 for "not enough" only for Gilchrist to blast runs. Maybe not 100, but enough to make sure Australia has a competitive total. Gilchrist does not have the greatest record in England (re: 1999 world cup, last Ashes he was giftwrapped a lot of runs), so if any team has a chance of curbing Gilchrist, it is this English side over in the mother country.
4. Ashley Giles. Against so many teams, he churns out overs, building pressure from one end. Historically, Australia does not let that happen. If Australia get on top of hiim, and take him "downtown", suddenly a lot more pressure is put on England's fourth seamer, Jones/Anderson/whoever, who is yet to be proven and will also be targetted.
Once again, historically, younger pups don't succeed versus Australia. Even look at Pathan, who everyone raved about when he played them in 02/03. Look at the Pakistani players (in the tests) this year at home. If they are exposed, then you'd back Australia to savage them, England would be taking in these bowlers thinking htat if they go for 4 an over but take 2 wickets, its probably a win for them. If they do get taken to, your suddenly down to three bowlers, one of them batting at 6, who has the responsibility of saving a batting lineup when its in trouble, as well as shouldering much of the bowling. Something's gotta give there, and its more likely to be England.
However, if Giles is sending down overs, then this gives England the chance to rotate its bowlers and ensure that each one is fresh at the start of each spell, meaning that Australia is copping a more relentless and consistent bowling attack all day, and less likely to have one of those one hour bursts which take the game away from the opposition like we see so often (e.g. clarke and gilchrist, vs new zealand at the Gabba).
5. Finally, luck. England needs to take screamers, have a few lucky poles at crucial times and for decisions to go their way. And as the saying says, fortune favours the brave. They have to be entering each game in an attacking frame of mind. And no matter the circumstance, at the end of the hour they can always reassess, and continue attacking. No team seems to have done that to Australia since India in 2002/03.
Here's hoping for a wonderful series. And that this is the last of my nonsensical ravings at 3:17 in the morning.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Meh, its just a prediction. I've got no way of backing it up, neither do you with your point.aussie said:
But how rarely have we seen two bowlers have good series against Australia in recent times? If this could happen, then stranger things have happened.
Reading an article on cricinfo today, talking about how everyone talked about how the 89 ashes would be a walkover...eerily similar.
Last edited: