***Official*** England in Pakistan

[Pratters]

No one is denying England of the credit which is due to them. To undermine the Aussies, if that is indeed the case, doubting their quality because they may never had played that great an attack is some thing I do not understand.

 

[Pratters]

the one from 01/02?

I did not specify 01-02. Even you know when they were good and when they werent I suppose.

 

[tooextracool]

So, England have never faced a good pace attack either then?

not very often, no.
but the one that they faced at supersport park- pollock,ntini and nel at home is a fairly good pace attack in the conditions.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, no. Who's saying that they have? (Although probably the one they faced in the Windies, given the pitches, was quite dangerous, albeit we had a completely different middle order)

Err, I'm saying they have. McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz/Lee is a good pace attack. Ntini, Pollock, Nel/Langeveldt/Steyn is a good pace attack. That's probably it so far, but the Windies one has a bit of potential as well.

 

[tooextracool]

I did not specify 01-02. Even you know when they were good and when they werent I suppose.

well the only relevance of this argument is to look at attacks which most or all of the current aussie batsmen have played against. so the only time that happened was 01/02.
there is little doubting that the likes of michel slater,mark taylor, steve waugh, mark waugh etc played and succeeded against quality pace attacks at some point in their career.

 

[tooextracool]

McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz/Lee is a good pace attack.

if that pace attack is fully fit and bowling like it can then yes it is a good pace attack. however if 2 of them bowl like club bowlers and the other isnt fully fit, it doesnt qualify as a quality pace attack.

 

[Pratters]

well the only relevance of this argument is to look at attacks which most or all of the current aussie batsmen have played against. so the only time that happened was 01/02.
there is little doubting that the likes of michel slater,mark taylor, steve waugh, mark waugh etc played and succeeded against quality pace attacks at some point in their career.

What was the batting line up of Australia in 01/02 and the bowling line up of South Africa?

And which series did Australia and South Africa play apart from 01/02 which you do not think is conclusive to whatever your arguement is?

 

[Pratters]

It is amazing how one poor series can make people conclude the current Aussie players cannot play a quality pace attack.

 

[tooextracool]

What was the batting line up of Australia in 01/02 and the bowling line up of South Africa?

the batting lineup is essentially the current australian batting lineup(from its last test) minus clarke and katich. the bowling however included one bowler who was completely past it(donald), another who became only effective when bowling with swing and seam(pollock), ordinary(hayward), rubbish(kallis) and garbage away from home(ntini).

And which series did Australia and South Africa play apart from 01/02 which you do not think is conclusive to whatever your arguement is?

the series from 97/98 or 96/97 which actually included quality SA pace bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

It is amazing how one poor series can make people conclude the current Aussie players cannot play a quality pace attack.

no i havent said that we can comprehensively state that the aussies cant play against a quality bowling lineup. all ive said is that most of them never did until the ashes, which is what resulted in some of their batsmen treating the bowlers with the same sort of respect they treated all the mediocre pace bowlers in the past with.
i said before the series that hayden couldnt play swing or seam and we witnessed that during the ashes.
we knew that langer is a quality yet inconsistent player and we saw that during the ashes.
i said that ponting is a good player but overrated and not great, and we saw that during the ashes.
martyn was unlucky for part of it and threw away his wickets for the other half so his failure would come down to the 'not treating the bowlers with enough respect'.
and gilchrist certainly had no idea whether to attack or defend when he had his weakness exposed during the series.

 

[Pratters]

no i havent said that we can comprehensively state that the aussies cant play against a quality bowling lineup. all ive said is that most of them never did until the ashes, which is what resulted in some of their batsmen treating the bowlers with the same sort of respect they treated all the mediocre pace bowlers in the past with.
i said before the series that hayden couldnt play swing or seam and we witnessed that during the ashes.
we knew that langer is a quality yet inconsistent player and we saw that during the ashes.
i said that ponting is a good player but overrated and not great, and we saw that during the ashes.
martyn was unlucky for part of it and threw away his wickets for the other half so his failure would come down to the 'not treating the bowlers with enough respect'.
and gilchrist certainly had no idea whether to attack or defend when he had his weakness exposed during the series.

First you say that you do not state that the aussies cant play quality pace bowling. Then you give all your reasons as to why except Martyn and to an extent Langer cant play quality pace bowling.

I can accept that part of the demise of the Aussie sin the series was due to rash shots (shots which look so good versus other bowlers mind you - and they are not all crap as you would make me and every one believe) but it can well also be due to a bad run of form the players were not able to get out of despite trying desperate measures like out of the blue shots coupled with quality english bowling.

 

[Pratters]

the batting lineup is essentially the current australian batting lineup(from its last test) minus clarke and katich. the bowling however included one bowler who was completely past it(donald), another who became only effective when bowling with swing and seam(pollock), ordinary(hayward), rubbish(kallis) and garbage away from home(ntini).

Steve, Mark waugh - the players you stated could play fast bowling well were in that line up which you ignore. And was Donald really completely past it already or was it a year later; why discount Pollock so easily and why call Kallis rubbish. Compare the figures of that line up with batsmen in other series to give you an idea of how they really were during the period.

the series from 97/98 or 96/97 which actually included quality SA pace bowlers.

Okay since you are arguing the current batsmen's position regarding pace bowling 96-98 would not be significant.

It does not prove however that Australia struggled vs England because they were not used to quality bowling (pace).

 

[marc71178]

If you compare the current England attack with South Africa at their prime, I dont think there is a lot to separate the two.

Apart from the get out clause offered from SA's 4th and 5th bowlers.

 

[marc71178]

It does not prove however that Australia struggled vs England because they were not used to quality bowling (pace).

So when else have this current Australian line-up played such a quality pace bowling attack then?

 

[Pratters]

So when else have this current Australian line-up played such a quality pace bowling attack then?

They have played individual bowlers which shows they have quality to face pace.

Regarding an attack for all of the 6-7 of players facing 4 pacers together(Lehmann retired just recently and the line ups keep changing and you might want to term the current line up in a two year bracket), how would you expect that to happen considering the quartet of the West Indies was the last 4 pronged pace attack which really created some impact!

Can one series lost against a good attack mean the Aussies as a whole cannot face a quality pace attack? Not really.

 

[Pratters]

Apart from the get out clause offered from SA's 4th and 5th bowlers.

all I will say is you under estimate Kallis/McMillan over their career. To each his own.

 

[tooextracool]

Steve, Mark waugh - the players you stated could play fast bowling well were in that line up which you ignore.

err i ignored them because they are not part of the 'current aussie batting lineup'.

And was Donald really completely past it already or was it a year later;

what do you mean? allan donald announced his retirement from test cricket during the series against australia. there was no next year.

why discount Pollock so easily

because anyone whos watched pollock bowled from 2001 onwards would know that hes lost a lot of pace and has only looked like taking wickets in seam/swing friendly conditions. if pollock had played in the series at home against Australia, things might have been different, because he would have got a bit of swing.

and why call Kallis rubbish.

because he was.

Compare the figures of that line up with batsmen in other series to give you an idea of how they really were during the period.

donald was coming back from a long injury and didnt play a game after the series, so this doesnt really apply to him.
as far as pollock is concerned, the ball didnt swing an iota in australia, so australia only played an accurate bowler in the conditions well.
the others were all inexperienced or useless.

It does not prove however that Australia struggled vs England because they were not used to quality bowling (pace).

so howcome then hayden got found out?
is it just coincidence how hayden barely had a bad series for 3 years and yet he failed miserably in 2001 and also in the current series in england?
howcome half the aussie batsman had no idea how to play reverse swing and almost all of them were trying to go at the ball instead of playing it late?

 

[tooextracool]

First you say that you do not state that the aussies cant play quality pace bowling. Then you give all your reasons as to why except Martyn and to an extent Langer cant play quality pace bowling.

no i said that they hadnt played too much against quality bowling before, not that they cant play quality bowling. martyn had no problem scoring runs against a fairly capable england bowling attack in 2001, and i dont doubt that had martyn played like he can he'd have scored a lot more. australias failure was partly due to their moronic policy of 'we have to score at 4+ runs an over in a test match no matter what' and the number of times players like martyn,ponting(to a lesser extent),langer and clarke threw away their wickets is numerous. and those were arguably the 4 australian batsmen who didnt get worked out during the series.

I can accept that part of the demise of the Aussie sin the series was due to rash shots (shots which look so good versus other bowlers mind you - and they are not all crap as you would make me and every one believe) but it can well also be due to a bad run of form the players were not able to get out of despite trying desperate measures like out of the blue shots coupled with quality english bowling.

i dont doubt that australia is a quality batting lineup, but even a quality lineup will struggle when they face something they've never faced before. there was plenty of good bowling from england, and at times they were almost helpless against it. but at times some of them got horribly worked out- hayden and gilchrist for example. the only player who really was in a bad run of form during this series was martyn, the others were certainly playing at their best or somewhere near it.

 

[tooextracool]

Apart from the get out clause offered from SA's 4th and 5th bowlers.

brian mcmillan was certainly not a poor bowler.

 

[aussie]

and how many members of the 96 aussie batting lineup is in the current batting lineup? .

yea but my argument is that people have been saying that in Australia 10 year domination they have smoked a whole set of mediocre attacks (which is cleary not true) & when they came up againts this good english attack they flooped, we are talking Australia in general so its irrelevant who was in the batting line-up.