***Official*** England in Pakistan

[Pratters]

and his pace has declined in that time and if anything he's better over the last few years than ever before.

Word.

 

[aussie]

During the ICC Champions Trophy last year many in England saw the first signs that we could win the Ashes in McGrath's performance that day. He was as accurate as ever, but he just didn't seem to have the pace to seriously trouble the England batsmen. The difference this year, contrary to what you write, is that he actually seemed to refind that pace as a result of the hard work he had put in. Then he got injured and at around 79-80 mph as he was at Old trafford and the Oval the vision of Edgbaston last year re-emerged. He was capable of maintaining respectable figures because he could still bowl economically and our batters had to be careful but, like Pollock in South Africa, he just never felt like a threat.

na it was because pigeon didn't have much bowling. At his age now if he doesn't bowl for a while he seems to miss something, at that time in the CT he was just coming back into the side after a 18 month lay-off & in the ashes because he missed those matches he wasn't ever the same after lord's.

 

[tooextracool]

You are just saying that because he satts apart from that series werent bad over all.

err no, im saying that because he was bowling at medium pace against australia. had you seen that series, you would have realised that. even the cricinfo report said 'Having held the top two spots in the world Test bowling rankings three years ago, South Africa's all-time leading wicket-takers lacked pace and hostility as Australia made a flying start in reply to South Africa's no-more-than-moderate 277 all out.' and
'Donald, once the fearsomely fast White Lightning, trundled through nine overs at a pace around 135 kmh, which might get him into a current top 20 of international speed merchants.'

Glenn McGrath would be dangerous even if he lost a yard of pace.

maybe, but one must not forget that mcgrath is a lot taller than pollock, and is therefore more likely to get bounce of a surface, even if hes not very quick. nonetheless if mcgrath were bowling at 77-78 mph he'd still be less effective than if he were bowling at 82-83.

Kallis' stats series by series - http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

The series vs the Windies was actually quite good for Kallis and agreed the Windies team was poor but the bowling was still credit worthy.

We take a look at the one and half year period before the Aussie series

Sir Vivian Richards Trophy (SA/WI) in West Indies, 2000/01 [Series]

SA 5 189.4 395 20 6/67 8/101 19.75 2.08 56.9 1 0

An average of around 30 then I would guess. He had the same averae against Zimb so that does not inflate his stats. 30 is good for a support bowler. I dont see your point.

yea i know it was quite good but other than that not only did he have a lot of poor series with the ball, but he also didnt bowl a lot. the odd good series does not make a bowler good,especially when it comes against ordinary batting lineups.

How can you ascertain he ws past it except a sole series then.

because ive watched allan donald bowl for his entire career, and ive never seen him as mediocre as he was in that series.

He is not ineffective on flat tracks as you make him out to be!.

so how is pollock different from someone like mark ealham?
they bowl at the same pace, they can both swing and seam the ball, and while ealham isnt as accurate hes still accurate enough to be a quality test match bowler if we consider your suggestion that pace is not required.

He might have been out of touch to play England class bowling despite having the ability to play the county bowlers. One series does not mean Hayden has been a crap player over his career.

haha, thats a good one
out of form against quality bowlers but not out of form against ordinary bowlers. isnt that how his entire career has worked?
and no hayden is not a crap player, hes was good enough to merit a place in the side. he was most certainly not an all time great, he doesnt deserve an average of over 50 and he is nothing short of a flat track bully.

 

[tooextracool]

People have been writing McGrath off as too slow for a decade, and his pace has declined in that time and if anything he's better over the last few years than ever before.

for one thing, mcgrath fit is much faster than pollock who operates at less than 80 mph.
the main difference though is that mcgrath is taller and therefore gets more bounce out of a surface. you will not deny that the times when mcgrath bowled below 80 mph in this series while he was still pretty good, he didnt looked about half the bowler he actually can be, and we saw that against bangladesh in their first ODI of the series.

 

[Pratters]

err no, im saying that because he was bowling at medium pace against australia. had you seen that series, you would have realised that. even the cricinfo report said 'Having held the top two spots in the world Test bowling rankings three years ago, South Africa's all-time leading wicket-takers lacked pace and hostility as Australia made a flying start in reply to South Africa's no-more-than-moderate 277 all out.' and
'Donald, once the fearsomely fast White Lightning, trundled through nine overs at a pace around 135 kmh, which might get him into a current top 20 of international speed merchants.'

I will never say a bowler has declined based on a specific series. You may do other wise. Its upto you.

maybe, but one must not forget that mcgrath is a lot taller than pollock, and is therefore more likely to get bounce of a surface, even if hes not very quick. nonetheless if mcgrath were bowling at 77-78 mph he'd still be less effective than if he were bowling at 82-83.

That would answer how Pollock and Ealham are not the same I would imagine

yea i know it was quite good but other than that not only did he have a lot of poor series with the ball, but he also didnt bowl a lot. the odd good series does not make a bowler good,especially when it comes against ordinary batting lineups.

Similarly one bad series in Australia did not mean Donald was past it in that period.

so how is pollock different from someone like mark ealham?

You replied to that earlier yourself?

out of form against quality bowlers but not out of form against ordinary bowlers. isnt that how his entire career has worked?

So Hayden is poor agains tquality bowlers all through his career according to you? Please give detailed evidence before making such mass generalisations.

 

[greg]

So Hayden is poor agains tquality bowlers all through his career according to you? Please give detailed evidence before making such mass generalisations.

I think the argument was that it is by feasting on poor bowlers (380 vs Zim anyone?) that has inflated his average from the merely good, to that which would normally be restricted to "greats". It should be added that his record against quality spin is, I think, pretty good.

 

[marc71178]

The point which is trying to be made of Australian current batsmen not being able to face an attack - was countered (that it can really not be proved either wise) by the Windies example I gave which you conveniently ignored.

What Windies attack?

There's not been one in the last 10 years.

 

[aussie]

What Windies attack?

There's not been one in the last 10 years.

i would say 7 when we were their in 98 WI had Ambi/Cuddy & Bishop

 

[tooextracool]

I will never say a bowler has declined based on a specific series. You may do other wise. Its upto you..

fact is that he was bowling poorly in that series, if you choose not to count that as decline its upto you, it still doesnt change the fact that he was easy prey. also the fact that he hadnt added on any pace during the next year in ODIs suggests that he hadnt improved either.

That would answer how Pollock and Ealham are not the same I would imagine .

err what?

Similarly one bad series in Australia did not mean Donald was past it in that period.

either way he bowled poorly in that series, which doesnt help your point. and as said earlier he bowled just as slow in the ODIs later

You replied to that earlier yourself?

no i didnt.

So Hayden is poor agains tquality bowlers all through his career according to you? Please give detailed evidence before making such mass generalisations.

against quality pace bowlers he has been. hes never managed to score runs when the ball is seaming, or swinging, nor has he managed to score runs when the ball is reversing. this series more than provided enough proof for the claims that i made before the series began which were more often than not ridiculed.

 

[Pratters]

What Windies attack?

There's not been one in the last 10 years.

If you read the point I was not referring to one of the last 10 years. Bah.

 

[greg]

If you read the point I was not referring to one of the last 10 years. Bah.

Well you must have a pretty loose definition (one C_C would bev proud of ) of Australia's current batsmen, then!

 

[Pratters]

err what?

You said height would separate McGrath and Pollock and extra bounce could be obtained. And then went on to ask what would separate Ealham and Pollock if they both bowl line and length.

against quality pace bowlers he has been. hes never managed to score runs when the ball is seaming, or swinging, nor has he managed to score runs when the ball is reversing. this series more than provided enough proof for the claims that i made before the series began which were more often than not ridiculed.

You believe in your Hayden stance. I did not ridicule you but I dont believe in your stand and this specific series does not prove your point to me. So we wont agree on this.

 

[Pratters]

Well you must have a pretty loose definition (one C_C would bev proud of ) of Australia's current batsmen, then!

Dude. My point was the arguement of not having faced a quality attack - would mean we would have to go back to the Windies quartet. I did not specify the quartet as I thought Marc would know I was referring to the Holding-Croft-etc who were a force consistently

So if we have to go back that far, one would know the arguement they are not good because they have not faced a quality attack in the 2-3 years the current line up is playing is a pretty weak one as far as ways to prove a point go.

 

[tooextracool]

You said height would separate McGrath and Pollock and extra bounce could be obtained. And then went on to ask what would separate Ealham and Pollock if they both bowl line and length.

pollock isnt considerably taller than ealham

You believe in your Hayden stance. I did not ridicule you but I dont believe in your stand and this specific series does not prove your point to me. So we wont agree on this.

so when has hayden in his international career scored runs against seam,swing or reverse?

 

[greg]

Dude. My point was the arguement of not having faced a quality attack - would mean we would have to go back to the Windies quartet. I did not specify the quartet as I thought Marc would know I was referring to the Holding-Croft-etc who were a force consistently

So if we have to go back that far, one would know the arguement they are not good because they have not faced a quality attack in the 2-3 years the current line up is playing is a pretty weak one as far as ways to prove a point go.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the English attack is the best since Windies in the late seventies/early eighties!

It is a fairly universally acknowledged feature that World fast bowling resources have been in a bit of a trough in recent years

 

[Pratters]

pollock isnt considerably taller than ealham

Do we really want to go into what according to you is considerably taller and what is not?

so when has hayden in his international career scored runs against seam,swing or reverse?

I asked you first to convincingly prove otherwise. you do the honours and prove convincingly he has the deficienies.

 

[marc71178]

If you read the point I was not referring to one of the last 10 years. Bah.

Which makes it relevant to the discussion how exactly?

 

[marc71178]

Do we really want to go into what according to you is considerably taller and what is not?

Height isn't a subjective opinion

 

[Pratters]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the English attack is the best since Windies in the late seventies/early eighties!

It is a fairly universally acknowledged feature that World fast bowling resources have been in a bit of a trough in recent years

We both agree the English attack is good then.

So if a team fails against them in a series should it be concluded they cant face quality fast bowling attack because they have not faced one earlier? How many teams have faced quality bowling attacks except the teams facing Australia over the decade or South Africa (Okay some members disagree on this) over a small period?

I would request people to come up with a better arguement to prove the team cant face a quality attack than this when the players are quite adept (as shown when they have faced quality bowlers on specific ocassions). Why put aspersions over if Australia can handle pressure of a 4 pronged pace attack when they have not had that many opportunities.

Before saying a specific batsman is weak in specific conditions, I would want a larger number of instances to come to that conclusion one would imagine. Same would apply to judging a team.

 

[tooextracool]

Do we really want to go into what according to you is considerably taller and what is not?

ealham is 5'10, pollock is about 6'0 or so, mcgrath is 6'5.
i think its glaringly obvious who has the greatest advantage here.

I asked you first to convincingly prove otherwise. you do the honours and prove convincingly he has the deficienies.

ive already done that in the past, ive shown every one of the times hes played on seamer friendly wickets or with swing,and also shown that hes failed every single time.
there is nothing to prove the contrary. i've also pointed out his technical weakness, the fact that he puts his front foot so far across and gives himself no chance against the inswinger, as well as playing away from his body.