***Official*** England in Pakistan

[Magrat Garlick]

True.
But when it comes to this English attack vs RSA/PAK/WI of the 90s, i would go for the former three.

I would rather face 5 decent/good bowlers than 2 alltime great bowlers and 2 average bowlers.

The Aussie batting line-up disagrees. So does the English...

 

[greg]

Add Andrew Caddick, greg

No I checked. Can't use him, unfortunately He's got a par record home and away.

I can definitely use Robert Croft though

 

[C_C]

The Aussie batting line-up disagrees. So does the English...

The Aussie batting lineup has said the same thing ( this was the toughest/most challenging attack) after every series they've lost or faced tough competition in.
You wanna check the chatter from the OZ after PAK tour in 99 or so ?

And most english fans are going overboard. The biggest proof is comparing this english attack with RSA/PAK from the 90s.

 

[tooextracool]

Pity you understand so little of cricket.
Tell me how many english bowlers average a whole lot better outside England.

you'd do better if you could actually read.
what in the blue hell does this argument have to do with england bowlers? the argument i made was in response to this:
'Ah. the 'plays in England not in the subcontinent' thing again.
Pity it is applied only so selectively and only when it suits players you like.
Well okay. By that logic, Shoaib Akhtar = better than any English pacer ever'

giles has a better record in the subcontinent than he does at home, because he gets favorable conditions. shoaib akthars record is equally good both home and away. hence theres no argument for him being better than any english pacer ever or any of the other garbage that you posted.

 

[marc71178]

Accusation to save face? Funny. Accuse some one and move away from proving a point. I know where we are getting Marc.

There is no relevence to the theory that the current Aussie batsmen cant face a specifc attack because of the Ashes. My previous reply to Greg can be read for this. Which is exacly why the Windies comment is relevant.

A comment about an attack of yesteryear is irrelevant to this Australian batting line up.

Yet when I ignore it because it's irrelevant, you attack me.

 

[marc71178]

Yes playing 4 bowlers is much tougher. But if a team is not given the opportunity to face 4 quality bowlers over a period of time and face just one series - how can you say they have a weakness towards such an attack.

That is jumping to conclusions more than any thing.

No it is not - how can you say that they don't have a weakness against such a sustained attack?

 

[C_C]

you'd do better if you could actually read.
what in the blue hell does this argument have to do with england bowlers? the argument i made was in response to this:
'Ah. the 'plays in England not in the subcontinent' thing again.
Pity it is applied only so selectively and only when it suits players you like.
Well okay. By that logic, Shoaib Akhtar = better than any English pacer ever'

giles has a better record in the subcontinent than he does at home, because he gets favorable conditions. shoaib akthars record is equally good both home and away. hence theres no argument for him being better than any english pacer ever or any of the other garbage that you posted.

The logic that Giles does worse because he plays far more in English conditions but not applicable to Akhtar is flawed - for by the same logic, Akhtar plays the bulk of his matches on unfavourable conditions and yet he's mastered unfavourable conditions a heck of a lot better than Giles.

 

[marc71178]

As I said - when he will perform poorly its cos of your theories and when he plays well its cos of his being a flat track bully.

So, rather strangely, you can't provide the evidence then?

 

[marc71178]

The logic that Giles does worse because he plays far more in English conditions but not applicable to Akhtar is flawed - for by the same logic, Akhtar plays the bulk of his matches on unfavourable conditions and yet he's mastered unfavourable conditions a heck of a lot better than Giles.

Which overlooks the fact that a finger-spinner such as Giles (or someone like Vettori for that matter) has a lot more unfavourable conditions than he does favourable ones.

For seamers and quicks there are far fewer unfavourable conditions encountered in relation to favourable.

 

[C_C]

Which overlooks the fact that a finger-spinner such as Giles (or someone like Vettori for that matter) has a lot more unfavourable conditions than he does favourable ones.

For seamers and quicks there are far fewer unfavourable conditions encountered in relation to favourable.

Utter bollox.
Pitches the world over are getting flatter and flatter. As such, a spinner does typically better on flat pitches ( because ultimately, all pitches start crumbling) than a pacer/seamer does.

 

[tooextracool]

and pollocks height is from memory.

I dont know the validity of this site which popped in google but it says Pollock is taller. I have met him and he is pretty tall. Now is Pollock 6 or 6'2" or 6'4

http://www.cricket-forum.net/cricket/Can_Pathan_be_Indias_next_Kapil_Dev_694061.html

I dont know from memory and then again how much taller do you need to be to have extra bounce is a subjective issue. I would also like to know Pollock's accurate height please.

he certainly doesnt look 6'3 and i can certainly remember a couple of commentators saying he was 6'0, nonetheless if the website that greg pointed out is accurate, he has a significant advantage over ealham. nonetheless bowling at 77-78 is still too slow to be effective on flat decks as he has shown in his career.

As I said - when he will perform poorly its cos of your theories and when he plays well its cos of his being a flat track bully.

err you still have no explanation. except of course for he was in form while playing the ordinary attacks but out of form while playing england, and he was also conveniently out of form the last time he was in england, miraculously both times scoring his highest score of the series on the same ground, and that his technical weakness is merely part of his lack of form because even though hes been playing with the same technique for 3 years, he could somehow have managed to play out bowlers who could swing it.

 

[Pratters]

A comment about an attack of yesteryear is irrelevant to this Australian batting line up.

A comment to show how far and infrequent four pronged attacks are for which a yesteryear example is referred it is pretty much relevant. I dont understand how you dont get it basically.

 

[Pratters]

No it is not - how can you say that they don't have a weakness against such a sustained attack?

How can you say there is a weakness based on one instance when you dont have other past instances to refer to.

 

[tooextracool]

The logic that Giles does worse because he plays far more in English conditions but not applicable to Akhtar is flawed - for by the same logic, Akhtar plays the bulk of his matches on unfavourable conditions and yet he's mastered unfavourable conditions a heck of a lot better than Giles.

and the problem as ive pointed out is that akhtars record outside the subcontinent in what is more favorable bowling conditions is actually worse. his average in australia is 43, his average in 1 game in england is 64, his average in SA is 42. there isnt a guarantee that shoaib akthar would be better of if he were playing outside the subcontinent as shown by those averages. on the other hand based on giles performances in the subcontinent and on turners in general you can almost guarantee that his record would be far better.

 

[Pratters]

So, rather strangely, you can't provide the evidence then?

I did not make the statement regarding Hayden. So I am not the one who should provide evidence. Look who is attacking now.

 

[Pratters]

Oh I read it all right, but it is clear that height cannot be a matter of opinion (even more so when someone presentes the facts)

Height is not a matter of opinion. We all know that Marc. But how tall do you have to be to take relative advantage compared to another player. Can you ascertain that really?

Also the facts presented regarding the height of Pollock to be 6 is looking to be closer to 6 4 rather than 6.

So in any case it is far more likely the heights would go like

Ealham 5 10
Pollock 6 2
McGrath 6 4

You only judge if Pollock would be more like Ealham (as claimed) if he loses pace

 

[C_C]

and the problem as ive pointed out is that akhtars record outside the subcontinent in what is more favorable bowling conditions is actually worse. his average in australia is 43, his average in 1 game in england is 64, his average in SA is 42. there isnt a guarantee that shoaib akthar would be better of if he were playing outside the subcontinent as shown by those averages. on the other hand based on giles performances in the subcontinent and on turners in general you can almost guarantee that his record would be far better.

See if you understood cricket, you'd know that home conditions is something oen adapts to primarily.
Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Kapil, Srinath, Kumble, etc. are all better at home ( same with most bowlers outside the subcontinent in their homes) than away. Simply because you adapt to home conditions.
If Giles was in the subcontinent, he wouldnt have played for any of the subcontinental teams except bangladesh- he isnt good enough to produce jaw-dropping performances in the subcontinent like Kumble/Harbhajan/Murali etc. and he would be just like Kumble- mediocre overseas.

 

[Pratters]

he certainly doesnt look 6'3 and i can certainly remember a couple of commentators saying he was 6'0, nonetheless if the website that greg pointed out is accurate, he has a significant advantage over ealham. nonetheless bowling at 77-78 is still too slow to be effective on flat decks as he has shown in his career.

Okay if Pollock is 6 1 even by your dynamics. (an inch higher lets say)

It would be Ealham 5 10
Pollock 6 1
Mcgrath 6 4

If Pollock would be more like Ealham and cant derive extra bounce, I dont see how McGrath can derive extra bounce compared to Pollock as the height differences are the same.

err you still have no explanation.

I have already said - you will discount the innings of Hayden where he makes runs saying it was a flat track and no swing. And in the matches he is out early you will say there was cloud, swing and supported your theory.

I repeat. I am no weather man. If Hayden scores a century and it is always discounted to because of a flat track and no credit is given to him, you can believe what you want.

 

[tooextracool]

See if you understood cricket, you'd know that home conditions is something oen adapts to primarily.
Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Kapil, Srinath, Kumble, etc. are all better at home ( same with most bowlers outside the subcontinent in their homes) than away. Simply because you adapt to home conditions.

true, but there are also players who do the opposite and while that happens less often it doesnt mean that any player whos better away from home than at home is useless.

If Giles was in the subcontinent, he wouldnt have played for any of the subcontinental teams except bangladesh- he isnt good enough to produce jaw-dropping performances in the subcontinent like Kumble/Harbhajan/Murali etc. and he would be just like Kumble- mediocre overseas.

thats arguable, hed definetly make the SL team ahead of chandana and herath and he might make the pakistan team if they needed a 2nd spinner. nonetheless the fact is that hes good enough to make the english side, not whether hes good enough to make any other side in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

Okay if Pollock is 6 1 even by your dynamics. (an inch higher lets say)

It would be Ealham 5 10
Pollock 6 1
Mcgrath 6 4

If Pollock would be more like Ealham and cant derive extra bounce, I dont see how McGrath can derive extra bounce compared to Pollock as the height differences are the same.

err someone whos 6'5 is going to derive more bounce than someone whos 6'1. you only have to look at steve harmison and andrew flintoff in the ashes to realise that.

I have already said - you will discount the innings of Hayden where he makes runs saying it was a flat track and no swing. And in the matches he is out early you will say there was cloud, swing and supported your theory.

I repeat. I am no weather man. If Hayden scores a century and it is always discounted to because of a flat track and no credit is given to him, you can believe what you want.

you've once again evaded the argument. lets forget about the swing for a second. give me a reasonable explanation as to why he failed twice in england, and why he scored prolifically in the warm up games and still looked out of depth in the test format.