***Official*** England in Pakistan

[FaaipDeOiad]

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?

Err what? Hayden's been out of form for a year. You didn't notice that he hadn't scored a century in over 12 months before the Ashes? He struggled in India, sturggled against the might of Pakistan and New Zealand at home, and again against New Zealand away from home. There's no doubt he struggled against Hoggard's inswing and the reverse from Flintoff, but this "barely had a bad series for 3 years" rubbish is ridiculous, because he was woefully out of form and already in danger of being dropped before the series started.

 

[tooextracool]

Err what? Hayden's been out of form for a year. You didn't notice that he hadn't scored a century in over 12 months before the Ashes? He struggled in India, sturggled against the might of Pakistan and New Zealand at home, and again against New Zealand away from home. There's no doubt he struggled against Hoggard's inswing and the reverse from Flintoff, but this "barely had a bad series for 3 years" rubbish is ridiculous, because he was woefully out of form and already in danger of being dropped before the series started.

actually i was referring to his first bad series in england, which was the only bad series he had from the tour of india in 2001 till the tour of india in 2004/05

 

[wahindiawah]

What does being "hostile" have to do with it? As if that is the only criteria by which an attack could be any good? Anyway, so far as hostility goes, I guess the Windies team from 2003 which contained Tino Best and Jermaine Lawson was fairly "hostile". Donald and Hayward are also quite a "hostile" pair. Variation? Well Australia faced Indian teams relatively recently which had a leg-spinner, an off-spinner, and a left and right arm seamer... that's quite varied. Sri Lanka presented a similar team on occasion as well.

Now, as far as quality goes, which is actually a relevant issue, well Australia has faced quality attacks from Pakistan (Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain, Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain/Kaneria, which were far better than you seem to think), India, Sri Lanka and South Africa over the last few years. Of course, there haven't been that many great attacks in international cricket of late (not that there are ever many!), but when confronted with good bowlers Australia's batsmen have shown themselves to be more than adequate.

It was inevitable of course than fans of X team, whereupon that team broke Australia's long unbeaten run, would claim that Australia were in fact never any good and just never faced opposition as good as said team X, but really there's no evidence to suggest it. Each of Australia's batsmen (excluding perhaps those newest to the team) had significant past success against good bowlers, including against those significantly better than most in England's current team. And while England's bowling attack is very good and does indeed take strength from being a five man attack with some variety, it is not anywhere near as good as you would have to believe to mark it SO FAR ahead of the attacks Australia has thrashed in the past that Australia would be brought down from being utterly dominant to completely exposed. You will find that it is some remarkably good bowling and some uncharacteristically poor performances from certain Australian batsmen as well as some level of age-related decline that led to Australia making moderate totals in the series, rather than being exposed as overrated hacks by the God-like English attack that puts all others to shame.

Completely agreed.

While i'm happy at the good progress of English pacers, i have no doubt that they would have struggled had they faced Waugh led Aussie team of 90's!!

 

[Deja moo]

Pratyush, what the hell are you doing up at 2 am, and then at 4:40 am ?

 

[marc71178]

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

Yes, they've played individual bowlers - but that is not the point.

 

[Pratters]

Yes, they've played individual bowlers - but that is not the point.

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.

 

[Pratters]

Pratyush, what the hell are you doing up at 2 am, and then at 4:40 am ?

Was reading cricket articles the weeirdo that I am!

 

[Pratters]

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

Just test cricket. Not international cricket over all and it was later that he went down hill.

because anyone whos watched pollock bowled from 2001 onwards would know that hes lost a lot of pace

Pace is not the only thing which gets you wickets in international cricket. Else Lee would never be out of the Aussie line up would he.

because he was.

Kallis rubbish? Not really! And when Kallis was not that good RSA had MacMillan some one you acknowledge to be a good bowler as well!

Donald was coming back from a long injury and didnt play a game after the series, so this doesnt really apply to him.

If he did play in the series why does it not apply to him that he bowled in the series.

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.

So will now say that Pollock is useless in Australia if it does not swing? Do you know line and length can get you wickets too in international cricket or not?

so howcome then hayden got found out?

It is not a crime to be out of form.

 

[Go_India]

Heard there were 2 blasts in LAHORE, now what?

 

[grecian]

Surely Mascarenhas, is a more able replacement for Flintoff, then Collingwood, if theres a injury, or Freddie bottles a potentially hazardous tour

 

[Scaly piscine]

Surely Mascarenhas, is a more able replacement for Flintoff, then Collingwood, if theres a injury, or Freddie bottles a potentially hazardous tour

Dear me... these people from exeter... hope someone is checking the water for contaminants

 

[tooextracool]

Just test cricket. Not international cricket over all and it was later that he went down hill..

err what?
how in the world someone who was called white lightening can not be in decline when he was bowling at military medium pace in australia, i'll never know.

Pace is not the only thing which gets you wickets in international cricket. Else Lee would never be out of the Aussie line up would he.

no, but pace makes you a much better bowler than if the same bowler didnt have it. brett lee without pace would be a disgrace.

Kallis rubbish? Not really! And when Kallis was not that good RSA had MacMillan some one you acknowledge to be a good bowler as well!.

i was referring to the series in 2001/02, in which mcmillan wasnt playing in and kallis was rubbish.

If he did play in the series why does it not apply to him that he bowled in the series.

because you wanted to compare how non-australian batsmen had played donald before and after this series. donald before the series wasnt fit, and after the series retired.

So will now say that Pollock is useless in Australia if it does not swing? Do you know line and length can get you wickets too in international cricket or not?

against a half decent batting lineup, line and length on its own wont get too many wickets. other than seam and swing pollock doesnt have any variety,and he bowls at medium pace these days.

It is not a crime to be out of form.

so hayden was out of form then? despite scoring in every single warm up game that he played in? you cant show such an obvious technical weakness, get worked out and then call it 'out of form'

 

[Pratters]

err what?
how in the world someone who was called white lightening can not be in decline when he was bowling at military medium pace in australia, i'll never know.

He had declined around the 2003 world cup. During the period you are mentioning he was not that bad. And dont take the stats just from a series.

no, but pace makes you a much better bowler than if the same bowler didnt have it. brett lee without pace would be a disgrace

Yes but the initial point of yours regarding Pollock does not hold good cos he can maintain line and length and relies not just on swing or used to on pace.

i was referring to the series in 2001/02, in which mcmillan wasnt playing in and kallis was rubbish.

If he is rubbish in a series but good in other series during the period, it is more likely Australia exploited him than he being the useless player. There are two sides of a coin.

because you wanted to compare how non-australian batsmen had played donald before and after this series. donald before the series wasnt fit, and after the series retired.

And he played no other international cricket in the past 1 year to acertain he was good?

against a half decent batting lineup, line and length on its own wont get too many wickets. other than seam and swing pollock doesnt have any variety,and he bowls at medium pace these days.

Pollock is still a very good bowler though.

so hayden was out of form then? despite scoring in every single warm up game that he played in? you cant show such an obvious technical weakness, get worked out and then call it 'out of form'

Check his tet match form from series played before the Ashes.

 

[tooextracool]

He had declined around the 2003 world cup. During the period you are mentioning he was not that bad. And dont take the stats just from a series..

why? watching him bowl is a more accurate indication that stats of the series, an allan donald look like half the bowler he can be. everyone knew he was past it at the time, and theres no reason to suggest that he was not. and even if you do look at statistics, i find it a bit strange that it was the first time in his entire career that he averaged more than 50(or actually over 40) in a series.

Yes but the initial point of yours regarding Pollock does not hold good cos he can maintain line and length and relies not just on swing or used to on pace.

line and length on its own doesnt get wickets against a quality lineup. otherwise players like ealham and co would be playing for england. when pollock had some extra pace he was a far far better bowler than he is now.

If he is rubbish in a series but good in other series during the period, it is more likely Australia exploited him than he being the useless player. There are two sides of a coin.

except that kallis wasnt good in other series, he had the odd good series here and there, but more often than not he was hammered all over the park.
his average from early 99 to the start of 2001 was 39.45(not including zimbabwe)
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
and then one good series against the WI made his average prop up again.

And he played no other international cricket in the past 1 year to acertain he was good?

and what in the world does his performance before he got injured have to do with anything?

Pollock is still a very good bowler though.

he maybe a good bowler overall, but on a flat wicket with no swing hes generally useless and we've seen that plenty of times. had he played in the series at home against australia last time he might have taken a fair few wickets.

Check his tet match form from series played before the Ashes.

your point is? he was most certainly not out of form in the ashes otherwise he wouldnt have been hammering mediocre county bowlers around. and even if he were out of form, why should he have such an obvious technical weakness, a weakness which hes been showing for years now, and even got exploited against it in his previous ashes series in england.

 

[Pratters]

why? watching him bowl is a more accurate indication that stats of the series

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

line and length on its own doesnt get wickets against a quality lineup.

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

except that kallis wasnt good in other series, he had the odd good series here and there, but more often than not he was hammered all over the park.
his average from early 99 to the start of 2001 was 39.45(not including zimbabwe)
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
and then one good series against the WI made his average prop up again.

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.

and what in the world does his performance before he got injured have to do with anything?

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

he maybe a good bowler overall, but on a flat wicket with no swing hes generally useless and we've seen that plenty of times. had he played in the series at home against australia last time he might have taken a fair few wickets.

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

your point is? he was most certainly not out of form in the ashes otherwise he wouldnt have been hammering mediocre county bowlers around. and even if he were out of form, why should he have such an obvious technical weakness, a weakness which hes been showing for years now, and even got exploited against it in his previous ashes series in england.

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.

 

[greg]

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

I think that's debateable. Depends how you define 'dangerous'. (and we're talking about outside Lords).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think that's debateable. Depends how you define 'dangerous'. (and we're talking about outside Lords).

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.

 

[greg]

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.

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.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

More to do with the pitches McGrath bowled on in those instances. Lord's had seam movement and the slope, the others hardly any seam movement.

 

[greg]

More to do with the pitches McGrath bowled on in those instances. Lord's had seam movement and the slope, the others hardly any seam movement.

Of course, but the point is that the McGrath bowling mid 80s mph was a constant threat on virtually ANY surface. McGrath at 80mph needs a pitch to help him.