***Official*** England in Pakistan

[Scaly piscine]

Scaly and LE,

your blind devotion to these 3 guys is indicative of why its almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion with most Englishmen on the subject of one of their own.

Giles - has made a career out of averaging nearly 40 with the ball.

I dont care who you are, what you bowl, who your related to - that's not good enough

A decent spinner would've made significant inroads into any batting lineup at both Old Trafford and Trent Bridge, but he couldnt even keep it tight.

Bell - very dodgy technique means that he nicks/misses a disproportionate no. of deliveries.

Praised for "gutsing it out" to score 2 half-centuries at Old Trafford. The thruth is that he needed an unbelievable amount of luck to make a score against test quality opponents.

Jones - comfortably the worst test w/k currently inworld cricket and, without doubt the worst I have ever seen in test cricket.

No doubt you'll respond to the above with your usual outrage at such an attack being made on some of your own. However, as for technical analysis, it will no doubt take the usual form of "we won the Ashes, nah, nah, nah."

From an Aus perspective, it's comforting to see Eng showing devotion to such under-performers rather than trying to improve their team.

Whilst you're randomly replying to nonexistent arguments presumably as some sort of distraction you should realise that I've slagged off Bell and Giles as much as anyone.

 

[marc71178]

as to the Paul Collingwood issue,he's not being arogant,he's not saying they will win,he's saying that collectively as a team their aim is to win 3-0 and there's nothing wrong in that.

But when McGrath makes a simlar comment, he gets jumped on (and for 1 thing he personally has a lot more to back that sort of comment up)

 

[Scaly piscine]

But when McGrath makes a simlar comment, he gets jumped on (and for 1 thing he personally has a lot more to back that sort of comment up)

As said before there's a big difference between predicting 5-0 and saying you're aiming for 5-0 (3-0 in this case).

 

[marc71178]

It is nothing compared to the presure LAX was under.

To be honest, if a side is following on, surely there's less pressure (because history shows it is almost certain the game is lost)

 

[aussie]

champion side like England.

i dont think we can fully refer to England has a champion side as yet...

 

[DaBombayDuck]

Warne has probably improved since then, McGrath and Kasper are the same - but England were good enough to get Kasper out of the side, Gillespie is obviously worse but he wasn't playing. The pitch was obviously better than the one England played on in the 5th Test. You can't really say either attack was definitely better than the other.

Mcgrath was never as good as he was at Lords, fior the rest of the Ashes series, after he stepped on that cricket ball. There was just something missing from his bowling.
Even the most one-eyed England supporter would have to admit that.
In Kolkata 2001, he was fully fit.

Kasper 2001 was most certainly better than Lee or Tait September 2005.

Come off it, it's so obvious Laxman played the better attack. Stop clutching at straws

 

[marc71178]

Bell, Jones and Giles should not have lasted the Ashes series.

So name replacements then?

 

[marc71178]

As said before there's a big difference between predicting 5-0 and saying you're aiming for 5-0 (3-0 in this case).

Didn't McGrath say someone about "we always aim to win every game we play so we're going for 5-0"?

If it had been anyone not from Durham, you'd be on at them like a flash.

 

[aussie]

Warne has probably improved since then, McGrath and Kasper are the same - but England were good enough to get Kasper out of the side, Gillespie is obviously worse but he wasn't playing. The pitch was obviously better than the one England played on in the 5th Test. You can't really say either attack was definitely better than the other.

what?? have you watched Kasper throughout his carrer he was much better over here than he was in India in 2001 even if England were good enough to get him dropped. Plus i dont think the pitch was ``obviously`` better than the oval has you are saying, both were equally flat surfaces IMO.

Finally yes the Attack that Laxam faced in 2001 was better than the one KP faced last moth, just look at it:

Eden Gardens:

McGrath - was bowling in top form after just coming off destroying the WI
Gillespie - also was in good bowling form
Kasper - was inconsistent but he was bowling better than Lee or Tait
Warne - wasn't in great form

Oval:

McGrath - not in top form, wasn't fully fit, thus wasn't his usual metronomical best
Lee - was wild, the scoring oppurtunities he gave to KP, laxman didn't get from Dizzy & Kasper

Tait - was underused understandly but with his in experience he may have fell away if he was bowled form
Warne- Bowling at his peak

Plus the fact that KP was dropped 3 times againts an understrenght aussie attack while Laxman's innings was chancelss...

 

[luckyeddie]

Scaly and LE,

your blind devotion to these 3 guys is indicative of why its almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion with most Englishmen on the subject of one of their own..

I'll tell you what, sunshine:

You haven't got a single clue what the hell I was on about.

Don't worry, I won't bother attempting to spell it out to you any more, because I can (eventually) recognise a complete and utter waste of time when I come across one.

 

[luckyeddie]

The old adage doesnt make it right.

Even with three patently useless players, England were still too strong for your lot. How on Earth could Australia reach No 1 in the world when they couldn't even beat 8 men?

Oh, just forget it.

 

[social]

I'll tell you what, sunshine:

You haven't got a single clue what the hell I was on about.

Don't worry, I won't bother attempting to spell it out to you any more, because I can (eventually) recognise a complete and utter waste of time when I come across one.

As usual

A dummy spit when people fail to adhere to your golden rule: Thou shalt not criticise anything English

 

[social]

Even with three patently useless players, England were still too strong for your lot. How on Earth could Australia reach No 1 in the world when they couldn't even beat 8 men?

Oh, just forget it.

Tell you what, why dont you explain to me how:

a. Jones' batting prowess outweighs the fact that he drops more chances than he accepts; or

b. Giles' batting and fielding counter-balance the fact that he is neither economical or penetrative as a bowler; or

c. England play their weakest batsman in perhaps the most vital position in the order;
or, alternatively,

d. England has no back-up and these players are simply the best of the bunch.

I dont expect a reply as any answer would contemplate a weakness in the English set-up and we cant have that, can we.

 

[tooextracool]

b. Giles' batting and fielding counter-balance the fact that he is neither economical or penetrative as a bowler;

id certainly like to hear how giles isnt economical when his ER in tests is under 3. you keep going on as though the series against australia is the be all and end all, and his poor returns in the series demands exclusion from the side.

 

[social]

id certainly like to hear how giles isnt economical when his ER in tests is under 3. you keep going on as though the series against australia is the be all and end all, and his poor returns in the series demands exclusion from the side.

The Ashes was nothing more than a continuation of ordinary bowling from him. I think he averaged well over 40 against SA and was absolutely "milked" by all their batsmen.

I really dont get why people insist on defending him. He's a very, very average test bowler and his career statistics reflect that.

 

[tooextracool]

The Ashes was nothing more than a continuation of ordinary bowling from him. I think he averaged well over 40 against SA and was absolutely "milked" by all their batsmen.

I really dont get why people insist on defending him. He's a very, very average test bowler and his career statistics reflect that.

he was ordinary in SA because he didnt get any turners to assist him. and i dont think anyone would argue that ashley giles is extremely ordinary when the pitch doesnt assist him. nor is there any doubt that he isnt anything more than an ordinary test bowler, but hes still the best spin bowling option in england, and as such when he gets the conditions in his favour is almost always difficult to contend with.

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

Umer Gul has been surprisingly been overlooked for the Squad for the comming test match.

The 16 man squad is,

Salman Butt, Shoaib Malik, Younis Khan, Inzamam-ul-Haq (capt), Mohammad Yousuf, Asim Kamal, Shahid Afridi, Kamran Akmal (wkt), Mohammad Sami, Danish Kaneria, Arshad Khan, Mushtaq Ahmed, Shoaib Akhtar, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan, Shabbir Ahmed, Hasan Raza.

 

[greg]

Tell you what, why dont you explain to me how:

a. Jones' batting prowess outweighs the fact that he drops more chances than he accepts; or

b. Giles' batting and fielding counter-balance the fact that he is neither economical or penetrative as a bowler; or

c. England play their weakest batsman in perhaps the most vital position in the order;
or, alternatively,

d. England has no back-up and these players are simply the best of the bunch.

I dont expect a reply as any answer would contemplate a weakness in the English set-up and we cant have that, can we.

England are a team. Giles' figures don't tell the story of his contribution to the team. The point about picking a team is that one player's figures should not be looked at in isolation when measuring their contribution. England want the variation provided by a spinner, and Giles being the best that there is, with a great temperament for the pressure generated by test cricket, is fully worth his place in the team on that basis. The fact remains that Giles made match turning contributions in the Ashes series. They may not have been of the classical 5-46 in the second innings type, but they were still valuable none the less.

The wicket keeper situation is far more complicated than a simple calculation of runs scored - runs conceded through chances missed.

Bell is not being picked because he is a world class batsman now - England are investing in the future, time will tell whether he is the right player to invest in. The selectors gambled on two players in the Ashes series, one eventually came off the other didn't. But you don't become a successful team by dropping players after 2 matches.

 

[social]

England are a team. Giles' figures don't tell the story of his contribution to the team. The point about picking a team is that one player's figures should not be looked at in isolation when measuring their contribution. England want the variation provided by a spinner, and Giles being the best that there is, with a great temperament for the pressure generated by test cricket, is fully worth his place in the team on that basis. The fact remains that Giles made match turning contributions in the Ashes series. They may not have been of the classical 5-46 in the second innings type, but they were still valuable none the less.

The wicket keeper situation is far more complicated than a simple calculation of runs scored - runs conceded through chances missed.

Bell is not being picked because he is a world class batsman now - England are investing in the future, time will tell whether he is the right player to invest in. The selectors gambled on two players in the Ashes series, one eventually came off the other didn't. But you don't become a successful team by dropping players after 2 matches.

Fair enough, but I dont necessarily agree with the retention of Giles and, to a lesser extent Jones, as both have had ample opportunities and have been proven not to be up to scratch.

Bell is a different case as he is young enough and obviously has talent. However, he certainly shouldnt be batting at no. 4, particularly with how vulnerable Vaughan has been recently.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Eden Gardens:

McGrath - was bowling in top form after just coming off destroying the WI
Gillespie - also was in good bowling form
Kasper - was inconsistent but he was bowling better than Lee or Tait
Warne - wasn't in great form

Oval:

McGrath - not in top form, wasn't fully fit, thus wasn't his usual metronomical best
Lee - was wild, the scoring oppurtunities he gave to KP, laxman didn't get from Dizzy & Kasper

Tait - was underused understandly but with his in experience he may have fell away if he was bowled form
Warne- Bowling at his peak

Plus the fact that KP was dropped 3 times againts an understrenght aussie attack while Laxman's innings was chancelss...

3 seamers are never going to be world beaters, no matter how good they are, in India, and saying Warne 'wasn't in great form' is being kind, it was the worst series of his career. Also, when did Tait come into the picture in 2001?!

From just watching him, McGrath was bowling just as well, but not taking wickets - he was accurate, bowling 80 mph, and moving the odd one off the seam - just what he's always done. Just because his figures aren't good doesn't mean he didn't bowl well.

Warne was having the series of his life.

I don't think KP's innings was against the better attack, but it certainly wasn't miles worse.