***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[aussie]

Maybe it is time for Martyn to move over and let in someone younger.

Martyn has been very solid for Australia and deserves to stay but looking ahead the team needs to develop and get better.

Hussey and Katich have 4-6 years on Martyn and could possibly go on for another two WC's.

Hayden
Gilly
Ponting
Clarke
Katich
Hussey
Symonds
Hogg
Lee
Dizzy
McGrath

Hard decision but could be worth a try.

not at all, until Matryn starts failing then we could start thinking of dropping him.

 

[aussie]

If it wasnt for the fact that Gillespie and Kaspa need the bowling, I'd drop them both and retain Watson. He was impressive on Sunday, can bat and field.

Bowling attack would then be McGrath, Lee, Hogg, Symonds, Watson, Hussey, Clarke

that wont be a wise choice at all mate, but anyway that wont be happening

 

[aussie]

Err, why? I've got nothing against the guy and no interest in belittling him, he just hasn't done that well against good opposition yet. If he plays well against Australia or if he had played well against South Africa I'd say he was clearly a very good bowler. I think he's pretty good as it is, but he's not deserving of being rated among the best in the world (or ahead of Hoggard) until he does well against one of the better batting lineups in the world.

couldn't have said it better myself, Harmy will be truly proven in my book after the ashes series.

 

[marc71178]

Forgot martyn did well against bangladesh, but yea his slow scoring not whats needed.

But he isn't a slow scorer!

 

[marc71178]

what the f**k is wrong with you marc, where here did i make huge reference to Anderson

Just about every post you make talking about England bowlers recommends Anderson.

It's repetitive and can only be influenced by you being a Lancashire fan.

 

[aussie]

I'm a huge fan of Martyn.

But nowdays you need to have something more than just batting in ODI's.

If Aus can get better by bringing in Katich or Hussey who can bowl a bit and bring the fielding up a notch then why not. Its not about Martyn but about improving Aus.

Whats so bad about Martyn's fielding , he has pretty same hands, moves well and has a decent arm he is probably a better all-round fieldsman than both Katich & Hussey.

If you remember Martyn bowled a bit in ODI cricket in his earlier years, but hasn't done that much in few seasons.

 

[aussie]

Just about every post you make talking about England bowlers recommends Anderson.

It's repetitive and can only be influenced by you being a Lancashire fan.

well i was talking about that post really, but maybe me being a Lanchashire fan has influenced my constant comments on Anderson but you must agree that he has potential & is one for the future even if his performances of late hasn't been that special

 

[badgerhair]

Why rate Hoggard higher than Harmison?

His record against Australia is far worse - but I suppose like I intimated earlier, subjectivity is everything.

After seeing him go for 16 an over and lose tonight's 20-20 against Lancs virtually single-handed, I don't rate Hoggatd higher than Craig White. If ever enyone needed proof that Hoggard is one of the least useful one-day bowlers in the world, this evening's perfoirmance would do it. It's not that he was bowling badly as such, but if someone decides that they want to line him up and hit him, there's sod all he can do about it. Without three slips and a gully, Hoggard is harmless.

Don't get me wrong; I'm a Hoggard fan, but I'm very aware of his limitations. He has become a fine Test bowler by recognising those limitations and bowling within them, much like Kasprowicz who is very similar and is also getting pasted in one-day cricket.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[aussie]

In my estimation, Harmison is one of two key bowlers who enter a Test match for England. Hoggard is the other.

I would say 3 in Hoggard, Harmison & Flintoff

 

[badgerhair]

Anyway, ignoring that, their batting lineup is clearly very good, whatever you might say about the rest of the team, just like India. New Zealand have a very, very poor batting lineup, and West Indies have a pretty average one. Harmison is clearly a good bowler, but he can hardly be considered among the best in the world until he takes wickets against a good batting lineup. Keep in mind that I'm not saying he is incapable of doing that, just that he hasn't done it yet, and his performances in South Africa don't reflect on him very well.

World class bowlers don't maul one team and turn into absolute rubbish against another.

I take your general point, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the line that you can't really be called a world-class bowler without qualification unless you perform most times against most teams wherever you play.

The difficulty with assessing Harmison is that he's an extremely poor traveller because he misses his family and friends. The difference between teh WI tour and the SA tour was that in the Caribbean, Harmison's best mate Fred was still single and his girlfiend was only pregnant and wasn't there, whereas in SA, Fred had his wife and baby daughter around and didn't have time to hang around with Harmy.

He will probably end up being labelled a home track bully or someone who can only perform in English conditions, whereas the truth will be the slightly more subtle one that it doesn't matter what the pitch is like, but it does matter how far it is from Durham.

However, to say that he has not succeeded against good batting line-ups is something of an insult to Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul and above all Lara - who seems able to scorre centuries at will against everyone else but needed the flattest track imaginable in a dead rubber match to get one against our lot (although he made up for it by getting four at once). WI are a weak Test side because their bowlers would generally need about eight days to take twenty wickets, and it's true that their tail folds more embarrassingly than most, but it seems to me to be significant that Lara couldn't buy a run against Harmison and Flintoff but seems to terrorise everyone else. If people perceive WI's batting line-up as weak, it's because they spent most of 2004 facing a top-class attack, just as England line-ups featuring Gooch, Gower, Gatting, Lamb and Smith were seen as weak because they kept collapsing spectacularly to WI.

As to South Africa, they've got de Villiers (who was debuting in the series against England) and Kallis who are good and excellent, the limited Graeme Smith whom England and Hoggard in particular have got worked out (after toiling through a couple of double centuries to find out what to do with him, it must be admittted), and Herschelle Gibbs who was either completely out of form or has gone right off the boil, plus a couple of complete ciphers who either don't belong in Test cricket (Dippenaar) or have alot of growing up; to do (Rudolph, Prince et al).
Hoggard is generally less effective than Harmison, but has the priceless ability to make the ball talk when the conditions favour swing. I don't think there's currently a better swing bowler in the world when conditions are right, but he's no more than an honest toiler when there's no movement for him.

The great virtue of the England pace attack nowadays is that the four bowlers differ in speed and style, which measn that at least one of them has a decent chance on almost any pitch. When we go to the sub-continent, I won't be at all surprised if Simon Jones is our most effective pace bowler and Hoggard ends the series with people questioning whether he should be in the side at all.

Most England fans would see Harmison as having the extra cutting edge when he's mentally right which would lift the attack from good to outstanding; he was mentally right in the Caribbean and back at home, and wasn't in South Africa. At present, it looks as though he's in comfortable-at-home mode, which spells danger for opposition batsmen.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I would say 3 in Hoggard, Harmison & Flintoff

I don't believe Flintoff is picked as a strike bowler. He may look capable of being a strike bowler of late, but I don't think he'll ever be used in the role, as England needs his batting as much as his bowling.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

or rather 'unproven test batsman'. because theres no way you can tell me that hes mediocre when hes averaged 44.75 since his return, and has played a large part in winning several games.

I can tell you that. He had one big innings and another 90odd not out. He scored an 80 against South Africa, but I do wish you'd tell me how that was a large part toward English victory, considering that scores were virtually level at the end of the first innings of that match.

Several refers to more than two games.

Also, when I say a batsman isn't quality at Test level it means that he's not proven quality at Test level. Any other suggestion for the statement would be ignorance.

 

[badgerhair]

or rather 'unproven test batsman'. because theres no way you can tell me that hes mediocre when hes averaged 44.75 since his return, and has played a large part in winning several games.

Key is the player for whom Richard's first-chance average was devised, since it's about 2.73.

We used to complain that Ramprakash kept gettijng to 20 but not 30. With Key, it would be getting into double figures but not passing 20.

Once he gets to 30, Key is indeed a very good batsman. But he is so uncertain until then that he needs to lead a charmed life to get there in Test cricket.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Mister Wright]

Several refers to more than two games.

Indeed - couple = 2, few = 3, several usually equates to 5 or more.

 

[honestbharani]

Not really bothered about individual comparisons, as a team SA are a little bit stronger as I've said, but they're all really in that group of 5 decent, average teams (Pakistan, India, SL, SA, NZ) that'll regularly beat each other in Test series. There's no clear gulf there like with West Indies who are clearly much weaker than those 5 or England, Australia who are clearly much stronger than those 5.

u think England are strong enough to beat India in India?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

u think England are strong enough to beat India in India?

That will be a tremendous series, I think.

 

[honestbharani]

That will be a tremendous series, I think.

I think it will be, and I think guys like Harmison and Flintoff can be more than a handful for the Indians, but still, I think India will scrape through by a 1 test margin, IMHO.

 

[marc71178]

I would say 3 in Hoggard, Harmison & Flintoff

Personally I'd say 5, as all 5 have a role to play and it's by playing as a unit the bowling looks so good.

It wouldn't surprise me if during the Ashes (assuming all 5 play throughout) that on at least one occasion will each of the 5 have the best figures in an innings.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

u think England are strong enough to beat India in India?

Doubt it, not too many go to India and win. I still think England will be #2 though regardless of the result, as India have yet to convince away from home as yet, whereas England have.
Tricky trip to Pakistan first anyway, but I'm looking forward to the India series; my "second team", India and my favourite cricketer, Sachin.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Yes. Player Profile: 12.2-0-44-0.

Cheers Neil - 12.2-0-44-0 isn't the worst analysis ever. I'm disappointed, I'd heard that Rob Key could barely get it down the other end. That's why I would have liked to see it!