***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well I disagree, he never really looked comfortable yes but to me he still played alright and didn't look VERY vulnerable.. To me he was just a little out of touch, he's looking very comftable againt Freddie and Harmo atm btw..

Harmison didn't bowl particularly well in the Ashes. Regarding Ponting v Flintoff now, not only is ODI cricket even more batsman friendly than Test cricket, but the man must be exhausted physically and emotionally.

 

[Eclipse]

Harmison didn't bowl particularly well in the Ashes. Regarding Ponting v Flintoff now, not only is ODI cricket even more batsman friendly than Test cricket, but the man must be exhausted physically and emotionally.

all true..

I still must say I rate his play against pace and seam bowlers quite high though.. He's been around a fair while and has played against good bowlers of the past and done well..

As I said all those names you mentioned bar 1 or 2 he has a good record against, yes it's a limited list but we can only go on we have seen.

 

[Eclipse]

get's out to flintoff just then... but that was to fancy a stroke and indicitive of some over confidence i would say...

 

[marc71178]

i had to go back the year before 2004 to get to Ponting last game for tassie

Funny that - that would be kind of proving my point then, wouldn't it...

 

[roseboy64]

I think jlo33692 is missing the point about his playing games against other Aussie Test players. IT's accpeted that he's played against them but as the saying goes, "One swallow does not make a summer." You can't judge him against those players when he only faces them once a season. That is if they even play each other. If he'd played them every game possible for every season then a better judgement can be made.

 

[tooextracool]

Which are these good and great pace attacks of which you speak then?

gough,caddick, & headley in 97
donald,pollock,mcmillan in 97/98
walsh & ambrose in 99

 

[tooextracool]

I don't know if the reception is poor from where you were watching the cricket, but he didn't bowl that badly. He kept the ball in the right spot and was lively with his place. He did what he should do and needs to do, bowl the ball in the right places. We're talking very good figures against the best ODI batsman in the world atm and he bowled well to get the figures he did.

really? you'd think then that his ER would be considerably better than 4.96. he was wayward for most of it, and the fact that he picked up wickets of ordinary balls made people sit up,as though he bowled more accurately than hes ever bowled.

 

[tooextracool]

Bishop... an excellent bowler. You may have a point with him.

assuming you were looking at the last 12 years, then bishop was hardly a great bowler, because post injury he was very very ordinary.

 

[tooextracool]

he played them fine if you ask me...

averaged 39 which was IMO due to being slightly out of form a run out or two as well...

ponting was most definetly not out of form. he averaged 39 yes,which isnt poor by any means, but its still considerably worse than his career average.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

assuming you were looking at the last 12 years, then bishop was hardly a great bowler, because post injury he was very very ordinary.

"Excellent"...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

gough,caddick, & headley in 97
donald,pollock,mcmillan in 97/98
walsh & ambrose in 99

Two men do not comprise an attack. None of Gough/Caddick/Headley were great, nor did they pose a "great" attack in combination. McMillan? Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

[Pratters]

Two men do not comprise an attack. None of Gough/Caddick/Headley were great, nor did they pose a "great" attack in combination. McMillan? Now you're just being ridiculous.

Not going to read what the arguement/debate is about but there havent been many great 'attacks' in the history of cricket really.

If a batsman's ability is being discarded because he hasnt faced great attacks or hasnt scored against great attacks in the little opportunity he has got, it is not some thing from which a conclusion can be attained. As there arent many opportunities the batsman has got against a great attack, he hasnt got much chance to prove whether he can face upto a great attack consistently or not. Not really his fault.

If it is being contemplated that a lot of great attacks as a whole havent come up, then yes I agree.

 

[chalky]

You could say the current Aussie attack only comprises two men certainly on the tour of England.

 

[Tom Halsey]

You could say the current Aussie attack only comprises two men certainly on the tour of England.

And hence they aren't great. Two men do not make an attack.

 

[chalky]

And hence they aren't great. Two men do not make an attack.

I would still take them & two poor bowlers (Lee & Watson for e.g.) over the next 4 best bowlers in the world.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'd have Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones and Harmison (when conditions suit) and Giles (when conditions suit) over them, personally, because they compliment each other so well.

 

[chalky]

I'd have Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones and Harmison (when conditions suit) and Giles (when conditions suit) over them, personally, because they compliment each other so well.

am gonna disagree I would take a fully fit Mcgrath & Warne (+ 2 other average/poor international bowlers) over any 4 current bowlers even 4 out of the England attack. McGrath & Warne don't need conditions to suit to rip through teams Warne is effective on greentop, as is Mcgrath on a dustbowl.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Hoggard when conditions don't suit keeps it tight, Flintoff is a reasonable bowler when conditions don't suit, and Jones (if he bowls like he did in The Ashes) would take wickets on anything. Agreed Harmison and Giles need conditions in their favour to be effective.

The great thing of the England attack (I think Faiip pointed it out in another thread with bowling stats in the last 2 years) is that they don't have any great bowlers but they have 4 bowlers in the Top 10 of bowling averages in the last 2 years.

 

[chalky]

I agree I think the England attack is outstanding - because they all know their roles and perform them well. Also when one guy is a bit below form the others lift their game to compensate. However in McGrath & Warne (as mutch as it pains me to say it) Australia have the greatest quick and spin bowlers ever to play the game IMHO. The only question I have about them now is Mcgrath's fitness - I don't think he will ever be 100% fit again.

 

[Tom Halsey]

However in McGrath & Warne (as mutch as it pains me to say it) Australia have the greatest quick and spin bowlers ever to play the game IMHO.

I don't really think you can say that as you haven't seen everyone - I'll give you they're the best pace and spin bowlers I've seen though.

I'd rather 4 very good bowlers who compliment each other and 1 'useful bowler' over 2 great ones and 2 naff ones.