*Official* Zimbabwe in Australia Thread

[Eclipse]

What do you think of Gilchrist by the way Richard??

 

[Andre]

Slightly OT, but is anyone going to day 1 of the Sydney Test?

 

[Richard]

Hair-splitting, dude. It's pretty clear that what I'm saying here is my opinion without me having to either preface my opinion with "In my opinion....." or to end the paragraph with same.

Maybe - some people (and I regret to say more of them than not are Australians) have the arrogance to say "this will happen" and when it doesn't they just look so foolish.
I wouldn't want to tar you with a common brush without checking.

Maybe so and he's lucky he has the capacity to play in both a defensive and attacking manner. But I submit to you this; when he plays defensively, he looks Test-class; when he plays in an attacking manner, he looks a potential great.

Hmm, I've hesitated to call Vaughan a great when many have been labelling him with that brush (in spite, bizarrely, of the continuation of the "Thorpe's England's best player" brigade) and I still do. For me, Vaughan is at his best when he plays as he did during Pakistan Tests in 2001 (32, 120, 10) the India tour in 2001\02 (11 and a hopeless decision, 31* 64 and handled-the-ball) - not the ultra-defensive, anti-Ambrose-and-Walsh style of the Lord's innings, but not the way he started to play in New Zealand - that's just too aggressive to work against a decent fielding side most of the time. It worked in the second-innings of the final two Ashes Tests (and in two other big centuries, 195 and 156) but aside from these it hasn't worked (in the form of chanceless runs, as I mentioned somewhere), and as an opener that's really not surprising. English openers won't generally get away with being too aggressive unless they're very lucky, like Trescothick.

 

[Richard]

most people think that Australia's bowling is its strength, atm we are a little weak through injuries and Warneys suspension, but generally we have by far the best bowling attack in the world. if there isa good fast pitch (like a regular waca wicket) or a good turning pitch, we have the bowlers to exploit it, and we have batsmen who can play well on the type of pitch, and play agressivley and well on those types of pitches, Matty Hayden can bat well against any type of attack, on any type of pitch, he is brilliant against pace and spin.


why, can the australian team, generally led by Hayden, bat so well in any conditions, because we get on top of oposing attacks, and trust me, you font do that by blocking, you do that by attacking, look at the Australian batting strike rates,

Hayden - 61
Langer - 52
Ponting - 57.5
Martyn - 51
Waugh - 48.5 (and on the up)
Lehmann - 61
Gilchrist - 83 (96 or something against england i beleive)
Lee - 58

and the SR's of our bowling, some of the best ever

Lee - 51
McGrath - 52
Gillespie - 51
Macgill - 52


we win games by getting on top of the oposition and do this by attacking not by playing defensivley.

look at Vaughan - SR - 51, trescothick sr is 52 - they are sort of changing the guard from old fella's who score more slowly like Butcher and Hussain. they will bring people to the grounds, and win england many more games. but they need to be the tred setters, and not just conform to what is leading english cricket to death. defensive play.

the more attacking you play, the more games you win and the more support you get. growth in cricket, overall good for the game

Strange, then, that English cricket is in the most trouble it's ever been in when these two are in the side...
No, that's bull. Crowds will watch decent cricket no matter what the scoring-rates are. People watched the West Indies in the '70s even though they were one of the most boring-by-Australia-of-today's standards teams ever.
The basic fact is true that crowds of the moment want too many runs, too fast, but a bit of good accurate bowling will probably phase that out. Scoring-rates have gone fast and slow down the years and if they don't continue to do so I'll be amazed. The fact of the matter is cricket crowds have always appreciated good cricket no matter what the intrecacies.
The notion that Australian batsmen, led by Hayden, can play in all conditions is based on the fact that the opposite of spin is pace. No, wrong. The opposite of spin is seam-and-swing, or cut-and-swing. Depending on conditons. If good bowlers use conditions to their liking well, they'll always triumph over any batsmen, because they've got the ball in their hands and they're in control of the game.
And like it or not, Hayden can't play the ball at 75+ mph that moves constantly, especially into him. He's brillaint against almost any spin (though I could name some who aren't - Ponting and Gilchrist come to mind).
Any decent batsman can play a ball that's just hurled down at 90 mph without movement. That's not difficult for a quality player. What gets quality players out isn't pace, it's movement. If pace got quality players out Kumara Dharmasena and Anil Kumble would be the best bowlers in The World, because they're so much faster than most spinners. But they hardly turn the ball except on extravagent surfaces, so they both constantly struggle away from home.
The WACA usually produces pitches that are far faster than anything produced anywhere in The World, so very occasionally you get batsmen beaten for pace by 95 mph bowling there. But anywhere else raw pace won't trouble decent batsmen.
Hayden is by no means the only Australian batsman to regularly struggle in good conditions for seam and swing, but Ponting, Waugh, Langer and Lehmann are better than most. How often do you get a pitch in Australia that offers any significant seam? Not often recently. And the outfields are so abrasive that even a Kookaburra ball only swings conventionally for about 20 overs.
Indeed, seam and swing are becoming techniques confined almost completely to New Zealand, with it occasionally seen elsewhere and sometimes in England. This is a shame, and it means batsmen will find it harder to combat, inevitably.
As for Australia's bowling - on seaming pitches McGrath and Gillespie are as dangerous as you'll get. But on pitches that don't seam, they won't trouble batsmen as long as they don't fear them. Warne is someone who'll trouble anyone on any surface, but there aren't any better seamers than McGrath and Gillespie, except possibly one. If you ask me, Bichel, Kasprowicz, Lee, Bracken, Noffke, Williams and anyone else bar one are nothing special and can be dealt with easily by decent batsmen on decent surfaces.
The one bowler who can exploit surfaces that don't seam is Matt Inness. He's been repeatedly ignored, it seems.

 

[Richard]

Top 10 best SR's of all-time...
Gilchrist, A C* - 84.15
Flintoff, A*- 71.93
Smith, G C* - 64.80
Smith, I D - 63.17
Kaluwitharana, R S* - 61.54
Hayden, M L* - 61.34
Klusener, L*- 60.04
Lara, B C* - 59.29
Ponting, R T* - 57.46
Habibul Bashar* - 57.12

*active players.

Yes, Zulu is still considered active.

Qualification?

 

[marc71178]

Slightly OT, but is anyone going to day 1 of the Sydney Test?

I'm considering it...

 

[Richard]

Scoring-rates are entirely a matter of taste. If you ask me, 4.5-an-over in a First-Class game is every bit as boring as 2-an-over.
For me, you need a contest to make cricket entertaining - good bowling, good batting. If someone is being expensive, they must be doing something wrong. Hence, poor bowling. Less entertainment.
The term "bad ball" of course has different meaning to different batsmen and in different situations; scoring speed doesn't make you any better or worse.
But there is no objective definition of what is best for cricket - people who love it enough will watch it any time, any place.

 

[Richard]

What do you think of Gilchrist by the way Richard??

Easily the best batsman of the capable wicketkeepers in The World. No question over that.
Never actually worked-out his first-chance average, but I'll tell you one thing - it won't be 60, it won't be 50, it'll probably be about 45.

 

[marc71178]

I agree with you Richard, but fear we're in the minority!

 

[gibbsnsmith]

are you? it isnt that controversial opr debatable...is it?

 

[Richard]

are you? it isnt that controversial opr debatable...is it?

Well, some people dispute the value of the first-chance average, but surely no-one is stupid enough to deny it's existence?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Qualification?

1000 runs.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I agree with you Richard, but fear we're in the minority!

I agree with that theory too. Gilchrist is a fine batsman, but his average is inflated.

 

[Anil]

I agree with that theory too. Gilchrist is a fine batsman, but his average is inflated.

He is too good to be batting at No: 7 while if he is sent up the order, his average could come down significantly, as evidenced by his one day average of 34.50. Now before anyone jumps on me, I agree that he is a very good batsman, but his average in tests has been cushioned by the fact that he has five or six excellent batsmen coming in before him and softening up the bowling, so that he has to very rarely play under pressure.

 

[Top_Cat]

Now before anyone jumps on me, I agree that he is a very good batsman, but his average in tests has been cushioned by the fact that he has five or six excellent batsmen coming in before him and softening up the bowling, so that he has to very rarely play under pressure.

Maybe so but no-one can deny that when Australia HAS been under pressure and Gilchrist has been required to perform, he has on quite a few occasions. Just a couple include;

Aus vs Pakistan, 2nd innings, Bellerive, 1999-2000. No need to say more.

Aus vs India, 1st innings, 1st Test, 2001 (check the scorecard; without Hayden's and Gilchrist's knocks, Australia were in horrible trouble at 5/99).

Aus vs SA, 1st innings, 2nd Test, Capetown (Aus were 5/176 when he came in and he turned the game).

Aus vs England, 5th Test, Sydney (Aus were 5/150 when he came in. He and Steve Waugh belted an attack which had it's tail up at that point and was looking to dominate yet Gilchrist STILL was able to score at over a run-a-ball for 133 off 121 balls).

Look, stats aside, anyone who's watched him play knows Gilchrist is a special batting talent. His average is above 60 but it's not as if he's had heaps of not-outs which prop his average up (only 13 out of 63 innings). He certainly has had it easier with such a strong batting line-up ahead of him and if he was batting higher, his average would certainly drop but I'd still expect his average to be above 50.

 

[age_master]

Maybe so but no-one can deny that when Australia HAS been under pressure and Gilchrist has been required to perform, he has on quite a few occasions. Just a couple include;

Aus vs Pakistan, 2nd innings, Bellerive, 1999-2000. No need to say more.

Aus vs India, 1st innings, 1st Test, 2001 (check the scorecard; without Hayden's and Gilchrist's knocks, Australia were in horrible trouble at 5/99).

Aus vs SA, 1st innings, 2nd Test, Capetown (Aus were 5/176 when he came in and he turned the game).

Aus vs England, 5th Test, Sydney (Aus were 5/150 when he came in. He and Steve Waugh belted an attack which had it's tail up at that point and was looking to dominate yet Gilchrist STILL was able to score at over a run-a-ball for 133 off 121 balls).

Look, stats aside, anyone who's watched him play knows Gilchrist is a special batting talent. His average is above 60 but it's not as if he's had heaps of not-outs which prop his average up (only 13 out of 63 innings). He certainly has had it easier with such a strong batting line-up ahead of him and if he was batting higher, his average would certainly drop but I'd still expect his average to be above 50.

he would average easily over 50 still you must also remember batting low down the order he gets alot of not outs, you might say this inflate his average a little but not that much i dont think, as he bats down the order he does not score as many runs as he would up teh order, he is often in when we declare and at the end of the innings - i would argue that he would score many more runs batting up the order.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

he would average easily over 50 still you must also remember batting low down the order he gets alot of not outs, you might say this inflate his average a little but not that much i dont think, as he bats down the order he does not score as many runs as he would up teh order, he is often in when we declare and at the end of the innings - i would argue that he would score many more runs batting up the order.

So you think Gilchrist would be averaging over 60 up the order?

I was talking about the strength of support. With Waugh, Hayden, Langer, Lehmann, Ponting, Martyn before him, he seldom (not never) has much pressure to score runs.

Generally Gilchrist enters at 400+/500+ for 5. He has also been dropped a few times. I am not slagging off Gilchrist, but realistically his average is inflated more than it would be had the situation been oterwise.

 

[age_master]

So you think Gilchrist would be averaging over 60 up the order?

I was talking about the strength of support. With Waugh, Hayden, Langer, Lehmann, Ponting, Martyn before him, he seldom (not never) has much pressure to score runs.

Generally Gilchrist enters at 400+/500+ for 5. He has also been dropped a few times. I am not slagging off Gilchrist, but realistically his average is inflated more than it would be had the situation been oterwise.

on being dropped, when you hit the ball that hard, people are gonna drop you occasionally, and when you strike @ 85, lofted shots happen some times


but i think he would average close to 60 if he batted @ 4 or 5, though he would still be coming in with lots of runs on the board...

 

[Craig]

For me, I would of like to see Hayden bat on a green seamer, I think it would be intersting and it would see how good he really is.

 

[marc71178]

I agree with that theory too. Gilchrist is a fine batsman, but his average is inflated.

Erm wrong theory, I was actually talking about the battle between Bat and Ball!