Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I see I'm not getting through.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Player Ratings thread
- Thread starter morgieb
- Start date
TNT
Banned
We all see things different, I thought that Anderson and Broad did not step up and lead the bowling and just let the batsmen dictate terms, you saw it differently.
Woodster
International Captain
I take a fair bit of confidence from Anderson and Broad in this game, yes they didn't run through the Aussie line-up at all, but they were consistent and both looked in decent rhythmn, this is a long series and if they stick to their disciplines again when certain pitches are a little more responsive they will get their rewards and be able to attack more than they were able to at the Gabba.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Spark
Global Moderator
Australia definitely bowled better as a unit, but Anderson and Broad were excellent as individual bowlers. But on this pitch, because you can just sit on individual bowlers who you judge as threatening, it's the collective performance that matters more than individual ones.
Mitch Starc's figures show why bowling figures =/= performance.
TNT
Banned
Its a no win situation, score the runs and its downhill skiing , dont score the runs and they blew it.Also re: Bancroft and Warner there is a (maybe unfair) perception that there was quite a bit of, well...
But what they did do is crush england and if it was downhill skiing then that is because the opposition was pathetically weak.
TNT
Banned
That means all the bowlers were trash, dont say individual bowlers were good when the batsmen has it so easy.Obviously!
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
To stay scorecard-bound and simplistic, let's look at economies:
Australia:
Starc: 2.75, 3.18
Hazelwood: 2.51, 2.87
Cummins: 2.83, 1.81
Lyon: 2.16, 2.79
Smith: 2.66
England:
Anderson: 1.72, 2.45
Broad: 1.96, 2.00
Ali: 2.46, 5.75
Woakes: 2.79, 4.18
Ball: 4.27, 4.75
Root: 2.22, 2.83
Don't forget the large Stoneman/Vince partnership in England's first innings, or that Vince's innings was ended by a run out. Looking at the fall of wickets in the first innings of both teams might also prove an instructive exercise.
And of course we get to perception time. I reckon that Cummins generally looked more threatening than Starc or Hazelwood (although I did not see the start of England's 2nd innings) but he picked up fewer wickets than the former and the same number as the latter. I also reckon that much of the time, other than Lyon's overs, we were more trying to 'wish' the batsmen out, and we didn't exactly run through them with a ruthless attack; our spinner appeared by far the most threatening, in contradistinction to England's in spite of Ali bowling on the same turning pitch. Some wickets, such as Stoneman being bowled in the 1st innings, or both of Bairstows, seemed to just come out of the blue or through poor choices by the batsman.
In my opinion, on that pitch, we spent a good amount of time either waiting for wickets to come along or employing very obvious tactics to dismiss batsmen that rely very much on pace. England went about their attack in a similar vein from what I saw, but does not have an attack capable of Shane Warne's favoured tactic. Broad and Anderson bowled much better than the rest of their attack, and in the Aus. first innings looked as threatening in their opening spells as our opening bowlers did in England's first innings. The difference was that the rest of England's attack was not as threatening, allowing the batsmen to score with less pressure once they were off. In Australia's second innings, they still were, going on economy rates, much more difficult to score off than the rest of the English attack whilst defending a small total.
Both times England batted, some of their players were able to ride out our attack, — which was more consistantly threatening than England's — for considerable periods: does that mean our bowlers bowled poorly during those periods? My answer is no. It is possible to bowl well and not pick up wickets. Factors beyond a bowler's performance in isolation can affect how many wickets a bowler takes.
Take that often-quoted scenario: tie a batsmen down at one end, so he might go for risks against another. One could argue that the first bowler is bowling better, but he doesn't get a wicket for it if that situation occurs. A bowler can be gifted wickets through indiscipline on the batman's part, and dead pitches will only produce so many threatening deliveries, after which drying up runs and forcing mistakes becomes the tactic; but if more than half your attacks is poor, it is difficult to dry up runs. And with only ten wickets an innings to share between generally at least four bowlers, one may miss out through bad luck. Did all of other England's bowlers bowl poorly at Manchester in 1956 because collectively, they only picked up one wicket whilst Laker got nineteen?
All these factors, and others, might just coincide as well. It is easy to say that, 'Bowler X should take more wickets,' 'Bowlers Y and Z need to step up and dictate terms,' [by bowling tightest and most threateningly of their attack?] without actually proposing anything specific.
Australia:
Starc: 2.75, 3.18
Hazelwood: 2.51, 2.87
Cummins: 2.83, 1.81
Lyon: 2.16, 2.79
Smith: 2.66
England:
Anderson: 1.72, 2.45
Broad: 1.96, 2.00
Ali: 2.46, 5.75
Woakes: 2.79, 4.18
Ball: 4.27, 4.75
Root: 2.22, 2.83
Don't forget the large Stoneman/Vince partnership in England's first innings, or that Vince's innings was ended by a run out. Looking at the fall of wickets in the first innings of both teams might also prove an instructive exercise.
And of course we get to perception time. I reckon that Cummins generally looked more threatening than Starc or Hazelwood (although I did not see the start of England's 2nd innings) but he picked up fewer wickets than the former and the same number as the latter. I also reckon that much of the time, other than Lyon's overs, we were more trying to 'wish' the batsmen out, and we didn't exactly run through them with a ruthless attack; our spinner appeared by far the most threatening, in contradistinction to England's in spite of Ali bowling on the same turning pitch. Some wickets, such as Stoneman being bowled in the 1st innings, or both of Bairstows, seemed to just come out of the blue or through poor choices by the batsman.
In my opinion, on that pitch, we spent a good amount of time either waiting for wickets to come along or employing very obvious tactics to dismiss batsmen that rely very much on pace. England went about their attack in a similar vein from what I saw, but does not have an attack capable of Shane Warne's favoured tactic. Broad and Anderson bowled much better than the rest of their attack, and in the Aus. first innings looked as threatening in their opening spells as our opening bowlers did in England's first innings. The difference was that the rest of England's attack was not as threatening, allowing the batsmen to score with less pressure once they were off. In Australia's second innings, they still were, going on economy rates, much more difficult to score off than the rest of the English attack whilst defending a small total.
Both times England batted, some of their players were able to ride out our attack, — which was more consistantly threatening than England's — for considerable periods: does that mean our bowlers bowled poorly during those periods? My answer is no. It is possible to bowl well and not pick up wickets. Factors beyond a bowler's performance in isolation can affect how many wickets a bowler takes.
Take that often-quoted scenario: tie a batsmen down at one end, so he might go for risks against another. One could argue that the first bowler is bowling better, but he doesn't get a wicket for it if that situation occurs. A bowler can be gifted wickets through indiscipline on the batman's part, and dead pitches will only produce so many threatening deliveries, after which drying up runs and forcing mistakes becomes the tactic; but if more than half your attacks is poor, it is difficult to dry up runs. And with only ten wickets an innings to share between generally at least four bowlers, one may miss out through bad luck. Did all of other England's bowlers bowl poorly at Manchester in 1956 because collectively, they only picked up one wicket whilst Laker got nineteen?
All these factors, and others, might just coincide as well. It is easy to say that, 'Bowler X should take more wickets,' 'Bowlers Y and Z need to step up and dictate terms,' [by bowling tightest and most threateningly of their attack?] without actually proposing anything specific.
Last edited:
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Cummins was clearly the best quick from either side and it wasn't even close. He was the only quick who came on and made you think a wicket was likely.
Anderson and Broad were both very good and were better than Haze or Starc in some ways and worse in others.
Haze was crap in the first innings. He was bowling a lot better in the second. Starc seems to have reverted to bowling filth combined with the occasional jaffa like he was doing two years ago.
Anderson threatened the edge more than any bowler and Broad bowled well. But the pitch was such that no quicks outside Cummins looked like they were consistently threatening.
Lyon was a hundred times more potent than Ali.
Anderson and Broad were both very good and were better than Haze or Starc in some ways and worse in others.
Haze was crap in the first innings. He was bowling a lot better in the second. Starc seems to have reverted to bowling filth combined with the occasional jaffa like he was doing two years ago.
Anderson threatened the edge more than any bowler and Broad bowled well. But the pitch was such that no quicks outside Cummins looked like they were consistently threatening.
Lyon was a hundred times more potent than Ali.
Woodster
International Captain
Hard to disagree with any of that!
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Bear in mind Cook only got 7 innings that series.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Smith might get even less this series
Spark
Global Moderator
He bowled some good spells in the second innings
Cow
Banned
Starc needs to see a dermatologist or change his diet. He needs to eat more low glycemic-index foods. Fruit, vegetables etc.
If anyone from Cricket Australia or NSW cricket club are reading this thread they are more than welcome to PM me for free dietary advice to pass on to Mitchell.
If anyone from Cricket Australia or NSW cricket club are reading this thread they are more than welcome to PM me for free dietary advice to pass on to Mitchell.