The ``ASHES`` and the Pietersen diillema

[SJS]

Hey Swervy,

I took another year off those stats and took them for the period starting jan 2002. Well the figures for India dont change at all. For England it changes like this

Tests played : 10.....5
Tests Won.......2......1
Tests Lost........8......4
Bowling Avg....47.8...46.8
Eco Rate.........4.17....4.09

Not a revolutionary change right ??

Come on my dear. This attack has not performed against the best sides for quite some time now.

 

[Swervy]

Would u rather a unfit harmison or anderson, Lewis, Mahmood, Ali or whoever. A bowling attack without Harmison, even out of form, leaves England with two quality bowlers (Hoggard and Flintoff) and a decent spin bowler (giles) and two average bowlers (jones and whoever). Not a great bowling attack.

Reminds me of the Kiwi bowling attack without Bond

I think Jones has a bit more ability than you make out to be honest.

take Harmo out of the equation.....that leave, in your eyes, two 'QUALITY' bowlers, a decent spinner..so thats three good bowlers. I think a lot of teams would like that to be honest.

I think you overestimate Harmisons importance to the England teams success

 

[SJS]

Going back to point 2.....I think its perfectly reasonable to suggest that Australia dont play the Indian type of bowlers as well as they do the English type of bowlers...Australia have traditionally been considered relatively weak vs spin (Indias strength), and have traditionally be considered good players of pace (Englands strength)....that doesnt mean Indias bowlers are better than Englands (and who for one moment would actually ever consider Indias pace attack to be on a level with englands is beyond me)..it means Indias bowling strengths match up well vs Australias weaknesses.....simple as

You are incorrigible.

So by your logic, Ganguly does not have a problem against fast short pitched bowling, its just that the fast bowlers know how to bowl to him better ?? Like his batting strengths and their bowling strengths dont match up right ??

Ok pal have a good day.

 

[garage flower]

2. Thats very intersting. So, its not as if English bowling is not up to the mark, its just that the Aussies play them better. Do you realise how that sounds ? I have nothing to say to that. You need to have an attack to defeat the opponents, if they play your attack well its the same thing as saying, your attack is not good enough to get them, right ???

But I don't think Swervy is necessarily arguing that England have a better chance than India of beating Australia. I'm sure it would be universally accepted that India are more of a threat in spin-friendly conditions.

The point is that England's attack would be preferred in England and that England, across the full range of playing conditions, have a better bowling attack. Their relative lack of success against Australia doesn't disprove these arguments.

 

[Swervy]

Hey Swervy,

I took another year off those stats and took them for the period starting jan 2002. Well the figures for India dont change at all. For England it changes like this

Tests played : 10.....5
Tests Won.......2......1
Tests Lost........8......4
Bowling Avg....47.8...46.8
Eco Rate.........4.17....4.09

Not a revolutionary change right ??

Come on my dear. This attack has not performed against the best sides for quite some time now.

I dont really know what your point is SJS.

What would you say if Team B (ranked number two in the world in the world actually played spin utterly brilliantly but really struggled vs pace) continually beat Team A (ranked number one,with the best spin attack ever seen, but poor pace attack....but Team A in fact completely wipes the floor with all other teams in the world,where as Team B actually gets beaten by other teams quite alot).

Would you say Team B in this scenario should be ranked number one just because they play well vs Team A and no one else, or would you say Team A deserve to be considered better because overall they destroy all other teams that Team B cant.....would you not just see it as being that Team B just match up well vs Team A?????

(I have a feeling I havent really explained myself well there)

 

[Retox]

I am hoping for a english victory... Just to bridge the gap between Australia and the rest.

 

[Swervy]

You are incorrigible.

So by your logic, Ganguly does not have a problem against fast short pitched bowling, its just that the fast bowlers know how to bowl to him better ?? Like his batting strengths and their bowling strengths dont match up right ??

Ok pal have a good day.

eh????

I am completely surprised that you of all people cant actually see what I am trying to get at...(maybe thats my fault)

Would you not say that a team like Sri lanka would be better suited (and therefore have a better chance ) vs India in India than say maybe SA, despite those two teams probably being of equal ability. The reason being Sri lankas stregths match up well vs Indias strengths..whereas maybe SA's dont...it doesnt mean all of a sudden Sri lanka are a better team than South Africa.

 

[SJS]

I dont really know what your point is SJS.

What would you say if Team B (ranked number two in the world in the world actually played spin utterly brilliantly but really struggled vs pace) continually beat Team A (ranked number one,with the best spin attack ever seen, but poor pace attack....but Team A in fact completely wipes the floor with all other teams in the world,where as Team B actually gets beaten by other teams quite alot).

Would you say Team B in this scenario should be ranked number one just because they play well vs Team A and no one else, or would you say Team A deserve to be considered better because overall they destroy all other teams that Team B cant.....would you not just see it as being that Team B just match up well vs Team A?????

(I have a feeling I havent really explained myself well there)

No Swervy. Its not really about ranking. I dont believe India should rank above England. Not till they meet and India defeat them. \
No this was not really about ranking. It was about, how good is Englands attack. Now I feel that without an in form Harmison, England attack doesnt look capable of giving a surprise to australia, hence all figures relating to australia. If it was for other sides, I would say the attack would be fairly effective against almost all other sides. India, on their day may also be tough unless harmison was on top of his game.

This is all I am saying.

I think with the coming of Strauss and Piterson, England have , atleast to some extent, resolved their batting woes. The same, I believe is not true for their bowling.

My point is that oif Harmison was in full flow maybe this England side would spring a surprise on the Aussies. You know why because the Aussies are prone to losing two to three quick wickets first up. Shoaib has shown it and so have others. Even Indian medium pacers at times. Unfortunately, India do not have the fire power to press home. But if England got a break through, for which Harmison is vital, they could, just could, put the Aussies under pressure. AND I am of the firm opinion that if this Aussie juggernaut is to be stopped it has to be by taking the fight to them, by putting them under pressure.

I think without Harmison, England may find it difficult to make that break through itself. Thats all I am saying.

 

[Swervy]

No Swervy. Its not really about ranking. I dont believe India should rank above England. Not till they meet and India defeat them. \
No this was not really about ranking. It was about, how good is Englands attack. Now I feel that without an in form Harmison, England attack doesnt look capable of giving a surprise to australia, hence all figures relating to australia. If it was for other sides, I would say the attack would be fairly effective against almost all other sides. India, on their day may also be tough unless harmison was on top of his game.

This is all I am saying.

I think with the coming of Strauss and Piterson, England have , atleast to some extent, resolved their batting woes. The same, I believe is not true for their bowling.

My point is that oif Harmison was in full flow maybe this England side would spring a surprise on the Aussies. You know why because the Aussies are prone to losing two to three quick wickets first up. Shoaib has shown it and so have others. Even Indian medium pacers at times. Unfortunately, India do not have the fire power to press home. But if England got a break through, for which Harmison is vital, they could, just could, put the Aussies under pressure. AND I am of the firm opinion that if this Aussie juggernaut is to be stopped it has to be by taking the fight to them, by putting them under pressure.

I think without Harmison, England may find it difficult to make that break through itself. Thats all I am saying.

ok..but what I am saying is that England have shown in the last year that they dont really need to have harmison firing on all cylinders for them to pick up early wickets....the other three pacers have done a really good job (esp Flintoff) of getting the breakthroughs when needed..and that has been the difference between this England team and England teams of the past..the burden of responsibilty is spread throughout the whole team now and that is more true for the bowling attack as far as I am concerened.

Harmison struggled vs SA (and for that matter for most of the WI series),and yet SA never really were allowed to get going because Flintoff and Hoggard took up the slack....England have consistanly gotten 20 wickets in non rain affected matches..surely that is a sign of a decent bowling attack

 

[Scaly piscine]

SJS your figures with regards to the bowling in the last Ashes series are pointless because Giles only played in 1 of the 5 games (6 wickets @ 31.83), Jones only bowled 7 overs, Harmison barely had a run-up and wasn't anything like the 2004 version. The only comparison of any worth is Hoggard, but he has improved a lot since then as well, also the conditions will be completely different anyway.

 

[marc71178]

Also Vaas is a better bowler then any of the english bowlers and Hearth is better then Giles and Jones and on par with Hoggard.

Not a hint of bias there

 

[marc71178]

Since 1st jan. 2001. The following is the result of matches played by India and England against the undisputed world champs.

TEAM........PLAYED.......WON........LOST........DRAWN
India.................12..............4...............5..............3
England.............10.............2...............8..............NIL

While Indias win/loss ratio is 45/55, Englands is 20/80 !!! Number two side indeed !!

There's more than just Australia as an International side.

 

[SJS]

ok..but what I am saying is that England have shown in the last year that they dont really need to have harmison firing on all cylinders for them to pick up early wickets....the other three pacers have done a really good job (esp Flintoff) of getting the breakthroughs when needed..and that has been the difference between this England team and England teams of the past..the burden of responsibilty is spread throughout the whole team now and that is more true for the bowling attack as far as I am concerened.

Harmison struggled vs SA (and for that matter for most of the WI series),and yet SA never really were allowed to get going because Flintoff and Hoggard took up the slack....England have consistanly gotten 20 wickets in non rain affected matches..surely that is a sign of a decent bowling attack

This is all fine. I have already said that for most batting line ups it is good enough. The problem is we are talking of the chances to topple Australia and that requires something special.

BTW, I agree that Giles may be very effective indeed if used well and Vaughan has shown that he can get the best out of him. I think Giles will be a key bowler too against Australia.

 

[SJS]

There's more than just Australia as an International side.

I know Marc. That last sarcastic remark was not required.

But I took Aussie figures because the debate is about what England need to spring a surprise on the Aussies.

 

[garage flower]

BTW, I agree that Giles may be very effective indeed if used well and Vaughan has shown that he can get the best out of him. I think Giles will be a key bowler too against Australia.

Are we starting to win you over SJS? You'll be predicting an England clean sweep before the day's out

 

[marc71178]

Come on my dear. This attack has not performed against the best sides for quite some time now.

You've just said sides as a plural.

Who are these sides that the England attack haven't performed against?

 

[Swervy]

You seem to be changing your "point" as you go along. Initially, the main thrust of your argument was that Sri Lanka would cope better without Murali than England would without Harmison. England's series win in South Africa, achieved with no great contribution from Harmison, seems to disprove that theory. The massive proportion of Sri Lankan wickets taken by Murali provides further evidence.

If your "point" now is that teams struggle without their best bowler, that's not really news to anyone.

exactly..we all know teams struggle without their best players....

With England, does anyone really know who the best england bowler is. Some may say Harmison,some may say Flintoff (I personally think that at the mo, Flintoff is Englands best bowler), some may say that Hoggard will be a big threat in swing conditions etc...we just dont know.

same with Australia...can we say McGrath is without a doubt Australias main weapon,when you have Warne and Gillespie in there as well.

With regards to other teams...well without a doubt Murali is SL's weapon,Shoaib is Paks main weapon, Pollock is SA's main weapon....if they fail, generally there is no-one else to step up...and that is why I beleive the Aussies and the English have the two best bowling attacks in the world

 

[SJS]

You've just said sides as a plural.

Who are these sides that the England attack haven't performed against?

Error. It should have been singular .

 

[SJS]

...and that is why I beleive the Aussies and the English have the two best bowling attacks in the world

I agree with that except that for this to be true Harmison must be in better form. Thats our only difference, really.

 

[Swervy]

This is all fine. I have already said that for most batting line ups it is good enough. The problem is we are talking of the chances to topple Australia and that requires something special.

BTW, I agree that Giles may be very effective indeed if used well and Vaughan has shown that he can get the best out of him. I think Giles will be a key bowler too against Australia.

i agree..but this is Englands best chance for 15 years..this is the best attack they have had in all that time..but I dont think it will be enough...but it still doesnt get away from the fact that England have shown that they have a damned good bowling attack, and a lot more consistant than any other non Aussie attack in the world....its just that Englands strengths dont match up favourably to Australias supposed weaknesses vs spin (whereas Indias strengths do match up well vs that weakness)