The Ashes are coming home!

[BoyBrumby]

I'd probably take Tres over Athers in tests & ODIs. Atherton valued his wicket, was watchful, doughty but still averaged a fraction under 38 in tests.

If I wanted a player to save a test I'd go for Ath, but if I wanted to win one I'd go for Tres.

 

[Richard]

the main difference is where the ball pitched....a change in length can affect those readings by a hell of a lot...for some reason..

Its the main reason I take them with a pinch of salt

Oh, they can look like they do for sure.
Fact is, though, a short ball will very easily look quicker to the unwary eye for a very obvious reason - the ball hits the pitch sooner, and it's easy to make the mistake of trusting your eyes.
But the gun reading is the speed as the ball leaves the hand, so the length obviously doesn't affect it.

 

[tooextracool]

The major difference being that Australian commentators (who, admittedly, are painful on the whole) were assessing actual performance rather than "living in hope."

so you think calling hoggard a net bowler is assessing performance instead of hope?
i certainly dont remember any english player or commentator calling brett lee rubbish or anything of the sort, even though his past performances suggest that he makes quite a case.

Take the last Ashes series as an example. The English media built their team's chances up and the team's management talked their chances up. At the end of the day, they were beaten in 11 days and, as such, copped justified criticism from all and sundry but particularly their own countrymen..

i dont care about the english media, given that they're just stupid, and have no idea what they're talking about. its the same with all other media in the world.
and i doubt whether the performances in the last series count for anything, given that by the first test, we had already lost half our side to injury.

Believe it or not, Australia's media has actually been hoping for a competitive series because of waning interest in the game due to Australia's dominance.
Unfortunately, having lived in England for 3 years, I know as well as anyone that the English media and public are the first to overstate their team's potential and then mercilessly vilify the same players when they do not perform to unrealistic expectations.

i think anybody would, its almost like how everyone in england hopes that bangladesh compete, instead of receiving a complete thrashing.

BTW, I have never heard any Australian criticise Thorpe, unless in a "tongue in cheek" fashion. He is generally regarded as England's best batsman alongside Vaughan and commands respect because he has "been there and done that.".

so howcome shane warne was claiming that hes worked out thorpe recently then?

I made the comment that he should be dropped to accommodate Bell and KP because, IMO, until proven otherwise, such a move would weaken England and therefore improve Australia's chances.

i personally dont. we have 2 players in the entire side who have any sort of successful track record against australia. and i dont see any reason why one of them should be dropped, especially considering the form he was in last year. nor do i see how thorpe weakens england, when hes still performing whenever they need him most.

 

[Richard]

Your initial point was that Pollock has only dropped in pace 1 or 2 mph over the last 7 years....you have cut that down to 4 years somehow..

Even after his injury problems in the late 90's, he still had more pace than he has now

By 1 or 2 irrelevant mph.
He's lost very little pace between 1998 and 2004\05, because I watched both series and, especially in the first, watched his speeds with fascination - he's lost almost none in the last 4.

 

[Richard]

Considerably better.

No, just considerably more successful (due mainly to weaker opposition in the run-up).

 

[Swervy]

By 1 or 2 irrelevant mph.
He's lost very little pace between 1998 and 2004\05, because I watched both series and, especially in the first, watched his speeds with fascination - he's lost almost none in the last 4.

thought you didnt start watching until 2000?

In old fashioned money Pollock as dropped a yard of pace since 1998

 

[Richard]

I'd probably take Tres over Athers in tests & ODIs. Atherton valued his wicket, was watchful, doughty but still averaged a fraction under 38 in tests.

If I wanted a player to save a test I'd go for Ath, but if I wanted to win one I'd go for Tres.

If you wanted a player to score runs against decent bowling with a team who knew how to catch you'd go for Atherton.
Trescothick is not even close to being as good as Atherton.

 

[Richard]

thought you didnt start watching until 2000?

How many times?
I started watching English cricket with great attention-to-detail in 1998; I started watching the World game in 2000\01.

In old fashioned money Pollock as dropped a yard of pace since 1998

In old-fashioned, utterly vague, money with little or no meaning.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, I'm not talking about players, I'm talking about commentators. Richie was just an example of a commentator who is professional and doesn't trash the "opposition", or indeed even have any particular allegience with his home country. Mark Nicholas is the same, Michael Holding is pretty good, and so on.
The English commentators on Sky this series (and Lehmann, who is just as bad) have been atrocious insofar as they offer no sort of objective analytical reading of the game, but instead crap on about how they want to see someone belt McGrath out of the ground. As I said, who cares who they want to see belted? I can hear morons at the pub saying how they hate some particular player and want to see him smashed, I don't need people paid on TV to do it. Hence, I'm looking forward to having proper commentators when we get the Channel 4 feed.

and as i said earlier, a richie benaud type commentator is few and far between, because i can assure you that people like tony greig & ian chappell are just as bad. i dont rate the sky sports team at all, because most of them are quite clearly a bunch of half wits who have no idea what they're talking about for the large part. but i dont think that anyone who mentions that they want to see so and so belted means anything, because its almost always said in joking manner. i've heard boycott state that he'd love to see several bowlers carted around the park, and i've heard him call many players rubbish in the past. i dont think there's anything wrong with that, and he almost always knows what hes talking about.

 

[Richard]

MA Butcher
MA Atherton
AJ Stewart
N Hussain
GP Thorpe
JP Crawley
MA Ealham
RDB Croft
D Gough
AR Caddick

I'd say so aye. How many of the above team would make it into the current side?
Thorpe is still about of course.

Butcher & Atherton > Trescothick
Butcher & Atherton < Strauss (so far)
Stewart > Jones
Hussain and Bell totally incomparable, but Bell will almost certainly turn-out better
Thorpe better now than in 1997
Crawley, against non-subcontinental teams, and in 1997 < Vaughan
Ealham < all the current seamers (in Tests only, of course)
Croft = Giles
Gough > all current seamers, even Hoggard not quite in league
Caddick > all current seamers

 

[Swervy]

If you wanted a player to score runs against decent bowling with a team who knew how to catch you'd go for Atherton.
Trescothick is not even close to being as good as Atherton.

and you talk about me exaggerating about the gap between Richards and kallis.

In fact, Atherton was solid player, nothing more , nothing less.

Trescothick is a much more aggressive player, which is suited to the style of play in test cricket at the moment. He has his well documented faults...but so did Atherton (sometimes his very wooden looking defensive shots were easy pickings for the bowlers who could move the ball a tad away).

I will say one thing (and I really liked Atherton as a player and a bloke, as a Lancashire supporter, I followed his progress through from him playing at school all the way to his retirement) ,Atherton would not be in this England side

 

[Richard]

and i've heard him call many players rubbish in the past. i dont think there's anything wrong with that

You and a few others (me included) mightn't find anything wrong with that but most people like to see the best in everything and almost everyone on C4 (Boycott included IIRR) managed to find a way to praise Omari Banks last summer, as he bowled about as poorly as it's possible to bowl.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, quite, but you know how it is - there's just no telling most people that bowlers don't lose pace... drives me up the wall people going-on about how Pollock's lost pace when he's bowling maybe 1 or 2 mph slower now than he did 7 years ago...

seriously, you really are the master of the art of provocation. we've been through this before, i dont care what the speedometers say, because they are almost always inaccurate over a large period of time(and i've shown you why before). fact is that any batsman whos played pollock now and then will tell you that he's lost pace, and you really have some nerve to state something that happened before you even started watching cricket. fact is that pollock used to bowl in the high 80s in 98. of course
you know all about it, because its all part of the scorecard.

 

[Richard]

and you talk about me exaggerating about the gap between Richards and kallis.

In fact, Atherton was solid player, nothing more , nothing less.

Trescothick is a much more aggressive player, which is suited to the style of play in test cricket at the moment. He has his well documented faults...but so did Atherton (sometimes his very wooden looking defensive shots were easy pickings for the bowlers who could move the ball a tad away).

I will say one thing (and I really liked Atherton as a player and a bloke, as a Lancashire supporter, I followed his progress through from him playing at school all the way to his retirement) ,Atherton would not be in this England side

He would, because he'd probably be averaging nearly 50 in this current age.
If you put Trescothick in Atherton's age he'd do well to average 30. Trescothick's aggression is one of several reasons he's so inferior to Atherton - his compulsive driving and pulling often costs him his wicket.

 

[Richard]

seriously, you really are the master of the art of provocation. we've been through this before, i dont care what the speedometers say, because they are almost always inaccurate over a large period of time(and i've shown you why before). fact is that any batsman whos played pollock now and then will tell you that he's lost pace, and you really have some nerve to state something that happened before you even started watching cricket. fact is that pollock used to bowl in the high 80s in 98. of course
you know all about it, because its all part of the scorecard.

It's not part of the scorecard - it is, however, something over which there can be no disputing.
And what I neglected to mention to you the last time was that all the relevant matches were in South Africa, so the readings are not in the least misleading.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Butcher & Atherton > Trescothick
Butcher & Atherton < Strauss (so far)
Stewart > Jones
Hussain and Bell totally incomparable, but Bell will almost certainly turn-out better
Thorpe better now than in 1997
Crawley, against non-subcontinental teams, and in 1997 < Vaughan
Ealham < all the current seamers (in Tests only, of course)
Croft = Giles
Gough > all current seamers, even Hoggard not quite in league
Caddick > all current seamers

Ealham for Flintoff?? Egad. I suspect you may be alone there old cake.

I'd stick with Tres, poss Athers' for Strauss but I think it's my heart saying that.
Agree about Bell
Vaughan far better than Creepy could dream of being.
Giles now, better than Croft then.
Gough, agree.

 

[tooextracool]

No, just considerably more successful (due mainly to weaker opposition in the run-up).

or because the sum of individual players dont always end up being equal to the actual teams performance. if you think that, that side with all the internal problems in there was just as good as this one with the teamwork, the fielding & and the captaincy, then you are obviously out of your mind.

 

[Swervy]

He would, because he'd probably be averaging nearly 50 in this current age.
If you put Trescothick in Atherton's age he'd do well to average 30. Trescothick's aggression is one of several reasons he's so inferior to Atherton - his compulsive driving and pulling often costs him his wicket.

Atherton wouldnt get into this team, because he doesnt suit the teams character..Trescothick is a part of the very fibre of this team.

All you are doing is taking a wild guess at what there averages would be in different times..you have absolutely nothing to back you up on that at all.

Atherton was a good opening bat, who early in his career really looked like he would fulfil the potential he showed in his teens..in fact, he never really did fulfil that potential...he was solid and did some great work for England.

Trescothick is a completely different type of player, he is someone who typifies test cricket these days, he takes his chances sometimes it comes off, sometimes it doesnt..when he is in form there arent too many openers in the world who are as effective as he is...he has had his rough times, but he is becoming more consistant I think now.

Trescothick is an initiative grabber...which is the way the 'art' of opening is going these days..Atherton was a grinder, but thats how it was done then. At heart Trescothick isnt an opener, and if he played in the 90's I think he would have come in at 5 or something.
You just cant write Trescothick off like that, becuase the two players were completely different

 

[tooextracool]

If you wanted a player to score runs against decent bowling with a team who knew how to catch you'd go for Atherton.
Trescothick is not even close to being as good as Atherton.

if you wanted a player to score against australia, i think i'd rather have tresco but in reality id rather have someone better than the 2 of them.

 

[Swervy]

if you wanted a player to score against australia, i think i'd rather have tresco but in reality id rather have someone better than the 2 of them.

hahaha..yeah!!!