The Ashes are coming home!

[marc71178]

Butcher has only experienced a drop in average since the summer of 2004.

Depends if you use an actual number system that exists or if you make one up.

Since it's you, i can see why it's the latter.

 

[marc71178]

You can say there's no such thing all you want, you can't change the fact that once someone has compiled a statistic, it exists.

So if someone compiles a statistic that says you've made sense in 0.0001% of your posts, then it now exists, and you're powerless to disagree with it.

 

[marc71178]

I suggest you stop talking stuff and nonsense before you really put your foot in something.

Yes Swervy, listen to the voice of experience - he's done it about 10,000 times...

 

[marc71178]

Exactly.
And as such it's a gross insult.

If being called a buffoon offends you, then you really need to get out more.

 

[simmy]

Swervy, Marc and TEC are my new heroes!

Take a bow fellas!

Ive sat here and read Richard's "opinions" being ridiculed time after time! Brilliant!

Richard... you talk rubbish... utter rubbish... how can you possibly attempt to put forward the idea that this team is not as good or "only slightly better" than that of 97.

Dont know if you saw it but this England time has lost one game in four series... playing brilliantly throughout. When has an England team done that in recent history?

They have played Aus, the "supposed invincibles", and beaten them the last 3 times conviningly.

There is simply no argument, sorry, this team is so superior that your argument is laughable.

As for Athers, he was good don't get me wrong, but, there is no chance he would take a place in this team. Athers was a defensive unit but had nothing on the attacking ability that Tres has. He is intricate to the team and oozes the confidence and positivity of a currently world-beating. Strongest England team for a generation.. by a distance.

Do you still think that England's best seamer is Hoggard? What are others opinions?

Surely we all know that if Harmison has a good series... England will be in a fantastic position to win the Ashes back. Hoggard just does not have the firepower.

 

[social]

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.



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.



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





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




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.

1. Hoggard's performances vs Aus barely qualify him as a net bowler. He has been absolutely woeful.

2. You're correct, they have not criticised Lee. They've been attempting to rubbish McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa.

3. How could Shane Warne's comments possibly have been interpreted as criticism? If Shane Warne seriously thought that he would not have bothered saying anything.

4. I implied that ENGLAND WOULD BE WEAKER WITHOUT THORPE (English 101 is down the hall to the left).

 

[social]

so howcome the speedometer registers every bowler as a hell of a lot slower on a sluggish wicket?

I

why? because the speedometers say so. like it or not there have been several occasions when the speedometers have been most certainly wrong.

Speed is measured at a point approximately 12 inches from the bowlers' hand.

Pitch conditions are irrelevant.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Do you still think that England's best seamer is Hoggard? What are others opinions?

Surely we all know that if Harmison has a good series... England will be in a fantastic position to win the Ashes back. Hoggard just does not have the firepower.

Hoggard is England's best currently, imo. Harmison hasn't really done that much against quality opposition yet, although he's quite a good bowler. Harmison has the opportunity to prove himself in the Ashes, but right now I'd rate Hoggard the best of England's seamers.

 

[Richard]

go ahead and do it then

Well he caught 83 catches in his Test-career; I'd be interested to get a guesstimate as to how many he dropped.

no it doesnt, but it doesnt change the fact that he wasnt anything other than poor to start of with.

He was, he was average.

im surprise he was actually poor in all of those 3 ODIs.

Err, sorry?
When did I even say he was poor in them?

i dont think the side of 2003 is comparable to the side now, especially considering that it was long before our string of victories began.
and im not surprised at all that you ignored the series vs NZ in 99, were they were just as poor as they have been in any ashes series.

I don't remember it being especially poor, myself - certainly I don't think it affected the series outcome, neither Horne at Lord's or Vettori Cairns at The Oval was missed IIRR.
England's fielding since March 2004 hasn't been faultless, by any stretch, even if it has by-and-large been decent - South Africa totally outclassed them and New Zealand's was below it's usual level. As for West Indies...

 

[Richard]

if you took it as a GROSS insult, then I apologise for making myself not 100% clear...you do amuse me with your ridiculous comments, and so the second definition fits the bill as far as my perception of you goes....dont take it to hard, ..you make me laugh, you are funny without meaning to be, that is a great gift to have..a natural comedian

Natural comedians, in case you haven't noticed, make people laugh by intention.
And frankly there's absolutely nothing ridiculous about ANYTHING I've said, except things that are obviously (to me) said as a deliberate joke.

 

[Richard]

for the same reason that you think flintoff bowled within himself for 2 games and not in the 3rd.

Oh, he bowled within himself for stages in the Third, too.
Equally, there were times he bowled flat-out in both the First and Second, too.

how the hell do you know that?
he might have bowled within himself more often in certain series and not in others.

He might, and the chances of that are fairly low.

i doubt it because they actually face them, unlike the speedo, which cant be assumed to be very accurate.

Why not? It's been developed by people at the top of projectile-timing technology. Occasionally it goes wrong, and it's turned off.
Otherwise we must assume it to be accurate, and we can know for certain that batsmen's perception of pace is influenced by far more than purely the speed of the ball out of the hand.

 

[Richard]

No, considerably better a side.

Despite the players being not far from equal.

Remember some of us actually watched cricket back then...

And remember most people suffer from the normal most-recent-is-best-remembered syndrome.
Almost invariably the more recent stuff will be remembered as best because people like to think their side is improving even when it's not.

 

[Richard]

No, Croft remained crap throughout.

Wrong, Croft was always an extremely good bowler on turners and anyone who thinks otherwise is an utter fool. Equally, like Giles, he was totally crap on non-turners, yet normally kept things reasonably tight anyway.

GIles has changed, if he's not a wicket-taking threat he keeps it tight.

Giles has usually kept it tight if not taking wickets - that was the case in 1998, it was the case in 2002. Yet there are times (see second-innings at Centurion, second-innings at Kingsmead, all of Newlands, first-innings at Old Trafford 2004, Lord's and Headingley 2004 for some recent examples) where he's expensive, because batsmen go after him.
As there were with Giles in 1998-2003\04 and Croft throughout his career.
Neither bowler changed and neither is better than the other.

 

[Richard]

So, you'll now tell how you come to this, when you weren't even watching Cricket at the time then...

No, I was watching it, and I could still tell a batsman with potential.

 

[Richard]

Depends if you use an actual number system that exists or if you make one up.

Since it's you, i can see why it's the latter.

There's no such thing as a made-up number system; both counting matches against Test-class teams and counting all matches that are dubbed "Test" are actual systems that exist and are used.
Whether you like one or not isn't relevant.

 

[Richard]

So if someone compiles a statistic that says you've made sense in 0.0001% of your posts, then it now exists, and you're powerless to disagree with it.

No, I'm not, I'm free to question it, and in the certain event that I can blow open it's flaws, it becomes worthless.
Still doesn't change the fact it exists, of course.

 

[Richard]

Dont know if you saw it but this England time has lost one game in four series... playing brilliantly throughout. When has an England team done that in recent history?

Not recently, because not for a long, long time has the opposition been so weak and England so well-placed to capitalise.

They have played Aus, the "supposed invincibles", and beaten them the last 3 times conviningly.

Err, no, they've won 1 ODI thanks to a near-miracle turnaround from a player who so far has been nothing short of miraculous, and they've won 1 ODI after losing... wait for it... 14 in a row.
They've also won a Test, which has no relevance to ODIs, and a Twenty20 game, which has little relevance to anything.

There is simply no argument, sorry, this team is so superior that your argument is laughable.

And I've not, amazingly, said the 1997 team was superior - even if I had it would merely be untrue, not laughable.

As for Athers, he was good don't get me wrong, but, there is no chance he would take a place in this team. Athers was a defensive unit but had nothing on the attacking ability that Tres has. He is intricate to the team and oozes the confidence and positivity of a currently world-beating. Strongest England team for a generation.. by a distance.

You clearly didn't watch Atherton closely enough if you think he didn't have Trescothick's attacking ability. When the situation suited, Atherton could score very, very quickly (for a few examples I refer you to the second-innings of the Test-matches in Karachi 2000\01, Old Trafford 1999 and Old Trafford 1998), it's just, unlike Trescothick, he had the sense to realise that going after the bowling of his day would have resulted in a rather small number of runs.

Do you still think that England's best seamer is Hoggard? What are others opinions?

Surely we all know that if Harmison has a good series... England will be in a fantastic position to win the Ashes back. Hoggard just does not have the firepower.

And surely most people with some sense and objectivity can tell that the chaces of Harmison having an effective series are extremely small.

 

[Richard]

Hoggard is England's best currently, imo. Harmison hasn't really done that much against quality opposition yet, although he's quite a good bowler. Harmison has the opportunity to prove himself in the Ashes, but right now I'd rate Hoggard the best of England's seamers.

Harmison hasn't done anything against quality opposition, except bowl fairly accurately in these matches, and as a result from the second-innings at The Oval onwards get a whole stack of poor strokes.
So far in his Test-career Harmison can only be judged as an extremely poor bowler who had one period where his figures went sensational.

 

[simmy]

Well the last time he bowled at the Aussies he got five wickets... Well thought out might I add.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well the last time he bowled at the Aussies he got five wickets... Well thought out might I add.

Yeah, he had a very good game. I don't really think one ODI proves very much though, I'd give it a bit more time. If he bowls like that the rest of the series (and the Australians play him like that), he'll have a good time of it.