The Ashes are coming home!

[King_Ponting]

Yeh the success of lee so far in this natwest series proposes the question of the young quick tait making his debut as pace seems to trouble the englishmen.

 

[luckyeddie]

Normal programming has been resumed.

I suggest you resurrect this thread next year.

I have no argument with your first sentence - well done, consider it a compliment of the highest order. Your second, however, is a bit of an over-reaction.

You, as a blindly patriotic Australian who ought to have rubber wallpaper, are reading as much into one match as a few blindly patriotic Englishmen who ought to have rubber wallpaper were after the previous game and the Twenty20.

(although you're more likely to be right)

 

[luckyeddie]

Yeh the success of lee so far in this natwest series proposes the question of the young quick tait making his debut as pace seems to trouble the englishmen.

Nope.

Pace = something to respect.
Accuracy = something to respect (ok, there are varying degrees of 'something').
Pace + accuracy = brown trousers.

If Tait is quick AND accurate, you have a star. If he's one or the other, you could have a half-decent bowler, but one who equally could get Malcolmed all round the park.

 

[King_Ponting]

Yeh i agree but just the fact that the extra pace of lee, combined with swing, cause the englishmen so many problems may favour the inclusion of tait at the expence of gillespie, who looks out of sorts atm.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I have no argument with your first sentence - well done, consider it a compliment of the highest order. Your second, however, is a bit of an over-reaction.

You, as a blindly patriotic Australian who ought to have rubber wallpaper, are reading as much into one match as a few blindly patriotic Englishmen who ought to have rubber wallpaper were after the previous game and the Twenty20.

(although you're more likely to be right)

The point is though that there was never much of a reason to think that things had changed to a significant degree. The real upshot of what happened is that Australia lost two matches - in one they suffered a stunning upset and in the other they were beaten because of a brilliant individual effort. The latter is not that uncommon for Australia, as they usually lose a game or two in any given ODI series, and the former simply said that Australia were rusty and got shocked by Bangladesh. The tour game was inconsequential and that sort of thing has happened plenty of times before, and the 20/20 game wasn't particularly meaningful either. It was never any kind of reason to think Australia were in decline as a side, or that England were as good as Australia in either form of the game, or that Australia shouldn't be favourites for the Ashes

It certainly showed that England have improved since the last NWS... but not much else.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeh i agree but just the fact that the extra pace of lee, combined with swing, cause the englishmen so many problems may favour the inclusion of tait at the expence of gillespie, who looks out of sorts atm.

I'd be in favour of picking Tait in the ODIs to give him a run... but certainly not in the tests. And keep in mind, Tait is my favourite young Australian player along with Watson and I'm as eager to see him in the Australian team as anyone else, but you can't drop a proven world class bowler like Gillespie for a kid without a very good reason, and Gillespie seems to be on the mend a bit. He's got 7 more ODIs before the tests to hit some form.

edit: also, I don't think it was Lee's pace that troubled the English bowlers, so much as the fact that be bowled very, very well with great lines and swing, and thought out Strauss completely.

 

[luckyeddie]

The point is though that there was never much of a reason to think that things had changed to a significant degree. The real upshot of what happened is that Australia lost two matches - in one they suffered a stunning upset and in the other they were beaten because of a brilliant individual effort. The latter is not that uncommon for Australia, as they usually lose a game or two in any given ODI series, and the former simply said that Australia were rusty and got shocked by Bangladesh. The tour game was inconsequential and that sort of thing has happened plenty of times before, and the 20/20 game wasn't particularly meaningful either. It was never any kind of reason to think Australia were in decline as a side, or that England were as good as Australia in either form of the game, or that Australia shouldn't be favourites for the Ashes

It certainly showed that England have improved since the last NWS... but not much else.

You read all that from what I wrote?
Goodness me, you are remarkable. All you had to say was 'Yes. I agree'.

 

[King_Ponting]

Lawyers are good at analysing data

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You read all that from what I wrote?
Goodness me, you are remarkable. All you had to say was 'Yes. I agree'.

I was sort of more clarifying why I thought social's statement was not equivalent to that from some English fans in this forum.

 

[marc71178]

Marc are u still sure the english team would much rather face Lee than Kasporwicz???????

Considering I have only ever criticised Lee for Tests, then I stand by my previous statement.

I have never had anything bad about Lee as an ODI bowler.

 

[Top_Cat]

Due to such wonderful bowling, indeed...
3 wickets with short, wide, out-and-out poor, deliveries; 1 with a straight Yorker and 1 with a good inswinging slower-ball.
He bowled pretty well from his 4th over onwards, sure (and bowled 1 good delivery in his 3rd over) but you'll forgive me for not overracting because of 1 ODI, and I'd not be surprised to see the Australians smash him all over the park for most of the rest of these 6 ODIs.

Y'know, I can live with the fact that some of your theories are somewhat questionable, I can even live with your inability to let anyone else have the last word due to some mutated form of 'right of reply' and I can even live with the post wars you regularly engage in.

But not giving someone credit for what was great bowling shows just how mean-spirited you are when it comes to a player you don't like. This is bordering on irrational because just about all evidence is to the contrary of what you said above.

'Short, wide, out-and-out poor deliveries'?? Which game did you watch!??!

Gilchrist - Technically shorter and wider than the orthodox 'corridor' bowling but it was so obviously deliberate. Gilchrist, early on, looks to hit deliveries like that and immediately before that ball, Harmi had generally kept it tight, tied Gilchrist down and then threw in the slightly wider one to see if Gilchrist would go for it based on the way other bowlers had bowled to him. This is pretty well-known around the world. Anyone who's actually seen Gilchrist bat for a length of time would know he's vulnerable to that sort of tactic early on and it worked. Smart bowling by Harmi.

Ponting - Again, it's well known and has been for ages that Ponting is vulnerable early on to a full and fast delivery. The ball was NOT straight it actually tailed in enough to beat the stroke. The fact that it was bowled at just over 92mph alone would have made it tough to negotiate first-up for anyone but the fact it moved in (if you get to see the replay, you'll see it but try putting your objective glasses on - or maybe any glasses because you must be blind not to see the movement) made it really tough. Ponting wasn't up to it a lot of other batsmen wouldn't have been. Again, a great first-up ball and excellent bowling to a well-known and estalished deficiency in Ponting's technique.

Martyn - Again, well known that Martyn looks to play the lofted shot over slips or gully so the tactic was pretty obvious to feed him a short fast delivery and put one of the best fielders in the world down there for the catch. All obviously deliberate and it worked. Again, great tactical nous shown by Vaughan and a beautifully-executed plan by Harmi. No it wasn't a great shot but a tactic like that with a steepling delivery makes the shot very difficult to control and Martyn was forced into it; Martyn may have edged it for 6 or he may have been caught. Considering how many times he's been out attempting shots like that in the past, it was a valid move to at least try early on in his innings. Considering his recent form, bowling on a length in the corridor was less likely to work because it hasn't worked on him of late. It's called innovation, Richard, and it's needed against players who are in-form because just bowling up on a length and hoping for the best isn't enough.

Hayden - I'll give you this one - not fantastic bowling with a ball Hayden would ordinarily have nailed and the catch of the century. But not awesomely terrible bowling, either because Hayden has been out on the cut previously as it's hardly his strongest area.

Hussey - This was probably the worst of the 5 wickets except for the fact the slower-ball deceived Hussey. In that sense, it was well executed but had Hussey picked it, it was a slow, low full-toss on off-stump and likely would have been put away. So whilst the result was right and the actual execution of the delivery was really good, he was lucky Hussey didn't pick it.

Credit where credit is due, eh?

 

[King_Ponting]

Considering I have only ever criticised Lee for Tests, then I stand by my previous statement.

I have never had anything bad about Lee as an ODI bowler.

But surely going by kasporwicz recent effort he cant make a complete reversal and suddenly be in magnificent form for the test matches?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Martyn - Again, well known that Martyn looks to play the lofted shot over slips or gully so the tactic was pretty obvious to feed him a short fast delivery and put one of the best fielders in the world down there for the catch. All obviously deliberate and it worked. Again, great tactical nous shown by Vaughan and a beautifully-executed plan by Harmi. No it wasn't a great shot but a tactic like that with a steepling delivery makes the shot very difficult to control and Martyn was forced into it; Martyn may have edged it for 6 or he may have been caught. Considering how many times he's been out attempting shots like that in the past, it was a valid move to at least try early on in his innings. Considering his recent form, bowling on a length in the corridor was less likely to work because it hasn't worked on him of late. It's called innovation, Richard, and it's needed against players who are in-form because just bowling up on a length and hoping for the best isn't enough.

Also, what about Pieterson being down at 3rd Man, one of England's better fielders?

Or was he there before that anyway?

 

[marc71178]

But surely going by kasporwicz recent effort he cant make a complete reversal and suddenly be in magnificent form for the test matches?

He is a very experienced bowler in English conditions.

If I were picking the Aussie side I'd have him in over Lee for Tests.

 

[King_Ponting]

Even if that does mean that the Australian bowling line up is one paced?

 

[marc71178]

It's hardly been a problem in recent times has it!

 

[Top_Cat]

Also, what about Pieterson being down at 3rd Man, one of England's better fielders?

Or was he there before that anyway?

Err, I mentioned 'one of the world's best fielder' in my post (referring to Pieterson).

I'm not 100% certain he wasn't there anyway but in all of the games I've watched, he's been in the ring like a really big Jonty Rhodes and has made himself very obvious. I was so shocked to see him take the catch because usually, the side's worst fielder is put there to hide him - unless there's a plan. So I gather it was very deliberate. Why on Earth would you put him at 3rd man otherwise!?

 

[King_Ponting]

It's hardly been a problem in recent times has it!

Yeh good point. but i dunno maybe its lees ability to knock over the tail and his pace combined with his ability to swing the ball, rather than kaspowicz constant off cutters,but i would want him in the test side over kaspowicz

 

[vic_orthdox]

Err, I mentioned 'one of the world's best fielder' in my post (referring to Pieterson).

Haha, a Friday night Geebung session does that to you. My apologies.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeh good point. but i dunno maybe its lees ability to knock over the tail and his pace combined with his ability to swing the ball, rather than kaspowicz constant off cutters,but i would want him in the test side over kaspowicz

Yup, I'd take Lee's ability to knock over the tail above Kaspa's ability to break top-order partnerships and take important wickets (especially those of left handers) anyday.

But in all seriousness, I'm not willing to commit yet to what camp I belong in (pro-Lee for Tests or against).