The Ashes are coming home!

[King_Ponting]

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).

Lee has the ability to do those things as well. The only department where kaspa is streets ahead of lee is in the bowling into the wind department, as kaspa is a specialist first change bowler.

 

[Top_Cat]

I must admit from being pro-Kasper, I'm starting to waver a bit. I mean, I've not denied that Lee has been bowling well but Kasper has been doing the job and barring a REALLY severe loss of form in warm-up matches, I'm a big believer that a player should retain his spot from one series to another.

The thing is, Kasper's form has been worrying. If his form drops much more and Lee at least maintains his, I'd at least be considering Lee. Kasper's potential to be REALLY troubling for England's top-order lefties is a HUGE plus in his favour, though.

 

[King_Ponting]

However kaspers relative inability to bowl a yorker (i dont think he has bowled one all tour) is something which is strongly against him.

 

[Top_Cat]

However kaspers relative inability to bowl a yorker (i dont think he has bowled one all tour) is something which is strongly against him.

Of course he can bowl yorkers. His may not be quite as effective as as Lee's 90mph+ yorkers but they're still good. I've got quite a few of his in my video collection.

Even if he was seldom bowling them, I don't think it's strongly against him at all if you want to talk high-percentage cricket. Angling across lefties is WAY more likely to get you wickets than bowling yorkers which can so easily turn into low full-tosses. And indeed you were right about Kasper's into the wide bowling because someone will have to do it and I don't think Gillespie or McGrath are about to volunteer!

 

[King_Ponting]

If that situation occurs Gillespie will draw the short straw

 

[tooextracool]

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

i dont think theres much doubt about the answer to that question right now, given how poor kaspa has been bowling. but if kaspa were bowling as well as he has been for the last 1.5 years, i'd still pick him ahead of lee.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeh i agree but just the fact that the extra pace of lee, combined with swing, cause the englishmen so many problems

err i'd think that accurate outswingers at 90 + mph would trouble even bradman.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If that situation occurs Gillespie will draw the short straw

If Gillespie doesn't start at Lords, I'll eat Richard's computer.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows where I stand by now in the Lee/Kasprowicz debate, and I'll stay by it. I think Lee should have been in the team in New Zealand, and I think he should be in it now.

 

[simmy]

Cant you just eat in anyway please?

 

[King_Ponting]

If Gillespie doesn't start at Lords, I'll eat Richard's computer.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows where I stand by now in the Lee/Kasprowicz debate, and I'll stay by it. I think Lee should have been in the team in New Zealand, and I think he should be in it now.

Ur screwed if he gets an injury then . Nah i was refering to the bowling into the wind aspect. Cause of mcgraths senority and all i cant see him giving in.

 

[simmy]

http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/211795.html

Good news for England!

 

[Richard]

i'd say about 40 odd.

An exaggeration methinks.
I'd guess it was closer to 30, and I'd also guess quite a few more were against Australia than anyone else.

no he was not, he was poor.

If you say so; I don't.

because those were the only 3 games you watched, and you didnt think that prasad was a good fielder.

I never said I thought he was a good fielder or not; not once did I comment on his fielding.
Just that seamers don't tend to make the best fielders and Indians don't tend to make the best fielders either.
So I thought it was possible Prasad would have been an average fielder.

no it hasnt been faultness, not many teams have. but the fact is that they took nearly all of them that came their way and took some very difficult chances too. which is significantly better than any english side in the last 15 years.

Except in 2000-2000\01, and 1 or 2 other brief periods.

 

[Richard]

So you know more about the sides even though, by your own admission you weren't watching cricket when the first team was playing...

Just because I may not have been watching at the time doesn't mean I can't catch-up.

 

[Richard]

So how come when we blow open the flaws in your theory it doesn't become worthless?

Because you don't blow open flaws, because I always manage to point-out why most of the supposed flaws don't exist?

 

[Richard]

exactly, yet he was recorded as being faster in the 3rd and not in the first 2.

Was he?
I remember him bowling pretty sharp at some stages of all three.
Do you have some average figures?

because you say so?

Because basic logic suggests so?

not really, again just because its the top technology it doesnt mean that its always right.

No, it doesn't, but it's more likely to be right than human eyes which are notoriously poor in so many ways.

 

[Richard]

they do eventually. they dont bowl between 80-84 mph for every ball for an entire spell and yet in england get it upto 88-89 in spells in england.

Bowlers bowl odd balls at 88-89 in the subcontinent, too, just not usually for as long.
Because, of course, the almost-always present heat and humidity makes it much harder.

 

[marc71178]

Yeh good point. but i dunno maybe its lees ability to knock over the tail

More literally than dismissing them.

 

[marc71178]

Just because I may not have been watching at the time doesn't mean I can't catch-up.

Using editted highlights and reports written showing other people's opinions...

 

[marc71178]

Because you don't blow open flaws, because I always manage to point-out why most of the supposed flaws don't exist?

See, it's the same head in the sand "They're not flaws" - in spite of person after person pointing them out.

 

[Richard]

But the main reason why England are a far strnger side now than then is Flintoff, because a genuine all-rounder rather than a bits-and-pieces nonsense like Ealham gives you two players rather than three-quarters of one.

Another major difference is that the 97 side had an excellent slip cordon but nothing else in terms of fielding, whereas now we have excellent slips and some good and very good outfielders. We're a good 40 runs an innings better off than we were then from fielding alone.

Certainly the outfielding (with Bell, Hoggard and Jones) is better than '97 (with the like of Tufnell\Malcolm, Croft and Crawley). But even in '97 there were some good outfielders (Ealham, Headley, Caddick, Hussain, Gough), and personally I think the cordon of '97 wasn't as good as the current one (Atherton, Butcher [who was half-decent in those days], Thorpe [who was very good in those days] - compared to Trescothick, Flintoff, Strauss, Giles).
Biggest difference was that Duncan Fletcher is better at hiding the donkeys (Harmison, Vaughan, Thorpe) than Bumble was.