The Ashes are coming home!

[tooextracool]

He wasn't, no, he was merely below average bordering on acceptible, and didn't drop anywhere near as many catches as he has since his return..

err whether hes gone from poor to disgraceful doesnt change the fact that he was lowering fielding standards significantly in the first place.

I certainly haven't watched that much of Azharruddin or Jadeja, enough merely to realise they were better than the general Indian standard.
Maybe I'd better do so, eh?

i'd say robin singh was pretty good too.

And yes, I'm perfectly well aware Yuvraj Singh and Kaif are extremely good fielders.
Nonetheless India's fielding has been deplored so many times I lose count..

you honestly think that india's fielding was deplored anywhere near as much as england's was in the 90s?
england were an absolute joke, i'd lost count of the number of jokes that were made about how poor england were in every facet of the game in the 90s. even geoff boycott, would often make jokes about the english side in commentary.
and the only thing bad about the indian fielding in the 90s, was that they didnt dive much, misfielded a hell of a lot under pressure, and never hit the stumps. none of which actually matters that much in test cricket. they had reliable catchers, unlike england.

1.5 years = brief.

err no its not. 1.5 years is quite a long period. and its certainly far far greater than the 1 series period that you were indicating.

 

[age_master]

McGrath declared yesterday in a newspaper article that Australia was on track to win the ODI series's and the ashes

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

McGrath declared yesterday in a newspaper article that Australia was on track to win the ODI series's and the ashes

Don't think anybody would really disagree with him now, either. England have certainly come a long way in ODIs though, and in Flintoff and Pietersen have two players who can win games on their own and push England up the table in the shorter format as well, I think. I wouldn't be at all surprised if nobody else beats England for some time after this series in ODIs, or if England win another ODI or two during this series or the NWC. I think Australia will win the final, though.

 

[Scallywag]

McGrath declared yesterday in a newspaper article that Australia was on track to win the ODI series's and the ashes

What else would he say.

I'm certain if you asked Harmison he would say England will win the ODI's and the ashes. Well thats what I would expect.

 

[social]

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)

My second comment was a delayed reaction to the 4 days I spent last week in your nation's capital being bombarded with criticism of Australia by friends, business associates and casual acquaintances.

Having lived in England for 3 years, I am all too aware of your countrymen's propensity to overreact to both good and bad results and, as such, was prepared to cop **** from all and sundry after our recent performances.

However, I had hoped that some of the English Rugby supporters' good humour might have rubbed off on your cricket fans (contrary to some people's fears, they were sensational before, during, and after the World Cup here).

Unfortunately, if my recent experience was anything to go by, such hopes were in vain as some people were completely over-the-top in criticising anything to do with Australia and all because of a couple of cricket results.

Hopefully, and everything points to it, we'll have a good series and no matter who wins, people will be able to appreciate the game and the opponent.

 

[social]

Precisely, the pace had nothing to do with it and idiotic ideas such as pace seeming to trouble anyone are as out-of-place as they are with it supposedly troubling any decent batsman.

Sorry, Richard but pace had everything to do with it.

Strauss was rooted to the back foot because Lee was bowling 90 mph.

He was going to be in strife to anything pitched up whether it swung or not.

And Martyn, Gilchrist, Ponting etc were all beaten by one thing - Harmison's pace. At 80 mph, all 3 deliveries either disappear for 4 or are easily played back to the bowler.

 

[Richard]

Because you have an incredibly narrow version of what consistutes a wicket-taking ball, and an incredibly wide version of what constitutes a bad shot. A bad shot is when a player either plays at a ball with completely awful technique, like Aftab Ahmed's pointless waft across the line with the bat angled in the wrong direction against Symonds yesterday. If a batsman is beaten in the flight trying to hit out against a spinner, it's not a poor shot for which the bowler deserves no credit. If a batsman is frustrated into playing a risky stroke against tight bowling in an attempt to score, it is not a poor shot for which the bowler deserves no credit. If a player is suckered into playing at a wide or a short ball and hits it straight to a fielder under a plan from the bowler, it is not a poor shot for which the bowler deserves no credit. In fact, even if the bowler just bowls it straight and the batsman misses it and gets bowled, the bowler is not "lucky", since they did the right thing to get a wicket and the batsman made an error. "You miss, I hit" is a perfectly decent sort of a strategy, particularly in one day cricket, and a bowler does not deserve to be derided as "lucky" if they achieve success with it.

Yes, an inswinging yorker that comes in a metre and knocks middle stump out of the ground looks great, but it is not the only way to bowl a wicket-taking delivery, and when McGrath puts 20 balls on the spot in the corridor at a length that is difficult to play and utilises his subtle variations and the batsman tries to play one and edges it, it's not poor bowling. A typical McGrath dismissal is where he puts it in the corridor, brings some in off the seam, moves some away, maybe gets a bit of swing, lets a few go straight on, bowls the odd one on the stumps and so on. The batsman finds scoring difficult because of his line and as such cannot get off strike, and eventually makes an error and either leaves one which comes in and bowls him/gets him lbw, or tries to defend one that might come in, and it moves away an inch and catches the edge and Gilchrist pouches it. Or, he tries to smash it away through the off side on the up and gets caught in the slips or drags it on. That is not poor bowling, or poor batting, and it's McGrath trademark, AND he can do it on wickets that other bowlers can't move it a centimetre on. THAT is why he is the best pace bowler in the world, not because he just happens to me more lucky than everyone else over and over again.

You continuously state this, and I continuously note that it does not happen this way.
If it did, it would indeed be good bowling.
But it does not happen like this.

 

[Richard]

Had it of course been G Smith and A Nel who did it, your tune would've changed.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[Richard]

So why wasn't one of the best fielders fielding somewhere much more useful?

Third-man is and always will be one of the most important places in the limited-overs game.

 

[Richard]

I honestly think you do. Because you know that's what you are going to get when you log on to these boards.

Well if you can think of a point in that I'd be glad to hear it?

 

[Richard]

yes because you say so, and of course as we all know the odds of not seeing 2 similar balls in 2 consecutive tests

Similar balls, sorry, what? The only thing the 2 had in common was the bowler who bowled them - one was a Yorker-length slower-ball, the other a short 86mph ball.

rather, everytime it happens you dismiss as lucky. fact is that it does happen fairly often, problem is not too many bowlers can bowl it well enough.

It doesn't happen very often, at all, because however well it's bowled it's not too difficult to deal with for a decent batsman.

 

[Richard]

no he doesnt, there are plenty of times when he bowls at an average of 86-87 and gets the odd ball to clock 90. i can guarantee you that he bowled several deliveries at 90 mph at trent bridge against SA in 03. i can guarantee you that he did the same against the WI last summer.

Yes, indeed, like I say - he does bowl the occasional 90mpher, has done ever since 2000.
But mostly he's around the mid-80s.

 

[Richard]

err, im not talking about his effectiveness, im talking about what was registered on the speedo. he was consistently bowling at above 85mph in bangalore than his average speed of 82odd mph in the other 2 games.

No, the only time all series he was constantly registering above 85mph was the opening salvo in India's innings in Bangalore. Otherwise (at both later stages of the Bangalore innings and most of the Mohali and Motera matches) he was quickish without being lightning.

well whatever it is, the speed should remain similar irrespective, given that it takes the speed out of the hand. certainly not 4-5 mph slower, as it was for harmison.

What have I just said? The speed probably does remain the same, we just misperceive it to be slower of some times.

 

[Richard]

err whether hes gone from poor to disgraceful doesnt change the fact that he was lowering fielding standards significantly in the first place.

No, he was just not raising them.

i'd say robin singh was pretty good too.

Oh, Robin Singh was good, certainly, I've always known that.

you honestly think that india's fielding was deplored anywhere near as much as england's was in the 90s?
england were an absolute joke, i'd lost count of the number of jokes that were made about how poor england were in every facet of the game in the 90s. even geoff boycott, would often make jokes about the english side in commentary.
and the only thing bad about the indian fielding in the 90s, was that they didnt dive much, misfielded a hell of a lot under pressure, and never hit the stumps. none of which actually matters that much in test cricket. they had reliable catchers, unlike england.

England's overall cricket was what was deplored so much in the 1990s, not specifically the fielding.
The Indian batsmanship was obviously massively superior to the English, so any criticism of the fielding will be lesser.

err no its not. 1.5 years is quite a long period. and its certainly far far greater than the 1 series period that you were indicating.

Considering that series not very long ago used to take 0.3 years or so it's really not that long.

 

[Richard]

Don't think anybody would really disagree with him now, either. England have certainly come a long way in ODIs though, and in Flintoff and Pietersen have two players who can win games on their own and push England up the table in the shorter format as well, I think. I wouldn't be at all surprised if nobody else beats England for some time after this series in ODIs, or if England win another ODI or two during this series or the NWC. I think Australia will win the final, though.

Considering England's next opponents are Pakistan that's an unrealistic prediction.
England's side is better now than for 2 or 3 years, but there's still a hell of a lot of gaps.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, Richard but pace had everything to do with it.

Strauss was rooted to the back foot because Lee was bowling 90 mph.

He was going to be in strife to anything pitched up whether it swung or not.

Rubbish, the ball would have hit the middle of the bat comfortably had it not swung.

And Martyn, Gilchrist, Ponting etc were all beaten by one thing - Harmison's pace. At 80 mph, all 3 deliveries either disappear for 4 or are easily played back to the bowler.

No, they were beaten by their own poor strokes.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Rubbish, the ball would have hit the middle of the bat comfortably had it not swung.

No, they were beaten by their own poor strokes.

Ahh Richard. Back and brought your shovel, I see?

 

[Richard]

Hardly, this thread'd not been touched for a mere 3-week period.
I've always classified digging as 6 months at least of inactivity.
Incidentally... I see you've become a Staff Member in my absence! Congratulations!

 

[marc71178]

Third-man is and always will be one of the most important places in the limited-overs game.

In the early overs when you have to have men in the circle?

And the man being moved out to that position when Martyn came in was just coincidence wasn't it?

 

[simmy]

l remember the television coverage looking at the dismissal (Martyn's cut shot to KP at 3rd man) and KP was moved there as soon as Martyn came in! Perfect planning!