**.....UNOFFICIAL.....** ASHES 2007 thread

[tooextracool]

I would call it ordinary.
To be even remotely considered as a Test bowler you can't possibly have a First-Class average over 30.

or more accurately, you cant possible have had not a single FC season with a below 30 average.

 

[Richard]

SP Jones - 216 wickets : 31.50

Try WHEN SELECTED.
And also remember that all rules have exceptions.
Also remember that Jones' selection at the time it came was a terrible decision, because he didn't become a good bowler for 3 years, and didn't even remotely look like one for 2.

 

[Richard]

Hmm... but you have to remember to remove 2 thirds of McGrath's wickets, because they're just from batsmen deliberately picking him to play bad shots against*...






*reference to Richard (aka Motson) who reckons McGrath is rubbish, just in case you've not been on this site long enough to see what he's like

You really don't have much of a clue, do you?

 

[Richard]

or more accurately, you cant possible have had not a single FC season with a below 30 average.

Yes, that'd be a better way of putting it.

 

[aussie]

For one thing I can't see him bowling this well for long.
For another - even if he has bowled better than usual, he's still been pretty moderate.

1. ammm why?
2. geez what more does Lee have to do, the way he has boweld in test just gone cannot be classified has just moderate..

 

[aussie]

No he used to be such, and he used to be extremely mediocre.
Harmison and Plunkett still are, and are still mediocre.

look out how Freddie bowls when he starts a spell he would in his first couple of bowls bowl back of a lenght then he would pitch it up, even in the ashes he was like that, but added to that now he has developed swing in his bowling.

Agreed on Harmy & Plunks..

 

[aussie]

One thing I'll tell you now is that Watson is unlikely to be that accurate ever. He might be able to learn to take wickets, but I can't ever see him being very accurate.

SL 2004\05.
England have had problems against quality wristspin. England have played MacGill without problem, in 2002\03.

1.fair enough on Watson

2. Oh yes that one, but refering to the MCG & SCG tests in 2002/03 yes England played him well but he didn't have Warne with him which should be the case come the end of the year, so any mistakes he may make could be covered up by the fact the Warne will be bowling with him..

 

[aussie]

Yes indeed showed such wonderful potential by being smashed all over everywhere by the magnificent batting-line-up of New Zealand...

i think you missed me on this point, you are saying that Plunks selection in the test team wasn't right because his FC bowling performaces last year was mediocre but obviously Flecther and the england selectors say some potential with him and picked him.

Same thing goes with Johnson, only difference is that he doesn't even have any acceptable FC bowling stats the selectors have seen him & peole have said he has much potential namely Dennis Lillee..

 

[aussie]

1) i did see him bowl on test debut and i thought he was mediocre.
2)i said that he would have been dropped after the ODI series were it not for his batting
3)and the only reason people said that he was the biggest plus of the tour is because he came it with one of the best averages in the series. unfortunately that was with the bat,, with the ball he had one of the worst averages. with fletcher and everyone elses obsession with all rounders, they ignore the fact that he was mediocre with his primary skill.



johnson? what has he ever done at the international level?

1. Well thats your view cant force you to think otherwise..
2. I doubt that..
3. Come on i am sure when they said he ws he biggest plus of the tour was because of his bowling & his batting

4. I was refering to the fact that like Plunks, Johnson was picked just like here on potential not stats..

 

[tooextracool]

Try WHEN SELECTED.
And also remember that all rules have exceptions.
Also remember that Jones' selection at the time it came was a terrible decision, because he didn't become a good bowler for 3 years, and didn't even remotely look like one for 2.

and this is of course the 2 year period when he was injured for nearly a year. before injury he looked like he actually might be something and he impressed almost everyone with his debut against India.

 

[tooextracool]

3. Come on i am sure when they said he ws he biggest plus of the tour was because of his bowling & his batting.

exactly, without his batting he would have been regarded as terrible, but because of the fact that he can bat a bit people decided to pencil him as a future all rounder.

4. I was refering to the fact that like Plunks, Johnson was picked just like here on potential not stats..

and like plunkett, johnson failed miserably with the ball at the international level.

 

[Richard]

1. ammm why?

Because he's never done it before since 2001 and never remotely looked like doing so...?

2. geez what more does Lee have to do, the way he has boweld in test just gone cannot be classified has just moderate..

It can, and I do so.

 

[Richard]

look out how Freddie bowls when he starts a spell he would in his first couple of bowls bowl back of a lenght then he would pitch it up, even in the ashes he was like that, but added to that now he has developed swing in his bowling.

Wow, a couple of deliveries - no bowler bowls every delivery the same.
Flintoff, like any bowler, can bang the odd one in, but the way he gets his wickets is by pitching the ball up and swinging it, bowling cutters and, when the pitch allows, seaming it.

 

[Richard]

2. Oh yes that one, but refering to the MCG & SCG tests in 2002/03 yes England played him well but he didn't have Warne with him which should be the case come the end of the year, so any mistakes he may make could be covered up by the fact the Warne will be bowling with him..

Why?
If Warne is at the other end history shows it's rare that both will get good figures.

 

[Richard]

i think you missed me on this point, you are saying that Plunks selection in the test team wasn't right because his FC bowling performaces last year was mediocre but obviously Flecther and the england selectors say some potential with him and picked him.

Same thing goes with Johnson, only difference is that he doesn't even have any acceptable FC bowling stats the selectors have seen him & peole have said he has much potential namely Dennis Lillee..

And believe it or not Dennis Lillee does not know everything about everyone he's ever seen. He can be wrong and may well be on this occasion.
Fact is, however much potential both may or may not have, they're extremely moderate bowlers at the present time and what they (and their international sides) need is not to play international cricket but work somewhere where they can improve and begin to look like fulfilling this potential.

 

[Richard]

and this is of course the 2 year period when he was injured for nearly a year. before injury he looked like he actually might be something and he impressed almost everyone with his debut against India.

Yes, he impressed almost everyone... by bowling with a bit of speed and banging several balls in so that they bounced twice before reaching the wicketkeeper...
You know and I know that people are easily impressed, especially by young, quick bowlers.
Jones at that time showed absolutely nothing of the ability he began to demonstrate at Lord's in 2004, and demonstrated big-time last summer.

 

[marc71178]

Try WHEN SELECTED.

Which rules out pretty much England's attack then.

The same attack that pretty much dominated Australia in the Ashes.

 

[marc71178]

and this is of course the 2 year period when he was injured for nearly a year. before injury he looked like he actually might be something and he impressed almost everyone with his debut against India.

But he didn't impress Richard.

Mind you this is the same person who doesn't think Flintoff had any quality until about 6 months ago.

 

[marc71178]

And believe it or not Dennis Lillee does not know everything about everyone he's ever seen. He can be wrong and may well be on this occasion.

Do you own a mirror by any chance?

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, he impressed almost everyone... by bowling with a bit of speed and banging several balls in so that they bounced twice before reaching the wicketkeeper...
You know and I know that people are easily impressed, especially by young, quick bowlers.
Jones at that time showed absolutely nothing of the ability he began to demonstrate at Lord's in 2004, and demonstrated big-time last summer.

presumably you mean reverse swing, which is what he used effectively at Lords in 2004, Simon Jones has been reversing the ball far before that. i recommend that you read this piece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ma...l15.xml&sSheet=/sport/2006/01/15/ixcrick.html
i found it to be quite fascinating not just because it shows exactly when jones started to develop the art of reverse but also proves that waqar had absolutely no influence on him when it came to learning reverse as many have suggested.