***Official Ashes Thread***

[Richard]

well in most bowler friendlly conditions i would still want McGrath over Jones..

Define "bowler-friendly conditions". Both McGrath and Jones have the capability to make pretty much any conditions friendly to them.
McGrath is, in my estimation, better on a seamer or an uneven pitch (like... Lord's 2005, for instance - or Trent Bridge 2003), but if Jones can continue his development he's unquestionably better on pitches offering no seam and only a hint of unevenness (eg Edgbaston and Old Trafford 2005).

 

[Richard]

well its not like McGrath doesn't have the ability to reverse swing the ball once the conditions suite.

Jones is still the more capable practitioner, though - McGrath still seems to use the thing only reluctantly. I can't think of him using it much last winter (summer in Australia).

 

[aussie]

Define "bowler-friendly conditions". Both McGrath and Jones have the capability to make pretty much any conditions friendly to them.
McGrath is, in my estimation, better on a seamer or an uneven pitch (like... Lord's 2005, for instance - or Trent Bridge 2003), but if Jones can continue his development he's unquestionably better on pitches offering no seam and only a hint of unevenness (eg Edgbaston and Old Trafford 2005).

fair enough then, i'll take that.

 

[Hoggy31]

I would take Jones over McGrath if the conditions were well suited for swing bowling. But in all other cases I'd definately take McGrath

 

[Richard]

Point is, "conditions" depend very much on the controllable.
If you put the ball into the condition for either conventional or reverse swing, conditions are fabourable for swing. And by-and-large, the players can control what condition the ball is in.
That's what's so useful about being able to bowl both conventional and reverse swing.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Jones is obviously the better reverse swing bowler, and therefore if the ball was reversing you'd give it to Jones first, but in terms of actual selection for a side you'd go for McGrath every time. He's the far more complete bowler, and has shown time and again that he can perform on absolutely any pitch against any batsman.

 

[luckyeddie]

I would take Jones over McGrath if the conditions were well suited for swing bowling. But in all other cases I'd definately take McGrath

With the schedule for the 2006/07 Ashes being as it is, I doubt they'll play 5 tests between them.

 

[greg]

time for an official thread

hayden > strauss
langer < tresko
ponting > vaughn
marto < pietersen
hussey > collingwood
clarke < freddy
gilli > jones
lee > hoggard
warne > giles
kaspa < harmison
pegion > jones

batting pretty even but aussies bowling attack will rip through the english. Remember pegion was injured and not fully recovered when the aussies lost their matches

Is this really the team that you expect Aus to put out? Where can i back England?

 

[marc71178]

To suggest Lee is better than Hoggard and that either McGrath or Kasprowicz are better than Jones is frankly stupid.

McGrath is so much better than Jones it's not even a contest.

 

[marc71178]

You're kidding yourself if you say Jones is better than McGrath.

He'll call it a typo soon...

 

[Richard]

Jones is obviously the better reverse swing bowler, and therefore if the ball was reversing you'd give it to Jones first, but in terms of actual selection for a side you'd go for McGrath every time. He's the far more complete bowler, and has shown time and again that he can perform on absolutely any pitch against any batsman.

You who are normally the "he's performed 3 or 4 times, he's already proven himself" type...

 

[Richard]

McGrath is so much better than Jones it's not even a contest.

Not really, McGrath hasn't bowled especially well in his last 8 Tests.
Obviously earlier in his career he was far better than Jones is ever likely to be, but we're not talking about earlier in his career, we're talking about 2006\07.

 

[Richard]

He'll call it a typo soon...

Not really likely, but it was fairly obvious to most people that the Collingwood-fielding one was.

 

[luckyeddie]

You who are normally the "he's performed 3 or 4 times, he's already proven himself" type...

Compare that with your 'Flintoff is rubbish and McGrath is lucky'

 

[Richard]

Flintoff was rubbish and McGrath was lucky between The Oval 2001 and The 'Gabba 2004\05.
In any case - the point I was making was that Sean appeared to be using a policy alien to his common one. McGrath\Flintoff isn't really relevant to what I was saying?

(Yes, I'm aware your post was in jest)

 

[aussie]

Not really, McGrath hasn't bowled especially well in his last 8 Tests.
Obviously earlier in his career he was far better than Jones is ever likely to be, but we're not talking about earlier in his career, we're talking about 2006\07.

just early in his career, even if McGrath hasn't bowled to his usual superb standards in his last 8 test, he is still way ahead of Jones & any other bowler in the world.

 

[aussie]

McGrath was lucky between The Oval 2001 and The 'Gabba 2004\05.

, not this nonsense again..

 

[Richard]

Yes, this, STILL - in fact it NEVER went away.

 

[Richard]

just early in his career, even if McGrath hasn't bowled to his usual superb standards in his last 8 test, he is still way ahead of Jones & any other bowler in the world.

Not really - McGrath has been pretty average in his last 8 Tests.
There are many bowlers who've bowled better recently.

 

[aussie]

Not really - McGrath has been pretty average in his last 8 Tests.
There are many bowlers who've bowled better recently.

recent form is irrelevant McGrath is still the best fast bowler in the world by some way..