Main problems each side needs to confront before start of series...

[FaaipDeOiad]

One of the things that needs to be emphasised by Ponting (the team's best batsman) is that you can't bully this English pace battery (of Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison and Jones). For instance, Matt Hayden barely troubled the scorers in the 2005 series, until the Oval Test Match, where he was more circumspect and respectful towards the English quicks.

Likewise, Gilchrist was far too aggressive early on against the quality of fast bowling, and the conditions, he was confronting. A few of the Aussies became so used to bullying attacks, that (it appeared to me) when they were failing against a quality English pace battery, they found it very difficult to get out of the bullying mindset, and get in the trenches.

It's interesting to note how much more ready to go on the defensive Australia have been since then. I can only assume it's been something the team has focused on, and if you look at the way the batting has functioned on some tricky pitches since then, be it simply slow or seaming or whatever, it's been pretty effective. We've seen aggressive guys like Ponting, Gilchrist and Hayden make centuries that took 200+ balls (150+ in Gilchrist's case), and also Hussey and Martyn providing a stabilising influence. As long as they retain the ability to be aggressive and dominating when necessary, it's a major improvement as a batting side.

 

[TheEpic]

Really... how many particularly good batting-line-ups have we faced of late?

Well, West Indies (x2) (Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Gayle), New Zealand (...Fleming?), South Africa (x2) (Smith, Gibbs, Kallis), Australia (Ponting, Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Martyn), Pakistan (Inzy, Yousuf, Khan), India (Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dravid).

India's was terrible by their standards - no Ganguly, Laxman facing just 1 ball in the series, Tendulkar not even at the races, Sehwag with some overdue rubbish, another opener who's done little at Test level, and two far-from proven middle-order players.

You can't dismiss batsmen who are dropped. Tendulkar was going through a lean spell, yes, but he's still one of the best batsmen in the world. Our seamers worked out and delivered a very effective plan to Sehwag, which other sides have been unable to do. Maybe he was out of touch, but we did not allow him to regain his form, as 95 runs @ 19 demonstrates.

Pakistan were, of course, better - but still, aside from Inzamam, it wasn't exactly formidable - a stopgap opener, Butt (who scored far more runs than he ever has against anyone else), Younis (who didn't do much in his 2 games), Mohammad Yousuf who did nothing until that dropped catch at Lahore (and who's generally done nothing against strong attacks in any case), one very poor excuse for a batsman (Raza), a far-from-proven batsman-wicketkeeper, and a glorified slogger.

We had a poor tour in Pakistan, as all sides are entitled to. Even so, our bowling rarely let us down. You say a batsman 'didn't do much', but that is down to great pace bowling! You lend weight to my argument by making statements such as that. Yousuf is another who has a great record against England in the past, but again did very poorly.

Australia had a pretty weak line-up - Martyn and Gilchrist who were both due a lean trot; Clarke who's still to suggest he's Test-class; Katich who was pretty poor for whatever reason; Hayden who was, finally, worked-out; and Ponting and Langer who were both nowhere near as good as normal (both got some good balls, but also played more than their normal share of bad strokes).

They were 'due a lean trot'? Who says? Again, plans were made and then delivered. Gilchrist is the most destructive batsman in the world, and he did nothing against England. He looked poor due to the quality of our bowling. Martyn was in a great patch, until we again outbowled him. Ponting has averaged near on 70 in the past couple of years, but I believe he averaged around 45 - due to our pace bowling. Hayden was 'worked out' you say - exactly. This is where the current England set up is strong. They discover weaknesses in batsmen and exploit them. I don't even know where your argument is!

Before that there was South Africa, who weren't up to much aside from Kallis - Amla, Hall and Tsolekie who're barely worth mention; van Jaarsveld, Boucher and Pollock who were below-par; Smith who was WAY below par; Dippenaar and Rudolph who are very far from proven Test batsmen; Gibbs who had 1 good game and 3 very poor ones; de Bruyn who inexplicably got just 1 game; and de Villiers who was messed-around far too much and only opened in half his innings.

Again, batsmen have to be dismissed - a good England attack was able to do this time after time.

Then there was New Zealand and West Indies... most of whom, despite a good batsman or two, did little of note.

I agree. Oh wait, you're disagreeing with me?

Really, we haven't faced a strong batting-line-up since South Africa in 2003. Even Sri Lanka in 2003\04 were far from convincing.

What a complete joke.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Wow, look at that. Every batting lineup in the world is so, so unbelievably bad!

Of course, why else do you think McGrath, Pollock (until late) and Harmison take wickets?

I think Harmison will take the most wickets of any of the England bowlers in Australia, he'll get a lot of confidence from the pace and bounce in the wickets. As Lance Corporal Jones says "they don't like it up 'em"

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Interestingly enough I'm almost 100% sure Adam Gilchrists slowest test century was 2 days ago against Banglasdesh.

 

[howardj]

It's interesting to note how much more ready to go on the defensive Australia have been since then. I can only assume it's been something the team has focused on, and if you look at the way the batting has functioned on some tricky pitches since then, be it simply slow or seaming or whatever, it's been pretty effective. We've seen aggressive guys like Ponting, Gilchrist and Hayden make centuries that took 200+ balls (150+ in Gilchrist's case), and also Hussey and Martyn providing a stabilising influence. As long as they retain the ability to be aggressive and dominating when necessary, it's a major improvement as a batting side.

For sure. The above approach is really epitomised in Gilchrist's hundred in the first innings against the Bangers. He's still playing his swipes over mid-wicket, but being selective and being circumspect early on - he was really watchful. To that end, Allan Border - on Foxtel's Inside Cricket show - has been saying about Gilchrist for ages, that when you're in a form slump, try to keep the ball along the ground for your first 30 runs or so. You can still be aggressive, but try to eliminate that mode of dismissal, until you get set.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Interestingly enough I'm almost 100% sure Adam Gilchrists slowest test century was 2 days ago against Banglasdesh.

Yeah, that's a perfect example. Gilchrist took note of the fact that the pitch was slow and bounce was uneven, and therefore it was dangerous to play back or to play cross-bat shots, and simply cut them out of the game. After making 50 off 70 or so by stumps on day 2, he made the next 50 off about 100 balls on the third morning, batting with Gillespie. It was a very considered, intelligent innings, from the one guy who has been the least able to curb his attacking instincts in Australia's team, and it shows how Australia have worked on improving the flexibility in their batting.

edit: haha, just realised howardj's above post is exactly the same thing. Oh well.

 

[Richard]

One of the things that needs to be emphasised by Ponting (the team's best batsman) is that you can't bully this English pace battery (of Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison and Jones). For instance, Matt Hayden barely troubled the scorers in the 2005 series, until the Oval Test Match, where he was more circumspect and respectful towards the English quicks.

Likewise, Gilchrist was far too aggressive early on against the quality of fast bowling, and the conditions, he was confronting. A few of the Aussies became so used to bullying attacks, that (it appeared to me) when they were failing against a quality English pace battery, they found it very difficult to get out of the bullying mindset, and get in the trenches.

Rather than a problem of mindset, I feel it was simply lack of ability. The like of Gilchrist and Hayden have simply become accustomed to playing that way. You could tell how much effort it took for Hayden to return to his old self-denying style. Gilchrist I've never seen any evidence that he's capable of playing in any other way than the way we've seen him play... pretty much every time he comes to the crease.
I don't think, either, that Ponting really got himself out due to over-aggressiveness too often.

 

[Richard]

Australia's batting lineup is quite strong, really. There's some middle order issues with Martyn being inconsistent, Clarke, Symonds and Watson in and out of the team and so on. However, the top three is comfortably the strongest in world cricket, and when you add Hussey and Gilchrist to that, it's a strong lineup. India isn't the same right now obviously, but it's still a good lineup, as is Pakistan's, and South Africas. There's certainly more good batting lineups than bowling attacks around right now.

Langer who's looked very far from convincing of late.
Hayden who was worked-out by Mills, Shoaib and Hoggard not so very long ago.
Ponting who's been about as lucky as anyone in the last few Tests, and has otherwise been merely reasonable since the end of 2003.
Gilchrist who has been in woeful touch since season 2005, and who has done little of any real note since 2002\03.
The only Australian batsman who currently looks 100% convincing is Hussey - and it says a lot that he's the most recent addition.

 

[Richard]

Well, West Indies (x2) (Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Gayle), New Zealand (...Fleming?), South Africa (x2) (Smith, Gibbs, Kallis), Australia (Ponting, Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Martyn), Pakistan (Inzy, Yousuf, Khan), India (Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dravid).

Lara who was horribly out of touch at the time, and aside from his 400* did little of note; Chanderpaul who was so badly out of touch that he was dropped; Sarwan who's far from a proven Test-class batsman; and Gayle who's nothing of the sort either; Fleming who opened (a position for which he's not suited) most of the time?
No, I think not.

You can't dismiss batsmen who are dropped. Tendulkar was going through a lean spell, yes, but he's still one of the best batsmen in the world. Our seamers worked out and delivered a very effective plan to Sehwag, which other sides have been unable to do. Maybe he was out of touch, but we did not allow him to regain his form, as 95 runs @ 19 demonstrates.

Sehwag was due to bat as terribly as he did against us. Simple as. He's been doing far, far better than he deserves to have done for quite some time.
Tendulkar at the moment is categorically not one of the best batsmen in The World.
What d'you mean "I can't dismiss batsmen who are dropped"? You mean I can't say that Laxman and Ganguly's non-presence means India are weaker now than they were not so long ago? Sorry, pal - I can, and I have. And I'm right. Laxman and Ganguly were a potent force not long ago, and India are much lesser for their absence.

We had a poor tour in Pakistan, as all sides are entitled to. Even so, our bowling rarely let us down. You say a batsman 'didn't do much', but that is down to great pace bowling! You lend weight to my argument by making statements such as that. Yousuf is another who has a great record against England in the past, but again did very poorly.

Yousuf certainly doesn't have a great record against any decent side. He'd done well in 1 series, in Pakistan, before now.
Younis not doing much was NOT down to good bowling, he just didn't play as well as he normally does.

They were 'due a lean trot'? Who says? Again, plans were made and then delivered. Gilchrist is the most destructive batsman in the world, and he did nothing against England. He looked poor due to the quality of our bowling. Martyn was in a great patch, until we again outbowled him. Ponting has averaged near on 70 in the past couple of years, but I believe he averaged around 45 - due to our pace bowling. Hayden was 'worked out' you say - exactly. This is where the current England set up is strong. They discover weaknesses in batsmen and exploit them. I don't even know where your argument is!

Err, Hayden's weakness isn't exactly hard to exploit - I've been pointing it out for the last 5 years.
Martyn and Gilchrist were due some failure. Gilchrist had averaged 107 in his last 8 Tests. That simply cannot go on forever. Martyn had averaged about 70 for a while - that, too, had to stop somewhere. Incidentally - with Gilchrist, he's carried on failing.
Ponting, of course, has been exceptionally lucky of late and that's made his average look better than it deserves to. Fact is, though, since the start of 2004, Ponting hasn't been anywhere near as good as he was in the preceding 18 months.

Again, batsmen have to be dismissed - a good England attack was able to do this time after time.

A good England attack, what? England by and large bowled rubbish in South Africa. Harmison and Giles got what they deserved, Flintoff and Jones were flattered by their figures, because SA didn't bat that well.

What a complete joke.

Such convincing evidence as to why...

 

[Richard]

Of course, why else do you think McGrath, Pollock (until late) and Harmison take wickets?

Because of course Harmison has taken such good figures of late...

I think Harmison will take the most wickets of any of the England bowlers in Australia, he'll get a lot of confidence from the pace and bounce in the wickets. As Lance Corporal Jones says "they don't like it up 'em"

Typical straw-clutching. Bounce doesn't trouble quality batsmen in itself.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Langer who's looked very far from convincing of late.
Hayden who was worked-out by Mills, Shoaib and Hoggard not so very long ago.
Ponting who's been about as lucky as anyone in the last few Tests, and has otherwise been merely reasonable since the end of 2003.
Gilchrist who has been in woeful touch since season 2005, and who has done little of any real note since 2002\03.
The only Australian batsman who currently looks 100% convincing is Hussey - and it says a lot that he's the most recent addition.

Haha, you must be kidding right? Hayden has been solid as a rock since the Ashes against all opposition and in all conditions. Ponting is pretty much indisputably the number one batsman in the world in the last six to twelve months, and he's been absolutely unstoppable. If he converts tomorrow morning, he'll have 8 centuries in 10 tests. Langer has been in and out of the team with injury, yes, but prior to those injuries (in the Ashes and before) he was in probably the best form of his career. Hussey is probably the third most solid batsman in the side at the moment as he's had a few problems, but obviously on the whole his start to his test career has been very good. Martyn and Clarke/Symonds/Watson are the weak spots, and Martyn scored a match-winnings century on a difficult pitch two tests ago.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Typical straw-clutching. Bounce doesn't trouble quality batsmen in itself.

It certainly does if it is off a length.

Having said that, I don't think Harmison will do very well in Australia either. I guess we'll see.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lara who was horribly out of touch at the time, and aside from his 400* did little of note; Chanderpaul who was so badly out of touch that he was dropped; Sarwan who's far from a proven Test-class batsman; and Gayle who's nothing of the sort either; Fleming who opened (a position for which he's not suited) most of the time?
No, I think not.

Out of curiousity, how is Fleming more of a proven Test class batsman than Sarwan and/or Gayle?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Typical straw-clutching. Bounce doesn't trouble quality batsmen in itself.

Bounce with direction troubles batsmen lots. If there's one thing that you have to give to Harmison it's that he gets bounce. On the occasions in an over that he can marry that with some direction, the batsmen look quite uncertain.

 

[howardj]

This thread really demonstrates why, on the forum, we shouldn't lump all of the discussion of a series, under one big all-encompassing ***Official*** thread. The quality of the posts and exchanges is enhanced, when you can go to a thread that's issue-specific. Obviously, you dont want a situation to develop where there are 20 threads devoted to the one Test series. However a little leniency should be exercised, as threads like this allow for extended, focussed, quality discussion on specific, important issues.

 

[TheEpic]

Lara who was horribly out of touch at the time, and aside from his 400* did little of note; Chanderpaul who was so badly out of touch that he was dropped; Sarwan who's far from a proven Test-class batsman; and Gayle who's nothing of the sort either; Fleming who opened (a position for which he's not suited) most of the time?
No, I think not.

Oh, sorry, I was under the impression that in the year before England's first test in the West Indies, Lara averaged 72!

And in between the two series' between West Indies and England, Lara made a century in one of the only 2 innings that he batted in!

Sort of blows that theory way doesn't it?

Sehwag was due to bat as terribly as he did against us. Simple as. He's been doing far, far better than he deserves to have done for quite some time.
Tendulkar at the moment is categorically not one of the best batsmen in The World.
What d'you mean "I can't dismiss batsmen who are dropped"? You mean I can't say that Laxman and Ganguly's non-presence means India are weaker now than they were not so long ago? Sorry, pal - I can, and I have. And I'm right. Laxman and Ganguly were a potent force not long ago, and India are much lesser for their absence.

Sehwag was DUE to bat terribly against us? Who says? Richard? Who are you? Again, if you'd like to be embarassed again with statistics, let's do just that. Sehwag averaged 63 in the year before the First Test against England. I suppose that's a fluke?

When I say 'can't dismiss batsmen who are dropped' I mean that you cannot say how well these players would have done when they simply didn't play. If you want me to be pedantic, Laxman averaged 0 against England. Job done I'd say.

Yousuf certainly doesn't have a great record against any decent side. He'd done well in 1 series, in Pakistan, before now.
Younis not doing much was NOT down to good bowling, he just didn't play as well as he normally does.

Oh, oh oh, but Yousuf certainly does have a great record against England. He averages 59 against us! Wrong again.

And maybe Younis 'didn't play as well as he normally does' because he wasn't allowed to. Again, you're just reinforcing my point.

Err, Hayden's weakness isn't exactly hard to exploit - I've been pointing it out for the last 5 years.

LOLZ. You'd think Fletcher or someone from the ECB would have given you the call up back then in that case wouldn't you!?!?

Martyn and Gilchrist were due some failure. Gilchrist had averaged 107 in his last 8 Tests. That simply cannot go on forever. Martyn had averaged about 70 for a while - that, too, had to stop somewhere. Incidentally - with Gilchrist, he's carried on failing.
Ponting, of course, has been exceptionally lucky of late and that's made his average look better than it deserves to. Fact is, though, since the start of 2004, Ponting hasn't been anywhere near as good as he was in the preceding 18 months.

Haha. So it ISN'T surprising that Gilchrist averaged about 20 in the Ashes because he'd averaged 107 in his last 8 matches? Bizarre logic indeed. I'd think that meant that he was in FANTASTIC nick. Maybe not. Or maybe (just maybe), the plans were laid down in the OD series, carried on in the Tests and Gilchrist lacked the talent/intelligence/nerve to change his tactics?

Yes, Ponting has been EXCEPTIONALLY lucky! One or two big knocks may signal a slight bit of fortune, but to average a whopping 76 in the last season is a big feat for someone, who I assume by your statement, couldn't even hit it off the cut square! Amazing really.

A good England attack, what? England by and large bowled rubbish in South Africa. Harmison and Giles got what they deserved, Flintoff and Jones were flattered by their figures, because SA didn't bat that well.

This is getting tiresome. Maybe they didn't bat that well because England bowled well? I realise that Harmison especially was poor on that tour, but England still managed to win comfortably.

Such convincing evidence as to why...

Haha, well it certainly seems that way doesn't it?

 

[marc71178]

Slowness isn't really helpful to spin, though - and certainly not when there's no turn.
When was the last time we saw a turning pitch (ie that turned for fingerspinners) for a 'Gabba or MCG Test?
And has there ever been 2 consecutive WACA Tests on turners? Only ever seems to happen once every 4 years to me.

Will wonders never cease?

Richard tell Jack about the arrt of the slow left armer?

 

[marc71178]

Sehwag was due to bat as terribly as he did against us. Simple as. He's been doing far, far better than he deserves to have done for quite some time.

And how exactly do you decide how well a batsman deserves to do then?

 

[marc71178]

Typical straw-clutching. Bounce doesn't trouble quality batsmen in itself.

Funny how it often gets wickets then isn't it?

Or is that because there's apparently no good batsmen around any more?

 

[marc71178]

Ponting, of course, has been exceptionally lucky of late and that's made his average look better than it deserves to. Fact is, though, since the start of 2004, Ponting hasn't been anywhere near as good as he was in the preceding 18 months.

So Ponting isn't that good then either, he's just lucky.

It's amazing how many lucky players there are around really isn't it?