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

[Mister Wright]

Really, I fail to see how Ponting is inadequete. Not the best captain going around, no, but he's no more inadequete than Geraint Jones is as a wicketkeeper.
I don't see how Ponting's captaincy is likely to adversely affect Australia's chances next winter.

Fair enough, losing one ODI against Bangladesh we could maybe say Ponting and the Aussies were having an off day, but to lose the Ashes, lose a ODI series in South Africa when defending 400+ in the final game and possibly losing to Bangladesh in test match or coming close to losing a test match against Bangladesh does not bode well for Ponting's captaining ability. With the calibre of players at his disposal he should be winning these games.

 

[Richard]

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.

Err, he's perfectly stoppable, you just need to take your catches.
Ponting's form since The SCG 2004\05 might have been decent, but it certainly hasn't been as good as it's been made to look. He also played more than his usual share of extremely average shots in The Ashes - played at least 5 nothing strokes that resulted in chances being given (got away with the 1 at The Oval because of a bad Umpiring decision). Only twice could he really be said to have been got out (Lord's first- and Edgbaston second-innings).

If he converts tomorrow morning, he'll have 8 centuries in 10 tests.

The current game is only against Bangladesh.

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.

Yes, he was - but that was a year ago now.
Since then, injuries have intertwined with (and possibly partially or wholly caused) pretty average form.

 

[Richard]

It certainly does if it is off a length.

What length? There are all sorts of lengths.
There are also all sorts of bounces.
Whatever length you bowl, and however much bounce you get (unless it's on a WACA-style-bounce pitch) you're not going to cause batsmen problems unless you also get the ball to go sideways (or, obviously, if the pitch is uneven and some are scuttling).

 

[marc71178]

The current game is only against Bangladesh.

And what difference does that make considering that Bangladesh could conceivably win the game?

 

[Richard]

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

Fleming's performed in plenty of places, in plenty of conditions against plenty of types of bowling over a long time.
Sarwan has only ever really performed against 2 teams, South Africa (surprisingly) and Sri Lanka.
Gayle has tended to perform only against weak attacks. Excluding that single innings (you know which one, and there's every reason to exclude it apart from the fact he was dropped on 82), his Test average is only in the mid-30s.

 

[Richard]

And what difference does that make considering that Bangladesh could conceivably win the game?

Err, just because Australia have suddenly got themselves in a pickle in 1 single game (with a weakened side) it doesn't suddenly make runs and good figures against Bangladesh valued currency.

 

[Richard]

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.

Not so. I could give you plenty of occasions (some even on uneven wickets) where Harmison has bowled accurately and caused few problems, because of the fact he doesn't move it sideways.
Bounce (as long as it's consistent and even) with direction doesn't trouble good batsmen - unless it's WACA-style bounce, which only ever really happens at The WACA.

 

[Richard]

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?

No, it doesn't - that 1 century was against Bangladesh - completely and totally irrelevant.
Like I say - I'm sure Lara was in fine form in South Africa (in fact I'm absolutely certain - he played magnificently) but he sure as wasn't in form in either of the first 2 Tests at home, nor ever really in the away series.

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?

In fact, Sehwag averaged over 60 as an Indian opener (removing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) in 30 Tests, 51 innings!!! Yes, a batsman of his type was incredibly lucky to do so, because if Pakistan (and Australia) weren't so abysmal at catching he'd not average anything close to that.
It doesn't take a genius to see that Sehwag's average up until his most recent 5 Tests was incredibly flattering.

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.

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

And that consists of 1 superb series and 2 very poor ones.
You are easily fooled by the simple overall-average. It's not the be-all-and-end-all. Mohammad Yousuf has actually by-and-large been a failure against England (and all other decent attacks).
An overall-average doesn't prove anything. You need to look at the components. And, but for that dropped catch, Yousuf's average in his most recent 5 Tests against England would be barely 20.

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, I suggest you actually look at his dismissals, rather than just assuming what it'd be nice for you to think. Younis clearly got himself out, doing such things as missing innocuous straight balls from Harmison. He was allowed to play as well as he wanted to - it's just that, on this occasion, he didn't do so.

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!?!?

No, you wouldn't - I've not been saying it anywhere prominent.

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.

No, it's not remotely bizarre. You don't need rocket-science to realise that NO-ONE goes on averaging 107 forever. If you've done that well over 8 Tests, you're going to have some comedown. Indeed - I'd say someone who did as well as Gilchrist did in his first 42 Tests was due the sort of comedown he's experienced.

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.

Err, you assume wrong, then.
Ponting has, however, indeed been exceptionally lucky - in his 8 innings here he must've had at least 6 or 7 let-offs. At least. That's at least 13 of 14 chances in 8 innings.

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.

Err, no they didn't. They won comfortably when SA fielded an unbalanced side, then won one by the skin of the teeth, and had plenty of times in the other 3 where they were behind, plus some where they were in front, of the game.
The only bowler who bowled well in SA was Hoggard - even then only some of the time.

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

No, it doesn't - and I've shown why.
You won't get too far by quoting simple scorebook averages at me - they're too easy to undermine.

 

[Richard]

Will wonders never cease?

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

Err, I'm sure Jack has never had anyone tell him anything about said art...

 

[Richard]

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

By looking at the way he plays, the number of let-offs he's had, the (low) quality of the bowling he's faced, that sort of thing...
Then comparing it to other times when standards of catching and bowling were much higher.

 

[Richard]

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

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

No, bounce actually gets wickets far less than it used to.
Only exceptionally rarely are decent batsmen dismissed by balls because they've been beaten for bounce.

 

[Richard]

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

Err, total nonsense. I've said that precisely nowhere.
I have, however, said Ponting has been extremely lucky because of the vast number of let-offs he had in the SA Tests.
And, if you look carefully, you'll see that that's true.

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

No, it's not - there aren't that many.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough, losing one ODI against Bangladesh we could maybe say Ponting and the Aussies were having an off day, but to lose the Ashes, lose a ODI series in South Africa when defending 400+ in the final game and possibly losing to Bangladesh in test match or coming close to losing a test match against Bangladesh does not bode well for Ponting's captaining ability. With the calibre of players at his disposal he should be winning these games.

This side playing in the current "Test" is hardly that strong.
And in Shahriar Nafees Ahmed we seem like we might have another VVS Laxman in the making.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Fleming's performed in plenty of places, in plenty of conditions against plenty of types of bowling over a long time.
Sarwan has only ever really performed against 2 teams, South Africa (surprisingly) and Sri Lanka.

Against teams that both have played:

Sarwan v Aus: 18 inns, 28.05, 1x100, 3x50
Fleming v Aus: 27 inns, 25.18, 1x100, 6x50

Sarwan v Ban: 5 inns, 112.50, 2x100
Fleming v Ban: 4 inns, 74.00, 1x100, 1x50

Sarwan v Eng: 21 inns, 32.73, 1x100, 4x50
Fleming v Eng: 31 inns, 32.13, 2x100, 4x50

Sarwan v Ind: 12 inns, 37.91, 5x50
Fleming v Ind: 20 inns, 32.63, 3x50

Sarwan v Pak: 8 inns, 30.16, 2x50
Fleming v Pak: 16 inns, 47.50, 1x100, 5x50

Sarwan v SA: 21 inns, 43.95, 4x100, 2x50
Fleming v SA: 18 inns, 33.35, 4x50

Sarwan v SL: 9 inns, 48.66, 4x50
Fleming v SL: 19 inns, 68.18, 2x100, 7x50

Sarwan v Zim: 7 inns, 49.50, 3x50
Fleming v Zim: 17 inns, 37.64, 6x50

So Sarwan averages more than Fleming does against Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Thats 6 of 8 countries. No Ban or Zim? Fine. That's still 4 of 6 countries.

Overall Stats:
Sarwan: 106 inns, 39.89, 8x100, 24x50, 8x0
Fleming: 168 inns, 39.20, 8x100, 41x50, 13x0

Sarwan scores hundreds way more frequently, averages marginally more, and has a better coversion rate (25% to 16%).

Home:
Sarwan: 49 inns, 43.15, 4x100, 11x50
Fleming: 77 inns, 32.98, 2x100, 17x50

Away:
Sarwan: 57 inns, 37.18, 4x100, 13x50
Fleming: 91 inns, 44.81, 6x100, 24x50

Last 25 Tests:
Sarwan: 46 inns, 41.43, 6 hundreds, 8 fifties
Fleming: 40 inns, 39.89, 3 hundreds, 3 fifties

Really Richard, how in the world can you justify calling Fleming a world class batsman and leaving Sarwan out in the cold?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bounce (as long as it's consistent and even) with direction doesn't trouble good batsmen

Tell that to Brian Lara. Then tell him that he's not a good batsman.

 

[aussie]

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"

if it is i dont think Harmison will definately be the leading wicket-taker. I think someone like Flintoff could be much more of a handful that him. Also judging by the pitches vs WI & SA i dont & the last few years i think the only real bouncy pitch will be in Brisbane while the rest will be flat pitches that eventually break up to assist spin later on.

 

[aussie]

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.

1. I guess him being injured a lot this summer has nothing to do with that

2. That was 2004 & in modern day cricket tha was a very long time ago. But its also very irrelevant to bring this up since Hayden has been superb since his career saving century at the oval.

3. WTF, Are you mad?

4. hmm nothing or real note, were you over in mars when Gilcrist scored:

124 vs Zim in Perth, 2003
144 vs SRI in Kandy, 2004
80 on a shocker of a pitch in darwn vs SRI, 2004
Super century vs Ind in Bangalore, 2004
Hundred vs NZ at the gabba, 2004
superb counter attacking 80 odd vs PAK at perth when Aus were on the back foot
Brilliant century also vs PAK in Syndey
His destruction of NZ in early 2005
His brillaint 91 in the super test
86 under pressure vs SA in Sydney
Superb 144 the other day

All this happened since the 2002/03 season while you were out..

 

[Richard]

1. I guess him being injured a lot this summer has nothing to do with that

It may do, it may not. It's not like Langer's not had fallow periods before now.

2. That was 2004 & in modern day cricket tha was a very long time ago. But its also very irrelevant to bring this up since Hayden has been superb since his career saving century at the oval.

He has - on yet more very flat pitches against, very often, nothing bowling.

3. WTF, Are you mad?

No - you'd have to be pretty mad to miss the absurd number of let-offs Ponting had against South Africa, though.

4. hmm nothing or real note, were you over in mars when Gilcrist scored:

124 vs Zim in Perth, 2003
144 vs SRI in Kandy, 2004
80 on a shocker of a pitch in darwn vs SRI, 2004
Super century vs Ind in Bangalore, 2004
Hundred vs NZ at the gabba, 2004
superb counter attacking 80 odd vs PAK at perth when Aus were on the back foot
Brilliant century also vs PAK in Syndey
His destruction of NZ in early 2005
His brillaint 91 in the super test
86 under pressure vs SA in Sydney
Superb 144 the other day

All this happened since the 2002/03 season while you were out..

WOW, SCORING RUNS AGAINST ZIMBABWE IN 2003!!!!!!! You've got to have some nerve to credit that as worthy Test-cricket.
Yes, Gilchrist did play the odd decent innings in 2003\04, and played plenty at home and in NZ in 2004\05, but he also had failure aplenty before that.
Incidentally - the Darwin 2004 pitch certainly wasn't a shocker if you're a seam-bowler, it was a beauty.

 

[Richard]

Against teams that both have played:

Sarwan v Aus: 18 inns, 28.05, 1x100, 3x50
Fleming v Aus: 27 inns, 25.18, 1x100, 6x50

Sarwan v Ban: 5 inns, 112.50, 2x100
Fleming v Ban: 4 inns, 74.00, 1x100, 1x50

Sarwan v Eng: 21 inns, 32.73, 1x100, 4x50
Fleming v Eng: 31 inns, 32.13, 2x100, 4x50

Sarwan v Ind: 12 inns, 37.91, 5x50
Fleming v Ind: 20 inns, 32.63, 3x50

Sarwan v Pak: 8 inns, 30.16, 2x50
Fleming v Pak: 16 inns, 47.50, 1x100, 5x50

Sarwan v SA: 21 inns, 43.95, 4x100, 2x50
Fleming v SA: 18 inns, 33.35, 4x50

Sarwan v SL: 9 inns, 48.66, 4x50
Fleming v SL: 19 inns, 68.18, 2x100, 7x50

Sarwan v Zim: 7 inns, 49.50, 3x50
Fleming v Zim: 17 inns, 37.64, 6x50

So Sarwan averages more than Fleming does against Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Thats 6 of 8 countries. No Ban or Zim? Fine. That's still 4 of 6 countries.

Overall Stats:
Sarwan: 106 inns, 39.89, 8x100, 24x50, 8x0
Fleming: 168 inns, 39.20, 8x100, 41x50, 13x0

Sarwan scores hundreds way more frequently, averages marginally more, and has a better coversion rate (25% to 16%).

Home:
Sarwan: 49 inns, 43.15, 4x100, 11x50
Fleming: 77 inns, 32.98, 2x100, 17x50

Away:
Sarwan: 57 inns, 37.18, 4x100, 13x50
Fleming: 91 inns, 44.81, 6x100, 24x50

Last 25 Tests:
Sarwan: 46 inns, 41.43, 6 hundreds, 8 fifties
Fleming: 40 inns, 39.89, 3 hundreds, 3 fifties

Really Richard, how in the world can you justify calling Fleming a world class batsman and leaving Sarwan out in the cold?

Bangladesh make plenty of a dent on Sarwan's 100s, let me remind you.
Fleming, as his home average up to 2001\02 suggests, has often had to contend with far, far more difficult (seaming) conditions than Sarwan.
Sarwan has only rarely played on seaming pitches. Usually, of course, when he has, he's failed.
You've surely had enough conversation with me to realise that a batsman who can't even average 40 against Test-standard sides on the pitches that Sarwan has by-and-large played on in his career doesn't deserve much credit in my mind.
To compare simply their performances team-by-team is not really that relevant, as their careers have not run concurrantly.

 

[Richard]

Tell that to Brian Lara. Then tell him that he's not a good batsman.

Aside from the odd (recent) occasion I've never seen Lara troubled by bounce in itself. Even recently, he's still come through and played some superb innings.
It's frustrating enough (and wholly inexplicable) that Lara has had even the small troubles he's had of late with a bit of bounce.