Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 570
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: The Road to the 2009 Ashes

  1. #31
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    13,724
    If 2006/2007 (and the World XI Series a year earlier) taught us anything, it was never to build a Series up.

    In my experience, the best Series' happen when you least expect it - 2001 v India; 2005 v England.

  2. #32
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Haha, don't often disagree with you Greg, but you think 2005 wasn't built-up? I can rarely remember such a mad, long, and phoney, run-in as there was to said series. Of course, the fact that the cricket was so good means it wasn't a let-down, the way 2006\07, with the possibly even bigger build-up, emphatically was.
    Last edited by Richard; 15-02-2008 at 11:06 AM.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #33
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Haha, don't often disagree with you Greg, but you think 2005 wasn't built-up? I can rarely remember such a mad, long, and phoney, run-in to said series. Of course, the fact that the cricket was so good means it wasn't a let-down, the way 2006\07, with the possibly even bigger build-up, emphatically was.
    I've changed my name to my middle name- Josh.

    And yeah, on reflection, 2005 was built up deluxe.

  4. #34
    International Coach wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,601
    I can't see Trescothick or Flintoff playing, tbh.

    If England want to be competitive, then they have to sort the bowling out this year, and I don't see that happening. I'm worried that Harmison will hold up a place for most of 2008 before it's obvious even to England's selectors that he's a dud and it's too late to blood a younger guy. Hoggard's fitness worries me, and I don't see an adequate replacement right now. Again, he'll play when available this year but his body seems to be calling time on his test career. Whereas we started 2005 with a settled and decent attack, it looks to me as if we'll be in the same state in 12 months time as we are now, and that won't be nearly good enough.

    The batting's not world class, but it's probably better than the bowling. And, as someone said earlier, if Strauss stays out of sorts and if Vaughan gets crocked again, then you could see Carberry being in the frame.
    Last edited by wpdavid; 15-02-2008 at 01:33 AM.


  5. #35
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    To look at England first well post 2005 Ashes if it weren't for the injuries to so many key players, if England could have built on that team a la how Taylor & Waugh did with Australia i'd put my head on block to say England would have been the best side in the world today.
    England were never gonna do that, IMO. They prefer to gloat and bask in their own glory (as could be seen by their largely dire performances after the 2003 Rugby World Cup). I did, however, think that they could've represented a serious threat to Australian dominance, but even with an Australian attitude, they were never gonna be #1 for any meaningful period of time - their batsmen have too many obvious flaws for me. Plus, I couldn't help overcame the feeling that Flintoff's batting wasn't all it was cracked up to be (especially against spin) and Harmison's confidence was always prone to going AWOL. In addition, Jones doesn't convince with the new ball. That basically leaves...Hoggard and Flintoff as your two reliable bowlers, injuries permitting. Plus, at the time, they lacked a top-class spinner, which Ashley Giles isn't, I'm afraid.

    But thats in the past now & well they are building back starting from now in NZ, Home vs SA, away to IND, WI before the Ashes rematch. England have to start from scratch & build back a winnings mentality within the unit as they did between BANG 2003 to SA 2004/05. Plus have to hope the shocking injury curse that is affecting English sports these days eases & so no more casualties occurs thus talismatic figures in Flintoff & Trescothick are back in 2009 & maybe Simon Jones although its obvious he won't be the same bowler of 2005.
    Trescothick has a mental illness, not a physical injury per se. Also, for whom was he a talisman? Opposition bowlers who could bowl accurate inswing and seam-up?

    If all goes well this would be England's best XI come 2009 IMO:

    Trescothick
    Cook
    Vaughan
    KP
    Collingwood
    Bell
    Flintoff
    a solid keeper (i fear the selectors have missed a trick by not Pothas though)
    Hoggard
    Harmison
    Panesar

    Other players who will obviously be in the very close to selection are blokes like Sidebottom, Strauss, Shah, Key, Bopara, Tremlett, Broad, Anderson.
    I think Sidebottom is more reliable than Harmison and offers just as much variety. Also, I think that Trescothick will be vulnerable if the Australians bowl accurately and take their catches (so does Cook, but he looks more likely to fix his technical faults than Trescothick, given his age - plus, there's the temperamental issues). That's a real dillema for England isn't it: the opening pair? If Andrew Strauss is in good form, I would pick him over Trescothick, for he's better equipped to deal with accurate pace bowling. Plus, he won't have to face off against quality spin, which he struggles to cope with. Hopefully, we won't get to the stage where we have Rob Key, Chris Tremlett and James Anderson in the mix (I don't know enough about Ravi Bopara or Stuart Broad).

    They were signs againts India if the conditions are very conductive to any form of swing bowlers as was the case in 05 & 07 vs IND & not flat decks with sunshine conditons of 06 once England could build back a fast bowling attack Australia could have problems.
    I agree. Our boys occassionally play loose shots when faced with quality swing (i.e: Phil Jaques). That being said, you guys hardly handled the likes of Zaheer Khan and RP Singh with aplomb, so basically what is problematic for us may be problematic for you, as well.

    Also, about RP Singh, his performance in Australia was not quite as legendary as many (particularly the Australian media) believe - his tendency to mix good spells of swing bowling, such as in Perth, was 'complemented' by longer spells of dross (most of Melbourne and after his first spell in Sydney), leading to him having a surprisingly high average and economy rate against us. It's only vaguely related to what you're saying, I know, but it's been on my chest for quite a while.

    Australia well are in Ponting era & have some interesting challenges coming up no doubt. Ponting has his first sub-continent challenges in PAK & IND of his era which i feel Australia will lose in India since no spinner in Australia has the ability to win test matches in Australia, even though in Lee, Tait, Bracken & (going for a wild card option here in Gillespie if he shows good form) Australia have some fast-bowlers that can bowl well in India conditions. But given that outside Clarke, Hayden & possibly a recalled Katich Australia batting in Indian conditions is very suspect.
    We may indeed lose, although Symonds is surprisingly effective against spin after he makes a start (his footwork in Sydney was quite positive, from memory). As for Hussey, his weaknesses are not so much against quality spin as they are against left-arm seam and pitches with less bounce (given his Western Australian origins). That may still mean he struggles anyway, but we'll have to wait and see. Simon Katich is something of a spin expert (not a Murali expert, though), so a recall for him is not out of the question, given his current good domestic form.

    The best Australian XI come 2009 could be:

    Hayden
    Jaques
    Ponting
    Hussey
    Clarke
    Symonds
    Haddin
    Lee
    Johnson
    Clark
    Tait
    That's if Tait returns.

    Looking at the side firstly i reckon given that i have no faith in the spin talent in Australia ATM, although that change if someone steps up i am hoping by 2009 that 4-man attack will be rolling.
    Same, sadly.

    Hayden being there is a question even though i believe he will still playing then in possibly his final series. He did say he is still enjoying it & he certainly looks as if he could play until he's 40 IMHO. But one will have to see what occurs.
    I certainly hope so, even though he is suspect against high-quality inswing to varying degrees (depending on form), because I'm a big fan.

    If Hayden is not there in 2009 ATS i would be tempted to throw Hussey up the order even though its a risk i like what i see in back-up for middle-order spots with Hodge, a possibly rejuvented Katich these days & David Hussey than with the openers in Rogers, Divenuto & Hughes with the Ashes just over a year away.
    I seriously hope that they don't select Hodge - his playing of the ball moving away from him doesn't really inspire confidence, nor does his ability to kick on with his starts. Katich has already been tried with sporadic (at best) success in England, while Rogers' tendency to walk across his stumps makes him vulnerable to the inswinger. Phil Hughes (?) may still be a bit too young. Also, Michael Di Venuto isn't even playing Australian state cricket anymore.

    Either way i can't wait for this series to get crackin.
    Same.
    Last edited by DaRick; 15-02-2008 at 06:07 PM.

  6. #36
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,702
    Would be thrilled to see Katich finally vindicate himself in the 2009 Ashes.

    A retaliation for every selectorial kick in the nads.
    "The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.

  7. #37
    Cricket Spectator western_warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    16
    Mitch Johnson in 15 months time is going to be an absalute demon....... once he gets his swinging ball working on a regular basis he wont be allowed through english customs, for being suspected in causing terror to all english batsmen. be warned pommies. with a solid top 6 bar probobly Hayden which i feel he will more than likely call it quits next aussie summer, Lee and Johnson will be formidible having clark at first change.... i hope the english talk up there chances more and more because the best crashes are the ones at high speed. lol

  8. #38
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by western_warrior View Post
    Mitch Johnson in 15 months time is going to be an absalute demon....... once he gets his swinging ball working on a regular basis
    If. Very much, if.

    Undoubtedly, if he does, he'll be quite the handful. But it'd be wholly dangerous to simply presume it will happen. He's 26 years old now, there's no way we can say beyond doubt that he's going to be acquiring new weapons, which really you'd expect him to have acquired by now if he was going to.

    Obviously, Courtney Walsh started bowling a slower-ball at 36. So it'd be folly to say it won't happen either. But it's not going to be a nice-and-simple case.

  9. #39
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    England were never gonna do that, IMO. They prefer to gloat and bask in their own glory (as could be seen by their largely dire performances after the 2003 World Cup). I did, however, think that they could've represented a serious threat to Australian dominance, but even with an Australian attitude, they were never gonna be #1 for any meaningful period of time - their batsmen have too many obvious flaws for me. Plus, I couldn't help overcame the feeling that Flintoff's batting wasn't all it was cracked up to be (especially against spin) and Harmison's confidence was always prone to going AWOL. In addition, Jones doesn't convince with the new ball. That basically leaves...Hoggard and Flintoff as your two reliable bowlers, injuries permitting. Plus, at the time, they lacked a top-class spinner, which Ashley Giles isn't, I'm afraid.
    I agree with a lot of this, particularly about Flintoff's batting not being all it's oft been cracked-up to be. However, it always irks me when people go on about basking in glory, especially when they bring other sports into the mix. There possibly could be argued to be a very small influx of this, but the injury factors (and the utter rubbishness of those selected to replace, most notably the Plunketts and Mahmoods) played an infinitely larger part. Take 5 or 6 of the best players out of any team, they'll struggle badly.

    Also, Ashley Giles isn't a top-class wristspinner, obviously, but you won't find a particularly large number of better fingerspinners. Giles offers nothing on a non-turning surface, other than the ability to bowl accurately, but can pose a great threat on a turner and has done many times.
    Trescothick has a mental illness, not a physical injury per se. Also, for whom was he a talisman? Opposition bowlers who could bowl accurate inswing and seam-up?
    Don't forget fielders who can catch, more important than either.
    Hopefully, we won't get to the stage where we have Rob Key, Chris Tremlett and James Anderson in the mix (I don't know enough about Ravi Bopara or Stuart Broad).
    Anderson I'd agree with, but while neither Key nor Tremlett have ever exactly convinced me, they both undoubtedly have the potential to do better than several recent incumbants, IMO. Key is a far better bet than the Strauss of 2006 and 2007, and obviously Trescothick; and Tremlett is beyond question a better bowler, in the longer form of the game, than Anderson, Harmison, Plunkett, Mahmood, Broad and a few others who've been mentioned (Onions and Khan for example). The only seamers who should be ahead of him in the pecking-order right now are Hoggard and Sidebottom, and given Hoggard's injury problems (missed 7 out of 11 Tests in 2007) he could easily be one of the top two come 2009.
    Same, sadly.
    Sadly? What's wrong with a 4-man seam attack? Especially over here?
    Same.
    Rolleyes?

  10. #40
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Well if you are going to look down on Collingwood for that you are going to have to start viewing alot of batsmen the same way in the modern area since we will both agree even the best of batsmen these days given that conditions that assist quality bowling aren't found that much thus batsmen not making big runs in such conditions IMO (depending on ability of course) is down to the fact that they face such conditions often due to inability.

    But then again with Collingwood, in the cases of his innings @ Lahore, Nagpur, Adelaide (didn't see the CLS test given my lack of interest in that series at the time) all were very good innings given the circumstances. Yea Lahore was a flat pitch but except for him England batted poorly in that match, at adelaide yea flat pitch again but its Australia & in this dominant era of Australian cricket with McGrath & Warne leading the attack there has been many flat decks & batsmen haven't been able to bat so well so easily on the best innings by an englishman in a long time.

    Then nagpur geez your harsh son, that was one of the better innings i've seen in India by an overseas player especially a man like Collingwood who many reckoned at time would be a waste of space in test cricket. All goes to show how mentally though the bloke is..
    I do indeed have the same view as I do of Collingwood on quite a few batsmen of the last 6-and-a-half years. And yes, undoubtedly those innings at Adelaide Oval and Nagpur were good in plenty of ways. But they were on flat tracks, there's no way around that. And on less flat tracks, he's always struggled when the catching's been up to scratch. That might change, of course it might, but it hasn't so far, and I see it more likely to continue than change.
    Yea he got luck but he cashed in thats the point & looked the part as a batsman. Look at Dravid in the first couple of test he was caught of no-balls, dropped & just looked a walking wicket. I am not totally convinced about Symonds yet, but i have a sneaky feeling his test career will take a similar path to how his ODI turner after WC03.
    I don't think Symonds looked the part at all. Anyone can cash-in if they get as much luck as he has so far in his Test career. And if he continues to require such a large amount to be successful, I don't see him being remotely so because very few have such considerable good fortune for long.
    I don't think i said personally yo, i was expecting retirement call from him this summer in ODI's but as the great man said himself a missed oppurtunity in tehe 3rd or 4th test convinced him it was time to call it a day altogether. Plus he was obviously in decline unlike Hayden has i said seems to be getting better with age & probably feels he has to make up for lost time.
    Hayden has been in decline at least once in the last 6-and-a-half years now too. It might not take long for him to decide to go too.
    As i said though its one test i just didn't like the look of him at all. But i'll be happy to be proven wrong.
    Cannot fathom how anyone could particularly not like the look of him just on that, he barely stayed at the crease 5 minutes in either innings. I rate Rogers, have done for a while now, and think he could have a decent, solid Test career for 4 or 5 years.
    Also even though Hussey has made the middle order spot his own, Australia haven't been the best team in the world by having a stagnant approach to stuff if down the line it is felt that Hussey should open wouldn't be surprised if it occured nor do i think it will hurt the middle-order as much as people think.
    I don't either, but it does seem to have become something of a fixed idea of Hussey being a number-four not opener. It might change, but by now I'd be surprised.
    I reckon all three have as good as chance as the other to getting a shot in the middle-order due to loss or form or injury in the next few years.
    32 is pretty old to be being recalled, though obviously not beyond question.

  11. #41
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    I agree with a lot of this, particularly about Flintoff's batting not being all it's oft been cracked-up to be. However, it always irks me when people go on about basking in glory, especially when they bring other sports into the mix. There possibly could be argued to be a very small influx of this, but the injury factors (and the utter rubbishness of those selected to replace, most notably the Plunketts and Mahmoods) played an infinitely larger part. Take 5 or 6 of the best players out of any team, they'll struggle badly.

    Also, Ashley Giles isn't a top-class wristspinner, obviously, but you won't find a particularly large number of better fingerspinners. Giles offers nothing on a non-turning surface, other than the ability to bowl accurately, but can pose a great threat on a turner and has done many times.
    I've just noted the utterly inexplicable triumphialism that occurs every time the English emerge victorious in a sporting event. The aftermath of the 2003 Rugby World Cup was something to behold and I do acknowledge that England wen't badly partially because half of their players threw it in afterwards. But that's the fault of the English rugby union system for allowing so many players to retire simultaneously without giving a damn about the future - thus explaining why English rugby union has been largely appalling since. The celebrations for the 2005 Ashes, while different, were even more risible and exaggerated, with blokes like Gary Pratt and Paul Collingwood (!) getting MBE's - for doing very little.

    As for Ashley Giles, I do agree that he's more threatening on a favourable pitch (really, what bowler isn't) - but I can still name a plethora of finger-spinners who are superior, even in England (overall, that is). Let's see: Harbhajan Singh and Saqlain Mushtaq (despite their ineptitude of late), Phil Tufnell (capable of running through sides, unlike Giles), Rob Croft (probably), Daniel Vettori (better use of flight and arm ball), Monty Panesar (more aggressive, turns the ball more and has a better arm ball). Paul Harris is arguably similar to Giles, too, although he is also a touch too defensive. I do think that Ashley Giles is far superior to Nicky Boje and Chris Gayle, though, although Boje could've been better had his role as a stock bowler not blunted his main strength: his use of flight. There are also other finger-spinners that Giles is obviously superior to, but there's no point mentioning them.

    Don't forget fielders who can catch, more important than either.
    Too true.

    Anderson I'd agree with, but while neither Key nor Tremlett have ever exactly convinced me, they both undoubtedly have the potential to do better than several recent incumbants, IMO. Key is a far better bet than the Strauss of 2006 and 2007, and obviously Trescothick; and Tremlett is beyond question a better bowler, in the longer form of the game, than Anderson, Harmison, Plunkett, Mahmood, Broad and a few others who've been mentioned (Onions and Khan for example). The only seamers who should be ahead of him in the pecking-order right now are Hoggard and Sidebottom, and given Hoggard's injury problems (missed 7 out of 11 Tests in 2007) he could easily be one of the top two come 2009.
    TBH, the last time I saw Chris Tremlett bowl was in 2005. Maybe he's improved in the years since (I feel sorry for you boys if he hasn't, that's for sure). Also, if Harmison is bowling at his best (quite rare for sure - I don't think he ever deserved to be #1, but anyway), he is much more damaging than Tremlett, IMO. If Harmison isn't at his best, I'd give Tremlett the nod, because there's palpably no-one better (if only Plunkett could combine the movement he can get with an actual line and length).

    Sadly? What's wrong with a 4-man seam attack? Especially over here?
    I was talking more about our spin stocks when I said that. There's obviously nothing (theoretically) wrong with a 4-man seam attack (unless Ponting falls behind on the over rates ala Perth 2008).

    Rolleyes?
    Meh...it can be similar to a smile, or it can be a sarcastic send-off.

  12. #42
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    I've just noted the utterly inexplicable triumphialism that occurs every time the English emerge victorious in a sporting event. The aftermath of the 2003 Rugby World Cup was something to behold and I do acknowledge that England wen't badly partially because half of their players threw it in afterwards. But that's the fault of the English rugby union system for allowing so many players to retire simultaneously without giving a damn about the future - thus explaining why English rugby union has been largely appalling since. The celebrations for the 2005 Ashes, while different, were even more risible and exaggerated, with blokes like Gary Pratt and Paul Collingwood (!) getting MBE's - for doing very little.
    Pratt didn't get an MBE (though a flag waved by Michael Vaughan on the victory bus did indeed read "Gary Pratt MBE" - but it was just a piece of jest), and rightly so. Collingwood's MBE was a bit silly, along with Stephen Harmison's, Geriant Jones' and Ian Bell's, but I can sort of see why they did it. However, as I said, it irks me - the MBEs are no fault whatsoever of the cricket community, they're solely down to the govornment's wish for sporting honours as a publicity stunt. Silly and exaggerated, yes. The fault of the cricketers, no way.
    As for Ashley Giles, I do agree that he's more threatening on a favourable pitch (really, what bowler isn't)
    That's not the point, though. All you can ask of a fingerspinner is that they're effective on turners. Giles wasn't effective on non-turners, but nor will any fingerspinner be, really. He rarely let his side down when the pitch offered him something, and that makes him a good fingerspinner, for my money.

    What made Giles' career so awful was the number of times he was picked when he shouldn't have been; when a fingerspinner was never going to be in the slightest effective. Just because of the "you must have variation" rubbish. I've always been of the opinion that you pick your best bowlers, and while Giles was certainly among England's best bowlers on a turning surface, he most definately wasn't close on non-turners.
    but I can still name a plethora of finger-spinners who are superior, even in England (overall, that is). Let's see: Harbhajan Singh and Saqlain Mushtaq (despite their ineptitude of late), Phil Tufnell (capable of running through sides, unlike Giles), Rob Croft (probably), Daniel Vettori (better use of flight and arm ball), Monty Panesar (more aggressive, turns the ball more and has a better arm ball). Paul Harris is arguably similar to Giles, too, although he is also a touch too defensive. I do think that Ashley Giles is far superior to Nicky Boje and Chris Gayle, though, although Boje could've been better had his role as a stock bowler not blunted his main strength: his use of flight. There are also other finger-spinners that Giles is obviously superior to, but there's no point mentioning them.
    Saqlain and Harbhajan are better, of course they are, they can bowl the Doosra. That makes them better than anyone. I disagree that Giles was much better than Tufnell, though. Croft, yes, maybe, but not by much. Likewise Panesar (who a lot of people are going to be very disappointed by at some point, because they've inflated expectations of him). Vettori, when fit (ie, excluding the entire Jan02-Jul04 period), is clearly better. But he alone among "normal" (ie, non-Doosra-bowling) fingerspinners stands out as clearly better, IMO.
    TBH, the last time I saw Chris Tremlett bowl was in 2005. Maybe he's improved in the years since (I feel sorry for you boys if he hasn't, that's for sure). Also, if Harmison is bowling at his best (quite rare for sure - I don't think he ever deserved to be #1, but anyway), he is much more damaging than Tremlett, IMO. If Harmison isn't at his best, I'd give Tremlett the nod, because there's palpably no-one better (if only Plunkett could combine the movement he can get with an actual line and length).
    I honestly believe Harmison's supposed best is greatly exaggerated. Harmison's success in those 7 Tests in early 2004 (in West Indies then home to New Zealand) was far more down to bad batting than good bowling, I said as much at the time, and said I never expected it to continue.

    Tremlett, when he was picked for the Tests in 2007, I wasn't hopeful. But he bowled better than I'd ever imagined he could. And the way he's been dropped since has been nothing short of disgraceful. Not that I had big hopes for him to tear-up on Sri Lankan featherbeds. But the way he's just been shoved behind nothing bowlers in the pecking-order.

    Those Tests against India might be one-offs. But for mine, he looked better than Harmison has almost ever done. And I really do believe he could do more than Harmison will ever do, because Harmison simply does not possess the skill to bowl accurately enough, and almost never has done.
    Meh...it can be similar to a smile, or it can be a sarcastic send-off.
    Mate, the Rolleyes is the worst smiley on vBulletin. Use it with great care. I was wondering if you were meaning to use the smiley and pressed the wrong shortcut, people do that occasionally. The Rolleyes says, in essence, "what a stupid comment".

  13. #43
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Pratt didn't get an MBE (though a flag waved by Michael Vaughan on the victory bus did indeed read "Gary Pratt MBE" - but it was just a piece of jest), and rightly so. Collingwood's MBE was a bit silly, along with Stephen Harmison's, Geriant Jones' and Ian Bell's, but I can sort of see why they did it. However, as I said, it irks me - the MBEs are no fault whatsoever of the cricket community, they're solely down to the govornment's wish for sporting honours as a publicity stunt. Silly and exaggerated, yes. The fault of the cricketers, no way.
    Well, my mistake on Gary Pratt, then. I never said that it was the fault of the English cricketers - if anything, the more modest ones (the ones who felt as if they didn't really deserve it) would feel like frauds, which may affect their confidence. Similarily, the more boisterous ones would be having their egos massaged unnecessarily, which may have a positive effect, but would just as likely lead to dangerous over-confidence. This too, could negatively affect their gameplay, as they may feel like they don't have to improve their game anymore (no wonder English sports teams lose motivation after winning major sporting events). The only ones I would even consider giving MBE's (at a real stretch) would have been Michael Vaughan and Duncan Fletcher, but mostly for their on-and-off field efforts prior to the series. I would merely congraulate the rest, not ridiculously over-indulge them.

    That's not the point, though. All you can ask of a fingerspinner is that they're effective on turners. Giles wasn't effective on non-turners, but nor will any fingerspinner be, really. He rarely let his side down when the pitch offered him something, and that makes him a good fingerspinner, for my money.
    Well, I said that Giles is more threatening on a favourable pitch, did I not (his record on the subcontinent is good - by his standards)? Besides that, you can't really say that 'a fingerspinner will never be effective on a non-turner'. Cricket, as you should well know, is never that simple, even with an art as seemingly simplistic as finger-spin. A finger-spinner doesn't just need turn to succeed. They also need to grasp the notion of flight, variation in pace, line and length and deliveries like the arm ball and the doosra. That's why bowlers like Nathan Hauritz are generally inadequate, for while Hauritz does get some turn, he bowls too flat and doesn't vary his line and length enough. Also, Daniel Vettori averages more at home (in conditions usually conducive to pace) than away - if we eliminate Bangladesh/Zimbabwe from considerations. So I'm unsure about your 'non-turners' argument.

    What made Giles' career so awful was the number of times he was picked when he shouldn't have been; when a fingerspinner was never going to be in the slightest effective. Just because of the "you must have variation" rubbish. I've always been of the opinion that you pick your best bowlers, and while Giles was certainly among England's best bowlers on a turning surface, he most definately wasn't close on non-turners.
    Look, I agree...Giles did look much more of a threat on turners. But if he knew that he was going to bowl on an unsuitable pitch and thus harm his own average and - by extension - his team's chances, he should've put a word in - if nothing else - to the selectors.

    Saqlain and Harbhajan are better, of course they are, they can bowl the Doosra. That makes them better than anyone.
    Oh, no it doesn't! The doosra (as in Murali's case) can be a real asset...but only if used properly. It is reasonable to suggest that the doosra cut short Saqlain's international career - by the end of it, that delivery came first, at the expense of his stock delivery and also his flight. Batsmen could also read it more easily. Harbhajan is very much in danger of going the same way as Saqlain. The one-day game hasn't helped either.

    Also, if the doosra automatically makes you such a great offie, then why isn't Dan Cullen up there? In Australia, innuendo abounds that he can actually bowl it (although I've yet to see much evidence of that). Food for thought, methinks.

    I disagree that Giles was much better than Tufnell, though. Croft, yes, maybe, but not by much. Likewise Panesar (who a lot of people are going to be very disappointed by at some point, because they've inflated expectations of him). Vettori, when fit (ie, excluding the entire Jan02-Jul04 period), is clearly better. But he alone among "normal" (ie, non-Doosra-bowling) fingerspinners stands out as clearly better, IMO.
    I say that Tufnell was better partially because he could flight the ball well, turn it on responsive pitches like Giles and also perhaps run through sides when in the mood (which wasn't very often). Both he and Giles have poor records partially because of ignominous ends to their careers.

    It is true that ol' Monty isn't the saviour that England is looking for, but I believe, as a spinner anyway, he is a real improvement on Giles. Also, Vettori cannot bowl the doosra (although he, like Monty, has attempted to work on one, apparently).

    I honestly believe Harmison's supposed best is greatly exaggerated. Harmison's success in those 7 Tests in early 2004 (in West Indies then home to New Zealand) was far more down to bad batting than good bowling, I said as much at the time, and said I never expected it to continue.
    To be frank, I never expected his form to last, either - and I also felt that he was overrated. I remember the 'Harmy hype' disgusting me at the time, too (and I was only 14!). I also agree that some of his New Zealand wickets were down to some insipid shots (Vettori, for one, if I remember correctly).

    Still, though, I think he can rip through sides when he's at his very best...but only when he's at his very best, not when he's near his best and certainly not when he bowls like he did in Brisbane 2006.

    Tremlett, when he was picked for the Tests in 2007, I wasn't hopeful. But he bowled better than I'd ever imagined he could. And the way he's been dropped since has been nothing short of disgraceful. Not that I had big hopes for him to tear-up on Sri Lankan featherbeds. But the way he's just been shoved behind nothing bowlers in the pecking-order.
    Typical English selection, then (not that I really think Moores is a good enough coach to advocate for the appropriate selections). I'll take your word on Tremlett, then - I never got to watch that England.vs.India series

    Those Tests against India might be one-offs. But for mine, he looked better than Harmison has almost ever done. And I really do believe he could do more than Harmison will ever do, because Harmison simply does not possess the skill to bowl accurately enough, and almost never has done.
    Overall, he'll probably be a hell of a lot more reliable than Harmison. At their respective peaks, I'd still go for Harmison, although I would have to have a crystal ball right beside me telling me that he's gonna be at his peak.

    Mate, the Rolleyes is the worst smiley on vBulletin. Use it with great care. I was wondering if you were meaning to use the smiley and pressed the wrong shortcut, people do that occasionally. The Rolleyes says, in essence, "what a stupid comment".
    It can do; I acknowledge it. I didn't mean it that way, but thanks for your advice.
    Last edited by DaRick; 17-02-2008 at 06:05 PM.

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    Well, my mistake on Gary Pratt, then. I never said that it was the fault of the English cricketers - if anything, the more modest ones (the ones who felt as if they didn't really deserve it) would feel like frauds, which may affect their confidence. Similarily, the more boisterous ones would be having their egos massaged unnecessarily, which may have a positive effect, but would just as likely lead to dangerous over-confidence. This too, could negatively affect their gameplay, as they may feel like they don't have to improve their game anymore (no wonder English sports teams lose motivation after winning major sporting events). The only ones I would even consider giving MBE's (at a real stretch) would have been Michael Vaughan and Duncan Fletcher, but mostly for their on-and-off field efforts prior to the series. I would merely congraulate the rest, not ridiculously over-indulge them.
    Would add Flintoff TBH. Flintoff far more deserving than Vaughan, for mine.

    Matthew Engel, fairly accurately, described the "mass-gonging" as "a vehicle for the Prime Minister to show how cool he is".
    Well, I said that Giles is more threatening on a favourable pitch, did I not (his record on the subcontinent is good - by his standards)? Besides that, you can't really say that 'a fingerspinner will never be effective on a non-turner'. Cricket, as you should well know, is never that simple, even with an art as seemingly simplistic as finger-spin. A finger-spinner doesn't just need turn to succeed. They also need to grasp the notion of flight, variation in pace, line and length and deliveries like the arm ball and the doosra. That's why bowlers like Nathan Hauritz are generally inadequate, for while Hauritz does get some turn, he bowls too flat and doesn't vary his line and length enough. Also, Daniel Vettori averages more at home (in conditions usually conducive to pace) than away - if we eliminate Bangladesh/Zimbabwe from considerations. So I'm unsure about your 'non-turners' argument.
    Look, I wasn't saying "turner = fingerspinner-effective, non-turner = fingerspinner-not-effective". The latter is true, the former certainly isn't. The fingerspinner has to have the skill to do well on a turner, obviously, and that skill isn't just about putting revs on the ball. In saying "a fingerspinner can't be effective on a non-turner" I'm certainly not attempting to imply that "if a wicket turns, any fingerspinner will be effective".
    Look, I agree...Giles did look much more of a threat on non-turners. But if he knew that he was going to bowl on an unsuitable pitch and thus harm his own average and - by extension - his team's chances, he should've put a word in - if nothing else - to the selectors.
    Perhaps, and only perhaps, he should. But it's a brave man who says "I think it's in my team's (and therefore almost certainly my own) best interests for me not to play".
    Oh, no it doesn't! The doosra (as in Murali's case) can be a real asset...but only if used properly. It is reasonable to suggest that the doosra cut short Saqlain's international career - by the end of it, that delivery came first, at the expense of his stock delivery and also his flight. Batsmen could also read it more easily. Harbhajan is very much in danger of going the same way as Saqlain. The one-day game hasn't helped either.

    Also, if the doosra automatically makes you such a great offie, then why isn't Dan Cullen up there? In Australia, innuendo abounds that he can actually bowl it (although I've yet to see much evidence of that). Food for thought, methinks.
    Haha, look, that probably wasn't phrased terribly well TBH - I wasn't suggesting that the Doosra automatically makes a bowler better than one who doesn't bowl it. More a case of that Saqlain and Harbhajan possess(\ed) pretty much all the skill of a Vettori or Panesar, plus the Doosra, thus making them clearly superior. The Doosra alone won't make a fingerspinner a good bowler, the skills with the basic Off-Break, plus lines, lengths, loop and drift are all more important. All I was saying was Doosra > no-Doosra.

    Undoubtedly, incidentally, both Saqlain and Harbhajan overdid\do the delivery, and undoubtedly it's not helped them. However, I certainly feel Saqlain would have continued at international level and continued to perform but for injury.

    And Murali isn't really comparable - he's a fingerspinner where Saqlain and Harbhajan (and others) are wristspinners, and though he calls his Wrong-'Un "Doosra" too it's not a remotely alike delivery. All it has in common is the direction it moves.
    I say that Tufnell was better partially because he could flight the ball well, turn it on responsive pitches like Giles and also perhaps run through sides when in the mood (which wasn't very often). Both he and Giles have poor records partially because of ignominous ends to their careers.

    It is true that ol' Monty isn't the saviour that England is looking for, but I believe, as a spinner anyway, he is a real improvement on Giles. Also, Vettori cannot bowl the doosra (although he, like Monty, has attempted to work on one, apparently).
    I never really rated Tufnell terribly highly, though it's true that I don't even remember the game that was almost certainly his finest hour (the game in New Zealand in 1991\92), being just 6 myself at the time and having at that point no Sky. I've heard several fine judges talk in awe of that game. But I've always had something of a dislike for highly volatile players, believing them to have the potential to do one hell of a lot of harm to team morale and stability. It's true that Tufnell may have had some skills that Giles doesn't (MSP certainly does, incidentally) but I don't think the difference is as pronounced as some seem to.

    BTW... wasn't attempting to suggest Vettori did bowl a Doosra - did I appear to do so?
    Overall, he'll probably be a hell of a lot more reliable than Harmison. At their respective peaks, I'd still go for Harmison, although I would have to have a crystal ball right beside me telling me that he's gonna be at his peak.
    Think (certainly hope) that we haven't seen the best of Tremlett yet. Maybe if we do, a few minds might change.

  15. #45
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Would add Flintoff TBH. Flintoff far more deserving than Vaughan, for mine.

    Matthew Engel, fairly accurately, described the "mass-gonging" as "a vehicle for the Prime Minister to show how cool he is".
    I was talking more about Vaughan's efforts prior to the series - lifting the team after they suffered an embarrassing loss to SA at home in 2003. But OK, why not Flintoff (even though we both know he faded after around March 2006)?

    Look, I wasn't saying "turner = fingerspinner-effective, non-turner = fingerspinner-not-effective". The latter is true, the former certainly isn't. The fingerspinner has to have the skill to do well on a turner, obviously, and that skill isn't just about putting revs on the ball. In saying "a fingerspinner can't be effective on a non-turner" I'm certainly not attempting to imply that "if a wicket turns, any fingerspinner will be effective".
    Hey, I know. If you look at what I wrote carefully, you'll find that I merely accused you of saying 'non-turner = useless offspinner' (which you did write). Aside from that, I agree with what you wrote above.

    Perhaps, and only perhaps, he should. But it's a brave man who says "I think it's in my team's (and therefore almost certainly my own) best interests for me not to play".
    True - I was going to make a comment on the fragile nature of English 'team spirit', but I decided that it wouldn't be prudent.

    Haha, look, that probably wasn't phrased terribly well TBH - I wasn't suggesting that the Doosra automatically makes a bowler better than one who doesn't bowl it. More a case of that Saqlain and Harbhajan possess(\ed) pretty much all the skill of a Vettori or Panesar, plus the Doosra, thus making them clearly superior. The Doosra alone won't make a fingerspinner a good bowler, the skills with the basic Off-Break, plus lines, lengths, loop and drift are all more important. All I was saying was Doosra > no-Doosra.
    I know - that's why I jumped on it. I agree with what you're saying now - of course any off-spinner would like to have a doosra in his/her (?) armoury. But whatever your intentions, you certainly did outwardly state that Harbhajan and Saqlain are better than anyone because they bowl the doosra. Look at your prior comments.

    Undoubtedly, incidentally, both Saqlain and Harbhajan overdid\do the delivery, and undoubtedly it's not helped them. However, I certainly feel Saqlain would have continued at international level and continued to perform but for injury.
    Look, maybe the injury helped to salvage his record. Once your command of flight and your offbreak are diminished, you become significantly less effective. Just ask Ashley Mallett, who has always banged on about the virtues of flight.

    And Murali isn't really comparable - he's a fingerspinner where Saqlain and Harbhajan (and others) are wristspinners, and though he calls his Wrong-'Un "Doosra" too it's not a remotely alike delivery. All it has in common is the direction it moves.
    Uh...of course...because he has a freakish action (not necessarily a throw).

    I never really rated Tufnell terribly highly, though it's true that I don't even remember the game that was almost certainly his finest hour (the game in New Zealand in 1991\92), being just 6 myself at the time and having at that point no Sky. I've heard several fine judges talk in awe of that game.
    I was aware of that performance (7/47; I was only 2 when it occured)...but another performance that I heard about was him taking 11 wickets against a decent (but not really strong) Australian line-up...on a pitch which (quality) pacemen made hay on, whereas Shane Warne took only (by his standards) four wickets.

    But I've always had something of a dislike for highly volatile players, believing them to have the potential to do one hell of a lot of harm to team morale and stability.
    I agree with that...his presence in Australia during 1994 and 1995 didn't help him or his team, for the most part. Still, I find it odd that the spin duties during his absence in the mid-90's were left to less talented spinners.

    It's true that Tufnell may have had some skills that Giles doesn't (MSP certainly does, incidentally) but I don't think the difference is as pronounced as some seem to.
    Well, Tufnell's command of flight was much better than Giles' was - plus there was his aforementioned ability to run through a side. Tufnell was also much more aggressive, beating the batsman in the air from around the wicket, rather than trying to stifle them from over the wicket, as Giles leant towards. Giles, on the other hand, had a much better temperament. The difference in their records isn't massive, though.

    BTW... wasn't attempting to suggest Vettori did bowl a Doosra - did I appear to do so?
    Well, I thought you did. When you said "he alone", I thought you were referring to Giles, not Vettori. My mistake, then.

    Think (certainly hope) that we haven't seen the best of Tremlett yet. Maybe if we do, a few minds might change.
    Such as...mine? We'll see.
    Last edited by DaRick; 17-02-2008 at 07:36 PM.

Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. South Africa v England 2009-2010
    By Beadle in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 19-05-2009, 04:39 PM
  2. Ashes 2009 - Predict Today, Laugh Tommorow!
    By pskov in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 07-01-2007, 07:25 AM
  3. 2009 Ashes - Bring it ON !!!!
    By Salamuddin in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22-12-2006, 09:38 PM
  4. McGrath could play in 2009 Ashes
    By James in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 25-11-2006, 09:27 AM
  5. McGrath targets 2009 Ashes
    By James in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 27-08-2006, 09:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •