Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 38 of 38 FirstFirst ... 28363738
Results 556 to 570 of 570
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: The Road to the 2009 Ashes

  1. #556
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I liked Ed Joyce, pity he was judged on his ODI (lack of) performance.
    Could change that name to about 20 or 30 others too, TBH. From England and pretty much any other country.
    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

  2. #557
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble One View Post
    Slightly basic theory from Ian Chappell. Essentially stating that Krejka is the more effective spin bowler based on his strike-rate, massively inflated by playing on a turner against an overly attacking Indian batting line-up. I would prefer Hauritz to send down 20 overs for the day and take 1/60 rather than the possibility of Krejka bowling 20 overs and either taking 3/110 or 0/130.

    In theory he is correct, attacking bowlers are more effective than defensive (pressure) bowlers. But you need a quality attacking cricketer for this to work. Warne was one, Krejka is not. Hauritz will play his role, and I think that is all we can expect of him.
    Ye as i said. His theory is right, but given that Australia are likely to play 4 quicks most of the time he is over-stating the imprtance of either selection.

    If Watson is picked though & only 3 quicks play. Then Krejza should be picked as an attacking option, he doesn't need to used to block up an end.

  3. #558
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,281
    I'm with Chappell here. Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket. You toss the ball to Marcus North, Andrew McDonald or Michael Clarke and they won't go for any more runs than a specialist defensive bowler would. Or you could just tell Johnson or Siddle to bowl a foot outside off stump. "Keeping it tight" isn't a skill that deserves a place in a test team.

    Still wouldn't pick Krejza. It's not that he's too attacking, he's just bad.

  4. #559
    BARNES OUT dontcloseyoureyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CW BLACK
    Posts
    33,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Still wouldn't pick Krejza. It's not that he's too attacking, he's just bad.
    Bingo.

    ... .... .- -.- . / - .... . / -.. . .- - .... / ..-. .-. --- -- / -.-- --- ..- .-. / -... --- -. . ...


  5. #560
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I'm with Chappell here. Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket. You toss the ball to Marcus North, Andrew McDonald or Michael Clarke and they won't go for any more runs than a specialist defensive bowler would. Or you could just tell Johnson or Siddle to bowl a foot outside off stump. "Keeping it tight" isn't a skill that deserves a place in a test team.

    Still wouldn't pick Krejza. It's not that he's too attacking, he's just bad.
    Of course he still has to work on his accuracy. But if used correctly in the comfort of a 5-man attack, he becomes the most potent spinner Australia has.

    As i said, lets say Watson plays along with Lee/Johnson/Siddle. Krejza being used on a potential Oval turner could do a Nagpur all over again...

  6. #561
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I'm with Chappell here. Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket. You toss the ball to Marcus North, Andrew McDonald or Michael Clarke and they won't go for any more runs than a specialist defensive bowler would. Or you could just tell Johnson or Siddle to bowl a foot outside off stump. "Keeping it tight" isn't a skill that deserves a place in a test team.

    Still wouldn't pick Krejza. It's not that he's too attacking, he's just bad.
    Yeah, I can't really disagree with this.

    I was Krejza's biggest supporter - in fact, I'm pretty sure I was the only one outside of the selectors and Jason's mother who thought he should have been on that tour to India - but he's become seriously over-rated since then by many people and I've never been of the opinion that he should be playing Tests outside the subcontinent. I still think he's going to be useful in certain conditions but he shouldn't be playing in England.

    The selectors are only cheating themselves in picking Hauritz though. Before the tour of South Africa, their general line of thought was that they needed to have a spinner play every Test... but because they didn't have a good one, they decided to start picking one who wasn't going to have any impact on the game either positively or negatively when he came on. Hauritz just puts Tests on pause. It really defeats the purpose of what they're trying to achieve by picking a spinner regardless (which I disagree with anyway) as Hauritz doesn't really offer what you'd expect from a front-line spinner even on the occasions he bowls "well" and does his job. McDonald does Hauritz's bowling job to a better standard than Hauritz and can bat too... or better yet, we can do away with the joke of a role and pick someone likely to take a wicket (Lee).
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  7. #562
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket.

    "Keeping it tight" isn't a skill that deserves a place in a test team.
    One true, one not so. Well, sort of, so. Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket (ie, not try to take wickets) but it takes a fair bit of skill regardless to pull it off and have the desired result (ie, slow the run-flow to a trickle). A negative bowler does not = a good defensive bowler. You need a fair bit of skill to be a really good defensive bowler.

    However I've never had any time for the selection of bowlers in Tests (or any form of limitless-over cricket) where they are not picked because it's believed they can take wickets themselves. I've no time for "taking wickets at the other end" which works nicely in theory but not in practice and I've no time for "block up an end while the other bowlers take wickets at the other". If you pick a bowler for Test cricket you should pick them to take wickets.

  8. #563
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    One true, one not so. Well, sort of, so. Anyone can bowl negatively in cricket (ie, not try to take wickets) but it takes a fair bit of skill regardless to pull it off and have the desired result (ie, slow the run-flow to a trickle). A negative bowler does not = a good defensive bowler. You need a fair bit of skill to be a really good defensive bowler.

    However I've never had any time for the selection of bowlers in Tests (or any form of limitless-over cricket) where they are not picked because it's believed they can take wickets themselves. I've no time for "taking wickets at the other end" which works nicely in theory but not in practice and I've no time for "block up an end while the other bowlers take wickets at the other". If you pick a bowler for Test cricket you should pick them to take wickets.
    The point isn't so much that it's really easy, it's that if you fancy keeping the runs down for a while and your attack consists of Clark, Siddle, Lee, Johnson, North and Clarke, you'll find a way to do it. In tests at least, good attacking bowlers will find it much easier to bowl economically than defensive ones find it to bowl aggressively and take wickets.

    Although Ricky Ponting can't defend properly anyway so it might not make any difference who he has to choose from.

  9. #564
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    The point isn't so much that it's really easy, it's that if you fancy keeping the runs down for a while and your attack consists of Clark, Siddle, Lee, Johnson, North and Clarke, you'll find a way to do it. In tests at least, good attacking bowlers will find it much easier to bowl economically than defensive ones find it to bowl aggressively and take wickets.
    Again, I'd not disagree with one part of this post - ie, that the likes of the Australian bowlers in said attack would indeed be perfectly capable of playing a defensive role, and that Hauritz is unneccessary.

    But I don't agree at all that it's remotely easy for an attacking bowler who is not normally good at defence to bowl defensively. It's virtually impossible for someone who does not have the skill to do something (whether that be attack or defend) to just suddenly do it because the situation requires. If you've not got the skillsets to attack, you've not got 'em, same way if you've not got the skillsets to defend, you've not got 'em. You're suggesting one is difficult, the other impossible; I'm suggesting that both are virtually impossible.

  10. #565
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah, I can't really disagree with this.

    I was Krejza's biggest supporter - in fact, I'm pretty sure I was the only one outside of the selectors and Jason's mother who thought he should have been on that tour to India - but he's become seriously over-rated since then by many people and I've never been of the opinion that he should be playing Tests outside the subcontinent. I still think he's going to be useful in certain conditions but he shouldn't be playing in England.
    All of Krejza, McGain & Haurtiz overall aren't good enough to be used as main-spinner in English conditions. But one has to be picked just in case conditions suite, thus again Krejza is the best of the three to exploit a turning track - once he is played in a 5-man attack.

  11. #566
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,205
    I think the Aussies do need to play a spinner. Four quicks is fine if they bowl us out fairly cheaply, but that isn't going to repeatedly happen. It's too big a workload for the quicks in a five-match series. Four quicks in the SA series had two of the bowlers injured by midway through the second test.

  12. #567
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Three quicks and a spinner, or four quicks and a spinner, has also many times had several of the bowlers injured mid-series. Likewise, four quicks has many times not had such a thing.

    And personally I think an attack of Clark, Johnson, Siddle, Lee (or AN Other instead of Lee if needbe) should be more than capable of bowling England out cheaply twice, most of the time, if we get some proper English conditions, which we certainly did in the First Test against West Indies. And it'll be interesting to see if the dose is repeated in the Second.

  13. #568
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,281
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    All of Krejza, McGain & Haurtiz overall aren't good enough to be used as main-spinner in English conditions. But one has to be picked just in case conditions suite, thus again Krejza is the best of the three to exploit a turning track - once he is played in a 5-man attack.
    Marcus North and has more FC wickets than either Krejza or Hauritz do, and at a lower average (so does Andrew Symonds, by a massive distance, but his two modes of bowling make his skill as a spinner a tad unclear statistically). The point not being that North is a better bowler than those two, but that none are likely to be much use. I'd keep Hauritz or Krejza around the squad for a really obvious turning track, but neither are part of Australia's strongest XI.

  14. #569
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Marcus North and has more FC wickets than either Krejza or Hauritz do, and at a lower average (so does Andrew Symonds, by a massive distance, but his two modes of bowling make his skill as a spinner a tad unclear statistically). The point not being that North is a better bowler than those two, but that none are likely to be much use. I'd keep Hauritz or Krejza around the squad for a really obvious turning track, but neither are part of Australia's strongest XI.
    Yea 4-quicks will be Australia's attack for a good while in the future. Just advocating why for the lone spinner spot in the Ashes squad, why Krejza should get that position.

  15. #570
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Marcus North and has more FC wickets than either Krejza or Hauritz do, and at a lower average (so does Andrew Symonds, by a massive distance, but his two modes of bowling make his skill as a spinner a tad unclear statistically).
    Symonds has always been waaaaay better as a seamer than spinner IMO. A very poor spinner but actually capable of bowling pretty decently with his seam-up - hits good areas and gets the ball to do plenty. Seems to bowl a Clive Lloyd esque heavy ball too.
    The point not being that North is a better bowler than those two, but that none are likely to be much use. I'd keep Hauritz or Krejza around the squad for a really obvious turning track, but neither are part of Australia's strongest XI.
    North actually possibly might be no lesser than Hauritz for my money. Krejza is obviously far better given a turning track but equally obviously quite a bit worse on a non-turner.

Page 38 of 38 FirstFirst ... 28363738


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, 05:39 PM
  2. Ashes 2009 - Predict Today, Laugh Tommorow!
    By pskov in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 07-01-2007, 08:25 AM
  3. 2009 Ashes - Bring it ON !!!!
    By Salamuddin in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22-12-2006, 10:38 PM
  4. McGrath could play in 2009 Ashes
    By James in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 25-11-2006, 10:27 AM
  5. McGrath targets 2009 Ashes
    By James in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 27-08-2006, 10:14 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
  •