Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 4 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 570
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: The Road to the 2009 Ashes

  1. #46
    Hall of Fame Member superkingdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,468
    Slightly OT but it looks like the England women's team might pull off a surprise and retain the Ashes. They are 96/3 at tea needing another 46 to win the only test of the series (though they only need a draw to retain it).

  2. #47
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    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 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.
    Agreed overall, England definately if they didn't have all the injury worries post 2005 Ashes & it must be said some better selections they would have been a real challenge to Australia's position as number one.

    The batsmen yea have flaws but i'd reckon the full English batting-lineup is better than what many other nations have ATM.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    Plus, I couldn't help overcame the feeling that Flintoff's batting wasn't all it was cracked up to be (especially against spin).
    Well IMO Flintoff's batting was maturing brilliantly since the Ashes. Yea even though he likes to think of himself as a batting all-rounder i don't think againts real quality attacks he would be a consitent test match #6 he is better off @ 7.

    Going back to the maturity factor though, you talk about his game againts the spinners if you look at how he batted in India in 2006 when he was captain he totally changed him game & batted superbly in those conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    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.
    Jones never was new-ball man though a bit of a one-series waqar younis in a way. A fully-fit Jones though would a have made a HUGE difference to England's bowling attack in sub-continental tours since the Ashes (but thats just wishfull thinking).

    Yea Gilo was never anything special but as Richard is rightfully saying in the right conditons for most of his career especially in the sub-continent he proved to be very effective. But in due course Monty came along had a nice start but his having his first real test as a spinner. But again if all where fit i reckon England in most cases would have adapted an all-pace attack in most conditons.





    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    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). .
    Yea fingers are definately crossed that England haven't seen the last of Trescothick IMO. I'd be devasted since he clearly has an awful lot yet to offer England in both forms of the game.

    On the highlighted part I know people have there views about Anderson on how he has lost that intial quality that made him such as hit when he first arrived on the international scene which is true. But i based on what i've seen of him last summer vs India he was very good on overall some pretty flat pitches, he won't ever be a world beater but he is still one of better bowlers in England one full-fit.

    On the rest of them well based on what i saw of Key in the past i have my doubts of him againts top-quality bowling, Tremlett would make a good test match bowler IMO, Broad also has great potential to be something good but whether he will be test match material when the Ashes arrives is the question, Bopara lets just say he still has a lot of work to do but a good talent no doubt.




    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    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.
    Word out, could be a series for the bowlers then...




    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    That's if Tait returns.
    Would think he would, i see his situtation as a temporary thing unlike Trescothick where i'm just holding out hope but with inner doubt.



    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    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.
    Don't get why people don't dig Hodge's flow TBH. I really didn't see anything wrong with him vs SA in 2005/06. People talk about his technique againts high quality quicks etc but you compare him to another Lehmann another prolific domestic batsmen in Australia & well his technique againts pace IMO was far worst than hodge.

    Hodge's axing for the SA tour was just a case of the selectors wanting to make up for their absolute shocking decision to drop Martyn after the Ashes defeat since they wanted him for the Ashes re-match.


    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.[/QUOTE]

    Yea Katich failed in the Ashes due to the swing, can't say whether he has improved his game to compat it if he gets a chance again. But he will definately be in the reckoning given his recent domestic form.

    I agree on Rogers i caught that flaw on his debut that why i have my doubts whether he can transform his domestic form unto the test level cause if people reckoned Hayden technique was bad againts the moving ball & it took him a potential career ending ashes series (which was compounded by the fact that he was in a year long slump between Bangalore 2004 to Trent Bridge 2005) to correct i would say 70% of his flaws it would be tough work for Rogers.

    Don't know much about Hughes but other Australians who have been seeing him seem to think highly of him, but even so i reckon even if he has a superb domestic season next time around i think the Ashes would be a bit too soon for him.

    Forgot Divenuto retired the other day, what your position on Dighton as a possible opener of do you think he is just short of international quality.

  3. #48
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    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.
    Loss? Y'mean 2-2 draw? Should have been a loss, sure (maybe even a 5-0 one if the stars had aligned in South Africa's favour) but it was actually a 2-2 draw, which really rather flattered us.
    But OK, why not Flintoff (even though we both know he faded after around March 2006)?
    'Cos said fading hadn't happened yet. In September 2005, he was a superman (and yeah, I know you weren't saying he wasn't).
    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).
    Yeah, I know. I did, and I do believe it. No fingerspinner has the ability to turn the ball significantly without something in the surface to allow him to. And while turn isn't all there is to spin-bowling, if the ball doesn't turn no spinner offers a great deal.
    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.
    Look, you're going to have to get used occasionally to the fact I say stuff - or, at least, appear to say stuff - that isn't exactly what I mean. You seem, vis-a-vis Best case, to have already grasped as such.
    Uh...of course...because he has a freakish action (not necessarily a throw).
    His deformed wrist and unusual accuracy indeed makes him one of a kind. He is like no other wristspinner and certainly like no fingerspinner.
    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.
    I've always been somewhat dubious about this one - not because it wasn't an excellent performance, but because a few odd stories seem to be told about the wicket. That pitch definately had plenty in it for both seam and spin (some sort of rough parrallell would be Mumbai 2004\05). Warne, who had been excellent for most of the summer (APU), had an off-day, and Tufnell had one of his very best.
    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.
    You see, this "Giles = flat and defensive" stuff has always been a bugbear of mine, too. Not only did Giles demonstrate that over-the-wicket, bowled well, can be an attacking ploy on a turning surface, but he also did (especially earlier on in his Test career) bowl around-the-wicket plenty. What's more, I've seen Giles beat countless batsmen with loop and dip. As many as Tufnell or MSP over equivalent timescales? No. But plenty enough to suggest he had far more skill with flight than many give him credit for. As I've said - Tufnell's flight skills were excellent, MSP's generally very good, Giles' merely pretty good. I don't think Tufnell was "much better" in that department than Giles. Tufnell and MSP, of course, are natural spinners; Giles was a seamer until the age of 17. To even attain the skills of flight he did achieve was a phenominal effort (and yeah, I realise this doesn't actually impact on who's better, but I wonder how many people are truly aware of it).
    Such as...mine? We'll see.
    You're certainly far from the only one to express such sentiments. As I say - Tremlett certainly hasn't exactly convinced me so much as once in his career, domestic or international, four\five-day or one-day. I do, nonetheless, feel rather more hopeful about him than I ever felt about Harmison.
    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

  4. #49
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Agreed overall, England definately if they didn't have all the injury worries post 2005 Ashes & it must be said some better selections they would have been a real challenge to Australia's position as number one. The batsmen yea have flaws but i'd reckon the full English batting-lineup is better than what many other nations have ATM.
    Yes, I agree, but they were never gonna be #1 for any significant period of time, due to the reasons I listed...which you agree with. Also, England's batting line-up isn't better than Australia's...that's what matters in this case. Neither opening partnership (in the case of both teams) is yet established, although as batsmen, Hayden>>modern-day Vaughan, while Cook>Jaques, if only because of the age and experience (in Cook's favour, internationally speaking), plus their respective technical faults (Jaques doesn't convince me against quality swing and spin, while Cook has that offstump problem).

    Ponting>>>Bell, no question.
    Hussey>Pietersen because of temperamental factors. We are also still at the stage where a 'quiet' series by Hussey - i.e India 2007/08 would constitute a relative success on Pietersen's part.
    Clarke>Collingwood. Collingwood is still less wasteful than Clarke, but Clarke Mach II has tightened up his psychological outlook (not without lapses, though) to the point where Clarke's superior technique and more substantial talent is too insurmountable for Collingwood to overcome.
    Symonds>>Bopara - alhough Symonds (though, as a fan, I'm loathe to say this) still relies on some generosity from the umpires and is thoroughly scratchy at the start of an innings. Still...at least he can turn his fortune into runs, whilst Bopara couldn't even turn anything into runs in Sri Lanka.
    Prior the batsman=modern-day Gilchrist the batsman - Not talking about their keeping skills (this is a discussion of each side's batting line-up), but Gilchrist's Test batting has been mediocre (save the odd scorcher) for a while, to the point where it no longer looks as enthralling (although it still can be) as it does immature.

    Plus our tail blasts theirs out of the water - Hoggard, Anderson and Panesar are all rabbits and while Sidebottom does show admirable fortitude, he is an inferior batsman to Hogg/Lee/Johnson.

    Well IMO Flintoff's batting was maturing brilliantly since the Ashes. Yea even though he likes to think of himself as a batting all-rounder i don't think againts real quality attacks he would be a consitent test match #6 he is better off @ 7.

    Going back to the maturity factor though, you talk about his game againts the spinners if you look at how he batted in India in 2006 when he was captain he totally changed him game & batted superbly in those conditions.
    I never saw that England.vs.India series, so I'll take your word for it. During the 2005 Ashes, his idea of footwork mainly entailed dashing lead-footed down the pitch like a deranged madman.


    Jones never was new-ball man though a bit of a one-series waqar younis in a way. A fully-fit Jones though would a have made a HUGE difference to England's bowling attack in sub-continental tours since the Ashes (but thats just wishfull thinking).
    Yes, I agree - he would have. Comparing him to Waqar Younis, though, is pretty uninformed, even when talking on a series-by-series basis. Waqar, you see, was known (in his prime, anyway) for delivering reverse-swinging yorkers at express pace. Simon Jones was merely known for his reverse-swing. Also, Waqar was an accomplished new-ball bowler, while Jones patently wasn't.

    Yea Gilo was never anything special but as Richard is rightfully saying in the right conditons for most of his career especially in the sub-continent he proved to be very effective.
    I don't dispute this. His record in the sub-continent, by his fairly low standards, stands out like a flower in a pile of manure.

    But in due course Monty came along had a nice start but his having his first real test as a spinner. But again if all where fit i reckon England in most cases would have adapted an all-pace attack in most conditons.
    If they were wise, they would have, yes. Knowing England though, they would've found some excuse to place a spinner in there somewhere. Then again, Perth 2008 exposed the potential dangers of having an all-pace attack on a supposedly suitable pitch.

    Yea fingers are definately crossed that England haven't seen the last of Trescothick IMO. I'd be devasted since he clearly has an awful lot yet to offer England in both forms of the game.
    Given his ability to cash in on poor bowling attacks and his relative (but overstated) competence against spin, he may still have a lot to offer England. Be warned, though - he also has a lot to offer bowlers who can bowl accurate swing and seam-up and also to competent fielders. That is why I don't really rate him that highly.

    On the highlighted part I know people have there views about Anderson on how he has lost that intial quality that made him such as hit when he first arrived on the international scene which is true. But i based on what i've seen of him last summer vs India he was very good on overall some pretty flat pitches, he won't ever be a world beater but he is still one of better bowlers in England one full-fit.
    I've never rated Anderson as a Test bowler, TBH, although he has at times been mishandled by England (i.e: playing when he shouldn't have ala Johannesburg 2005). Still, whenever I've seen him, he's been too erratic and too adventurous in his pursuit of swing - he's also gone for 4+ RPO on a disturbingly frequent basis (42% of the time) as a result. Of course he's significantly more effective when he's fully fit - what bowler isn't?

    Also, about that series in England, he was also outbowled by Zaheer Khan (who's improved significantly, although still lacking the consistency needed for him to truly kick on) and RP Singh (a very overrated swing bowler who becomes cannon fodder when not swinging the ball - partially due to an over-reliance on favourable conditions and a somewhat erratic line-and-length).

    On the rest of them well based on what i saw of Key in the past i have my doubts of him againts top-quality bowling, Tremlett would make a good test match bowler IMO, Broad also has great potential to be something good but whether he will be test match material when the Ashes arrives is the question, Bopara lets just say he still has a lot of work to do but a good talent no doubt.
    Key has not proved himself against anything other than weak bowling line-ups. Take out his 221 (?) against WI (a decent knock in the face of ordinary bowling by Tino Best, Omari Banks and friends, who didn't respond adequtely to Strauss/Key milking them or hitting over the top) and he averages just 23. I agree on Broad and Bopara (albeit on an instinctual basis), although neither has done much at international level. Like I said, Tremlett had better be more effective than he was in 2005; if he isn't, I don't think he will be.

    Word out, could be a series for the bowlers then...
    Maybe, maybe...

    Would think he would, i see his situtation as a temporary thing unlike Trescothick where i'm just holding out hope but with inner doubt.
    Yeah, Tait is still young, unlike Trescothick.

    Don't get why people don't dig Hodge's flow TBH. I really didn't see anything wrong with him vs SA in 2005/06.
    Hmm...well aside from his 203*, which was a good, but not necessarily chanceless knock on a placid pitch (but admittedly against a decent attack), his next highest score was just 41. In fact, most of his scores were between 15-41, indicating a relative inability to kick on once he gets a start.

    People talk about his technique againts high quality quicks etc but you compare him to another Lehmann another prolific domestic batsmen in Australia & well his technique againts pace IMO was far worst than hodge.
    No...I was talking about his technique against the ball moving away from him, which can be suspect at times (and also against decent spin). Bowlers as diverse as Dilhara Fernando and Shaun Pollock have picked up on this, dismissing him in the slips after driving at wide, full, moving deliveries. His technique against pace without movement is fine, as his 203* shows.

    As for Darren Lehmann, while he was probably inferior against sheer pace to Hodge, he was a far better player of spin (maybe not swing, given his tendency to shuffle across the crease). Besides, Lehmann and Hodge played international cricket in different times and both were selected for different purposes.

    Hodge's axing for the SA tour was just a case of the selectors wanting to make up for their absolute shocking decision to drop Martyn after the Ashes defeat since they wanted him for the Ashes re-match.
    Look, I admit that dropping him was very harsh (though not as harsh as may be first apparent), even though Damien Martyn's selection did turn out to be inspired in the short-term.

    Yea Katich failed in the Ashes due to the swing, can't say whether he has improved his game to compat it if he gets a chance again. But he will definately be in the reckoning given his recent domestic form.
    I would pick him in conditions where he has been a proven success (i.e: India and Sri Lanka) not places where he's a proven failure (i.e: England), if at all.

    I agree on Rogers i caught that flaw on his debut that why i have my doubts whether he can transform his domestic form unto the test level cause if people reckoned Hayden technique was bad againts the moving ball & it took him a potential career ending ashes series (which was compounded by the fact that he was in a year long slump between Bangalore 2004 to Trent Bridge 2005) to correct i would say 70% of his flaws it would be tough work for Rogers.
    Look, I'm as sceptical about Rogers as you are. He's not gonna be anything other than a pale successor to Hayden's throne unless he rectifies that, IMO.

    Don't know much about Hughes but other Australians who have been seeing him seem to think highly of him, but even so i reckon even if he has a superb domestic season next time around i think the Ashes would be a bit too soon for him.
    Yes, so why bother bringing his name up?

    Forgot Divenuto retired the other day, what your position on Dighton as a possible opener of do you think he is just short of international quality.
    I didn't realise Dighton was an opener - I always thought of him as a middle-order batsman. So, probably not suitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Loss? Y'mean 2-2 draw? Should have been a loss, sure (maybe even a 5-0 one if the stars had aligned in South Africa's favour) but it was actually a 2-2 draw, which really rather flattered us.
    Yes, but I was talking on a match-by-match basis. Vaughan lifted the team to that 2-2 margin after spluttering to a heavy defeat the game before. That's what I meant. I know, too, that they were lucky to draw that series

    Yeah, I know. I did, and I do believe it. No fingerspinner has the ability to turn the ball significantly without something in the surface to allow him to. And while turn isn't all there is to spin-bowling, if the ball doesn't turn no spinner offers a great deal.
    I don't think I ever said that a fingerspinner didn't need the help of the pitch to turn the ball a noticable distance. There is certainly truth in what you're saying - spinners don't offer as much on unfavourable pitches, obviously - but quality off-spinners and leg-spinners will still make batsmen cautious by virtue of flight, drift and variation even if the pitch lacks turn. Thus, they are still in with a chance to pick up wickets - or give them to bowlers who benefit more under those conditions by building pressure. So saying that they don't offer a great deal seems a little harsh.

    Look, you're going to have to get used occasionally to the fact I say stuff - or, at least, appear to say stuff - that isn't exactly what I mean. You seem, vis-a-vis Best case, to have already grasped as such.
    Doesn't mean that I have to like it, though. That trait seems to be unintentionally misleading at best and disingenuous at worst - plus it has already forced you to rectify your statements a lot, which can make you look like pandering if you do it too much.

    His deformed wrist and unusual accuracy indeed makes him one of a kind. He is like no other wristspinner and certainly like no fingerspinner.
    Not to be rude, but duh. He would still consider himself an offspinner regardless.

    I've always been somewhat dubious about this one - not because it wasn't an excellent performance, but because a few odd stories seem to be told about the wicket. That pitch definately had plenty in it for both seam and spin (some sort of rough parrallell would be Mumbai 2004\05). Warne, who had been excellent for most of the summer (APU), had an off-day, and Tufnell had one of his very best.
    I don't think that the wicket would have been as bad as Mumbai 2004. That wicket was one of the worst I've ever seen. After the first few hours, it gave absolutely no help to seamers (before that, it did) and way, way too much to spinners (to the point where Michael Clarke, a part-timer who utilises flight better than turn, turned the ball square and absolutely cleaned up). Besides, the scores in Mumbai 2004 were even lower than those at The Oval 1997. Still, you said that it was merely a rough parallel, so I'll lay off.

    Besides, we both agree that The Oval wicket was one on which quality seamers made hay, right?

    You see, this "Giles = flat and defensive" stuff has always been a bugbear of mine, too. Not only did Giles demonstrate that over-the-wicket, bowled well, can be an attacking ploy on a turning surface, but he also did (especially earlier on in his Test career) bowl around-the-wicket plenty. What's more, I've seen Giles beat countless batsmen with loop and dip. As many as Tufnell or MSP over equivalent timescales? No. But plenty enough to suggest he had far more skill with flight than many give him credit for. As I've said - Tufnell's flight skills were excellent, MSP's generally very good, Giles' merely pretty good. I don't think Tufnell was "much better" in that department than Giles. Tufnell and MSP, of course, are natural spinners; Giles was a seamer until the age of 17. To even attain the skills of flight he did achieve was a phenominal effort (and yeah, I realise this doesn't actually impact on who's better, but I wonder how many people are truly aware of it).
    Well, for the most part, Giles did = 'flat and defensive', for various reasons, not all of which were really his fault. That's why you'll have that bugbear for a long time.

    I do, however, agree that he was much more effective on favourable subcontinental turners than he was elsewhere. Sadly, I'm too young to remember him bowling around-the-wicket on a regular basis. I did see him do it against Australia a couple of times in Tests and one-dayers, but he usually looked no more threatening when he did. I also never said that Giles never beat batsmen in the flight. I just don't think he did it nearly as often as he should have. As you admit, Tufnell had him in the department and so do many other international finger-spinners.

    Surprisingly, though, I've always seen Monty as a bowler with a flattish trajectory whose flighted ball was one of his variations. I think Monty>Giles for other reasons, which I laid out earlier.

    I'm aware that Giles was a seamer once, but I'm not taking that into account. This is simply because one, using that line of reasoning, could argue that Brad Hogg is a superior Test bowler to Stuart MacGill because Hogg didn't take up wrist-spin seriously until he was around 23 while MacGill was playing around with it when he was younger than that. I'm not saying that you went by that logic though, because you have more intelligence than that.
    Last edited by DaRick; 20-02-2008 at 06:50 AM.


  5. #50
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,702
    DaRick not dissuaded in the least by blatant post-dissecting tactics from Dickinson. Success attend you.
    "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.

  6. #51
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    DaRick not dissuaded in the least by blatant post-dissecting tactics from Dickinson. Success attend you.
    I enjoy debating with him, if that's what you mean. He seems like a very astute (albeit sometimes misleading, unintentionally or otherwise) poster.

  7. #52
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    DaRick not dissuaded in the least by blatant post-dissecting tactics from Dickinson. Success attend you.
    Ay, 'twas he who did it first this thread, and good on him. Proves that broken-down quotes don't have to be war. But of course, we already knew that.

    Presuming, of course, that you've read mine, Colin's and aforementioned DaRick's posts. Whelan being the graduate he is now, can't shake the feeling laze might have set in.

  8. #53
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    Yes, but I was talking on a match-by-match basis. Vaughan lifted the team to that 2-2 margin after spluttering to a heavy defeat the game before. That's what I meant. I know, too, that they were lucky to draw that series
    Aha, I see.
    I don't think I ever said that a fingerspinner didn't need the help of the pitch to turn the ball a noticable distance. There is certainly truth in what you're saying - spinners don't offer as much on unfavourable pitches, obviously - but quality off-spinners and leg-spinners will still make batsmen cautious by virtue of flight, drift and variation even if the pitch lacks turn. Thus, they are still in with a chance to pick up wickets - or give them to bowlers who benefit more under those conditions by building pressure. So saying that they don't offer a great deal seems a little harsh.
    Different fingerspinners offer different amounts - perhaps saying they don't offer a great deal in terms of ability to take wickets off their own back and through their own good bowling (vis-a-vis non-turning surfaces) would be most accurate.

    Quality wristspinners, though, can turn the ball on almost any surface. And use loop and drift.
    Doesn't mean that I have to like it, though. That trait seems to be unintentionally misleading at best and disingenuous at worst - plus it has already forced you to rectify your statements a lot, which can make you look like pandering if you do it too much.
    True, though I wasn't suggesting "get it, accept it!" if that's what you thought. It's a flaw on my part that, as I mentioned elsewhere, has caused more than one problem in the past.
    Not to be rude, but duh. He would still consider himself an offspinner regardless.
    Only to right-handed batsmen. He's a legspinner to left-handers. Either way, I've never been fond of the "off" and "leg" spin definition, not only because it makes the presumption of a right-hander on strike but also that it presumes the bowler has only his stock-ball. Stating the obvious again here, but Murali's Doosra is a legspinner to the right-hander.
    I don't think that the wicket would have been as bad as Mumbai 2004. That wicket was one of the worst I've ever seen. After the first few hours, it gave absolutely no help to seamers (before that, it did) and way, way too much to spinners (to the point where Michael Clarke, a part-timer who utilises flight better than turn, turned the ball square and absolutely cleaned up). Besides, the scores in Mumbai 2004 were even lower than those at The Oval 1997. Still, you said that it was merely a rough parallel, so I'll lay off.

    Besides, we both agree that The Oval wicket was one on which quality seamers made hay, right?
    Oh, undoubtedly. And I certainly wasn't suggesting it was quite as helpful to bowlers, of any kind, as Mumbai 2004\05, just that that was the first wicket which came to mind that offered liberal assistance to spin and seam, even if it didn't stay constant throughout the match. I've never seen an Oval surface offer anywhere near that much to either seam or spin as in that 1997 Test. And I haven't seen that many that managed to offer liberal amounts of both during the same match.
    Well, for the most part, Giles did = 'flat and defensive', for various reasons, not all of which were really his fault. That's why you'll have that bugbear for a long time.

    I do, however, agree that he was much more effective on favourable subcontinental turners than he was elsewhere. Sadly, I'm too young to remember him bowling around-the-wicket on a regular basis. I did see him do it against Australia a couple of times in Tests and one-dayers, but he usually looked no more threatening when he did. I also never said that Giles never beat batsmen in the flight. I just don't think he did it nearly as often as he should have. As you admit, Tufnell had him in the department and so do many other international finger-spinners.

    Surprisingly, though, I've always seen Monty as a bowler with a flattish trajectory whose flighted ball was one of his variations. I think Monty>Giles for other reasons, which I laid out earlier.
    The time he did best of bowling around-the-wicket was indeed in Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2000\01. The first time I noticed that he was doing more over-the-wicket than he should be was in the Ahmedabad Test of the following winter, when he took 5 in the first-innings but offered negligable threat in the second. Then came the next game at Bangalore, on a surface that offered nothing to spin, and the infamous Tendulkar incident.

    Bangalore onwards, the only time I can remember him bowling extensively around-the-wicket was in the First and Second Tests in Sri Lanka in 2003\04. Even the following home summer, when he unearthed 3 consecutive turning pitches (taking 25 wickets in the 3 games), he mostly attacked from over-the-wicket, though it's importan to remember that there were a litany of left-handers involved.

    I'm fairly resigned to the fact I'll have said bugbear for a while, it's been notable even the last couple of years. But more than anything, more than even the fault of the bowler, it's the fault of those who picked him time and again when he could offer no attacking threat, and used him instead in a defensive role, as it was the only one the conditions allowed him to play.

    Maybe things might ease a little when Panesar is forced into a similar role for a few Tests in a row.
    I'm aware that Giles was a seamer once, but I'm not taking that into account. This is simply because one, using that line of reasoning, could argue that Brad Hogg is a superior Test bowler to Stuart MacGill because Hogg didn't take up wrist-spin seriously until he was around 23 while MacGill was playing around with it when he was younger than that. I'm not saying that you went by that logic though, because you have more intelligence than that.
    LOL, I thought I made a decent job of conveying that I wasn't trying to claim Giles' past made any impact on how good he became. Just that what he became was a little more notable on an effort-required level, because of being forced to change tack in his late teens.

  9. #54
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Ay, 'twas he who did it first this thread, and good on him.
    Takes two to tango.

    Proves that broken-down quotes don't have to be war. But of course, we already knew that.
    Think there's a blue moon in the sky tonight.

    Presuming, of course, that you've read mine, Colin's and aforementioned DaRick's posts.
    Skimmed them, though even that was a tall order. It's like reading a Venetian blind.

    Whelan being the graduate he is now, can't shake the feeling laze might have set in.
    I'm allowed one vice, aren't I?

  10. #55
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    Takes two to tango.
    But he'd not be dissuaded by something which was of his commencement now, would he?
    Think there's a blue moon in the sky tonight.
    There's been a fair few down the years, then.
    Skimmed them, though even that was a tall order. It's like reading a Venetian blind.
    Ind33d. My point exactly.
    I'm allowed one vice, aren't I?
    Just that all these bloody graduates are the same.

  11. #56
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    But h[e'd not be dissuaded by something which was of his commencement now, would he?
    Yes, but I wonder whose inundatory style convinced him that such conduct was acceptable protocol?

    There's been a fair few down the years, then.
    Yeah. A few. Ergo the joke.

    Just that all these bloody graduates are the same.
    Gracious, sorry I haven't made 50,000 posts and planning my wedding at 22.

    Actually, now that I list it like that it does seem impressive.








    Because they'd normally be mutually exclusive?

  12. #57
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Ay, 'twas he who did it first this thread, and good on him.
    Uh...I was directing my opinions at another poster; you then decided to wade into it. No problem, though.

    Different fingerspinners offer different amounts - perhaps saying they don't offer a great deal in terms of ability to take wickets off their own back and through their own good bowling (vis-a-vis non-turning surfaces) would be most accurate.
    More accurate than leg-spinners, obviously. I also agree that off-spinners are still less threatening on non-favourable pitches (greentops) than favourable pitches and I have throughout our debate.

    Quality wristspinners, though, can turn the ball on almost any surface. And use loop and drift.
    Depends on what you define as a 'quality wristspinner' really. Any decent wristie will get loop and drift, certainly, but so will decent offspinners. Somebody like Shane Warne will definitely turn it on almost any surface (and Stuart MacGill, too, although he has other faults).

    That being said, what about blokes like Danish Kaneria and Mushtaq Ahmed, who weren't known so much for their legbreaks (Kaneria doesn't turn it away that far even on helpful pitches) as for their googlies? Are they 'quality wristspinners' or do they fall short under your criteria above?

    True, though I wasn't suggesting "get it, accept it!" if that's what you thought. It's a flaw on my part that, as I mentioned elsewhere, has caused more than one problem in the past.
    Meh, I'll get over it. It's just off-putting, that's all.

    Only to right-handed batsmen. He's a legspinner to left-handers.
    I know, but that isn't really the point. Point is, he's listed as an offspinner and would consider himself as such.

    Either way, I've never been fond of the "off" and "leg" spin definition, not only because it makes the presumption of a right-hander on strike but also that it presumes the bowler has only his stock-ball. Stating the obvious again here, but Murali's Doosra is a legspinner to the right-hander.
    What would you term him to be, then (sans the terms 'right-arm chucker', 'freak', 'random right arm spinner' - just in case you think he throws)?

    Oh, undoubtedly. And I certainly wasn't suggesting it was quite as helpful to bowlers, of any kind, as Mumbai 2004\05, just that that was the first wicket which came to mind that offered liberal assistance to spin and seam, even if it didn't stay constant throughout the match. I've never seen an Oval surface offer anywhere near that much to either seam or spin as in that 1997 Test. And I haven't seen that many that managed to offer liberal amounts of both during the same match.

    The time he did best of bowling around-the-wicket was indeed in Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2000\01. The first time I noticed that he was doing more over-the-wicket than he should be was in the Ahmedabad Test of the following winter, when he took 5 in the first-innings but offered negligable threat in the second. Then came the next game at Bangalore, on a surface that offered nothing to spin, and the infamous Tendulkar incident.

    Bangalore onwards, the only time I can remember him bowling extensively around-the-wicket was in the First and Second Tests in Sri Lanka in 2003\04. Even the following home summer, when he unearthed 3 consecutive turning pitches (taking 25 wickets in the 3 games), he mostly attacked from over-the-wicket, though it's importan to remember that there were a litany of left-handers involved.
    Didn't get to see either of those series, for various reasons. Maybe they're on Youtube...

    I'm fairly resigned to the fact I'll have said bugbear for a while, it's been notable even the last couple of years. But more than anything, more than even the fault of the bowler, it's the fault of those who picked him time and again when he could offer no attacking threat, and used him instead in a defensive role, as it was the only one the conditions allowed him to play.
    I already communicated my thoughts on him being selected in those conditions earlier.

    Maybe things might ease a little when Panesar is forced into a similar role for a few Tests in a row.
    Perhaps. On the other hand, I feel that Monty's variations are more dangerous than Giles' ever were.

    LOL, I thought I made a decent job of conveying that I wasn't trying to claim Giles' past made any impact on how good he became. Just that what he became was a little more notable on an effort-required level, because of being forced to change tack in his late teens.
    You did do a decent job of conveying that...I was just glad that you didn't try to use his past as an excuse, then demonstrating why I thought that.

  13. #58
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Perm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Clutha Valley, New Zealand
    Posts
    21,816
    Richard, Robert Key is not a better Test match batsman than Marcus Trescothick. Nor is Chris Tremlett a better Test match bowler than Steve Harmison. Potentially better, yes, but not at this stage.
    The Future of International Cricket - Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina, Ravi Bopara, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, Shahriar Nafees, Raqibul Hasan, Salman Butt, JP Duminy
    Proud Supporter of the Bangladeshi Tigers
    Ryan ten Doeschate - A Legend in the Making
    MSN: zacattack90@hotmail.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Romance can be dealt with elsewhere - I just don't enjoy it in cricket.

  14. #59
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    What I meant by that comment was that, for mine, they have the potential to do better from this moment on. Trescothick, right now, seems highly unlikely to play Tests again, so it's a given that anyone, really, is a better bet than him - even Stephen Stubbings.

  15. #60
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    Uh...I was directing my opinions at another poster; you then decided to wade into it. No problem, though.
    That's what I tend to do best really. Being a public forum, people wade into other people's one-to-one discussions quite a bit.
    Depends on what you define as a 'quality wristspinner' really. Any decent wristie will get loop and drift, certainly, but so will decent offspinners. Somebody like Shane Warne will definitely turn it on almost any surface (and Stuart MacGill, too, although he has other faults).

    That being said, what about blokes like Danish Kaneria and Mushtaq Ahmed, who weren't known so much for their legbreaks (Kaneria doesn't turn it away that far even on helpful pitches) as for their googlies? Are they 'quality wristspinners' or do they fall short under your criteria above?
    Mushtaq certainly did spin the ball plenty, both Leg-Break and Googly, and could turn it on anything, a la Warne, MacGill, Murali, etc. He was only top-quality for a short while, sadly, but that for reasons other than amount of spin.

    However, Kaneria, no (and Kumble is another one, or at least, was until recently, though he's different again in that he doesn't bowl standard Leg-Break deliveries anywhere near as often as most wristspinners), I wouldn't consider him top-drawer. Kaneria simply doesn't spin the ball enough, and that's always something that's disappointed me about him. And I wonder, if he did spin it more, would he lose some of his accuracy? I guess that's the reason he never seems to have tried.
    I know, but that isn't really the point. Point is, he's listed as an offspinner and would consider himself as such.

    What would you term him to be, then (sans the terms 'right-arm chucker', 'freak', 'random right arm spinner' - just in case you think he throws)?
    I don't, FTR, and never have, even pre-2004. I honestly would not even bother trying to classify him. He's one of a kind, there's highly unlikely ever to be another like him. I'd just say "wristspinner", and leave it at that, with the "very unorthodox" quid-quo-pros.
    Didn't get to see either of those series, for various reasons. Maybe they're on Youtube...
    I've long been meaning to get around to putting the things on there myself, I've a fair amount of highlights on tape.
    Perhaps. On the other hand, I feel that Monty's variations are more dangerous than Giles' ever were.
    Oh, they are, undoubtedly, but I still don't expect them (or anything else) to result in him offering much threat on non-turning surfaces. And I think many people are expecting him to do so.

Page 4 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •