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.
Never debated that idea in the first place. My arguments is to the point you made where you said England's batsmen have flaws which is true. But all i'm saying its pretty good compared to most batting-lineups world wide & the best probably once at (unless you still rate the ageing Indian batting-lineup highly)
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.
, brilliant.
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.
I wasn't wholeheartedly comparing him to Waqar at his pick, my bad if it came across that way. Was just saying that his reverse-swing exploits was the best the cricket world had seen since Waqar was at his peak.
On the new-ball issue well Jones has never bowled with the new-ball in test cricket so we can never be sure how well he could have done with it or could do with it when/if he returns since he will never be the bowler of 05 again. Don't know too much about Waqar career to be sure how great a new-ball bowler he was (one of the Pakistani supporters would have to clarify), but yea i reckon he was special.
If they were wise, they would have, yes. Knowing England though, they would've found some excuse to place a spinner in there somewhere.
If the combination of Hoggard/Harmison/Freddie/Jones had stuck together the only time i reckon post 2005 Monty would have played would have been in the sub-continent series England have played since (or maybe he would have replaced an out of form Harmison) since that a 4-man attack that could have taken wickets in all conditions.
Then again, Perth 2008 exposed the potential dangers of having an all-pace attack on a supposedly suitable pitch.
That was an odd-case though. But i would give India's more credit than critising Australia 4-man attack in that test.
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.
Yea he has cashed in on poor in this decade or poor attacks & flat pitches but so of many other top batsmen no reason to look down on him for that, plus his ability againts spin isn't overstated IMO although statistically it can't be backed up. But i've seen him in the sub-continent throughout his career & i'd place him second third to Thorpe & KP as the England best players of spin that i've seen in my time of watching cricket.
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).
If you look at Anderson's career he is the perfect example of the modern-day cricketer who was picked too early, has all his strenghts & weaknesses exposed on the international stage when he showed have had time in county cricket making himself a complete bowler, also rigorous international schedule & injuries hasn't helped.
Lets look at it, he was threw into the VB series 2002/03 as a ripe 20 year old bearley played a few OD games for Lancashire while playing most of his cricket in for his club & pretty much wasn't a fixture @ Old trafford (and as an OT club member since 97 i can tell ya first hand son). For young cricket to be given the new-ball to bowl againts Gilly, Hayden, Ponting, Jayasuriya was just mad. But between then, the WC & intially @ home againts ZIM he was brilliant no-one plus him i'm sure didn't expect such a start to his career.
Then SA came on some of the flattest pitches ever seen in this country & he was quickly brought down the earth. Since then he has been a lot of injury problems still managing to do well in ODI's but had the chance to have a real full-season in County cricket to work out what would work best for him in test cricket. But he still managed that spell in
Mumbai 06.
Only now is really getting a full injury free run since his remarkable debut period &, he showed againts IND last season some good stuff. The potential his there & i personally won't be surprised once he stays fit Anderson can become a good test match bowler. People especially the other English followers really need to cut Anderson some slack
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.
Early days yet for Tremlett, potential there no doubt..
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.
I think it was a chanceless knock if my memory serves me correct don't remember any drop catches, i remember he was 92 not out i think going into the 4th day of that match & mad the rest of runs before Australia declared.
People have spoken about this supposed weakness outside off-stump but i didn't see it, i think he got some good deliveries from the WI & SA bowlers at times.
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.
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.
Well yea this is true, it seems like a problem Ponting tends to have at times. But otherwise it was just 5 test he was progressing well, we don't know if he could worked it out or not. Just stupidly dropped.
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.
People have tended to use the argument on this forum at least that Hodge is poor againts the pace, me using Lehmann was just to show another prolific domestic batsmen that many have praised who is definately worst againts the pace than Hodge was. Plus the times Lehmann & Hodge were in the same era basically & both were selected after senior batsmen were demeed to be past it in Waugh & Martyn..
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.
Fair point that, but if come the 2008/09 domestic season in Australia he is dominating again he would be right up there for selection. If i think again though, Katich would be in the same position as all the Australian batsmen who failed in 05 againts the swing factor really since The Kat's domestic record here is pretty solid.
Yes, so why bother bringing his name up?
Am i don't i did initially, i think you brought up Hughes yo..
