The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[DaRick]

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.

Yeah, but I never said that I had a problem with it, did I?

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.

Mushtaq Ahmed was still better known for his googly than legbreak, regardless (from what I saw of him, he could turn his googly just as far - he ripped one through Steve Waugh in 1995).

I think I may know why he faded - there was his apparent tendency to concede a boundary ball per over (not like that's a massive crime; Stuart MacGill does well not to) and plus, he apparently bowled the googly to the extent where batsmen were playing him like an offspinner.

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 agree with what you're saying - his reluctance to accept advice and his lack of a specific role within the Test team (whether he's best used as a shock or stock bowler) doesn't help either.

I see what you mean about Kumble: for most of his career (1990-2003?), he was lethal at home (on pitches cynically labelled 'Krumblers') yet often innocuous overseas. So it would've been hard to label him as a world-class legspinner.

I'm not sure about your point that he doesn't bowl standard legbreaks often; I just don't think he turns them very far. His strengths relate to variation in flight and crease position. His googlies, top-spinners and quicker balls (too full to be a flipper) are also quite potent.

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.

We'll agree to disagree on his classification, then...although he is truly unique.

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 you ought to.

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.

Not as much as he would on a turning surface, obviously (all bowlers should theoretically be more dangerous in favourable conditions; it just stands to reason), but still more than Ashley Giles would.

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 know, but what matters is the competence of England's batting line-up in comparison to Australia's...which led to me analysing both line-ups blow-by-blow, for this is the Ashes that we are talking about, right?

The Indian batting line-up, IMO, ranges from world-class to quite overrated (particularly Ganguly and to a lesser extent, Laxman), but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

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.

Maybe, but what about Wasim Akram?

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.

I know Jones never bowled with the new ball, but he did bowl with a newish ball, from memory. He was still much better when the old ball though.

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.

In theory, fair enough. But in practice, Monty would've played the vast majority of his games with the pace quartet, much like Giles (who had surprisingly little success with the ball during the 2005 Ashes) did.

That was an odd-case though. But i would give India's more credit than critising Australia 4-man attack in that test.

I'm not so sure. Shaun Tait was (understandably, given his mindset) a complete liability and Mitchell Johnson was very inconsistent. Ricky Ponting letting his captaincy be dictated by over rates, plus the immaturity of many of our batsman in the first innings, didn't help either. Ishant Sharma certainly did bowl well (particularly to Ricky Ponting) and Irfan Pathan was certainly superior to Johnson/Tait.

However, RP Singh (who I, unlike the rest of the cricketing world, really don't think very highly off) benefited greatly from irresponsible shots by our batsmen (Hussey, Jaques), dodgy decisions (Hussey) and tailend wickets (Lee, Clark, Tait). Sure, he bowled some good deliveries (the one to dismiss Gilchrist), but he was more fortunate than Johnson and his erratic line and length was there for all to see.

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.

Good point, but Trescothick's fortunes against good bowling and poor bowling on identical pitches is so stark that it exposes his technique (which he hasn't really bothered to improve) and makes an educated observer suspect that he is a bit of a 'weak-attack' bully (not necessarily a 'flat-track' bully - there is a difference).

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).

I agree - and given that you live in Manchester, I don't doubt you. But why was he selected at 20 years of age?

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.

Indeed.

Then SA came on some of the flattest pitches ever seen in this country & he was quickly brought down the earth.

I didn't see much of that series, but let's see: Birmingham was probably flat (though even Dewald Pretorius got a 4-fer), England were bowled out for 173 and conceed 6/682 at Lords on a deck with some though not great life, he did well at Trent Bridge but in bowler-friendly conditions, he was non-descript in typically bowler-friendly conditions in Headingley, while the conditions on The Oval were fairly friendly to batsmen, AFAIK.

He was brought down to earth, but calling those pitches 'some of the flattest pitches ever' is probably erroneous. Sorry if I'm wrong.

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.

His spell in Mumbai was apparently very good. But spells like those are too much of an exception - for every one of those, it seems that he bowls many more muck-ridden spells ala Johannesburg 2005 or Kandy 2007.

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.

From what I heard, he did bowl well against India at times, but he was clearly far from the best paceman, even on his side. Also, there's a reason why Anderson is derided - he averages 39, with an economy rate of 3.74. By any standards (except maybe West Indies/Bangladesh) that's poor indeed.

Early days yet for Tremlett, potential there no doubt.

Yes...if he doesn't improve from 2005, though, there's no real point staying with him.

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.

There was a drop when he was in double figures, I believe.

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.

It occurs when the ball is moving away from him - especially when its pitched up. I can't remember the exact manner of his dismissals, though.

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.

Hmm...Ponting occassionally makes an exaggerated movement across his stumps at the start of his innings, which can leave him vulnerable to a full inswinger or outswinger, depending on where its pitched. Like I said, I agree that Hodge's dropping was harsh.

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..

Fair enough, but Hodge, like I said, is fine against pace without movement and I agree that Lehmann was worse, without repeating myself. Lehmann and Hodge were obviously playing domestic cricket together (although Lehmann's 5 years older), but neither were in the same test team. Lehmann was in the test team while Steve Waugh was still captaining the side, so that argument is not right. You're right about Hodge and Martyn though. Lehmann was arguably also selected as a 'horses-for-courses' move in the subcontinent, given his ability against spin. I don't think Hodge was.

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.

Perhaps, yes. But remember that he had two personally unsuccessful English tours (2001 & 2005), not just one, so I see a worrisome pattern with Katich's Test performances in England. He would be right up there for selection to India and Sri Lanka, but only if he dominates like he has recently.

Am i don't i did initially, i think you brought up Hughes yo..

Nah mate, you did.

 

[gettingbetter]

I can't see why there would be many objetions for Carberry to open, even if that is the case, it is obviously a long shot.

1. The assumption that Strauss plays in NZ and performs poorly followed by;
2. Vaughan opening - I don't care how much you argue Rich (and you are right) he has had 'form' opening

This would only lead to shuffling in the middle order where England have had a few incumbents there and I can't really foresee any of them being replaced unless it is due to injury. Add to the fact that England's Test team of late has not had a nature of chopping and changing (at least from the guys who hold the willow). If Vaughan does open, we could assume that Shah would come into the team.

Thats it for the batsmen. Simply put, regardless of what happens, I believe that there will be minimal shuffling. The bowlers is another story which i would like to keep brief. Bare in mind, we are talking about a series which is 18 or so months away and in the last 2-3 years England have used a variety of (pace) bowlers.

With recent form considered, it would be safe to say that Sidebottom and Hoggard, this far out are the only certainties. Harmison seems to be on the fringes of the team consistently, and rumours as to his mental and physical capabilities begs whether he will be the right man. But when you have the likes of Broad, Plunkett, Anderson, Mahmood, Lewis and a few others that I have forgotten. Gonig back to the time between the 09 Ashes, there is also the possibility of a bolter from County - AFAIC, Ali is the only one who springs to mind.

So yeah...England.

 

[gettingbetter]

Also to add, Strauss is averaging 40.79. This is probably a poor measure of performance, but if his average drops below 40, we might see that last of him.

 

[wpdavid]

Im not suggesting this guy would be a brilliant Test player, but given he has a FC average of 6 runs higher than Carberry and his 'good' year in 2006 was better than that of Carberry and his one good year in 2007, I think you could put Ed Joyce in that category.

If we dont think he would be a particular success, then why are we even discussing him?

I suppose we're not going to be 100% confident about anybody, so it's a question of discussing those who might be up to the required standard and trying to work out who from Key, Carberry and any other openers you might name should be considered if necessary. And I do think we're only discussing "what if" scenarios here, anyway. If Strauss continues to fail, and if Vaughan crocks up again, who should open? I happen to agree with the view that Key probably deserves a go in his preferred position, which he has rarely done for England. Beyond that, I think your comment elsewhere about the lack of talent coming from the CC is a worry and that in happier times, Carberry's record wouldn't put him in the frame. However, as things stand, we're struggling to name alternatives.

 

[Richard]

Just seems weird how you can dismiss him as such and I don't like usuing cricinfo stats as an argument but he averages near enough 40 with the bat in FC and 36.58 in List-A and has played for the A team and was definetely talked as England material.

He was talked about as far back as 2002, as I recall. And it was always the same: people talked more about his height than the quality of his strokeplay.

As for comparing him to Varun Chopra, he doesn't even play at the same county...

Jefferson >>>>>>> Chopra surely?

Used to play for the same team, Jefferson was forced out by Cook and Chopra, both of whom were clearly better players. Yes, Perm, I realise Chopra's record last season was not good, but I've seen both plenty enough and I'll be truly amazed if Jefferson ends-up with the better career.

 

[Richard]

I can't see why there would be many objetions for Carberry to open, even if that is the case, it is obviously a long shot.

1. The assumption that Strauss plays in NZ and performs poorly followed by;
2. Vaughan opening - I don't care how much you argue Rich (and you are right) he has had 'form' opening

Vaughan has indeed had form opening... 5 years ago. And that form, which was decent, was made to look sensational by absurd numbers of let-offs. I never, ever want Vaughan to open again in a Test. He might only have another 18 months left in the game. That must not be wasted.

As for Strauss, I honestly think he's more likely to fail than succeed in New Zealand, if he's the same batsman he's been in the last 2 years. If, on the other hand, he's been doing some good technical work (on his front-foot driving) I very much believe he has it in him to succeed.

 

[Richard]

Mushtaq Ahmed was still better known for his googly than legbreak, regardless (from what I saw of him, he could turn his googly just as far - he ripped one through Steve Waugh in 1995).

I think I may know why he faded - there was his apparent tendency to concede a boundary ball per over (not like that's a massive crime; Stuart MacGill does well not to) and plus, he apparently bowled the googly to the extent where batsmen were playing him like an offspinner.

Mushtaq's a strange case: there was a (sadly brief) time - after a chat with Shane Warne - between 1995\96 and 1997\98, when Mushtaq managed to greatly improve the lines and lengths he had displayed early in his career, and went for a good few matches (18, IIRR) where he tended not to bowl as many bad deliveries as he had early, and as he would again later. This seemed more than anything else to be down to patience, rather than a honing of the skill to bowl accurately, a bit like Brett Lee this season. Whether Mushtaq simply lost this patience again, whether he lost work-ethic or whatever, his deterioration around early 1998 to a Test bowler of no note whatsoever is one of cricket's great mysteries, especially as his deeds at domestic level have continued to be phenomenal.

Overuse of a ball which should be a change-up, of course, is always dangerous and I've seen more than one bowler be less good than he might due to this - including Murali, who hasn't exactly gone to pot thanks to it, but I do think might have done better had he bowled less Wrong-'Uns, plus one or two others who've gone badly awry.

I agree with what you're saying - his reluctance to accept advice and his lack of a specific role within the Test team (whether he's best used as a shock or stock bowler) doesn't help either.

I see what you mean about Kumble: for most of his career (1990-2003?), he was lethal at home (on pitches cynically labelled 'Krumblers') yet often innocuous overseas. So it would've been hard to label him as a world-class legspinner.

I'm not sure about your point that he doesn't bowl standard legbreaks often; I just don't think he turns them very far. His strengths relate to variation in flight and crease position. His googlies, top-spinners and quicker balls (too full to be a flipper) are also quite potent.

The thing that's always puzzled me about Kumble is that Leg-Break. Because, in favourable conditions, his top-spinner grips loads - it's what's always made him so deadly on spin-receptive (and sometimes uneven) home surfaces. He varies top-spinners with Googlies and straight balls and therefore gets more bounce than expected, often, without needing an uneven pitch to get bounce beyond the expected.

Yet I've seen him, on a pitch which has helped other bowlers turn the ball, get the occasional Leg-Break to go, and go plenty. Does he spin them as much as MacGill, Mushtaq Ahmed or Warne? Of course not. But I don't doubt he can spin them enough to get significant turn.

On non-spin-receptive surfaces, more than ever earlier in his career, he doesn't often get the ball to go off the straight, or to bounce alarmingly. But even when he can, he seems to me to do it far less than he could.

Perhaps you ought to.

I'll have to work-out how to upload 30-minute videos first.

Not as much as he would on a turning surface, obviously (all bowlers should theoretically be more dangerous in favourable conditions; it just stands to reason), but still more than Ashley Giles would.

Well, as I say, I honestly am not sure he will. Perhaps a little more (perhaps well enough to average, say, 40 rather than 50) but not enough to offer the significant threat I think many people believe him capable of offering.

 

[Goughy]

Beyond that, I think your comment elsewhere about the lack of talent coming from the CC is a worry and that in happier times, Carberry's record wouldn't put him in the frame. However, as things stand, we're struggling to name alternatives.

Yeah, I seem to be criticising a lot of England players recently but I am aware of the drought and that the CC well is pretty dry.

It doesnt stop me getting annoyed at the selection policy (too many players) and the overall abilities of the guys picked, but I do acknowledge there isnt a wealth of talent competing for places.

 

[pup11]

Yeah, I seem to be criticising a lot of England players recently but I am aware of the drought and that the CC well is pretty dry.

It doesnt stop me getting annoyed at the selection policy (too many players) and the overall abilities of the guys picked, but I do acknowledge there isnt a wealth of talent competing for places.

England selection policies since Ashes 05 triumph have been dire and dumb, yeah they have had to deal with some injury problems, but FFS they seem to pick almost anybody from the county circuit nowadays which is dire, they have made so many changes over the last 3 years which hasn't helped the team's on-field performances, the English selectors just need to pick a group of players and show some faith in them for a while, rather then chopping and changing the team after every series.

 

[Richard]

I'd prefer to chop and change if it means, having made a mistake picking the likes of Mahmood, you promptly get them out again. Better drop a crap player than keep faith with him.

In all honestly, too, I'd say the likes of Mahmood have been given far, far more faith than they deserve - including their original selections.

The problem has not been too much chopping and changing, the problem has been too many selections of cricketers like Mahmood who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

 

[DaRick]

Mushtaq's a strange case: there was a (sadly brief) time - after a chat with Shane Warne - between 1995\96 and 1997\98, when Mushtaq managed to greatly improve the lines and lengths he had displayed early in his career, and went for a good few matches (18, IIRR) where he tended not to bowl as many bad deliveries as he had early, and as he would again later.

Yeah, you're right; 18 matches, during which he took 100+ wickets at 23-24.

This seemed more than anything else to be down to patience, rather than a honing of the skill to bowl accurately, a bit like Brett Lee this season. Whether Mushtaq simply lost this patience again, whether he lost work-ethic or whatever, his deterioration around early 1998 to a Test bowler of no note whatsoever is one of cricket's great mysteries, especially as his deeds at domestic level have continued to be phenomenal.

I heard about his exploits for Sussex. Then again, England have never really been good against legspin - not surprising, really, given that the most successful leggie they've produced over the past decade is Ian Salisbury (who has what must be one of the worst Test averages for a participant in more than 10 Tests).

Overuse of a ball which should be a change-up, of course, is always dangerous and I've seen more than one bowler be less good than he might due to this - including Murali, who hasn't exactly gone to pot thanks to it, but I do think might have done better had he bowled less Wrong-'Uns, plus one or two others who've gone badly awry.

Such as Saqlain and Harbhajan...about Murali, I wouldn't be too bothered about his post-doosra performances (2004 onwards?) - he's taken 238 wickets at an average of 19, far surpassing his career average of 21-22.

The thing that's always puzzled me about Kumble is that Leg-Break. Because, in favourable conditions, his top-spinner grips loads - it's what's always made him so deadly on spin-receptive (and sometimes uneven) home surfaces. He varies top-spinners with Googlies and straight balls and therefore gets more bounce than expected, often, without needing an uneven pitch to get bounce beyond the expected.

Also helping him was the fact that his deliveries would spit or rear at the batsmen if they landed on cracks which so easily form on Indian pithces.

Yet I've seen him, on a pitch which has helped other bowlers turn the ball, get the occasional Leg-Break to go, and go plenty. Does he spin them as much as MacGill, Mushtaq Ahmed or Warne? Of course not. But I don't doubt he can spin them enough to get significant turn.

I have spasmodically seen deliveries of his spit sideways on spin-friendly pitches at home (Chennai and Mumbai 2004 were both ridiculously spin-friendly, for instance), but that may be due to the 'crack effect' that I just mentioned. He may be able to get significant turn without significant pitch assistance, but I've never seen him do this. It's just not one of his strengths.

On non-spin-receptive surfaces, more than ever earlier in his career, he doesn't often get the ball to go off the straight, or to bounce alarmingly. But even when he can, he seems to me to do it far less than he could.

I'll have to work-out how to upload 30-minute videos first.

My advice is to get a video-splicing program (Nero Vision, for example) and split the 30-minute video into three ten-minute videos (or 9:59, if you wanna be real pedantic) and then put them on Youtube as Ashley Giles 1/2/3 for instance.

Well, as I say, I honestly am not sure he will. Perhaps a little more (perhaps well enough to average, say, 40 rather than 50) but not enough to offer the significant threat I think many people believe him capable of offering.

40 rather than 50? You're kidding, right? Even ol' Ashley didn't suck that badly. I can see him averaging 30-35, not 40, depending on English selectoral policies. That's 5-10 runs better than Giles: quite significant, really. I also estimated 30-35 because I think Monty is also superior to Phil Tufnell - certainly, his temperament often blows Tufnell's out of the water.

Obviously too, Monty won't be as big a threat on a relatively unfavourable pitch, but I have higher hopes for him (in comparison to Giles) elsewhere.

 

[Perm]

Mushtaq Ahmed has signed for the ICL, just quietly.

 

[Richard]

I heard about his exploits for Sussex. Then again, England have never really been good against legspin - not surprising, really, given that the most successful leggie they've produced over the past decade is Ian Salisbury (who has what must be one of the worst Test averages for a participant in more than 10 Tests).

Even so, the number of wickets he's taken (his durability more than anything, he's bowled an astounding number of overs) is remarkable, far beyond anything Salisbury ever achieved (and that wasn't just because of English weakness against wristspin). I mean, I'd have expected Mushtaq to have been successful, but I still think he must have bowled fairly remarkably to do as well as he has.

Such as Saqlain and Harbhajan...about Murali, I wouldn't be too bothered about his post-doosra performances (2004 onwards?) - he's taken 238 wickets at an average of 19, far surpassing his career average of 21-22.

Yeah, I know, but I honestly reckon he could have done even better but for Wrong-'Un overuse.

My advice is to get a video-splicing program (Nero Vision, for example) and split the 30-minute video into three ten-minute videos (or 9:59, if you wanna be real pedantic) and then put them on Youtube as Ashley Giles 1/2/3 for instance.

40 rather than 50? You're kidding, right? Even ol' Ashley didn't suck that badly. I can see him averaging 30-35, not 40, depending on English selectoral policies. That's 5-10 runs better than Giles: quite significant, really. I also estimated 30-35 because I think Monty is also superior to Phil Tufnell - certainly, his temperament often blows Tufnell's out of the water.

Ol' Ashley certainly did suck that badly (and so would most fingerspinners, TBH, IMO). I haven't actually looked at exact figures, but given Giles' career record was an average of over 40, and his average on spin-friendly surfaces was around about 24-25 at my last count, I reckon he'd probably average round about 50 on wickets which didn't help spin. So far in his career, MSP hasn't played on a particularly remarkable number of those (and a couple of those he did play on saw West Indies repeatedly pad-up to non-turning deliveries ) but he's not often done much of note, those West Indies games aside.

If a fingerspinner could average 35ish on non-turning surfaces, then cash-in on turners (the latter which I'm certain MSP has the ability to do as he's already done it quite a few times) he'd be quite some bowler.

 

[DaRick]

Even so, the number of wickets he's taken (his durability more than anything, he's bowled an astounding number of overs) is remarkable, far beyond anything Salisbury ever achieved (and that wasn't just because of English weakness against wristspin). I mean, I'd have expected Mushtaq to have been successful, but I still think he must have bowled fairly remarkably to do as well as he has.

Well, presumably. But, since I never get to watch county cricket, what exactly has Mushtaq Ahmed done so well to pick up a truckload of wickets?

Yeah, I know, but I honestly reckon he could have done even better but for Wrong-'Un overuse.

Maybe when batsmen (such as Darren Lehmann, for one) got accustomed to his doosra, but certainly not before that point. Saying that somebody is an underachiever when they've averaged 19 over the past four years hardly makes sense anyway, so let's leave it at that.

One thing I didn't tell you; it's best to split the thirty-minute video into three copies and work with each one individually when using Nero Vision. I find it annoying to splice otherwise.

Ol' Ashley certainly did suck that badly (and so would most fingerspinners, TBH, IMO). I haven't actually looked at exact figures, but given Giles' career record was an average of over 40, and his average on spin-friendly surfaces was around about 24-25 at my last count, I reckon he'd probably average round about 50 on wickets which didn't help spin.

Too bad there's no such thing as a 'pitch average'...

So far in his career, MSP hasn't played on a particularly remarkable number of those (and a couple of those he did play on saw West Indies repeatedly pad-up to non-turning deliveries ) but he's not often done much of note, those West Indies games aside.

About the West Indians, I believe it was Monty's arm-ball which got them in front padding up more often than not (his is very good and much better than Giles' was). It's not Monty's fault that they can't play spin (as evidenced by Allan Border's exploits with the ball against them in the 1980's).

You are right about Monty being less successful elsewhere, although that has been due to a multitude of reasons, not just unfavourable pitches.

If a fingerspinner could average 35ish on non-turning surfaces, then cash-in on turners (the latter which I'm certain MSP has the ability to do as he's already done it quite a few times) he'd be quite some bowler.

Well, I guess we have to finally define what a 'non-turning surface' is. One where the ball spins negligibly, or just not at all? It'd be best to clarify, I'd say, for a little turn can be as dangerous as prodigious turn at times.

Also, if he faces more unfavourable pitches than he should, his career average will obviously look worse; that'd be logical.

That aside, you may have a point, although the crux of this discussion is - will he be noticably more successful on unfavourable pitches than Ashley Giles? Will, then, his career be vastly superior? Given my prior layout of Monty's strengths (more turn, better command of flight, more aggressive, much better arm ball), I don't see why not.

You, however, are not sure...

 

[Richard]

Well, presumably. But, since I never get to watch county cricket, what exactly has Mushtaq Ahmed done so well to pick up a truckload of wickets?

I'm little better clued-up either TBH, we tend to get about 3 domestic (First-Class) games per season on TV here, and I don't recall seeing a Sussex game amongst the 2 or 3 I've seen since 2003. I've just tended to presume a bowler who's getting such mad numbers of wickets, at a very good average, over a long time now (5 seasons) must be bowling pretty damn well regardless of how skilled the batsmen he's bowling at are.

Too bad there's no such thing as a 'pitch average'...

Well, nothing that could have official status, no, but I could give you one based on my own interpretation, which you could accept or reject according to how much you trusted me to assess a pitch.

About the West Indians, I believe it was Monty's arm-ball which got them in front padding up more often than not (his is very good and much better than Giles' was). It's not Monty's fault that they can't play spin (as evidenced by Allan Border's exploits with the ball against them in the 1980's).

Border's and MSP's exploits were completely different TBH - that famous Border 11-for game was on a notoriously poor SCG track which spun sideways for even a relative "roller" like Border. MSP, of course, was the opposite - straight balls. Nor, really, do I think it was credit to the bowler - the wicket balls were all standard Leg-Breaks (right-hander, left-armer) which simply didn't turn, not arm-balls. The batsmen were playing for turn they were wrongly expecting the surface to afford. MSP barely turned a ball throughout that Lord's match.

Well, I guess we have to finally define what a 'non-turning surface' is. One where the ball spins negligibly, or just not at all? It'd be best to clarify, I'd say, for a little turn can be as dangerous as prodigious turn at times.

Obviously, amount of receptiveness to spin in a surface is not something that moves along descrete points, it's a continuum, so the phrases "turning" and "non-turning" aren't really ones that hold any linguistic water. However, let's say a fingerspinner is putting maximum revs that he can manage on the ball; one surface allows him to turn this ball 45 degrees, another 20. I don't really think 20 degrees of turn is going to cause great problems, most batsmen can adjust to this at 50-55mph (sorry, can't do that in ks). If he can get it to go 45, though, he's obviously going to pose lots of problems. And some will only allow him to turn it 5 or 10 degrees, which is barely noticeable.

The long-and-short upshot is that you can't offer any waterproof definition, because not only is the maximum rev different (if sometimes only slightly) for every bowler, but you can't put a number of degrees on when a surface goes from "turner" to "non-turner". One day, when a camera and TV production is developed that gives you exact degree-of-turn readouts and exact revs-per-second readouts (the former already available though not in public use) for every ball, we will be able to. Right now, though, you just have to look at it and form a subjective opinion. I could give you a list of Giles' and MSP's Tests played so far and offer you my assessment of whether I classified the pitch "turner" or "non-turner" (or occasionally changing as the match progressed) if you liked.

Also, if he faces more unfavourable pitches than he should, his career average will obviously look worse; that'd be logical.

Yeah - the only thing is there's no way to say how many turning surfaces one "should" get in their career. And the unfortunate nature of things is that certain bowlers will get more (sometimes far more) than others - on a maxi scale you can compare those who played on uncovered wickets and those who played on covered, there's a collossal difference and it's very obviously reflected in averages. On a smaller scale, MSP has, to my mind, had far more turning surfaces early in his career than Giles had in the middle. As a general rule, though, I don't really expect any of the English Test grounds to produce a turning surface very often. Yet Giles got 3 in 2004, and MSP got perhaps 2-and-a-half (given that Headingley started with none and ended with plenty) in 2006. And on all occasions, the bowler produced the goods.

That aside, you may have a point, although the crux of this discussion is - will he be noticably more successful on unfavourable pitches than Ashley Giles? Will, then, his career be vastly superior? Given my prior layout of Monty's strengths (more turn, better command of flight, more aggressive, much better arm ball), I don't see why not.

You, however, are not sure...

No, I'm not. I honestly don't expect, as I say, MSP to be vastly more successful - to be notably successful where Giles was not - on pitches which could broadly be classified as "non-turning". I'd reckon he'll probably average about 40 on such surfaces, where I guess Giles averaged about 50. Only time will tell.

 

[aussie]

Maybe, but what about Wasim Akram?:

Them both & given both were past there best coming into the 21st century (although Wasim produced one final displace of such talents in this test we entered to 2000's era with flat pitches, poor bowling with not much challenge coming to international batsmen consitently other than the australian bowling attack. So seeing Jones bowling that way in the Ashes was clearly a huge challenge to the Australian batsmen.

In theory, fair enough. But in practice, Monty would've played the vast majority of his games with the pace quartet, much like Giles (who had surprisingly little success with the ball during the 2005 Ashes) did.

Once all were fit & good selections were made post 2005 ashes the best English team today would be:

Trescothick
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Colly
Bell
Pothas
Flintoff
Harmison/Sidebottom - given Harmy's inconsitency & Sidebottom's rise
Jones
Hoggard

Monty may have played in the space of Harmy/Sidebottom on a turner though knowing the selectors in Fletcher's time of coach with the idea of having variety in the attack.

Good point, but Trescothick's fortunes against good bowling and poor bowling on identical pitches is so stark that it exposes his technique (which he hasn't really bothered to improve) and makes an educated observer suspect that he is a bit of a 'weak-attack' bully (not necessarily a 'flat-track' bully - there is a difference).

Fair enough, but various innings such as this, this, this (although it was a flat deck), this, this & this should prove to you that he can score runs againts good attacks in tough conditions.

I agree - and given that you live in Manchester, I don't doubt you. But why was he selected at 20 years of age?:

Well as i said England were in an injury crisis at the time during the VB series & well to the shock to everyone even though he showed some decent potential in a few domestic OD games for Lancashire he went to Australia. A very un-english type selection that.

I didn't see much of that series, but let's see: Birmingham was probably flat (though even Dewald Pretorius got a 4-fer), England were bowled out for 173 and conceed 6/682 at Lords on a deck with some though not great life, he did well at Trent Bridge but in bowler-friendly conditions, he was non-descript in typically bowler-friendly conditions in Headingley, while the conditions on The Oval were fairly friendly to batsmen, AFAIK.

He was brought down to earth, but calling those pitches 'some of the flattest pitches ever' is probably erroneous. Sorry if I'm wrong.

The pumelling he got intially from Gibbs & Smith in those first two test would have brought him back down to earth no doubt since he came into that first test with a lot of hype & he was just smashed. The TB & Leeds matches were typical of their surfaces where on day 1 to 2 the bowlers have great assistance then it just flats out, while the Oval was defiantely flat. That summer had some rough pitches for the bowlers no doubt & Anderson confidence after such a wild start was hit & the rest as i mentioned begun to occur..

His spell in Mumbai was apparently very good. But spells like those are too much of an exception - for every one of those, it seems that he bowls many more muck-ridden spells ala Johannesburg 2005 or Kandy 2007.

But as i said injuries & lack of cricket (4-day cricket) came into play. That Jo'Burg test was the first test he had played since AUG 04, while he played in ODI's in between which kept him out crucial CC action for Lancashire which would have been very useful in him having a solid season of bowling instead of playing ODI's (although when international duty calls you have to play but for Anderson being a young player & test cricket the main form of the game CC time would have been better for him).

Kandy 07, Well as i said the period of the Ashes to now is the first time since his 2003 explosion that he has gotten a full run in the side & thus he still is working out how to bowl in most conditons & how to be a consistent enough test match operative.

Thats why it wasn't surprising to see after an encouraging summer vs IND at home that he would go to SRI & be ineffective. Again this is where is lack of cricket & injury woes has come to haunt him.

Look at Matthew Hoggard for example your typical old-fashioned with not half the natural talent of Anderson who until 2006 vs IND no one expected would make much sense in conditons that aren't swinging but through consistent cricket he worked out a way to be able to bowl when condtions don't suite him & blam he gave England this & this onsurfaces that he would usually expected to be ineffective but accurate. If Anderson could have done like Hoggard & played 40 test on the trot before the hectic international schedule broke him down i am convinced we would have seen performances like that from him.

From what I heard, he did bowl well against India at times, but he was clearly far from the best paceman, even on his side.

As i already said the pitches were flat, thus his bowling very good given the conditions. Plus Anderson was easily the most threatening English bowler vs Ind, follwed by Tremlett who troubled them with his entra bounce at times, Sidebottom was accurate without being overly threatening while Monty coming up againts the best in the world vs spin got his first humbling.

Also, there's a reason why Anderson is derided - he averages 39, with an economy rate of 3.74. By any standards (except maybe West Indies/Bangladesh) that's poor indeed.

Already explained why this is the case earlier..

Yes...if he doesn't improve from 2005, though, there's no real point staying with him.

Well i reckon he has to a level..

There was a drop when he was in double figures, I believe.

It occurs when the ball is moving away from him - especially when its pitched up. I can't remember the exact manner of his dismissals, though.

Can't remember the drop & no point looking down on Hodge because he showed a little weakness againts the bowling ball to deliveries since most international batsmen in this era of flat pitches tend to have that weakness.

Fair enough, but Hodge, like I said, is fine against pace without movement and I agree that Lehmann was worse, without repeating myself. Lehmann and Hodge were obviously playing domestic cricket together (although Lehmann's 5 years older), but neither were in the same test team. Lehmann was in the test team while Steve Waugh was still captaining the side, so that argument is not right.

Not Steve, Mark since he was dropped after the series vs PAK on neutral grounds before the 2002/03 Ashes.

You're right about Hodge and Martyn though. Lehmann was arguably also selected as a 'horses-for-courses' move in the subcontinent, given his ability against spin. I don't think Hodge was.

Part of the reason why i reckon Lehmann was selected since he debuted in PAK in late 98 & i think was on tour to IND in early 98 as well. But after a while between late 2001 to when he finally played in Brisbane late 02 he was in almost every test squad.

Hodge well as we both know was selected after the Ashes shocker which the selectors reacted stupidly in dropping Marto..

Perhaps, yes. But remember that he had two personally unsuccessful English tours (2001 & 2005), not just one, so I see a worrisome pattern with Katich's Test performances in England.

He played 1 test his debut in 2001 though in that famous leeds this which in my memory he got a superb from Gough. In 2005 as i said like all the aussie batsmen was undone by the reverse swing since he batted very well @ Lord's.

Nah mate, you did.

For less argument sake, doesn't matter at least i have an idea of where he stands ATM as a future prospect.

 

[tooextracool]

Perhaps, yes. But remember that he had two personally unsuccessful English tours (2001 & 2005), not just one, so I see a worrisome pattern with Katich's Test performances in England.

He played 1 test his debut in 2001 though in that famous leeds this which in my memory he got a superb from Gough. In 2005 as i said like all the aussie batsmen was undone by the reverse swing since he batted very well @ Lord's..

I think his success in county cricket would suggest otherwise. Not being able to pick which way the ball is reverse swinging is hardly a crime particularly when the bowling is of the caliber that Flintoff was able to produce in said series. I personally think Katich was a very good player who was merely a victim of circumstance.

 

[tooextracool]

Fair enough, but various innings such as this, this, this (although it was a flat deck), this, this & this should prove to you that he can score runs againts good attacks in tough conditions..

Trescothick struggles against quality pace not against quality spin. There have been times when he has played well against ineffective or unpenetrating bowling on flat pitches against decent attacks but on the whole his technique (or more specifically his lack of footwork) have deserted him time and time again against a decent bowler on a non-flat pitch

Look at Matthew Hoggard for example your typical old-fashioned with not half the natural talent of Anderson who until 2006 vs IND no one expected would make much sense in conditons that aren't swinging but through consistent cricket he worked out a way to be able to bowl when condtions don't suite him & blam he gave England this & this onsurfaces that he would usually expected to be ineffective but accurate. If Anderson could have done like Hoggard & played 40 test on the trot before the hectic international schedule broke him down i am convinced we would have seen performances like that from him..

Matthew Hoggard is and always has been an out and out swing bowler. Anderson only rarely gets the ball to swing, and that too in the most bowler friendly conditions.

As i already said the pitches were flat, thus his bowling very good given the conditions. Plus Anderson was easily the most threatening English bowler vs Ind, follwed by Tremlett who troubled them with his entra bounce at times, Sidebottom was accurate without being overly threatening while Monty coming up againts the best in the world vs spin got his first humbling.

Anderson the best bowler of the series??! Almost every way you look at it, Anderson came out as the poorest of all the quick bowlers in the series. He had one good inning at Lords and a disappointing series thereafter which unsurprisingly has been the story of his entire career.

 

[tooextracool]

That aside, you may have a point, although the crux of this discussion is - will he be noticably more successful on unfavourable pitches than Ashley Giles? Will, then, his career be vastly superior? Given my prior layout of Monty's strengths (more turn, better command of flight, more aggressive, much better arm ball), I don't see why not.

I must question the comment in bold for i do not comprehend the reasoning behind it. If there has been one thing lacking in Monty's bowling its his inability to use flight ergo vary his pace. Heck in SL, i saw him bowl an entire over with every ball at 87.2 kph. Now, if there is one thing Giles was actually good at, it was varying his pace. Look back at some reels from 2001-02 in the subcontinent and you will see what i mean here.
Monty's success or lack thereof in the subcontinent is clearly related. Monty is undoubtedly better at using drift than Giles, but his inability to vary his pace and use flight has resulted in his failures in the subcontinent. This is almost exactly the same reason why Vettori struggled consistently during the early part of his career in the subcontinent as well. They bowled faster, flatter and used drift and thus struggled in the subcontinent. Warne too had similar problems, although in Warne's case it was more a case of better application as he already had the tools and the ability to make the changes, he just needed to adapt his style. Meanwhile bowlers like Boje and Giles who have always been better at using flight in fact have traditionally (unsurprisingly) had more success in the subcontinent.

 

[aussie]

Matthew Hoggard is and always has been an out and out swing bowler.

Yes, but he has improved his game to bowl on surfaces that many expected him to be ineffective on.

Anderson only rarely gets the ball to swing, and that too in the most bowler friendly conditions


Anderson the best bowler of the series??! Almost every way you look at it, Anderson came out as the poorest of all the quick bowlers in the series. He had one good inning at Lords and a disappointing series thereafter which unsurprisingly has been the story of his entire career.

Poorest of the all the quicks? surely you were watching a different ENG vs IND series. After Lord's all the England bowlers on two flat decks in TB & the Oval struggled with only Anderson looking threatening. The Indian pace trio totally outbowled them.

As i took my time to explain to darick Anderson career has had its many problems etc since his 2003 explosion which has hindered his progress as a bowler. Currently this period (2006 Ashes to now) is the first time since 2003 that he is getting a injury free run in the side & he has shown he still has what i takes to cut it at this level, just unfortunately the mistakes that he could have worked out in CC or by playing consistent international cricket over the years he has to work out now.