The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[DaRick]

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.

So we're both working on presumptions, then.

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.

That depends really...you are indeed very astute. That being said, for precisely how long have you been watching Test cricket?

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.

Some of those SCG pitches were 'bunsen burners', admittedly. Still, losing 11 wickets to a fellow like Border, who took a mere 39 wickets, is embarrassing. Not only that, but it indicates a real inability on the part of the West Indies to play the turning ball - and they were the best side in the world back then! You cannot deny that India (or most other teams for that matter) would, in all likelihood, have not conceeded that many wickets to him.

UPDATE: Hmm...the Wisden Almanack tells me that many of AB's wickets came from long hops. That, though, seems to lend weight to my theory that they couldn't play spin properly (a part-timer may get one or two wickets in that manner, but they should never ever get four that way).

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.

I don't ever remember referring to the Lord's match. Although, now that I look at it, my suspicions are confirmed...he did use arm balls to ensare the batsmen (although there was a lack of turn).

That being said, I was wrong about him using the arm ball as a major wicket-taking weapon throughout the series. My memory failed me, once again . Still, like I said, the West Indian's ineptitude at playing spin should not mean that he receives no credit for his pickings against them.

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.

I realised this...which is why I felt that we had to stop speaking in vague terms like 'non-turning surface'. It creates ambiguity, under which circumstances any well-formed, rational argument can appear as valid as another.

ever, 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.

That'd be 80-88 km/h. I do agree that, if the SLA-bowler pitches it on a good length, with the same amount of control, pace and flight, I'd take the 45 degree turn. For, under an equal set of circumstances (in practice, this is unlikely), a bowler is always gonna be much more threatening on a pitch which offers more to him.

However, if he pitches it fuller, 20-degree turn may be enough to take the edge, whereas 45 degree turn will merely go past it. If the SLA-bowler gets lots of turn, yet drags it down, the batsmen is gonna put him away much more easily, unless he generates the kind of rip that Stuart MacGill get (which isn't gonna happen, given that MacGill is a wrist-spinner).

And some will only allow him to turn it 5 or 10 degrees, which is barely noticeable.

I'll give you this - 5 to 10 degrees counts for little.

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".

No. You are certainly right. I was just hoping that we would come to a decent definition, to stop us from speaking in generalities which blur the validity of similar arguments. I still reserve the right to dislike those terms, though, for reasons that I stated earlier.

BTW, did you notice how I tended to use the terms 'favourable pitch' and 'unfavourable pitch', where I could? (If I used 'turner', or 'non-turner', I was being lazy and sloppy. I apologise for that.)

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.

Whether I would want you to do this depends on your experience watching cricket. If it is no longer than mine (4-and-a-bit years), then I'd be pretty skeptical. Besides, when are you going to upload those Ashley Giles clips?

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.

I can't deny this. Look at Derek Underwood.

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.

No, I don't either. It's just not the English thing to do, really...produce a turner, I mean.

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.

What were these matches, precisely? (Giles' 9-fer against WI, aside)

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.

Yes...though you're barely contradicting my arguement, really. 40 over 50 is still noteworthy and would, should they get the same amount of favourable pitches, still lead to Monty having a noticably more successful career - which I believe was the point of our arguement. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Redbacks]

a good start is that Australia already have an eye towards this series. In 05 the preperation wasn't up to scratch. Dizzy rocked up underdone, we didn't bring a genuine swing bowler didn't account for the reverse swing weapons.

No Jones No England, the 4th bowler is too weak at the moment to keep pressure on. Jones took a wicket in nearly every spell he bowled in the last series. That bowling line up in 05 was on of the best in recent times. Fast, accurate, swing, aggressive and no Australian batsmen mastered the situation. Would be amazed if England could back this up again in 09.

 

[Richard]

So we're both working on presumptions, then.

Pretty much.

That depends really...you are indeed very astute. That being said, for precisely how long have you been watching Test cricket?

I started watching really properly in 1998, having first noticed the game in 1992 and kept something between half and three-quarters of an eye on the summers of 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. I've watched back as much as I can get my hands on in the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s, but there's still something new I learn virtually every time I talk to the (sadly few) posters on here who watched it live.

Some of those SCG pitches were 'bunsen burners', admittedly. Still, losing 11 wickets to a fellow like Border, who took a mere 39 wickets, is embarrassing. Not only that, but it indicates a real inability on the part of the West Indies to play the turning ball - and they were the best side in the world back then! You cannot deny that India (or most other teams for that matter) would, in all likelihood, have not conceeded that many wickets to him.

UPDATE: Hmm...the Wisden Almanack tells me that many of AB's wickets came from long hops. That, though, seems to lend weight to my theory that they couldn't play spin properly (a part-timer may get one or two wickets in that manner, but they should never ever get four that way).

I don't ever remember referring to the Lord's match. Although, now that I look at it, my suspicions are confirmed...he did use arm balls to ensare the batsmen (although there was a lack of turn).

That being said, I was wrong about him using the arm ball as a major wicket-taking weapon throughout the series. My memory failed me, once again . Still, like I said, the West Indian's ineptitude at playing spin should not mean that he receives no credit for his pickings against them.

TBH, I'm also a little dubious on the drawing together of two events almost 20 years apart (the length of time best demonstrated by the fact that the highly durable Brian Lara, just retired in 2007, was still 3-and-a-half years from becoming a fixture in 1988\89). I'm not sure the failings in that SCG game relate terribly to the failings of totally different players - from the same origin, yes, but that's about it - 18 years later.

I've never seen a single piece of footage from that 1988\89 series, but I maintain that the bigest fault of the West Indians in that Lord's Test (the only one where he got a large number of lbws IIRR) was playing for turn that was never there, rather than failing to pick the arm-ball. And while they were almost certainly poor in Border's game, they were poor because it turned too much, rather than too little.

That'd be 80-88 km/h. I do agree that, if the SLA-bowler pitches it on a good length, with the same amount of control, pace and flight, I'd take the 45 degree turn. For, under an equal set of circumstances (in practice, this is unlikely), a bowler is always gonna be much more threatening on a pitch which offers more to him.

However, if he pitches it fuller, 20-degree turn may be enough to take the edge, whereas 45 degree turn will merely go past it. If the SLA-bowler gets lots of turn, yet drags it down, the batsmen is gonna put him away much more easily, unless he generates the kind of rip that Stuart MacGill get (which isn't gonna happen, given that MacGill is a wrist-spinner).

Indeed, length is also relevant to the amount of turn you want best to extract. I guess, if we were to get as in-depth as we could, we'd do best to say "very receptive"; "slightly receptive" and "negligably receptive".

Whether I would want you to do this depends on your experience watching cricket. If it is no longer than mine (4-and-a-bit years), then I'd be pretty skeptical.

Frighteningly, 1998 is now a decade ago. But it's still not, in the grand scheme of things, that long. Long enough to recall the entire Test careers of AF Giles and MSP however, which seems to be the main issue of importance in this case.

Besides, when are you going to upload those Ashley Giles clips?

Well I've recently purchased the hardware to do such. Now need simply to get the software, and given I have recommendations earlier this thread, hopefully not that long. Beware, though - there are clips taken by me in July at a CW meetup which the assembled company are still waiting for...

I'll do me best.

What were these matches, precisely? (Giles' 9-fer against WI, aside)

For Giles in 2004, the games at Trent Bridge (Third Test vs New Zealand), Lord's (First Test vs West Indies) and Edgbaston (Second Test vs West Indies). For MSP in 2006, the games at Trent Bridge (Third Test vs Sri Lanka), Old Trafford (Second Test vs Pakistan) and Headingley (Third Test vs Pakistan, and as I said there was nothing in the first-innings for spin and a bit in the second).

Yes...though you're barely contradicting my arguement, really. 40 over 50 is still noteworthy and would, should they get the same amount of favourable pitches, still lead to Monty having a noticably more successful career - which I believe was the point of our arguement. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, no you're quite right. But the point is, while 40 is better than 50 (say, someone typically tending to take 3-120 rather than 2-100 - this as match rather than innings figures - though obviously we know this isn't how overall averages work) neither is terribly likely to have a significant impact on the game. So while MSP has outperformed Giles (hypothetical) it's not as if the performance of either are particularly impressive or noteworthy. It's almost like a pitting of Patterson Thompson vs Devon Malcolm (though this is clearly a scaled-up example).

 

[DaRick]

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.

I never disputed this. I was just pointing out an oversight you committed by excluding Wasim Akram. I know he was showing his age by 2000 (he was certainly down on pace), but that's irrelevant.

Since 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.

I wouldn't place Bell so low - technically, he is a better batsman than Collingwood (if not quite as good temperamentally). Also, what made you select Nic Pothas?

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.

N.B: When I said that Trescothick's record against poor bowling and good bowling on identical pitches was stark, I was alluding to pace bowling. He is a good player of spin, but this has been overstated by commentators. I thought I'd made that clear - clearly, I had not.

England vs Sri Lanka 2001: Good knocks, the both of them, but this doesn't hurt my argument that much - note that Vaas is the only seamer of any real quality (unless you rate Fernando).
England vs Pakistan 2001: Looks good, don't it? However, Waqar Younis was well past it by this stage and Wasim Akram's age (as you yourself admitted) was showing. As for the support cast, Azhar Mahmood did offer more on seaming decks in swing-friendly conditions, but he was never really a great bowler. The same applies to Abdul Razzaq, whose Test career was still comparatively nascent, anyway. There's evidence to suggest turn and bounce, though...bringing Saqlain Mushtaq into play.
England vs South Africa 2003: I'll give you this. Some of the shots he did play during these two knocks, against an in-form SA pace battery, were impressive...with the provisio that it was a flat deck, of course (so maybe not the toughest conditions?).
England vs South Africa 2004/05 at Durban: The pitch in question seemed to flatten out as the match progressed (I know, I remember watching it during the still of the night). Also, while Ntini was becoming a world-class bowler, Pollock and Kallis (in comparison to what they were both like before) were in form slumps, Steyn was merely an underachieving greenhorn with loads of then-unfulfilled potential, while Boje has nearly always been a sub-standard spinner (partially because of how he's been used by Graeme Smith and co). For fighting back so monumentally, I may give you this one, anyway.
England vs South Africa 2004/05 at Johannesburg: A better effort, certainly, especially considering there was still some help for the bowlers (mostly in the air, if I recall correctly), although I did explain my reservations about the SA attack of that time. I'll still give you this one, though.
England vs Pakistan 2004/05 at Multan: Looking at the pace attack, we had Shoaib Akhtar, who had yet to fire at that time (he would in the second innings...and how), Shabbir Ahmed (a quality seamer with a poor action) and nothing behind them. Plus, the conditions were, IIRC, surprisingly good for batting at that time. In his favour, though, Trescothick did have a family crisis on his mind.

Out of these knocks, I'll give due credit to you for pointing out three of them (SA 2003, 2004/05 at Joburg and SA 2004/05 at Durban). However, I still have reservations about the other three knocks, with regards to the overall quality of the pace attacks (remember, one flaky but ultra-talented quick and one very good seamer does not always comprise a good bowling line-up).

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.

Ok.

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..

Didn't James Kirtley (?!) make hay at Headingley, where Anderson failed, during the second innings? I also said that he did well at Trent Bridge and you didn't even mention Lords.

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).

Fair enough. There was no reason why he should've bowled like he did in Johannesburg 2005, though. Bowling so full and wide that the batsmen have trouble hitting you...no wonder how underdone you are, there's no reason why you should bowl that dreadfully.

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.

Fair enough, but didn't he do well in Mumbai 2006? Ah, the enigma of Anderson strikes again!

In a way, that makes his Kandy 07 performance look even less acceptable, though - ironic though that may seem.

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.

Like New Zealand a few days ago, you mean? It's not so much a matter, now, as to whether Anderson can deliver those performances, its whether or not they prove too much of an exception (as I stated earlier).

As for him performing as well as Hoggard under an equal set of circumstances, I have my doubts. Counting against Anderson is the fact that he is a touch too adventurous in his pursuit of swing at inopportune times (something that Hoggard has not been guilty of for years), along with this more erratic line and length, as compared to Hoggard's. His temperament can also go missing, too, unlike Hoggard's.

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.

Hmm...I just saw his Lord's test match. He did indeed bowl well, but then again, RP Singh also took wickets, FFS (a guy who I really don't rate), so...I wouldn't be surprised if the conditions at Lord's, contrary to what you say, were conducive to swing. RP Singh (like Anderson, really) has generally been cannon fodder when he has not gotten the new ball to move.

Saying that he was the most threatening English bowler, given Sidebottom's lack of fortune and Tremlett's better stats, is a big call, too.

Well i reckon he has to a level..

I hope so, for your sake.

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.

You mean, the moving ball, right? I agree with you, to an extent, but this weaknesses of Hodge has not just been exploited by quality bowlers...its been exposed by the likes of Dilhara Fernando, FFS. Plus, his relative inability to kick on with his starts at Test level was a bit of a stumbling block, too.

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

Oh ok, my bad.

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.

He actually made his debut in Bangalore 1998.

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

Yes, although, TBF, Martyn's fielding was horrendous and his footwork had all but dissappeared. Still, it was harsh to drop him after a prolonged good run, I agree.

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.

You're right, but an average of 20 (for a batsman of repute) is not very good, regardless of how superb the bowling is. Certainly, he wouldn't have gone home with his head held high.

I would still, despite your arguements, keep him away from English conditions. Failure is one thing (i.e - avg. 30). However, his record in England is just about horrendous, like I said earlier.

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

Whatever.

 

[andruid]

I move that a new forum be created exclusively for Richard and his newly spawned evil twin DaRick

Man just reading through one post by one of them is bad enough but one's assessmesnt of the other's argument is almost as bad as analysing academic writing. Gosh!!

On the Hoggard v. Anderson debate

Given that unlike Anderson, Hoggard had almost certainly more time to better his craft in the county circuit and even as an International he has been almost completely ignored by popular media before it became starkly obvious that he is one of the most complete swing bowlers England have right now it goes without saying that, right now it is much easier to argue that he is a better bowler then the James Anderson we have been exposed to so far. Given that James Anderson has been judged in many circles against his relatively meteoric explosion onto the global stage on relatively swing friendly South African pitches (Something Hoggard never really had to endure given that there as always some other bugger hogging the glory and his being typecast as an unglamorous workhorse) and the rather illogical nature of the level his growth as a bowler and the setbacks that come with it I would contend that
1. It is unfair to compare Anderson now with a bowler with all the International calibre (acknowledged or otherwise) of Mathew Hoggard
2.If Hoggard had made the 'mistake' of making his début on such a high profile tournament as the World Cup in conditions which he was doomed to perform at least admirably then the exploits of his first 20-30 odd tests would no less be remembered as critically as those of James Anderson right now.

 

[Richard]

I move that a new forum be created exclusively for Richard and his newly spawned evil twin DaRick

Man just reading through one post by one of them is bad enough but one's assessmesnt of the other's argument is almost as bad as analysing academic writing. Gosh!!

Good job you weren't around in the days of myself and tec being regulars. You think 1 thread with 1 post each over the course of 20 or so posts is bad? Try 20-odd threads with 5 or 6 posts going on for 120-140 posts. Over the course of a year.

TBH, I'm a bit surprised if anyone bar myself, Colin and DaRick have been reading this exchange since we started. Very interesting for ourselves, certainly, but I'd not really expect anyone else to have the stamina to read through it all.

 

[andruid]

I've actuallyt been following the argument on and off for a while. and I have to say if you can survive This guy, Nothing can stop you

 

[DaRick]

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.

I never, ever said that Monty varied his pace regularly. I think that I've acknwoledged that he tends to bowl a flat-ish, fast-ish trajectory - well, even more so than Giles anyway. If I'm correct, bowling flat and fast allows you to put more work on the ball...which is why he can rip it far on favourable pitches. Maybe that's why he doesn't vary his pace all that often. (Yes, I do acknowledge that Giles' subcontinental record is far superior to his overall record, BTW)

Its just that, when Monty does decide to give the ball some flight (not that often - its more of a variation than a stock delivery for him), the drift that he achieves while doing so, from both around-and-over the wicket, has been far more impressive than that of Giles. The amount of dip that he generates when he flights it, too, is noteworthy (although Giles usually beats him here, partially because he's taller and subsequently bowls with a higher arm action). FTR, I've always thought of drift as being somewhat related to flight. I mean, I'm no physics student, but you'd think that, the longer the ball's in the air, the more scope there is for its trajectory to be altered. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's why I think that his command of flight, overall, is far better.

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.

I agree that Monty doesn't usually generate a great deal of dip, unless he decides to flight it - but there's a difference between that, drift and flight.

I agree that he bowled poorly against Sri Lanka. I believe he did, though, partially because, from what I heard, he was searching for a 'magic ball'. When I did get to see him in action, It seemed to me that he either had trouble maintaining a decent line and length or subconsciously refused to, maybe because of the aforementioned factor. When I saw him, Jayawardene also refused to allow him to settle, rotating the strike frequently.

This was something many of the West Indian batsmen, as far as I can tell, conspicuously failed to do on a regular basis (on the rare occassions that they could, he had often taken a plethora of wickets already).

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.

TBH, I've never seen Vettori bowl in the subcontinent, so I can't say why he struggled.

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.

Warne's problems in India were due to a variety of factors. If you remember, in 1998 his shoulder was troubling him (to the point where surgery and a long layoff resulted soon after), in 2001 he was relatively unfit, short of Test match practice and maybe the finger injury he sustained in 2001 was still a pyschological issue, if not a physical one (that being said, he did bowl in the 2000/01 CUB one-dayers).

In 2004, it seemed to me that Warne bowled a little faster and a little flatter (in the mid-80's IIRC). He also changed his line of attack (from middle-and-leg to middle-and-off). Maybe my memory deceives me, but I'm almost certain that he was quicker through the air than usual.

Shane Warne is also not the best example of a legspinner struggling on the sub-continent. Elsewhere on the sub-continent (except maybe Bangladesh), his record is stunning.

Giles' subcontinental record, like I said, is undeniably better than Monty's, but I disagree that he has a better command of flight. I'll accept that he has a better command of dip, though.

As for Boje, his 'superior' record on the subcontinent is only relative to the rest of his dismal record. That being said, I do agree that his flight was one of his greatest strengths. I also believe that Graeme Smith mis-used him as a pure stock bowler, bowling too flat, too often, to the point where it became automata.

 

[Goughy]

If I'm correct, bowling flat and fast allows you to put more work on the ball...which is why he can rip it far on favourable pitches.

Wow

The only line I read in this entire exchange (I glanced up and saw it). Its a classic

 

[DaRick]

Wow

The only line I read in this entire exchange (I glanced up and saw it). Its a classic

In all fairness, Harbhajan Singh, in his prime, generated (from when I saw him, admittedly on suitable pitches) a considerable amount of turn. A lack of flight and loop has always been a Harbhajan thing (which obviously means that he's always been somewhat flat).

By flat and fast - I don't mean firing it in at 100 km/h (which Harbhajan has unfortunately been doing too much of late). Perhaps I should have clarified more. I mean bowling it at 85-90 km/h, rather than 75-80 or even 80-85.

Think about it, though. Monty bowls a flatter and faster trajectory than Giles, yet still gets much more turn than I've ever seen Giles generate. Obviously, if you put more work on the ball, you rip it further. Boje, too (although his record is very poor), had a decent command of flight, but didn't really turn it very far, nor did he bowl at Monty's pace.

 

[pietersenrocks]

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
KP
Colly
Freddie
Can't say anything abt keeper . may be Prior/Ambrose..but I feel Prior should have been picked for NZ tour
Sidebottom
Broad
Anderson
Rashid/Monty/Strauss

 

[aussie]

I wouldn't place Bell so low - technically, he is a better batsman than Collingwood (if not quite as good temperamentally). Also, what made you select Nic Pothas?

Because since Stewart's retirement he has been the best performing batsman/keeper in county cricket. Despite his age he had qualified to play for England last season put Peter Moores went for Prior & well England still don't know who the best keeper in either form of the game could be. (Alhtough deep though i do have confidence about Ambrose being test keeper & Prior being ODI once he works of his glovework).

N.B: When I said that Trescothick's record against poor bowling and good bowling on identical pitches was stark, I was alluding to pace bowling. He is a good player of spin, but this has been overstated by commentators. I thought I'd made that clear - clearly, I had not.

Oh oh my bad yo won't need to reply to the remainder of this quote then..

Didn't James Kirtley (?!) make hay at Headingley, where Anderson failed, during the second innings? I also said that he did well at Trent Bridge and you didn't even mention Lords.

He didn't fail in that second innings @ TB no & what about lord's?

Fair enough. There was no reason why he should've bowled like he did in Johannesburg 2005, though. Bowling so full and wide that the batsmen have trouble hitting you...no wonder how underdone you are, there's no reason why you should bowl that dreadfully.

No doubt he bowled poorly but when you don't play cricket it can affect even the best of bowlers, even McGrath suffered from this during early 2003 (although the ankle injury at the time also was a key part in pigeons most ineffective bowling bowling period during his career).

Fair enough, but didn't he do well in Mumbai 2006? Ah, the enigma of Anderson strikes again!

In a way, that makes his Kandy 07 performance look even less acceptable, though - ironic though that may seem.

Like New Zealand a few days ago, you mean? It's not so much a matter, now, as to whether Anderson can deliver those performances, its whether or not they prove too much of an exception (as I stated earlier).

Thats right, those performances prove Anderson definately has the tools to perform in test cricket, but given he hasn't got a consistent run up until now he still needs to work on his consistency. Great thing is IMO he is 25/26 & his best years are pretty much ahead of him.

As for him performing as well as Hoggard under an equal set of circumstances, I have my doubts. Counting against Anderson is the fact that he is a touch too adventurous in his pursuit of swing at inopportune times (something that Hoggard has not been guilty of for years), along with this more erratic line and length, as compared to Hoggard's. His temperament can also go missing, too, unlike Hoggard's.

Of course if things had gone well for Anderson over the years his career would not have taken an identical path as Hoggard. But he would have been able to work out his strenghts & weaknesses as a test match bowler & given that he has more natural ability that Hoggard (who has had to transform himself over the years from your old-fashioned English quick to an solid performer in all conditions world-wide) Anderson would have had a solid test match career going IMHO.

Hmm...I just saw his Lord's test match. He did indeed bowl well, but then again, RP Singh also took wickets, FFS (a guy who I really don't rate), so...I wouldn't be surprised if the conditions at Lord's, contrary to what you say, were conducive to swing. RP Singh (like Anderson, really) has generally been cannon fodder when he has not gotten the new ball to move.

True but early days to be judging, Hoggard, Ntini are bowlers that immediately come to mind who were rendered useless for many years unless conditions assisted their bowling but look how well they have turned out.

Not saying RP Singh & Anderson will take similar paths, but i am not one to judge a player early his career or if he hasn't had much chances i rather judge him after he has taken on all challenges & how he has done in it.

Saying that he was the most threatening English bowler, given Sidebottom's lack of fortune and Tremlett's better stats, is a big call, too.

Ah yes Sidebottom did suffer from Prior especially at the oval forgot that. But i still stand on the fact that overall Anderson seemed the likely England bowler to take a wicket than the other 3.

You mean, the moving ball, right? I agree with you, to an extent, but this weaknesses of Hodge has not just been exploited by quality bowlers...its been exposed by the likes of Dilhara Fernando, FFS. Plus, his relative inability to kick on with his starts at Test level was a bit of a stumbling block, too.

It was too early to judge that IMO. If after 20 test he had a ratio of 38 innings 3 100's, 2 50's & number of sub 20 scores etc well yea but not so soon.

Yes, although, TBF, Martyn's fielding was horrendous and his footwork had all but dissappeared. Still, it was harsh to drop him after a prolonged good run, I agree.

Martyn & footwork lol, he never had any..

You're right, but an average of 20 (for a batsman of repute) is not very good, regardless of how superb the bowling is. Certainly, he wouldn't have gone home with his head held high.

I would still, despite your arguements, keep him away from English conditions. Failure is one thing (i.e - avg. 30). However, his record in England is just about horrendous, like I said earlier.

I presume you are refering to county cricket here & i don't believe his record playing over his is horrendous at all yo. As i said before Katich was just a victim of circumstances in 05
don't think his ability to play the moving ball is bad at all.

 

[FBU]

As the next Ashes will be played in England here are the averages at the different grounds

Lords
Anderson - 14 wickets at 25.21
Tremlett - 4 wickets at 26.00
Sidebottom - 6 wickets at 28.50
Hoggard - 37 wickets at 31.08
Harmison - 31 wickets at 31.45
Mahmood - 5 wickets at 33.60
Panesar - 12 wickets at 35.75
Flintoff - 25 wickets at 35.92
Plunkett - 5 wickets at 82.20

The Oval
Harmison - 18 wickets at 24.38
Flintoff - 9 wickets at 30.55
Anderson - 13 wickets at 34.23
Hoggard - 10 wickets at 39.90
Mahmood - 2 wickets at 50.50
Tremlett - 3 wickets at 63.33
Sidebottom - 1 wicket at 93.00
Panesar - 3 wickets at 106.66

Old Trafford
Panesar - 18 wickets at 15.15
Harmison - 24 wickets at 19.83
Flintoff - 13 wickets at 29.53
Hoggard - 17 wickets at 33.17
Sidebottom - 3 wickets at 33.66
Anderson - 1 wicket at 71.00
Plunkett - 1 wicket at 100.00

Headingley
Sidebottom - 6 wickets at 10.75
Plunkett - 4 wickets at 15.00
Mahmood - 6 wickets at 21.66
Panesar - 7 wickets at 26.71
Harmison - 13 wickets at 32.84
Flintoff - 8 wickets at 38.75
Hoggard - 9 wickets at 43.22
Anderson - 2 wickets at 59.50

Riverside
Panesar - 6 wickets at 13.13
Hoggard - 13 wickets at 14.07
Anderson - 6 wickets at 14.16
Harmison - 16 wickets at 23.18
Sidebottom - 5 wickets at 25.60

Trent Bridge
Tremlett - 6 wickets at 15.33
Panesar - 9 wickets at 20.22
Plunkett - 4 wickets at 25.25
Harmison - 17 wickets at 26.94
Anderson - 8 wickets at 34.50
Hoggard - 16 wickets at 37.62
Flintoff - 17 wickets at 44.76
Sidebottom - 1 wicket at 103.00

Edgbaston
Plunkett - 6 wickets at 10.00
Mahmood - 2 wickets at 22.00
Hoggard - 20 wickets at 23.15
Panesar - 3 wickets at 26.66
Flintoff - 16 wickets at 30.68
Anderson - 3 wickets at 63.00
Harmison - 5 wickets at 68.20

 

[Scaly piscine]

After the disgrace that was selecting the taff's crappy, in-the-process-of-being-built ground for the Ashes above better grounds that had actually bothered to serve their apprenticeship and host the tripe of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and were 'compensated' with a dead rubber against the awful West Indies it sounds like they're also going to get the opening Test of the Ashes as well.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/345869.html

Hope Sophia Gardens blows over and they have to pick one of the other grounds that deserves it infinitely more. Oh and well done the ECB for making the attendance of international cricket elite-only with their ticket pricing, bunch of tossers.

 

[DaRick]

I started watching really properly in 1998, having first noticed the game in 1992 and kept something between half and three-quarters of an eye on the summers of 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. I've watched back as much as I can get my hands on in the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s, but there's still something new I learn virtually every time I talk to the (sadly few) posters on here who watched it live.

You've been watching it longer than me then. My interest of Test cricket is much less convoluted than yours, though - I watched my first Test match in...hmm...possibly 1998 (not sure though). Despite watching the odd game, I never developed an interest in it until late 2003, when my mother started watching it. The first ODI match I watched with any real involvement was on 9 January 2004 (Aus vs India) and the first Test match that I watched with complete involvement was in March 2004 (Aus vs Sri Lanka). Since I was born in 1989, I'm much in the same boat as you with regards to trying to attain info about cricket in the 70's, 80's and 90's (particularly the 90's).

TBH, I'm also a little dubious on the drawing together of two events almost 20 years apart (the length of time best demonstrated by the fact that the highly durable Brian Lara, just retired in 2007, was still 3-and-a-half years from becoming a fixture in 1988\89). I'm not sure the failings in that SCG game relate terribly to the failings of totally different players - from the same origin, yes, but that's about it - 18 years later.

Hmm...I think that there's a distinct correlation. If those players who you learnt your game from are incompetent at playing spin (obviously with a couple of exceptions, such as Richards and Lara), there is a good chance that your descendants will be afflicted in a similar way. This applies, in particular, to the West Indies, a group of islands which is not only far, far removed from every other cricketing centre, but who have also largely shunned head coaches and the like from overseas until recently (Bennett King was their first, I believe). As such, they have given themselves less opportunity to become acquainted with foreign expertise, which cannot be a good thing.

The only country which has, to my knowledge, declined to appoint overseas head coaches (not foreign support staff, though) over the past 20 years would be Australia (who aren't far removed from every other cricketing centre to begin with).

I've never seen a single piece of footage from that 1988\89 series, but I maintain that the bigest fault of the West Indians in that Lord's Test (the only one where he got a large number of lbws IIRR) was playing for turn that was never there, rather than failing to pick the arm-ball. And while they were almost certainly poor in Border's game, they were poor because it turned too much, rather than too little.

I still disagree. I swear that he trapped at least a few of them in front with his arm ball, despite the lack of turn. Also, ineptitude against spin is ineptitude against spin, no matter how far the ball is turning.

Frighteningly, 1998 is now a decade ago. But it's still not, in the grand scheme of things, that long. Long enough to recall the entire Test careers of AF Giles and MSP however, which seems to be the main issue of importance in this case.

You're on, then.

Well I've recently purchased the hardware to do such. Now need simply to get the software, and given I have recommendations earlier this thread, hopefully not that long. Beware, though - there are clips taken by me in July at a CW meetup which the assembled company are still waiting for...

I'll do me best.

I'm waaaaaitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing...

For Giles in 2004, the games at Trent Bridge (Third Test vs New Zealand), Lord's (First Test vs West Indies) and Edgbaston (Second Test vs West Indies). For MSP in 2006, the games at Trent Bridge (Third Test vs Sri Lanka), Old Trafford (Second Test vs Pakistan) and Headingley (Third Test vs Pakistan, and as I said there was nothing in the first-innings for spin and a bit in the second).

With Giles, I will grant you New Zealand. For reasons listed above, I'll struggle not to believe that the West Indian wickets were, for the most part, not down to their ineptitude against spin. Point taken about your Panesar ones (the Old Trafford one even had inconsistent bounce), though.

No, no you're quite right. But the point is, while 40 is better than 50 (say, someone typically tending to take 3-120 rather than 2-100 - this as match rather than innings figures - though obviously we know this isn't how overall averages work) neither is terribly likely to have a significant impact on the game. So while MSP has outperformed Giles (hypothetical) it's not as if the performance of either are particularly impressive or noteworthy. It's almost like a pitting of Patterson Thompson vs Devon Malcolm (though this is clearly a scaled-up example).

True, but it also depends on the wickets taken and at what times they are taken.

AFAIK, Patterson Thompson barely played Test cricket. As such, you shouldn't really compare him to Devon Malcolm. While Malcolm could be Test class (he usually wasn't, though), Thompson, IMO, never had the potential to be (stories abound about his embarrasing lack of control).

 

[DaRick]

Because since Stewart's retirement he has been the best performing batsman/keeper in county cricket. Despite his age he had qualified to play for England last season put Peter Moores went for Prior & well England still don't know who the best keeper in either form of the game could be. (Alhtough deep though i do have confidence about Ambrose being test keeper & Prior being ODI once he works of his glovework).

Fair enough, although I think that Prior is a completely inadequate wicket-keeper.

He didn't fail in that second innings @ TB no & what about lord's?

Well, he was ineffective at Lords. I know that he didn't fail in the Trent Bridge second innings...but he did fail during the Headingley second innings.

No doubt he bowled poorly but when you don't play cricket it can affect even the best of bowlers, even McGrath suffered from this during early 2003 (although the ankle injury at the time also was a key part in pigeons most ineffective bowling bowling period during his career).

Mid-2003 and May 2004, to be precise. Also, while McGrath lacked zip and was a touch wide during those times, he was never as horrible as Anderson was during that time.

Thats right, those performances prove Anderson definately has the tools to perform in test cricket, but given he hasn't got a consistent run up until now he still needs to work on his consistency. Great thing is IMO he is 25/26 & his best years are pretty much ahead of him.

Yeah, it is a good thing. I didn't ever deny that he had talent...I just don't think he uses it very well much of the time. As such, I still don't rate him that highly.

Of course if things had gone well for Anderson over the years his career would not have taken an identical path as Hoggard. But he would have been able to work out his strenghts & weaknesses as a test match bowler & given that he has more natural ability that Hoggard (who has had to transform himself over the years from your old-fashioned English quick to an solid performer in all conditions world-wide) Anderson would have had a solid test match career going IMHO.

More solid than now? Yes. That's not really saying anything, though. Anderson's Test career has been anything but solid, really (20+ Tests in 5 years). It also doesn't take that long to figure out that you have problems with accuracy...fixing the issue is another issue entirely. Cricket is also played in the mind, too.

True but early days to be judging, Hoggard, Ntini are bowlers that immediately come to mind who were rendered useless for many years unless conditions assisted their bowling but look how well they have turned out.

Not saying RP Singh & Anderson will take similar paths, but i am not one to judge a player early his career or if he hasn't had much chances i rather judge him after he has taken on all challenges & how he has done in it.

That's up to you; I call them as I see them. That's why I don't think all that highly of Shaun Tait, either, although I know how destructive he can be. IMO, he's gonna be ineffective quite a bit more than he's going to be destructive and his batting and fielding would make him a total liability under those circumstances. We may as well fill his place with a hologram. But that's beside the point...

Ah yes Sidebottom did suffer from Prior especially at the oval forgot that. But i still stand on the fact that overall Anderson seemed the likely England bowler to take a wicket than the other 3.

I still maintain that it's a big call, though you are entitled to an opinion as much as I am.

It was too early to judge that IMO. If after 20 test he had a ratio of 38 innings 3 100's, 2 50's & number of sub 20 scores etc well yea but not so soon.

A start, IMO, would be 20+, or, fusing with your criterion, 10+. Hodge also has a disturbing number of those in ODI cricket, except against New Zealand and () the Netherlands. That just adds credence to my gripe about him in Test matches, with regards to that.

Besides, I call them as I see 'em, as I said earlier.

Martyn & footwork lol, he never had any..

Uh...yes he did. If he didn't, then why did he do so well against India in 2004?

I presume you are refering to county cricket here & i don't believe his record playing over his is horrendous at all yo. As i said before Katich was just a victim of circumstances in 05
don't think his ability to play the moving ball is bad at all.

Nope. Test cricket. I believe that Katich is a very good player of spin bowling (except for Murali), but his ability against good pace bowling is still questionable, for mine. Even good pace bowling doesn't justify an average of 20 + being outbatted by Shane Warne and Brett Lee.

 

[DaRick]

I move that a new forum be created exclusively for Richard and his newly spawned evil twin DaRick

Man just reading through one post by one of them is bad enough but one's assessmesnt of the other's argument is almost as bad as analysing academic writing. Gosh!!

How am I 'evil', exactly?

 

[andruid]

How am I 'evil', exactly?

evil enough relative to Richard

 

[GIMH]

Have the ECB hiked the prices up for next year or something? Only cost me £30something for my tickets to day three at Headingley V SA this summer, which isn't too bad considering I've paid £20 for 90 minutes of League One footy plenty of times

 

[FBU]

Fair enough. There was no reason why he should've bowled like he did in Johannesburg 2005, though. Bowling so full and wide that the batsmen have trouble hitting you...no wonder how underdone you are, there's no reason why you should bowl that dreadfully.

:

Anderson's action was changed after the first ODI in Zimbabwe . One of the reasons was because he was running on the wicket. The results from the change of action were wides in the 2nd and 3rd ODIs and he was dropped for the last one. 25 wides. It was a ridiculous idea to change his action on tour. He also got a sore side. Because of the sore side he didn't play in either of the warm up matches in South Africa so the last first class cricket he played was over 5 months earlier. It was plain stupid to pick him to play in that 4th Test in South Africa. A bowler needs hundreds of overs to groove a new action.

At least he has gone back to his old action. He still does have to check with the umpires if he is getting near the danger area.