*Official* Tour Matches

[Spark]

Yet you posted anyway

I caught one!

 

[TumTum]

It's quite interesting to see how CW has reacted to it actually.

England being 7/117 at one point against the worst attack in Australia on a pretty flat pitch will do that

 

[Ruckus]

Well I think it's fair to call him one of the best bowlers in the world right now. You can feel free to disagree, but saying "he's just not that good" is ********.
Say what you want about declining bowling standards but I don't think you can name 5 better Test bowlers than Swann right now.

I know you'll point out gaps in his record or whatever, his debut series in India wasn't great... but he was still the best spinner on show from either side. He may have "only taken wickets against Pakistan" but that's the same Pakistan side Johnson couldn't buy a wicket against, on the same pitches.

Why the **** do you keep bringing up Johnson? I never mentioned him, and its completely irrelevant.

Already said I'm not discussing this stuff anymore in this thread (because it's not relevant here), so I'm not going to reply further. So for clarity, once again, my opinion is: Swann is a good bowler, probably the best spinner in the world atm, who looks to be in about the same class as Harbhajan. I have nothing more to add.

 

[Jarquis]

Why the **** do you keep bringing up Johnson? I never mentioned him, and its completely irrelevant.

Already said I'm not discussing this stuff anymore in this thread (because it's not relevant here), so I'm not going to reply further. So for clarity, once again, my opinion is: Swann is a good bowler, probably the best spinner in the world atm, who looks to be in about the same class as Harbhajan. I have nothing more to add.

And all I'm saying is he's one of the best bowlers in the world. People readily accept Johnson as such, so why's it so hard to do the same for Swann?

 

[Woodster]

I don't think that's how it works. It is not as if Australian conditions are completely foreign and takes some time to get used too. This match shows that English batsmen really do struggle here and no matter how many tour matches they play, they will still struggle come the Ashes.

They're not completely foreign, players such as Strauss, Cook, Collingwood, KP, Bell, have all played here before, and some of those have scored big runs here, but it is about becoming re-accustomed to these conditions. Tbf, Michael Clarke said they're getting re-acquainted with the Aussie pitches after getting beat by SL, because they're different to the Indian pitches they've been playing on!

It shows that three warm-up games is an excellent move, but this game will have very little bearing on how we play come Brisbane.

 

[Spark]

They're not completely foreign, players such as Strauss, Cook, Collingwood, KP, Bell, have all played here before, and some of those have scored big runs here, but it is about becoming re-accustomed to these conditions. Tbf, Michael Clarke said they're getting re-acquainted with the Aussie pitches after getting beat by SL, because they're different to the Indian pitches they've been playing on!

That was Ian Healy. Clarke shot it down fairly quick, and rightly so. Most terrible excuse.

 

[pup11]

From what I can gather, don't think that's the case at all. Most expect him to do a very capable job but we're not talking taking 30 wickets at less than 25. He may be needed to perform a containing job at times while we attack from the other end.

To be fair Hauritz has had success at home, so it is far from impossible, and all this, Murali didn't do well there, so no-one can is pretty unfounded. Murali was bowling at an exceptionally strong batting line-up back then, Swann will have a weaker unit to go at.

Murali used to destroy that strong batting line-up to shreds in Sri Lanka though.
Anyways, Australian wickets are very unresponsive to finger-spin, because there is no moisture or wear & tear for the the ball to grip and spin from.
Hauritz' success in Oz has been largely because of his ability to drift and flight the ball, whereas Swann is someone who bowls a flatter & quicker tragectory, and spin the ball at quickish pace, inorder to be effective, which is something that's gonna be, hard to achieve down under.
Anderson again largely depends on swing, whereas Finn is still a green-horn, which only leaves Broad, who being a hit-the-deck sort of bowler, is most likely to get any help from the Ozi conditions.

 

[Spark]

That's a good point there. Hauritz when on form does get quite a lot of drift. More than you generally see from Swann, who is more reliant on sharp turn. Obviously very general though.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Not the case at all. Swann gets huge drift. It's one of the reasons I think he's been so successful tbh.

 

[Woodster]

Murali used to destroy that strong batting line-up to shreds in Sri Lanka though.
Anyways, Australian wickets are very unresponsive to finger-spin, because there is no moisture or wear & tear for the the ball to grip and spin from.
Hauritz' success in Oz has been largely because of his ability to drift and flight the ball, whereas Swann is someone who bowls a flatter & quicker tragectory, and spin the ball at quickish pace, inorder to be effective, which is something that's gonna be, hard to achieve down under.
Anderson again largely depends on swing, whereas Finn is still a green-horn, which only leaves Broad, who being a hit-the-deck sort of bowler, is most likely to get any help from the Ozi conditions.

The use of drift is a major weapon for Swann. He is more than just a big spinner of the ball, and can be effective in most conditions, if not regularly running through a side.

Sri Lankan wickets were made for Murali, so of course he was going to be effective. On tracks with not as much assistance, the strength of the Aussies batting was going to counter his threat.

 

[Jarquis]

That's a good point there. Hauritz when on form does get quite a lot of drift. More than you generally see from Swann, who is more reliant on sharp turn. Obviously very general though.

Wrong, so wrong.

 

[Woodster]

That was Ian Healy. Clarke shot it down fairly quick, and rightly so. Most terrible excuse.

Clarke mentioned it in the two interviews I saw, but did go on to say our preparation has been good so that cannot be used as an excuse. Stop suggesting it then!

 

[vcs]

I'd agree that Hauritz gets appreciably more drift than Swann, mainly because of the difference in styles of bowling. Xavier Doherty's bowling to me was pretty reminiscent of Swann's.

 

[Ruckus]

I'd agree that Hauritz gets appreciably more drift than Swann, mainly because of the difference in styles of bowling. Xavier Doherty's bowling to me was pretty reminiscent of Swann's.

Doherty was getting great drift the other night, looks very promising.

 

[Jono]

England being 7/117 at one point against the worst attack in Australia on a pretty flat pitch will do that

But really, who cares? So many cases of the opposite occurring, and teams doing amazingly well against the touring teams and then bombing.

I love to make fun of England as much as any, especially with GIMH being the douchebag that he is ( ), but some of the reactions here are well over the top.

 

[GotSpin]

But really, who cares? So many cases of the opposite occurring, and teams doing amazingly well against the touring teams and then bombing.

I love to make fun of England as much as any, especially with GIMH being the douchebag that he is ( ), but some of the reactions here are well over the top.

Nah it's good to see after all the focus on the fragility of the Australian batting line up that England are much better

 

[Noble One]

Doherty was getting great drift the other night, looks very promising.

Doherty is hardly what I would call promising. He has been in the system for years, and has improved enough to become an international standard ODI spinner. Drift has always been his big weapon, I don't think he will suddenly develop massive turn. The only aspect he could improve upon is his accuracy, which isn't that good for the style of bowler he is.

 

[Ruckus]

Doherty is hardly what I would call promising. He has been in the system for years, and has improved enough to become an international standard ODI spinner. Drift has always been his big weapon, I don't think he will suddenly develop massive turn. The only aspect he could improve upon is his accuracy, which isn't that good for the style of bowler he is.

Well, I can only comment on what I saw in that game (haven't seen him elsewhere). But he got pretty good turn (mor than Hauritz usually does) in that game as well. I thought he was quite accurate as well?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Heh @ Swann not getting much drift.

Someone like Murali doesn't get a great deal of drift particularly compared to the monstrous turn he gets. Murali is a pretty flat bowler, but unlike most flat bowlers he still gets turn (and lots of it). I've never really rated Murali much in terms of guile, once he lost his basic assets he's dropped off heavily. Someone like Warne has a far better bowling brain and varies the flight, pace, spin much more in response to who's batting and what shots they're playing - see how effective he was despite having half the weapons he used to have.

So anyway I don't think comparing Swann with Murali is viable. Swann has more guile, more flight, more drift and is less accurate. They're different bowlers.

 

[Burgey]

And all I'm saying is he's one of the best bowlers in the world. People readily accept Johnson as such, so why's it so hard to do the same for Swann?

Maybe because he hasn't bowled in India or Australia yet.. Two of the harder places for someone plying his craft.

Truth is, I don't know why, no one does except for thosewho hold that opinion. But you're being a dog with a bone about it, and I really don't know why.

That and Swann presents as a ****, I guess might have something to do with it