*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Burgey

That would be the WI line up that beat England then...

Yeah, besides the fact they were missing Fidel Edwards for the whole series against you, missing Jerome Tayor for all bard 9 overs of the first innings and then only a half fit Sarwan (IIRC)
Otherwise exactly the same.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

Yeah, besides the fact they were missing Fidel Edwards for the whole series against you, missing Jerome Tayor for all bard 9 overs of the first innings and then only a half fit Sarwan (IIRC)
Otherwise exactly the same.

Edwards and Taylor aren't really relevant to Bollinger's performances though.

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I don't think whether it's in your control is heaps relevant either though, really. We'd like to think that good performances will stay where they are and we can improve on poor ones, but in reality good performances have as much chance of tailing off as poor performances do of improving. Whether it's in Australa's or England's control doesn't change that.

Well I'd much rather be in a position where I know if I improve my own performances I have a chance rather than thinking "FMD, they better start bowling pies soon or I'm ****ed".
Make of that what you will.
I disagree they're just as likely as one another as well, with regards to performances declining, you're just hoping bad form doesn't hit you. However, to improve your performances you can go spend 4 hours in the nets or something, or stop playing a shot that you're repeatedly getting out to or even make a technical adjustment. Which would increase your chances.

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Edwards and Taylor aren't really relevant to Bollinger's performances though.

Never said they were. They were integral to the West Indies beating England however.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

Never said they were. They were integral to the West Indies beating England however.

The comparison was Bollinger's performances against the West Indies V England's performances against the West Indies, so we're looking really at just the bowling.

The fact that England were away from home, for example, is a much better point in the context of the debate than the West Indies missing bowlers. As quite often recently you've jumped in with a chest-beating post at the first opportunity without stopping to consider how relevant to the actual topic it is. You're better than that.

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

The comparison was Bollinger's performances against the West Indies V England's performances against the West Indies, so we're looking really at just the bowling.

The fact that England were away from home, for example, is a much better point in the context of the debate than the West Indies missing bowlers. As quite often recently you've jumped in with a chest-beating post at the first opportunity without stopping to consider how relevant to the actual topic it is. You're better than that.

No, somebody wrote Bollinger's performances off against the West Indies (the WI batting is relevant here) and Burgey mentioned that they managed to beat us (where it was largely down to their bowlers).
If Burgey had said "Had a better average than English Bowler x" he'd have had a point, the fact is England could have won that series and had every bowler perform worse than Bollinger. The fact that Jerome Taylor turned us inside out in that series is hugely irrelevant to the fact that Bollinger took wickets against them.

[ImpatientLime]

Originally Posted by Faisal1985

Bring Smithe back for Xavier..a leggie would be a lot more threatening to England.

Um, did you see the way the English batsman treated Smith in the Australia 'A' - England game?

If Smith's gonna find a place in this eleven for the Ashes it sure as hell won't be for his bowling. They will flog him.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

No, somebody wrote Bollinger's performances off against the West Indies (the WI batting is relevant here) and Burgey mentioned that they managed to beat us (where it was largely down to their bowlers).
If Burgey had said "Had a better average than English Bowler x" he'd have had a point, the fact is England could have won that series and had every bowler perform worse than Bollinger. The fact that Jerome Taylor turned us inside out in that series is hugely irrelevant to the fact that Bollinger took wickets against them.

Yeah, Burgey's post itself wasn't entirely relevant as the quality of the batting lineup and the team's ability to win a series isn't the same thing, but instead of pointing that out, you decided to take the thread down a **** route and argue what was basically the irrelevant segment of his post.

In any rate, I'd strongly argue that if England had bowlers averaging 20 odd in that series, they'd not have lost..

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah, Burgey's post itself wasn't entirely relevant as the quality of the batting lineup and the team's ability to win series isn't the same thing, but instead of pointing that out, you decided to talk the thread down a **** route and argue what was basically the irrelevant segment of his post.

In any rate, I'd strongly argue that if England had bowlers averaging 20 odd in that series, they'd not have lost..

Meh, can't beat them, join them

Don't think Bollinger would've averaged 20 on those decks tbf.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by ImpatientLime

Um, did you see the way the English batsman treated Smith in the Australia 'A' - England game?

If Smith's gonna find a place in this eleven for the Ashes it sure as hell won't be for his bowling. They will flog him.

I wouldn't say Smith suffering during one spell against Ian Bell set and in the form of his life is as much of an issue as you've made out. But by and large I agree, Smith is too erratic a bowler to be a specialist spinner. He would have to bat in the top six for his selection to make sense, and since the selectors clearly don't rate him as a batsman, it's not going to happen.

[Jacknife]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

If you ask me, Australia are in a better position than England. The result of the match has at least identified Australia's weaknesses - the bowling and North and if anything those players are likely to be replaced.

As far as England is concerned, the result has masked the fact that they batted very poorly in the first innings and the fact that Finn shouldn't be playing. You can guarantee that England will be unchanged for the 2nd test even though 3/4 bowlers bowled poorly out there and we definitely didnt have our best 4 bowlers playing.

How has it masked anything, don't you think all the batsmen have left the GABBA knowing that can't happen again which Strauss said as much after the match. I just can't see that Flower,Strauss and the team have left the first Test under any false illusions, There were positives, but that's it, the next one's a new game and no more mistakes can be made. Why shouldn't they be unchanged, it's not as if after that one test the team is wrong. I would personally prefer Tremlett in the next, but I'd have had him in from the start, instead of Finn. But I don't agree with you, that Finn is not test ready,he's done all that could of been asked of him since coming into the side and to be honest, he would of been found out, even against the teams he's played already. The lad didn't do bad and had some good spells and did really well in that 9 over spell to wrap up the Oz first innings, especially considering, the pitch he was bowling on and that it was his first Ashes Test.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Jacknife

How has it masked anything, don't you think all the batsmen have left the GABBA knowing that can't happen again which Strauss said as much after the match. I just can't see that Flower,Strauss and the team have left the first Test under any false illusions, There were positives, but that's it, the next one's a new game and no more mistakes can be made. Why shouldn't they be unchanged, it's not as if after that one test the team is wrong. I would personally prefer Tremlett in the next, but I'd have had him in from the start, instead of Finn. But I don't agree with you, that Finn is not test ready,he's done all that could of been asked of him since coming into the side and to be honest, he would of been found out, even against the teams he's played already. The lad didn't do bad and had some good spells and did really well in that 9 over spell to wrap up the Oz first innings, especially considering, the pitch he was bowling on and that it was his first Ashes Test.

I prefer to rate bowlers on how they bowl, rather than the number of wickets they've taken. Sometimes, bowling figures aren't really representative of how well or poorly someone is bowling and James Anderson can perhaps speak to you about that.

As far as Finn is concerned, hes bowled nowhere near well enough to deserve the number of wickets or the average that he currently holds. As I've said before with Johnson, if you bowl poorly long enough eventually your luck will dry out and the numbers will catch up to you (Mitch now averages>30 in test cricket).

Why dont I rate Finn? Well, firstly because he does absolutely nothing with the ball. Secondly, because he continually bowls the wrong lengths and is frequently bowling too short to be a consistent force in international cricket. I can understand that he has some natural attributes that in addition to the guile he may develop over time may make him successful at the international level. But the fact of the matter is that Tremlett and Shahzad are at this very moment in time superior bowlers and in Tremlett's case far more experienced than Finn. The Ashes is the wrong place to be putting people who arent yet at the top of their game or are still developing as bowlers.

[four_or_six]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

I prefer to rate bowlers on how they bowl, rather than the number of wickets they've taken. Sometimes, bowling figures aren't really representative of how well or poorly someone is bowling and James Anderson can perhaps speak to you about that.

As far as Finn is concerned, hes bowled nowhere near well enough to deserve the number of wickets or the average that he currently holds. As I've said before with Johnson, if you bowl poorly long enough eventually your luck will dry out and the numbers will catch up to you (Mitch now averages>30 in test cricket).

Why dont I rate Finn? Well, firstly because he does absolutely nothing with the ball. Secondly, because he continually bowls the wrong lengths and is frequently bowling too short to be a consistent force in international cricket. I can understand that he has some natural attributes that in addition to the guile he may develop over time may make him successful at the international level. But the fact of the matter is that Tremlett and Shahzad are at this very moment in time superior bowlers and in Tremlett's case far more experienced than Finn. The Ashes is the wrong place to be putting people who arent yet at the top of their game or are still developing as bowlers.

Then no way would you go for Shazhad. And as for Tremlett, I think it's great to have him as back-up, but I don't think there's a compelling case to put him above Finn.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

Then no way would you go for Shazhad. And as for Tremlett, I think it's great to have him as back-up, but I don't think there's a compelling case to put him above Finn.

Out of curiosity, why do you rate Finn?

[Faisal1985]

Originally Posted by ImpatientLime

Um, did you see the way the English batsman treated Smith in the Australia 'A' - England game?

If Smith's gonna find a place in this eleven for the Ashes it sure as hell won't be for his bowling. They will flog him.

Ashes test is a different story all together. Batsmen are very cautious and that's what a leggie needs the batsmen to be cautious or over cautious for that matter to ring one right into the pads...

Still i was speaking comparatively...Xavier is also toothless.