Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 102
Like Tree28Likes

Thread: Player Ratings thread

  1. #31
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    46,986
    It was pretty obvious that the plan was to just sit on them and attack the others. When the pitch is this lifeless there isn't really much you can do when that happens. Pakistan did it to great effect against peak Johnson a few years back.
    OverratedSanity likes this.

  2. #32
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    It was pretty obvious that the plan was to just sit on them and attack the others. When the pitch is this lifeless there isn't really much you can do when that happens. Pakistan did it to great effect against peak Johnson a few years back.
    Agreed, Anderson and Broad didnt bowl well enough to force the issue. Might have been the best bowlers for england but it was not a good performance by any means.

  3. #33
    International Vice-Captain Starfighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Daydreaming
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    Agreed, Anderson and Broad didnt bowl well enough to force the issue. Might have been the best bowlers for england but it was not a good performance by any means.
    If you think they didn't bowl well enough then propose how they could have bowled better. We had to work very hard and resort to somewhat silly tactics at times and all our bowlers, if not necessarily bowling well, kept up the pressure, whereas Anderson and Broad did not have the pleasure of knowing that their work wasn't going to be wasted. On such a benign surface these things had to be worked on over multiple bowlers, and Woakes, Ball and Ali could not pull it off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    This is what happens when you only pay attention to scorecards.
    Exactly.

  4. #34
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    46,986
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    Agreed, Anderson and Broad didnt bowl well enough to force the issue. Might have been the best bowlers for england but it was not a good performance by any means.
    Did you even bother to read my post properly?
    do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
    who's going to make the violins?

    forever 63*


  5. #35
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Starfighter View Post
    If you think they didn't bowl well enough then propose how they could have bowled better. We had to work very hard and resort to somewhat silly tactics at times and all our bowlers, if not necessarily bowling well, kept up the pressure, whereas Anderson and Broad did not have the pleasure of knowing that their work wasn't going to be wasted. On such a benign surface these things had to be worked on over multiple bowlers, and Woakes, Ball and Ali could not pull it off.



    Exactly.
    Benign surface, how did Australia take 20 wickets then. Before you answer that remember that you rated Stonemen and Vince better than Warner and Bancroft in the batting.

  6. #36
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Did you even bother to read my post properly?
    Yeah.

  7. #37
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    46,986
    So the pitch was bowler friendly now, but presumably only when England were bowling.

  8. #38
    International Vice-Captain Starfighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Daydreaming
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    Benign surface, how did Australia take 20 wickets then. Before you answer that remember that you rated Stonemen and Vince better than Warner and Bancroft in the batting.
    You clearly did not read what I wrote, or at least have made your own twisted interpretation of it. We were able to take 20 wickets by being able to apply enough pressure despite Haze and Starc being quite rough around the edges. Cummins and Lyon were extremely good, and I would also add that the English were obviously mentally fragile to the short ball strategy and were not able to take singles when they would have been very useful (especially off Lyon). We were able to rotate the strike and only had to wait until one or both of Anderson and Broad were off to be able to get runs, so the pressure was not sustained. All Warner and Bancroft had to do was outlast the opening pair and they were golden. Our field settings were also tighter. Stoneman and Vince played significantly better first innings against more sustained pressure than Warner and Bancroft, who made their second innings runs against deflated team who could not sustain pressure without Anderson and Broad bowling.
    The pitch was not easy to score on during the first two innings but there was very little movement and the pace was unexceptional. It was a 400 first innings surface.

    I've made my ratings on actually watching most of the match's play and using my own judgement, however flawed it may be, whereas yours seem to be based off a superficial reading of the scorecard, which is why I'm unconvinced you actually watched a significant portion of the match.
    Last edited by Starfighter; 27-11-2017 at 02:44 AM.

  9. #39
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    So the pitch was bowler friendly now, but presumably only when England were bowling.
    No it was a pitch where if you bowled well you could get wickets, hence the relatively low scores for the Gabba.

  10. #40
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Starfighter View Post
    You clearly did not read what I wrote, or at least have made your own twisted interpretation of it. We were able to take 20 wickets by being able to apply enough pressure despite Haze and Starc being quite rough around the edges. Cummins and Lyon were extremely good, and I would also add that the English were obviously mentally fragile to the short ball strategy and were not able to take singles when they would have been very useful (especially off Lyon). We were able to rotate the strike and only had to wait until one or both of Anderson and Broad were off to be able to get runs, so the pressure was not sustained. All Warner and Bancroft had to do was outlast the opening pair and they were golden. Our field settings were also tighter. Stoneman and Vince played significantly better first innings against more sustained pressure than Warner and Bancroft, who made their second innings runs against deflated team who could not sustain pressure without Anderson and Broad bowling.
    The pitch was not easy to score on during the first two innings but there was very little movement and the pace was unexceptional. It was a 400 first innings surface.

    I've made my ratings on actually watching most of the match's play and using my own judgement, however flawed it may be, whereas yours seem to be based off a superficial reading of the scorecard, which is why I'm unconvinced you actually watched a significant portion of the match.
    You seem to be missing the point, Bancroft and Warner faced 21 overs from anderson and broad in the second innings and you think they bowled well, but you also think that it was easy for Warner and Bancroft to see them off.

    I can see that you make assumptions so I have to factor that in.
    Last edited by TNT; 27-11-2017 at 02:55 AM.

  11. #41
    International Vice-Captain Starfighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Daydreaming
    Posts
    4,868
    I see I'm not getting through.

  12. #42
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Starfighter View Post
    I see I'm not getting through.
    We all see things different, I thought that Anderson and Broad did not step up and lead the bowling and just let the batsmen dictate terms, you saw it differently.

  13. #43
    Cricket Web Staff Member Woodster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    6,202
    I take a fair bit of confidence from Anderson and Broad in this game, yes they didn't run through the Aussie line-up at all, but they were consistent and both looked in decent rhythmn, this is a long series and if they stick to their disciplines again when certain pitches are a little more responsive they will get their rewards and be able to attack more than they were able to at the Gabba.
    http://batallday.blogspot.com/ - Cricket blog dedicated to domestic cricket.

  14. #44
    International Captain TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    7,340
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You seem to be missing the point, Bancroft and Warner faced 21 overs from anderson and broad in the second innings and you think they bowled well, but you also think that it was easy for Warner and Bancroft to see them off.

    I can see that you make assumptions so I have to factor that in.
    He actually has a point here. Thinking they bowled really well, yet rating Vince and Stoneman ahead of Bancroft and Warner, doesn't really make sense.

  15. #45
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    46,986
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    He actually has a point here. Thinking they bowled really well, yet rating Vince and Stoneman ahead of Bancroft and Warner, doesn't really make sense.
    Australia definitely bowled better as a unit, but Anderson and Broad were excellent as individual bowlers. But on this pitch, because you can just sit on individual bowlers who you judge as threatening, it's the collective performance that matters more than individual ones.

    Mitch Starc's figures show why bowling figures =/= performance.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Player Ratings thread
    By Howe_zat in forum Ashes 2015
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 27-08-2015, 07:05 AM
  2. Player Ratings - As We Go By....
    By morgieb in forum Ashes 2013/2014
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: 07-01-2014, 04:11 AM
  3. Player Ratings - As We Go By...
    By benchmark00 in forum Ashes 2010-2011
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 05-01-2011, 02:48 AM
  4. CW Player Ratings
    By nick-o in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 03:03 PM
  5. Ind Vs Pak - The player ratings
    By deeps in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-04-2005, 08:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •