Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 228

Thread: The ``ASHES`` and the Pietersen diillema

  1. #151
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00
    I think u guys r under estimating Hearth and Suraj (maybe not now butin a couple years). Also Chandana got a 10wh against Australia, how many spin bowlers have done that aganist Australia, in Australia. We will still be competitive without Murali, maybe not world beaters but. I do get what ur saying about keeping pressure on batsmen with bowling depth, but Sri Lanka do have bowling depth, it just that Tilleratne didn't know how to use it. Since Atapattu has taken over we have improved our abilty to keep pressure on the opp.
    ok....but there are a lot of if's and but's there....maybe I am under-estimating some of the SL 'other ' bowlers...when I have seen them they havent impressed me too much but obviously potential is there...but that doesnt mean that they are as good as a proven outfit like Englands attack....but they may well develop more into being that way..but no-one here can 100% guarantee that..but we KNOW England have done it and so probably can continue doing it
    rave down, hit the ground


    MSN: djjacksono@hotmail.com

  2. #152
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    We seem to be going around in circles dont we ?

    1. I think with Harmison(which means Harmison in full flow), England are the second best attack in the world

    2. Without Harmison, they are more or less at par with Pakistan - one can argue either way- and India on certain types of wickets.

    3. With Harmison, they may be able to surprise Australia, just may, along with their present batting side.

    4. Without Harmison, they would not be able to surprise Australia (within the realms of imagination...anything is possible of course). However, without Harmison, they may still be good enough for most other sides in the world.

    Note : without Harmison means Harmison in present miserable form.

    This is what I think.

    You are welcome to differ
    fair points....and as I say, obviously an in form harmison will increase Englands chances, but IMO Harmison isnt the be all and end all, they have wicket taking ability throughout the bowling attack.

    No harmison means less chance...but i would also say that about Flintoff or Hoggard

  3. #153
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy
    ok....but there are a lot of if's and but's there....maybe I am under-estimating some of the SL 'other ' bowlers...when I have seen them they havent impressed me too much but obviously potential is there...but that doesnt mean that they are as good as a proven outfit like Englands attack....but they may well develop more into being that way..but no-one here can 100% guarantee that..but we KNOW England have done it and so probably can continue doing it
    Well just give Sri Lanka 18 months under Atapattu, it amazing what a good captain can do to a team. Just look at England under Vaughan, compared to them under Hassain.
    The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)

    Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)

    RIP WCC and CW Cricket

    Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS

  4. #154
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00
    Well just give Sri Lanka 18 months under Atapattu, it amazing what a good captain can do to a team. Just look at England under Vaughan, compared to them under Hassain.
    England became a good team under Hussain dont forget...but yeah I see your point...but again thats all speculation and doesnt really count for much in this discussion


  5. #155
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy
    England became a good team under Hussain dont forget...but yeah I see your point...but again thats all speculation and doesnt really count for much in this discussion
    A good team but not the 2nd best bowling attack, as u seem to think they are.

  6. #156
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00
    A good team but not the 2nd best bowling attack, as u seem to think they are.

    hahahha..yeah but they are now in my opinion..and really all that matters is how they currently are doing (or in the last year anyway)...thats an indicator to what may happen in the near future.

  7. #157
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy
    fair points....and as I say, obviously an in form harmison will increase Englands chances, but IMO Harmison isnt the be all and end all, they have wicket taking ability throughout the bowling attack.

    No harmison means less chance...but i would also say that about Flintoff or Hoggard
    I agree Flintoff and Hoggard are important but against Australia in particular, the shock of an early break through as Shoaib managed a couple of times is vital. Then the Hoggards and Flintoffs can consoidate the gains. Without the quick initial break throughs the Aussie top order can run away with the match. The quick three - four wickets at the start is the mantra to defeating this Ausssie side. For this you need Shoaib/Harmison kind of bowlers.

    Against India for example, who do not rely so much on the top order running away with the match but are basically a solid middle order dominated side, Flintoff and Hoggard type of bowlers can do the job without the shock of the Express bowler. Thats why in Pakistan, India were more vulnerable to the medium pacers than to Shoaib.

    This is my feeling about how Aussies can be defeated.

  8. #158
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    I agree Flintoff and Hoggard are important but against Australia in particular, the shock of an early break through as Shoaib managed a couple of times is vital. Then the Hoggards and Flintoffs can consoidate the gains. Without the quick initial break throughs the Aussie top order can run away with the match. The quick three - four wickets at the start is the mantra to defeating this Ausssie side. For this you need Shoaib/Harmison kind of bowlers.

    Against India for example, who do not rely so much on the top order running away with the match but are basically a solid middle order dominated side, Flintoff and Hoggard type of bowlers can do the job without the shock of the Express bowler. Thats why in Pakistan, India were more vulnerable to the medium pacers than to Shoaib.

    This is my feeling about how Aussies can be defeated.
    fair enough...although you do appear to have changed tack slightly...an hour ago you were basically saying England were crap with the ball..now I dont think you are saying that..anyway..you are right, england do need the ability to get say 2 or three wickets before lunch to assert themselves..then the only prob is the middle order..hahahaha

    Although I think England should be more worried about the batting than the bowling. England can be prone to the collapse, and I would also be slightly concerned about the batting order. I think if Australia bowl as well as they can,England will struggle. The key batsmen for me are Trescothick and Flintoff. These two can quickly demoralise any team...if Tresco gets going, England could rack up 130 before lunch on the first day,and then who knows what could happen (that first day of a series is so important in my eyes)..and Flintoff could have the same effect that botham used to have on Australia after 1981...ie. oh ****, ...if he puts a couple of big scores under his belt.

    England cant afford the silly lapses of concentration (head in the air shots etc)..they have to play at the top of their game..I dont think they did that vs South Africa, if they had have done, I could have seen that series being a 4-0 win...but if England do play as well as they have done in the last year,and consistantly, I think this series could be a narrow win for Australia and maybe even a draw

  9. #159
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,598
    Would you have Geraint Jones 'keeping? His batting seems average, while there's a leak behind the stumps. With Chris Read, you will have some safety there, but he's been found wanting with the bat, though Giles hasn't.
    "Talent is nothing without opportunity"
    "You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it"

    Twenty20 used to be boring.

    Sponsored...by...nothing!!!

  10. #160
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy
    fair enough...although you do appear to have changed tack slightly...an hour ago you were basically saying England were crap with the ball..now I dont think you are saying that..anyway..you are right, england do need the ability to get say 2 or three wickets before lunch to assert themselves..then the only prob is the middle order..hahahaha

    Although I think England should be more worried about the batting than the bowling. England can be prone to the collapse, and I would also be slightly concerned about the batting order. I think if Australia bowl as well as they can,England will struggle. The key batsmen for me are Trescothick and Flintoff. These two can quickly demoralise any team...if Tresco gets going, England could rack up 130 before lunch on the first day,and then who knows what could happen (that first day of a series is so important in my eyes)..and Flintoff could have the same effect that botham used to have on Australia after 1981...ie. oh ****, ...if he puts a couple of big scores under his belt.

    England cant afford the silly lapses of concentration (head in the air shots etc)..they have to play at the top of their game..I dont think they did that vs South Africa, if they had have done, I could have seen that series being a 4-0 win...but if England do play as well as they have done in the last year,and consistantly, I think this series could be a narrow win for Australia and maybe even a draw
    I dont think I said England were crap. You can trace back from where it started. Yes I was very sarcastic with the reapeated remark "second best attack indeed" or something like that . That was just showing irritation at the confidence with which you made the first statement. I was over doing it maybe.

    No I dont think I have ever described Englands attack as crap. In fact, if you look at this very page of CC, you will find a thread on "how good are Flintoff and Harmison" where I have asked how far do we have to go to find a pair of bowlers , in an England attack as good as these two.

    Someone made a nine point argument on what England can do and I had answered that while I agree with everything, I am surprised that only three points relate to bowling whereas if England are to beat Australia, they have more bowling issues than batting. I agree a year back it was reverse. But now, with the coming in of Strauss and Pieterson AND the bad form of Harmison the things have changed. Thats all.

    Oh, I dont think Englands batting is as good as Australia's. This is not what I am saying. But it is beginning to look better. Vaughan is the one big worry in the batting and who goes in at number three ???

  11. #161
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    I dont think I said England were crap. You can trace back from where it started. Yes I was very sarcastic with the reapeated remark "second best attack indeed" or something like that . That was just showing irritation at the confidence with which you made the first statement. I was over doing it maybe.
    If I was confident about that...its becuase I am....and no-one yet has suggested anything on here to actually make me think I am wrong about that one....and I would be a happy man if someone could show how wrong i am on that point


    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    Someone made a nine point argument on what England can do and I had answered that while I agree with everything, I am surprised that only three points relate to bowling whereas if England are to beat Australia, they have more bowling issues than batting. I agree a year back it was reverse. But now, with the coming in of Strauss and Pieterson AND the bad form of Harmison the things have changed. Thats all.

    Oh, I dont think Englands batting is as good as Australia's. This is not what I am saying. But it is beginning to look better. Vaughan is the one big worry in the batting and who goes in at number three ???
    I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.In my mind, England have more question marks around the batting than the bowling. Of course that could go out the window if Harmison,Hoggard and Flintoff all got injured or something,because beyond the current test team, things are tough in the bowling dept for England (I would still say Anderson can still be in the running,and maybe one or two others).

    And maybe pietersen can come in and make an impact straight away (I think he has the talent and the fight to do that).

    So for me and England team of:
    1.Trescothick
    2.Strauss
    3.Vaughan
    4.Thorpe
    5.Pietersen
    6.Flintoff
    7.G jones
    8.Giles
    9.Hoggard
    10.Jones
    11.Harmison

    could give the australians are bit of a headache

  12. #162
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy
    If I was confident about that...its becuase I am....and no-one yet has suggested anything on here to actually make me think I am wrong about that one....and I would be a happy man if someone could show how wrong i am on that point




    I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.In my mind, England have more question marks around the batting than the bowling. Of course that could go out the window if Harmison,Hoggard and Flintoff all got injured or something,because beyond the current test team, things are tough in the bowling dept for England (I would still say Anderson can still be in the running,and maybe one or two others).

    And maybe pietersen can come in and make an impact straight away (I think he has the talent and the fight to do that).

    So for me and England team of:
    1.Trescothick
    2.Strauss
    3.Vaughan
    4.Thorpe
    5.Pietersen
    6.Flintoff
    7.G jones
    8.Giles
    9.Hoggard
    10.Jones
    11.Harmison

    could give the australians are bit of a headache
    Yes I think thats a goiod side. It has three issues.
    1. Trescothick - I am never too sure of this guy. I am not a great fan of his batting.
    2. Vaughan's poor form though I am glad you put him at number three.
    3. Harmisons poor form.

    Now this looks like two batting issues against one bowling issues doesnt it. Well, there are six batsmen plus Jones and I think the problem is there but the strength that Strauss, Pieterson, a resurgent Thorpe, a dshing Flintoff bring makes it less worrisome.

    Harmison I see as the spearhead. Flintoff is the number three bowler as on date. It is Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff. And Harmison is key for the shock value. You either need to be like McGrath and just keep bowling a miserly line moving a bit either way for centuries at end. If you cant do that, and few other than Pollock today in the world can, then you need the shock of the sudden unplayable delivery and it is here that Harmison has a major role. Thus a Harmison issue is a much bigger issue with four bowlers amongst whom he is the spearhead.

  13. #163
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    Yes I think thats a goiod side. It has three issues.
    1. Trescothick - I am never too sure of this guy. I am not a great fan of his batting.
    2. Vaughan's poor form though I am glad you put him at number three.
    3. Harmisons poor form.

    Now this looks like two batting issues against one bowling issues doesnt it. Well, there are six batsmen plus Jones and I think the problem is there but the strength that Strauss, Pieterson, a resurgent Thorpe, a dshing Flintoff bring makes it less worrisome.

    Harmison I see as the spearhead. Flintoff is the number three bowler as on date. It is Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff. And Harmison is key for the shock value. You either need to be like McGrath and just keep bowling a miserly line moving a bit either way for centuries at end. If you cant do that, and few other than Pollock today in the world can, then you need the shock of the sudden unplayable delivery and it is here that Harmison has a major role. Thus a Harmison issue is a much bigger issue with four bowlers amongst whom he is the spearhead.
    Thing about Trescothick is that when he gets in he can do severe damage (maybe that 'when' should be an 'if') and he can win games (which is what England have to do)...I dont think they have anyone else in the county game who can do that from the opening position. Some may say he can only perform at the Oval or whatever..I say who cares..if he can score a big fast hundred in the last game of the series, it might be enough to save the series.

    What England now have the ability to do that they didnt have (or only had fleetingly...Headingley 01 is an example) is to fight fire with fire. I always though that is what Hussain wanted to do vs Australia (ie be aggressive,score quickly, steal the initiative), but I didnt think they had the ability to do it (vaughan did it last series,his big big scores were all scored at a fast pace, but no Flintoff, Tresco out of touch etc) )...now though they have Tresco (who can do it),Vaughan (when in form), Pietersen, flintoff,and even Geraint jones(the type of player who could really get up McGrath and co noses).
    That is what is needed..India have done it in the past, but no-one else has, well not recently...England have that capability,and thats what i see as an England batting strength.

    the weakness though is totally summed up by http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...30DEC2004.html (the first innings)

    some of the shots were dire..England are screwed if they play like that (it wasnt even particularly great bowling by SA)

  14. #164
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy
    Thing about Trescothick is that when he gets in he can do severe damage (maybe that 'when' should be an 'if') and he can win games (which is what England have to do)...I dont think they have anyone else in the county game who can do that from the opening position. Some may say he can only perform at the Oval or whatever..I say who cares..if he can score a big fast hundred in the last game of the series, it might be enough to save the series.

    What England now have the ability to do that they didnt have (or only had fleetingly...Headingley 01 is an example) is to fight fire with fire. I always though that is what Hussain wanted to do vs Australia (ie be aggressive,score quickly, steal the initiative), but I didnt think they had the ability to do it (vaughan did it last series,his big big scores were all scored at a fast pace, but no Flintoff, Tresco out of touch etc) )...now though they have Tresco (who can do it),Vaughan (when in form), Pietersen, flintoff,and even Geraint jones(the type of player who could really get up McGrath and co noses).
    That is what is needed..India have done it in the past, but no-one else has, well not recently...England have that capability,and thats what i see as an England batting strength.

    the weakness though is totally summed up by http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...30DEC2004.html (the first innings)

    some of the shots were dire..England are screwed if they play like that (it wasnt even particularly great bowling by SA)
    Agreed

  15. #165
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    I would have been happier if someone else opened with Trescothick and Strauss came in at number three. Unfortunately thats not feasible.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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