The ``ASHES`` and the Pietersen diillema

[Swervy]

Well if we played 8 Test agansit the current Windies team then we would be a winning side as well.

well who knows...I would be interested to see if a Murali-less SL could beat WI to be honest, esp in the WI

 

[Swervy]

Anil Kumble?

yeah he is good as well

 

[Swervy]

So it appears that everyone seems to think England success is down to the batting!!!!!!

I am obviously in the minority.

For me, to win ,what is it, 13 of the last 15 tests, you have to have a bowling attack of a lot of substance.....maybe I am wrong

 

[garage flower]

Despite his startling omission of Jumbo, I'd go along with Swervy's view that England have the 2nd best test attack at the moment.

I think his major point is that England, like Australia (though not to the same degree), have enough bowling depth to keep the opposition under almost constant pressure, whereas every other nation currently seem to have at least one glaring weak link, who will generally undermine the efforts of his more accomplished chums.

It helps that England have 5 front-line bowlers and so can "hide" one of the bunch if they are having a bad day and coming in for punishment.

It should be noted that I still make Australia clear favourites - they're simply better in every department - but if Flintoff and Harmison can rough up the top order early in the series, things might get interesting (or alternatively Gilchrist might come in and smack a run-a-ball 150!).

 

[SJS]

Coming back to a comparison of India, whom you consider not worth comparing with England, and the English attack. Here is how they fare against the best in the world.

Since 1st jan. 2001. The following is the result of matches played by India and England against the undisputed world champs.

TEAM........PLAYED.......WON........LOST........DRAWN
India.................12..............4...............5..............3
England.............10.............2...............8..............NIL

While Indias win/loss ratio is 45/55, Englands is 20/80 !!! Number two side indeed !!

Does that say something about the Indian bowling. I guess not to someone who has made up his mind. India won due to their superior batting , is it ? Here are the bowling averages of the two teams against Aussies

TEAM........Bowling(Runs/wicket)
India.................39.1
England............47.8

Thus England concede 87 runs per 10 wickets more to the Aussies than India. When you add that to the batting averages, India 33.1 and England 27.8, you can see the problem. India has a net difference with Aussies of 6 runs per wicket and England have a whopping difference of 20 runs per wicket or 200 runs per ten wicket. Number two side indeed !!

Not only do the English bowlers conced more runs per wicket they are also hit harder and more often(surprising for a pace based attack) at 4.17 runs per over that Aussies score against the English attack as against 3.63 against India. Thus in a 100 overs, England would be hit for 54 more runs. Not a small difference , is it.

Come of it my friend. There is no way you are going to prove by stats or otherwise the superiority of this English side's bowling attack.

By the way, I have taken the stats for the last four years which includes the peaks of Harmison. Take his recent form and...Gawd help England

 

[garage flower]

well who knows...I would be interested to see if a Murali-less SL could beat WI to be honest, esp in the WI

Particularly when you consider that they were beaten - with Murali (Doosra and all) - on their last tour to the Caribbean.

 

[chaminda_00]

well who knows...I would be interested to see if a Murali-less SL could beat WI to be honest, esp in the WI

It would be interesting ti see if England still would of beat WI without Harmison. We probably still would still beat WI as be have back up spin bowlers, unlike England, who would test the Windies batsmen.

 

[Swervy]

Coming back to a comparison of India, whom you consider not worth comparing with England, and the English attack. Here is how they fare against the best in the world.

Since 1st jan. 2001. The following is the result of matches played by India and England against the undisputed world champs.

TEAM........PLAYED.......WON........LOST........DRAWN
India.................12..............4...............5..............3
England.............10.............2...............8..............NIL

While Indias win/loss ratio is 45/55, Englands is 20/80 !!! Number two side indeed !!

Does that say something about the Indian bowling. I guess not to someone who has made up his mind. India won due to their superior batting , is it ? Here are the bowling averages of the two teams against Aussies

TEAM........Bowling(Runs/wicket)
India.................39.1
England............47.8

Thus England concede 87 runs per 10 wickets more to the Aussies than India. When you add that to the batting averages, India 33.1 and England 27.8, you can see the problem. India has a net difference with Aussies of 6 runs per wicket and England have a whopping difference of 20 runs per wicket or 200 runs per ten wicket. Number two side indeed !!

Not only do the English bowlers conced more runs per wicket they are also hit harder and more often(surprising for a pace based attack) at 4.17 runs per over that Aussies score against the English attack as against 3.63 against India. Thus in a 100 overs, England would be hit for 54 more runs. Not a small difference , is it.

Come of it my friend. There is no way you are going to prove by stats or otherwise the superiority of this English side's bowling attack.

By the way, I have taken the stats for the last four years which includes the peaks of Harmison. Take his recent form and...Gawd help England

1. What relevence does 2001 have to a series to be played in 2005? Can you honestly say that the 2001 England team is anywhere near as good as the current one?

2. has it occurred to you that India have the type of bowling which Australia dont cope with too well..doesnt make India a great bowling team, it just means the bowling vs batting match ups work well in Indias(ie predominantly spin) favour compared Englands (predominantly pace).

3. You are right, stats wont prove it..I would pretty much instinctivly know that if I was going to bet on a team out of England or India to bowl a team out twice in a test on an English ground, I would choose England..why??? because I instinctivly know they are an all round better bowling team.

4. England have never played Australia with a peaking Harmison

 

[Swervy]

Despite his startling omission of Jumbo, I'd go along with Swervy's view that England have the 2nd best test attack at the moment.

I think his major point is that England, like Australia (though not to the same degree), have enough bowling depth to keep the opposition under almost constant pressure, whereas every other nation currently seem to have at least one glaring weak link, who will generally undermine the efforts of his more accomplished chums.

It helps that England have 5 front-line bowlers and so can "hide" one of the bunch if they are having a bad day and coming in for punishment.

It should be noted that I still make Australia clear favourites - they're simply better in every department - but if Flintoff and Harmison can rough up the top order early in the series, things might get interesting (or alternatively Gilchrist might come in and smack a run-a-ball 150!).

thats pretty much it really...

i dont think its a coincidence that the two top rated teams have solid bowling attacks where the spoils have been spread around more than teams like Pakistan , sri Lanka etc.

as the saying goes..you are only as strong as your weakest link

 

[garage flower]

It would be interesting ti see if England still would of beat WI without Harmison. We probably still would still beat WI as be have back up spin bowlers, unlike England, who would test the Windies batsmen.

Sri Lanka haven't been able to win anywhere except Sri Lanka with Murali (the Caribbean - just 2 short years ago - included) in the side. I don't see any evidence to suggest this would change, unless you're assuming a West Indies side without the C&W contracted players.

 

[Swervy]

It would be interesting ti see if England still would of beat WI without Harmison. We probably still would still beat WI as be have back up spin bowlers, unlike England, who would test the Windies batsmen.

hahahaha..so you question Englands ability to beat WI if harmison wasnt playing despite beating them 7 out of 8 times,and harmison not bowling to well in the summer series.

So you just forget that Flintoff , Jones and Giles all performed well vs WI as well as Harmison

 

[chaminda_00]

Sri Lanka haven't been able to win anywhere except Sri Lanka with Murali (the Caribbean - just 2 short years ago - included) in the side. I don't see any evidence to suggest this would change, unless you're assuming a West Indies side without the C&W contracted players.

No im just saying they improved as they had to learned how to bowl without Murali in the last 6 months or so. You add Murali back into the mix and they will be as good as any other team in the world apart from Australia. The West Indies side has also dropped in from since that time. Also that Test Series was under the leadership of the worst captain in Sri Lanka's short history, Hashan had no idea what he doing as a captian. If Atapattu was captain then the result probably would of been different.

 

[Swervy]

No im just saying they improved as they had to learned how to bowl without Murali in the last 6 months or so. You add Murali back into the mix and they will be as good as any other team in the world apart from Australia. The West Indies side has also dropped in from since that time. Also that Test Series was under the leadership of the worst captain in Sri Lanka's short history, Hashan had no idea what he doing as a captian. If Atapattu was captain then the result probably would of been different.

ok..barring that one test vs SA without Murali, what exactly have a Murali-less SL team bowling wise done (please dont talk about the test in Darwin..or was it Cairns..where SL got Australia out twice for 200 runs, when SL could barely make 250 with their 20 wickets)

 

[chaminda_00]

hahahaha..so you question Englands ability to beat WI if harmison wasnt playing despite beating them 7 out of 8 times,and harmison not bowling to well in the summer series.

So you just forget that Flintoff , Jones and Giles all performed well vs WI as well as Harmison

No im just saying if u take the top bowler out of any attack, their going to struggle, it just a mental thing. If u take Harmison out of the English attack then u have to put in Anderson or unproven bowlers like Lewis, Mahmood or Ali. This would put England back to the pack and the Windies would of found it easier to beat England.

 

[SJS]

1. What relevence does 2001 have to a series to be played in 2005? Can you honestly say that the 2001 England team is anywhere near as good as the current one?

2. has it occurred to you that India have the type of bowling which Australia dont cope with too well..doesnt make India a great bowling team, it just means the bowling vs batting match ups work well in Indias(ie predominantly spin) favour compared Englands (predominantly pace).

3. You are right, stats wont prove it..I would pretty much instinctivly know that if I was going to bet on a team out of England or India to bowl a team out twice in a test on an English ground, I would choose England..why??? because I instinctly know they are an all round better bowling team.

4. England have never played Australia with a peaking Harmison

1. No it doesnt. But tell me which period you want me to take which makes it more relevant. The Indian attack at least has been the same through this period and Aussies ahve dominated throughout. But if you prefer another period, say so and I will give the stats.

2. Thats very intersting. So, its not as if English bowling is not up to the mark, its just that the Aussies play them better. Do you realise how that sounds ? I have nothing to say to that. You need to have an attack to defeat the opponents, if they play your attack well its the same thing as saying, your attack is not good enough to get them, right ???

3. Okay so you instinctly think they are better. fair enough. I have no problems with that.

4. England have never played Australia with a peaking Harmison. I see. What to do with that?.

Surely every bowler doesnt peak at the same time. You have five bowlers. This is how long they have been playing.
Harmison : 3 years
Hoggard : 5 years
Flintoff : 7 years
Giles : 7 years
Gough : 11 years

And you just finished (I think) with Caddick who has been playing test cricket since 1993 !!

Come on, this must be one of the most experienced bowling attacks around the world !! How long does a fast bowler last anyway. My dear, your problem is not that Harmison is still to peak, your problem is that others, Hoggard, Gough and the lamented Caddick are past their peak. THAT is your problem. Today Harmison should be at hius peak but unfortunately he is in a form slump. I have no doubt that if he was in form, he would have been a potent weapon and I hope he does come back to form but you really need to find more bowlers and if England think they have enough bowlers with bowlers in the later part of their careers (bowlers careers) then the problem is not going to get resolved.

The fact that Gough has to be persisted with well beyond his use by date AND proves to be better than the next best just shows how empty the cuboard is.

India never had a great bowling attack, particularly with the new ball, thats why we are so happy even with the medium pacers we find. But for England, thats the ONLY weapon. The sooner thats realised, the better.

Just offering rhetoric in a wave of nationalistic fervour is fine for fan-hysteria but doesnt go far in solving the real problems faced by a side with delusions of grandeur.

 

[Swervy]

No im just saying if u take the top bowler out of any attack, their going to struggle, it just a mental thing. If u take Harmison out of the English attack then u have to put in Anderson or unproven bowlers like Lewis, Mahmood or Ali. This would put England back to the pack and the Windies would of found it easier to beat England.

but England HAVE performed well with the ball without either a fully fit harmison or an in form harmison..thats my point...if Harmison doesnt perform, then there is a damned good chance that one or two of the other bowlers will perform well to take over the slack...all 5 of Harmo, Flintoff, Hoggard, Giles and Jones have put in the performances during the last year, each one has produced match winning performances

 

[chaminda_00]

ok..barring that one test vs SA without Murali, what exactly have a Murali-less SL team bowling wise done (please dont talk about the test in Darwin..or was it Cairns..where SL got Australia out twice for 200 runs, when SL could barely make 250 with their 20 wickets)

They haven't done anything of any note but they improved overall. That all im saying, i know they struggle without Murali but so would most sides without their top bowler.

 

[chaminda_00]

but England HAVE performed well with the ball without either a fully fit harmison or an in form harmison..thats my point...if Harmison doesnt perform, then there is a damned good chance that one or two of the other bowlers will perform well to take over the slack...all 5 of Harmo, Flintoff, Hoggard, Giles and Jones have put in the performances during the last year, each one has produced match winning performances

Would u rather a unfit harmison or anderson, Lewis, Mahmood, Ali or whoever. A bowling attack without Harmison, even out of form, leaves England with two quality bowlers (Hoggard and Flintoff) and a decent spin bowler (giles) and two average bowlers (jones and whoever). Not a great bowling attack.

Reminds me of the Kiwi bowling attack without Bond

 

[Swervy]

1. No it doesnt. But tell me which period you want me to take which makes it more relevant. The Indian attack at least has been the same through this period and Aussies ahve dominated throughout. But if you prefer another period, say so and I will give the stats.

2. Thats very intersting. So, its not as if English bowling is not up to the mark, its just that the Aussies play them better. Do you realise how that sounds ? I have nothing to say to that. You need to have an attack to defeat the opponents, if they play your attack well its the same thing as saying, your attack is not good enough to get them, right ???

3. Okay so you instinctly think they are better. fair enough. I have no problems with that.

4. England have never played Australia with a peaking Harmison. I see. What to do with that?.

Surely every bowler doesnt peak at the same time. You have five bowlers. This is how long they have been playing.
Harmison : 3 years
Hoggard : 5 years
Flintoff : 7 years
Giles : 7 years
Gough : 11 years

And you just finished (I think) with Caddick who has been playing test cricket since 1993 !!

Come on, this must be one of the most experienced bowling attacks around the world !! How long does a fast bowler last anyway. My dear, your problem is not that Harmison is still to peak, your problem is that others, Hoggard, Gough and the lamented Caddick are past their peak. THAT is your problem. Today Harmison should be at hius peak but unfortunately he is in a form slump. I have no doubt that if he was in form, he would have been a potent weapon and I hope he does come back to form but you really need to find more bowlers and if England think they have enough bowlers with bowlers in the later part of their careers (bowlers careers) then the problem is not going to get resolved.

The fact that Gough has to be persisted with well beyond his use by date AND proves to be better than the next best just shows how empty the cuboard is.

India never had a great bowling attack, particularly with the new ball, thats why we are so happy even with the medium pacers we find. But for England, thats the ONLY weapon. The sooner thats realised, the better.

Just offering rhetoric in a wave of nationalistic fervour is fine for fan-hysteria but doesnt go far in solving the real problems faced by a side with delusions of grandeur.

and once again I will state that I DONT SUPPORT ENGLAND, I am Australian, and have always supported Australia.....so that last sentence doesnt really hold too much water as far as I am concerned.

As an Aussie i would be a darn sight more worried about facing the current English attack in English conditions than i would be of facing the Indian attack in English conditions (England being where the up coming ashes series is being held)

Gough is only being used in ODI's, he doesnt play tests anymore...so how does that mean England in tests are playing him well past his sell by date..the fact is they arent. They have effectively brought in another bowler in his place (Jones) and he is performing.

oh and Hoggard isnt over the hill as far as I am concerned.

Going back to point 2.....I think its perfectly reasonable to suggest that Australia dont play the Indian type of bowlers as well as they do the English type of bowlers...Australia have traditionally been considered relatively weak vs spin (Indias strength), and have traditionally be considered good players of pace (Englands strength)....that doesnt mean Indias bowlers are better than Englands (and who for one moment would actually ever consider Indias pace attack to be on a level with englands is beyond me)..it means Indias bowling strengths match up well vs Australias weaknesses.....simple as

 

[garage flower]

They haven't done anything of any note but they improved overall. That all im saying, i know they struggle without Murali but so would most sides without their top bowler.

You seem to be changing your "point" as you go along. Initially, the main thrust of your argument was that Sri Lanka would cope better without Murali than England would without Harmison. England's series win in South Africa, achieved with no great contribution from Harmison, seems to disprove that theory. The massive proportion of Sri Lankan wickets taken by Murali provides further evidence.

If your "point" now is that teams struggle without their best bowler, that's not really news to anyone.