The Ashes won't be close

[Gangster]

Wow. That is almost ironic.

How so?

 

[Gangster]

Care to say why? Don't like the colour? Scared of Lions? or just prejudiced?

Because they act like a bunch of entitled bitches. Look at your new poster boy, Kevin Pietersen. Despite not even being English, he's certainly internalized the English sporting spirit quite well. But I will give England credit, they do have one of the nicest cities in the world to live in - London. (If you have money, that is.)

 

[marc71178]

Can you really see that happening ?

I never said anything about that, was only pointing out that its not the case that Warne would have the chance.

That said, stranger things have happened (I mean NZ drew one of the series they just played against Aus )

 

[age_master]

nah i dont think that the ashes will be close either

 

[age_master]

Care to say why? Don't like the colour? Scared of Lions? or just prejudiced?

its got to be the colour

 

[Adamc]

there will be no bias here... I just don't like English sports teams.

 

[Richard]

Some players who have scored runs against them when they have been aggressive- Sehwag, Oram, Cairns, Vaughn (he may not have had a big strike rate but he was positive).

Even today, when Vincent and astle started attacking they didnt bowl as well.
Attacking doesnt mean swinging your bat at everything, its called being positive and playing more strokes.If you just keep blocking, chances are you will probably get out.
I think england can make the series a lot closer if their batsmen attack more.

And that's simply the way more batsmen than not play at the current time. Most batsmen around ATM tend to score at more than 50-per-100-balls.
And most of them have failed agains the Australian attack.
However, people like Astle and Vaughan have notably slowed down when facing McGrath, Gillespie and Warne.

I Don't want the england team to win but when im predicting im not being bias at all, I rate this English team as comfortably no 2 but still theres a huge gap between Aussie and them.

Yet you've admitted you don't like Engish teams.
Hence your "I'm not biased" comment was inaccurate.
Even if your bias doesn't affect your summary of the likely outcome of the series.

 

[Richard]

Butcher's ave. against Aus is inflated because of that one century in a dead-rubber game. I don't see him performing under pressure against the Aussies.

No, Butcher has played 3 series against Australia.
In 1 of them (the most recent) he was in abysmal touch throughout, and was made to look as though he'd batted far better than he did because he had about 4 let-offs in the book-ends of the series.
In 1 of them (1998\99) he played well in 1 Test and very poorly in the other 4.
In the other (2001) he played very well throughout; his best innings happened to come in a dead game, but nonetheless it saved a whitewash, which was almost as imperative as winning the series would have been.

 

[Richard]

Lara, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Vaughan, Oram, Laxman... hell, Jayasuria. Batsman who take the Australian bowlers on are generally more successful than those who try and defend them, because there's nobody to target if you see McGrath or Warne off... Gillespie and Kasprowicz are pretty fair bowlers as well you know.

There have been plenty of batsman who have tried to attack the Australians and failed, but there really haven't been any batsman who have succeeded by trying to block out McGrath and Warne and going after the others. Dravid, Chopra, and most of the New Zealand side have tried it just in the last few months and not done well at all. The batsman who have had success against Australia in that time have been Sehwag, Oram and Marshall.

And that's because there aren't many "defensive" players around ATM. Had there been more, more would have had success.
The best way to score runs against McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Kasprowicz is to make them get you out, rather than volunteer your wicket to them.

 

[Richard]

With the bat, England must attempt to storm Australia's fortress, with players like Vaughan, Flintoff and Pietersen.

I cannot possibly see Flintoff scoring runs against Australia, I don't like the idea of Pietersen making his Test-deubt against them, and I don't like the idea of Vaughan playing in the vein he's played since 2004 against them, either.

 

[Richard]

I also expect England to play far better than they did in SA.

The only players there's much likelihood of doing better are Vaughan and Butcher.
And it's highly likely that Simon Jones and Flintoff are going to do anything but worse.

 

[Richard]

What it will, in all likelihood, come down to will be whether Australia's bowling attack stays fit and firing throughout. Our bowling attack is definitely able to match the Aussie batsman should they be on their game

You seriously expect Harmison, Anderson, Giles (on a non-turner), Simon Jones and Flintoff to be able to keep Australia down?

 

[Richard]

Agreed Neil, playing your natural game is the best way to play.

Trouble is, then it comes down to which side has the best 'natural' team, and I would hazard a guess that that is Australia.

That being the case, the question becomes that if, by playing 'unnaturally', you can cause a greater disruption to the opposition that it causes to your own performance.

Again, I think that approach favors Australia, but it does create a biggest question mark over the result.

I suppose the tactics depend on how close England really think they are. The closer they are, the more likely the 'natural game' approach should be favored.

Try playing anything other than your natural game, you lower your chances to something close to zero.
Not that some England batsmen have much of a chance anyway.

 

[Richard]

Vaughans three hundreds in the last Ashes series were scored at 63 runs per 100 balls. Considering it was a losing cause, clearly the scoring rate was pretty good.

Which had a lot to do with the fact that rubbish like Lee, Bichel and MacGill were playing.
His strike-rates against Warne, McGrath and Gillespie are what needs to be looked at.

 

[Richard]

Problem with that theory is that any pitch that Giles gets turn on, Warne will turn it sideways

There's no problem at all with the theory.
We all know that Warne will cause problems. Thing is, he'll cause them whether Giles is turning it or not.
Anyway, whether Warne troubles us doesn't alter the chances of Giles troubling Australia.

 

[Richard]

Even more problematic is that on a pitch where Giles gets turn, Clarke and maybe Lehmann (if there) will be licking their lips to lower their averages. As if Clarke's average isn't absurd already...

Clarke won't cause any of our batsmen trouble - even Flintoff will easily smash him all over everywhere, on any normal pitch, however much it turns.
Lehmann, yes, but it doesn't look very likely he'll even make the squad... which helps our chances but doesn't do much for his career.

 

[Richard]

Giles wont trouble australia. If he does then Warne will destroy them.

Giles will trouble Australia if the pitch turns.
What Warne will do to us doesn't change that.

 

[Richard]

Yeah cuz it's not like India hasn't beaten them in the recent past or come close to it...

India couldn't even beat England in the ODIs last September, despite England having one of the worst teams in living memory.

 

[Richard]

Stick around here for a while and you'll realize it isnt so at all.

No indeed, the general dislike of Sporting England has very little to do with the fans.

 

[Swervy]

Which had a lot to do with the fact that rubbish like Lee, Bichel and MacGill were playing.
His strike-rates against Warne, McGrath and Gillespie are what needs to be looked at.

Vaughan 177 runs
vs McGrath 50 in 88 balls
vs Gillespie 33 in 65 balls
vs Warne 45 in 69 balls


Vaughan 145 runs
vs McGrath 15 in 19 balls
vs Gillespie 27 in 47 balls

Vaughan 183 runs
vs Gillespie 52 in 52 balls

So in those three innings he faced:
McGrath 65 runs in 107 balls (SR 60.7)
Gillespie 112 runs in 164 balls (SR 68.3)
Warne 45 in 69 balls (SR 65.2)

Total 222 runs in 340 balls at 65.3 runs per 100 balls or 3.91 rpo

Pretty fair going that