Australians watching a different game

[cbuts]

well we seem to be discussing the smae things as last week, and the week before that and the week before that. i know aussies do need to be told things a number of times before their brain can take it in but..

 

[Richard]

Flintoff was clearly in excellent touch with the ball, and was bowling very well indeed. Harmison was in pretty decent form really, and had a fair amount of success, and certainly bowled much better than he did in South Africa. Jones might have been slightly out of touch, and Gough is clearly past his best. Giles seemed in pretty decent form the little that we saw of him. Not sure where the shocking form comes in - just because you bowl poorly in a spell or two doesn't mean you are "out of form"... it just means you didn't bowl very well. Lee bowled poor spells as well, but he's clearly in excellent touch.

Certainly so far in the Tests it beggars belief that the bowlers have been credited and the batsmen derided, when the fact is the bowlers have bowled extremely poorly bar the odd ball (Hoggard-Hayden - as predicted by yours-truly [amongst others, I add], Harmison-Ponting) and have been exposed by McGrath, who has given the batsmen NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER. How people have managed to criticise the batsmen is beyond me, as not until Giles' wicket can any of them be faulted for their dismissals.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Certainly so far in the Tests it beggars belief that the bowlers have been credited and the batsmen derided, when the fact is the bowlers have bowled extremely poorly bar the odd ball (Hoggard-Hayden - as predicted by yours-truly [amongst others, I add], Harmison-Ponting) and have been exposed by McGrath, who has given the batsmen NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER. How people have managed to criticise the batsmen is beyond me, as not until Giles' wicket can any of them be faulted for their dismissals.

Err, what? So, the bowlers bowled poorly, and only Giles is at fault for his wicket? How the hell did the rest of them get out then?

Anyway, I think McGrath has been simply superlative, Harmison and Lee (and Warne in the few overs he actually bowled) have been very good, Flintoff has been quite good, and Jones, Hoggard and Gillespie have been pretty average. Only Giles for mine has been particularly poor. Jones bowled lots of rubbish mixed in with some very good balls, and Hoggard and Gillespie bowled the odd good ball but were largely accurate yet unpenetrative.

Only Langer, Katich and Giles really got out to poor strokes on the first day among the batsmen.

 

[kendall]

I dont know how anyone could try and argue that the England bowlers didnt bowl very well on thursday even if they were eclpised by mcgrath the poorest bowler that day was Gillespie. Today Hoggard and Jones did not bowl very well but Flintoff and Harmisons last spells were excellent

 

[Richard]

Err, what? So, the bowlers bowled poorly, and only Giles is at fault for his wicket? How the hell did the rest of them get out then?

Believe it or not, batsmen can get out without being at fault, you know.
And McGrath (and in Jones' case Lee) bowled deliveries the batsmen had no realistic chance of playing, with the possible exception of Bell - only possible.

Anyway, I think McGrath has been simply superlative, Harmison and Lee (and Warne in the few overs he actually bowled) have been very good, Flintoff has been quite good, and Jones, Hoggard and Gillespie have been pretty average. Only Giles for mine has been particularly poor. Jones bowled lots of rubbish mixed in with some very good balls, and Hoggard and Gillespie bowled the odd good ball but were largely accurate yet unpenetrative.

Only Langer, Katich and Giles really got out to poor strokes on the first day among the batsmen.

McGrath (on the first day - much less on the second) was superlative, Harmison has largely been poor except the Ponting ball, and Lee has been OK without being particularly good.
Jones has been woeful - the odd decent ball mixed in with loads of rubbish (including the 2 that got gifted wickets).

 

[Richard]

I dont know how anyone could try and argue that the England bowlers didnt bowl very well on thursday

By the fact that they sprayed it and even on a very helpful pitch bowled hardly any wicket-taking deliveries.

 

[greg]

Trescothick (closing the face) and Vaughan (playing back to a good length ball) were both culpable. The pitch was obviously the main factor in Flintoff's wicket, but it still looked like a very lazy shot - not convinced he couldn't have at least given himself a small chance.

 

[kendall]

By the fact that they sprayed it and even on a very helpful pitch bowled hardly any wicket-taking deliveries.

Well they bowled enough obviously

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Believe it or not, batsmen can get out without being at fault, you know.
And McGrath (and in Jones' case Lee) bowled deliveries the batsmen had no realistic chance of playing, with the possible exception of Bell - only possible.

Yes I know that and agree, but you said the bowlers had bowled poorly. It seems odd to say all the bowlers bowled poorly, and yet the batsmen didn't do anything wrong when 27 wickets have fallen in two days! I could accept someone particularly critical such as yourself saying that Hoggard, Gillespie, Giles and Jones have bowled poorly, but not all of them.

McGrath (on the first day - much less on the second) was superlative, Harmison has largely been poor except the Ponting ball, and Lee has been OK without being particularly good.
Jones has been woeful - the odd decent ball mixed in with loads of rubbish (including the 2 that got gifted wickets).

Harmison has been clearly England's best bowler in both innings. He bowled exceedingly well today without much luck. Lee was excellent in both his spell after tea yesterday where he went for less than one an over, and his second spell where he got those two wickets with supurb aggressive bowling.

By the way, does this mean you think that Jones got a good ball, and therefore that Lee bowled a wicket taking delivery when he was not swinging it? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Richard]

Trescothick (closing the face) and Vaughan (playing back to a good length ball) were both culpable. The pitch was obviously the main factor in Flintoff's wicket, but it still looked like a very lazy shot - not convinced he couldn't have at least given himself a small chance.

Trescothick tried to turn a ball to leg that any batsmen, ever would and should try to turn to leg; Vaughan played back to a ball where the only possible recourse was to play back, and had it bounced properly there'd have been no problem whatsoever.
Flintoff's shot might've looked lazy, but any proper shot would have been beaten by that ball.

 

[Richard]

Well they bowled enough obviously

No, they didn't, they didn't need to, the Australians played enough poor strokes.

 

[greg]

Harmison has largely been poor

I wonder what he'll do when he bowls well...

 

[Richard]

Yes I know that and agree, but you said the bowlers had bowled poorly. It seems odd to say all the bowlers bowled poorly, and yet the batsmen didn't do anything wrong when 27 wickets have fallen in two days! I could accept someone particularly critical such as yourself saying that Hoggard, Gillespie, Giles and Jones have bowled poorly, but not all of them.

Not all of them - all of them bar McGrath (on the first day only).
I only said the England batsmen didn't do anything wrong - the Australian batsmen bar Ponting and Katich did loads wrong.

Harmison has been clearly England's best bowler in both innings. He bowled exceedingly well today without much luck. Lee was excellent in both his spell after tea yesterday where he went for less than one an over, and his second spell where he got those two wickets with supurb aggressive bowling.

He bowled better today than the first day, yes, but still far from well, and on the first day (bar the Ponting ball) he bowled exceedingly poorly.

By the way, does this mean you think that Jones got a good ball, and therefore that Lee bowled a wicket taking delivery when he was not swinging it? Just out of curiosity.

Where on Earth have I ever said that deliveries that bounce more or less than expected aren't wicket-taking deliveries?
I've said it time-and-again.

 

[Richard]

I wonder what he'll do when he bowls well...

If he ever does so, we'll see.
If he bowls like this and the Australians bat well, then we'll see the truth of the situation.

 

[greg]

Have a look at the Vaughan dismissal again - the ball hardly kept low at all. It was a good length ball that hit close to the top of the stumps.

Disagree about Trescothick - just because lots of batsmen would have tried to play that ball through midwicket doesn't mean it wasn't a bad shot, especially that early in the innings.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Where on Earth have I ever said that deliveries that bounce more or less than expected aren't wicket-taking deliveries?
I've said it time-and-again.

You said just a few days ago that Lee doesn't bowl wicket taking deliveries when he isn't swinging it. The ball he got Jones with was just a particularly quick and nasty bouncer combined with good field placings... Jones went to hook it and pulled out due to the fielder at deep square leg, and tried to get out of the way but the ball caught him and it looped up for an easy catch. The no-ball he got Giles with was similarly excellent, although obviously he overstepped so it wasn't out.

 

[Richard]

Have a look at the Vaughan dismissal again - the ball hardly kept low at all. It was a good length ball that hit close to the top of the stumps.

Disagree about Trescothick - just because lots of batsmen would have tried to play that ball through midwicket doesn't mean it wasn't a bad shot, especially that early in the innings.

It was the only shot any batsman would have played, you can't go doing anything other than trying to score off balls on that line. Even if he'd tried to play it though mid-on he'd still have edged it anyway.
Vaughan's ball kept very low, it just didn't keep as low as Flintoff's - and he couldn't possibly have kept it out, realistically.

 

[Richard]

You said just a few days ago that Lee doesn't bowl wicket taking deliveries when he isn't swinging it. The ball he got Jones with was just a particularly quick and nasty bouncer combined with good field placings... Jones went to hook it and pulled out due to the fielder at deep square leg, and tried to get out of the way but the ball caught him and it looped up for an easy catch. The no-ball he got Giles with was similarly excellent, although obviously he overstepped so it wasn't out.

It wasn't great, Giles just isn't that good a batsman.
The Jones ball bounced excessively - any bowler can bowl WTBs on an uneven pitch, and that one was one such.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It wasn't great, Giles just isn't that good a batsman.
The Jones ball bounced excessively - any bowler can bowl WTBs on an uneven pitch, and that one was one such.

It didn't bounce any more than would have been reasonably expected from a short ball bowled at 150kph on a wicket with decent bounce in it, it was just unplayable.

 

[kendall]

How many dissmissals or inings in your opinion are actualy valid you seem too discredit most of them?