"The almighty Flintoff" and "the below test standard Lee"

[Richard]

After all, the whole of Australia (and Richard) wrote Steve Wayward-Harmison off after a single over in Australia last time

I've never, ever taken that over into anything with my rating of Harmison, as it was an utterly meaningless 12-a-side pipe-opener game.
So please, if you're going to tell of how I "wrote-off" someone (when all I have actually done is said Harmison is massively overrated and currently isn't Test-class) at least tell it correctly.

 

[Richard]

Yes indeed. He was way too indisciplined in that regard, and I'm surprised fewer England fans have brought it up, given the bashing Lee usually gets over it. Even when he wasn't bowling no balls, he was really pushing it a lot of the time. Given that his run up isn't as rapid as someone like Lee or Akthar, there's really no excuse for it, and one day he's going to take a vital wicket with one and get called.

Well he's already taken one with one that wasn't called, so yes.

 

[Richard]

Its laughable regarding the comments on Lee on the forum by so many people. Do not rule out a new justification for what they said, meant or did not say

What's far, far more laughable is that this single Test, on this malevolant pitch, proves us all wrong that Lee wasn't Test-class.
Wait until we get a better batting pitch, that's what I say - and it almost certainly will happen. Even this pitch was an accident.

 

[Richard]

TEC and others (including I) have maintained that in the past Lee has show outstanding form in ODIs only to fall flat in Tests when given the chance. So far, it looks like he's changed this trend and is actually bowling well in Tests as well.

It looks to me like he's had a single Test on a good bowling pitch.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Well I'll freely admit that Lee proved me wrong, I'm not ashamed to say.
Fred got a real grubber, and hopefully won't keep getting 'em in future. No shame in getting out to Warne either. He'll be back, will Sir Frederick of Flintoff.

 

[Richard]

He'll be back, certainly... but I still think he'll do well to average 25 this series, and play even 1 significant innings.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

He'll be back, certainly... but I still think he'll do well to average 25 this series, and play even 1 significant innings.

Possibly correct. I'd venture that that says more for the quality of the opposition, rather than his talent per se.

 

[Richard]

It says something about both, fairly obviously - he's talented enough to bash rubbish bowling like New Zealand and West Indies to devastating effect, but not talented enough to have more than 1 good Test against a no-more-than-reasonable South African attack (ironically his best game was against their best attack of the series) and probably none at all against a good Australian one.

 

[twctopcat]

He'll be back, certainly... but I still think he'll do well to average 25 this series, and play even 1 significant innings.

I'd hasten to agree unfortunately, Botham he will never be. A lot of the problems that i seem to see with the english batsmen is they are far too mechanical in their approach which plays right into the aussie bowlers hands. If they tried to play a bit more naturally like KP and hit the damn thing they wouldn't be so easy to get out.

 

[Richard]

Well, to an extent, yes.
I think the biggest reason Pietersen succeeded at Lord's where all others failed is that his technique - suspect in some respects - was actually as close to perfectly suited to that sort of malevolent pitch as it comes.
Get right across, stay in line and play the short stuff rather than trying to duck.
Above all - don't change your shot, something that got Jones and Strauss, among others, out.

 

[Richard]

I'd hasten to agree unfortunately, Botham he will never be.

Interesting thing, of course, is that in West Indies Botham had the precise same problem (though of course it may just have been to do with the captaincy rather than his substandardness).
Thing is, people seem to have forgotten that Flintoff was average at best last winter.

 

[Pratters]

What's far, far more laughable is that this single Test, on this malevolant pitch, proves us all wrong that Lee wasn't Test-class.
Wait until we get a better batting pitch, that's what I say - and it almost certainly will happen. Even this pitch was an accident.

Okay you stand by your stand on Lee. It was the pitch and not Lee who caused the wickets to tumble ofcourse!

A pitch is there but it is upto the players to perform let me inform you. And I never spoke about the wickets being the parameter of judging good bowling even though it some times is a good indicator.

Another thing you used 'almost certainly'. Either you say certainly or you dont express doubt by adding almost

 

[Swervy]

It looks to me like he's had a single Test on a good bowling pitch.

was it really that good a bowling pitch..even vaughan said 300 should have been par on that pitch, which means it offered something for everyone.Australia were done in the first innings by good bowling and poor batting, England were done by great bowling

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Well it wasn't a good batting wicket that's for sure, uneven bounce accounting for at least three wickets IIRC (Vaughan, Fred at crucial moments and Martyn), I didn't see every ball so there may have been more. Also it turned too much for my liking, but that's 'cause I'm English.

 

[Swervy]

Well it wasn't a good batting wicket that's for sure, uneven bounce accounting for at least three wickets IIRC (Vaughan, Fred at crucial moments and Martyn), I didn't see every ball so there may have been more. Also it turned too much for my liking, but that's 'cause I'm English.

the odd ball did keep low, but that shouldnt take away from the high standard of bowling that was on show. The australians did exploit what the pitch offered to perfection I thought.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

the odd ball did keep low, but that shouldnt take away from the high standard of bowling that was on show. The australians did exploit what the pitch offered to perfection I thought.

I couldn't disagree with you less. Marvellous stuff from the Aussies. Shame on the groundsman though, day one is no time for uneven bounce shenanigans IMO, day four or five perchance.

 

[Richard]

Okay you stand by your stand on Lee. It was the pitch and not Lee who caused the wickets to tumble ofcourse!

A pitch is there but it is upto the players to perform let me inform you. And I never spoke about the wickets being the parameter of judging good bowling even though it some times is a good indicator.

Another thing you used 'almost certainly'. Either you say certainly or you dont express doubt by adding almost

No certainty is absolute.
Lee performed well on that pitch - but performing well on that pitch is not something that is particularly difficult. If I was Geoff Boycott I'd probably say my Mum could have decent figures on that pitch. Certainly Jason Gillespie in any semblence of form could have. As it is I'd say any decent First-Class bowler in decent nick could have got them, especially with some of the second-innings strokes played by our batsmen.

 

[Richard]

was it really that good a bowling pitch..even vaughan said 300 should have been par on that pitch, which means it offered something for everyone.Australia were done in the first innings by good bowling and poor batting, England were done by great bowling

England were done by great usage of a malevolent pitch. Any wicket which produces, within 4 overs, the balls that did for Vaughan and Flintoff cannot be described as anything other than very difficult.
Vaughan might have said 300 was par - simply, he's wrong. With McGrath in a side, no-one was ever going to come close to that sort of total - even Australia themselves, if they'd faced their own attack.
Australia were done in their first-innings by poor batting, and little else (Ponting and Katich aside)

 

[Richard]

Well it wasn't a good batting wicket that's for sure, uneven bounce accounting for at least three wickets IIRC (Vaughan, Fred at crucial moments and Martyn), I didn't see every ball so there may have been more. Also it turned too much for my liking, but that's 'cause I'm English.

It only turned for Warne - didn't turn at all for Giles.
For a pitch to be a turner as far as I'm concerned it has to mean fingerspinners can turn it. That pitch was never a turner IMO.
It was very, very uneven and, with the slope and some seam-movement, can be called extremely seam-friendly.
And with McGrath in a side that sort of pitch will always see low totals.

 

[Richard]

I couldn't disagree with you less. Marvellous stuff from the Aussies. Shame on the groundsman though, day one is no time for uneven bounce shenanigans IMO, day four or five perchance.

It wasn't really Mick Hunt's fault, d'you think anyone would deliberately prepare a pitch like that?