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

[Richard]

Originally Posted by twctopcat

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Swervy

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]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

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]

Originally Posted by Swervy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Pedro Delgado

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?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Swervy

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.

Do you honestly realise that you can have a bad batting pitch and good bowling (on McGrath's part, and Warne - not that the pitch really influenced him) simualtaneosly?
If not, I suggest you learn that fact.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

Do you honestly realise that you can have a bad batting pitch and good bowling (on McGrath's part, and Warne - not that the pitch really influenced him) simualtaneosly?
If not, I suggest you learn that fact.

I do know that you can have terrific bowling on a bad batting track...bad bowling will rarely be consistantly successful on a bad track. On a bad pitch you still have to put it in the right spot,something which mcGrath has been a master of for years.

But this pitch wasnt a shocker..the ball misbehaved a bit and early in the game, but I have seen much much worse at test level and seen teams score well

I dont really know what your point is to be honest..you are preaching to the converted on this one

[Pedro Delgado]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

Whose fault is it then? If not Mike Hunt?

[Pedro Delgado]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

I said it turned too much for my liking. We'll never know if it was a real turner, as Gilo didn't get a bowl on day four/five.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Pedro Delgado

Whose fault is it then? If not Mike Hunt?

The weather.
Something you can't punish.