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

[marc71178]

Exactly, and I have learned from laying into Harmison and Flintoff that they haven't changed. I am still right to have done so as far as I'm concerned.

Do you watch the same cricket that everybody else watches?

 

[aussie]

A lack of form for 3 years?
Sorry, but I think not.

ahh i dont know its seems a fair assesment...

 

[marc71178]

But when does it become form though Aussie?

30 games out of a career of 36 or 37 games seems a bit far fetched to be "form"

 

[Pratters]

But when does it become form though Aussie?

30 games out of a career of 36 or 37 games seems a bit far fetched to be "form"

Which is why Roebuck laid down some other factors and not just lack of form.

 

[marc71178]

I was asking Aussie how he reckons a 30 game chunk out of a 37 game career is able to be written off as form.

 

[tooextracool]

You forget the larger picture of the team builidng the selectors have done post 1985. Do not forget Langer, Hayden's come backs - credit to the selectors for bringing them back - a potent reason for the success Australia has achieved has been the opening partnership. Bringing in Clarke in India when not many were wanting him to play (and how Clarke performed in India!) are just things I can think off my head.

and lets not forget the pure genius of the decision to drop katich after singlehandedly saving them at sydney, bringing in hauritz into the side ahead of macgill, dropping michael bevan based on 2 poor series, picking bracken, williams etc ahead of kasparowicz, the inclusion of shane watson as a 'bowling all rounder' etc etc etc. the potent and almost only reason why australia have had success over the last few years is because they've had shane warne and glenn mcgrath in the test side, because if they didnt, they'd be struggling to be anywhere near the best test side in the world.

 

[Pratters]

the potent and almost only reason why australia have had success over the last few years is because they've had shane warne and glenn mcgrath in the test side, because if they didnt, they'd be struggling to be anywhere near the best test side in the world.

That is a very shallow way of looking at it considering Australia showed poor backup bowlers in the series versus India and would struggle if their top 2 bowlers were removed. But wouldnt almost every side which had their two best bowlers removed perform way below, barring maybe the West Indies of the 70s who had good reserves but still would perform at least below how they did with the quartet.

Selection has been a stregth of Australia over the past 20 years despite talent being there. There is no denying it.

 

[tooextracool]

That is a very shallow way of looking at it considering Australia showed poor backup bowlers in the series versus India and would struggle if their top 2 bowlers were removed. But wouldnt almost every side which had their two best bowlers removed perform way below, barring maybe the West Indies of the 70s who had good reserves but still would perform at least below how they did with the quartet.

Selection has been a stregth of Australia over the past 20 years despite talent being there. There is no denying it.

no as far as im concerned, it doesnt really matter how many poor selections the australian selectors make, because the results never change, and thats because mcgrath and warne are always around to ensure that.

 

[Pratters]

no as far as im concerned, it doesnt really matter how many poor selections the australian selectors make, because the results never change, and thats because mcgrath and warne are always around to ensure that.

Warne has not been playing in the one dayers since 2003. So how would you explain the one day success in 2003 world cup and post 2003

 

[aussie]

I was asking Aussie how he reckons a 30 game chunk out of a 37 game career is able to be written off as form.

its an interesting comment by roebuk marc, i would like to ask him how he established that....

 

[Richard]

And yes the Australians have been ruthless in dropping players like they did with Healy when he wanted another test, Steve Waugh would very likely have been dropped if he didnt retire after India's tour of Australia, and it is disputable whether the dropping of the likes of Bevan, Lehmann, Mark Waugh were spot on or poor decisions.

The team certainly continues to perform well which can certainly not be discounted to just talent and no selection acumen.

You forget the larger picture of the team builidng the selectors have done post 1985. Do not forget Langer, Hayden's come backs - credit to the selectors for bringing them back - a potent reason for the success Australia has achieved has been the opening partnership. Bringing in Clarke in India when not many were wanting him to play (and how Clarke performed in India!) are just things I can think off my head.

Bringing Clarke in in India, too, was a poor decision, when there were several more deserving candidates. It is a very fine summary of a poor decision which, due to luck on the selectors' part, was made to look like a good one.
Almost every recent Australian batsman, Mark Waugh and Gilchrist aside, have had early spells and later comebacks - Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Stephen Waugh, Lehmann, Katich... see? That wasn't particularly good selection, it was fairly obvious in almost all cases that each player deserved another go.
As for dropping Bevan and Mark Waugh... how can dropping the best ODI player ever and another who comes not too far behind him when both had done not a tremendous amount wrong be construed as anything other than totally stupid?

 

[Richard]

No the fact that you will always try to come up with a reason if Lee performs. Its either the batsmen who are poor or Lee was lucky or it was the pitch or some thing else.

Or sometimes a concoction of the factors.
Amazingly enough the reason I come-up with these reasons is because they are the case.
The reason Lee did well at Lord's was because the wicket was better for bowling on than just about any he's ever bowled on in his Test-career.
And many others besides.
However, there are occasions (Symonds in ODIs, Flintoff to name 2) where players who I've said are rubbish have changed, and I've changed my ideas of them as a result.

 

[Richard]

So the SA series didn't happen then.

It happened, as did summer 2004, and the figures were flattering in all cases.

 

[Richard]

He has actually said injuries, setbacks and lacks of form and an essentially relaxed brain and not just a lack of form.

As I said, Lee was poor but Roebuck provides a different view than the simplistic rubbish point you brought in for the reason behind it.

Lee was rubbish.
There may have been umpteen reasons for this fact, I'm not denying any of them for a second, but I still maintain, and will do until proven wrong, that Lee simply doesn't have the talent required.

 

[Richard]

Do you watch the same cricket that everybody else watches?

Yes.
And still, Harmison and Flintoff cannot do what I've always said they can't - bowl wicket-taking deliveries.
I've never once said they can't be successful Test-match bowlers - anyone who gets the amount of poor strokes those two do can be - but what I've said they can't do they have yet to do.

 

[sledger]

so what would you define as a wicket taking delivery, how many of mcgrath or warnes wickets have been poor strokes ? a great deal.

 

[Richard]

Warne has not been playing in the one dayers since 2003. So how would you explain the one day success in 2003 world cup and post 2003

The presence of McGrath, Gillespie, Gilchrist, Ponting, Martyn and the like, all of whom have been undroppable to even the most stupid of selectors, might just have helped.

 

[Richard]

so what would you define as a wicket taking delivery, how many of mcgrath or warnes wickets have been poor strokes ? a great deal.

How many times has Warne bowled a spell where he's taken 4 or 5 wickets without bowling a single wicket-taking delivery? Not many.
How many times have Harmison and Flintoff done so? Countless times. How many times has McGrath done so? Lots between 2001 and 2004 (though possibly not that many before and after)

 

[sledger]

How many times has Warne bowled a spell where he's taken 4 or 5 wickets without bowling a single wicket-taking delivery? Not many.
How many times have Harmison and Flintoff done so? Countless times. How many times has McGrath done so? Lots between 2001 and 2004 (though possibly not that many before and after)

well essentially it depends how you define a wicket taking delivery.

 

[Pratters]

However, there are occasions (Symonds in ODIs, Flintoff to name 2) where players who I've said are rubbish have changed, and I've changed my ideas of them as a result.

if a player starts performing better, it is due to change and your perceptions thus are never wrong really in a specific time then according to you. Really you would never lose.

Lee was rubbish.
but I still maintain, and will do until proven wrong, that Lee simply doesn't have the talent required.

But if Lee does not have the requisite talent, if we are to for a second believe that, he cant perform better as you need the talent to perform. So if Lee performs decently, you would in fact lose on the Lee perception you had.

Regarding the pitch being the ONLY reason for Lee's decent showing in a test(agreed it was just one test but it is better than being written off), that, my friend is as rubbish a logic as they come.