• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

"You can quote me on this........"

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
As you have mentioned yourself earlier in this thread, accuracy does not always translate to improved ERs. Australia are an aggressive team and as such on flatter tracks it is not improbable to suggest that they would be scoring at those rates. Whilst Harmison did bowl a tad too short on many occasions in that series, on the whol his performance outside of Lords was accurate but unthreatening.
There may have been 1 or 2 occasions he did bowl reasonably accurately, but much of the time he barely bowled at all. Why? Because the rest of the attack was keeping the Australian batsmen under the pump far more than he was, and not just because they were getting more movement, because they were generally putting it in better areas.
The reason behind said argument was to counter the argument made that Gayle was actually out of sorts. 2.5 years down the road, Gayle is still as rubbish as he has always been against quality swing or seam and his inability to tackle Harmison could best be defined as unsurprising. I would venture to suggest that even today if we were to put Harmison in those conditions that were on offer 4 years ago, Harmison would still come out trumps against Gayle whilst also bowling well enough to get another 7/12.
And I still don't think Gayle's poor scores that series had much to do with seam-movement. Was there seam-movement? Yes, plenty. But most of Gayle's dismissals were due to poor strokes - to average balls, not seaming ones. And given that he does at least normally have little trouble with unthreatening bowling, I do think his form that series was less good than it has been at other times.
You dont need to bowl countless wicket taking deliveries to bowl well. There were deliveries such as the one that got Jacobs in the first test that would get most batsmen out.
To my mind, if someone gets 7 wickets of which just 1 was a genuine wicket-taking delivery (not saying it neccessarily was - I don't recall all 7 of those wickets exactly any more) they haven't bowled terribly well. As I said - there's not a lot about that series I remember too well now, but only 1 Harmison delivery comes back to me terribly clearly, that being the inswinger he removed Gayle with in the second-innings at Kensington Oval. I might re-watch some of the stuff sometime actually, to re-acquaint myself.
I dont see the logic behind someone not scoring runs =them batting poorly. He got some good deliveries during that series, as well as the series in England and as such he struggled for the majority of both series.
Lara looked, to me, completely out of form in the Sabina Park and Queen's Park Oval Tests. It wasn't (at least, it wasn't only) that he wasn't scoring runs - he simply was not getting the middle of the bat to the ball very often, looked like he often does when out of nick, in that the usual jump looked awkward and sometimes went too far accross, and often looked rattled by average deliveries. In the Kensington Oval Test, he looked far, far better, and I remember clearly everyone commenting on it. But he got a good ball from Flintoff in the first-innings then got left with the tail in the second. Then at St.John's, everything fell perfectly into place.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think its safe to say with hindsight, foresight or any sort of sight whatsoever that Graeme Smith has had his weakness against the swinging ball exposed on numerous occasions over the last few years. Hes yet to score runs against a quality pace attack in his career, and in the series against Australia in question he was out lbw 4 times out of 6. Failures against Pakistan (with Asif), against Australia again and even in bowler friendly conditions in NZ have only made me statement concrete over the last few years.
I've had words with a few people about this - not really. Smith's problems in recent years, against good bowling and poor, has been the fact that he simply does not leave like he used to. It used to be almost impossible to get him caught at slip, even at the time people did have a ghost of a chance with the inswinger. Recently he's hardly been out to inswingers at all, much of it has been (not dissimilarly to Strauss) hitting the ball in the air on the off too much, instead of waiting for the bowlers to bowl to his strengths.

Smith is indeed yet to score runs against quality seam attacks - but of late he's also failed to score that many even against mediocre ones.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Matt Hayden is a considerably greater batsman than Smith has ever been and i have little doubt at this point that Matt Hayden is the best batsman in Australia at the present moment.
Yes even I'd admit as much at the current time.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
I've never once suggested (now or back in 2005) that Adams was a superman, or even Test-class, bowler, nor that he was ever likely to be. But he has produced a handful of performances of note, which is more than the likes of Nathan Hauritz has ever done or will ever be able to do.
I do not doubt that Adams is a better bowler than Hauritz. Heck i do not doubt that any spinner in the 16 years that i have watched cricket was a better bowler than Hauritz. But i think comparing Adams to Hauritz is a bit like dividing 10 by 0 and 1 by 0. Whatever you do, the answer still comes up to 0 for neither had any hope of suceeding in test match cricket.

It's not like South Africa circa 2003-2005 weren't capable of producing the performances. If a few stars had aligned differently they'd have beaten England and drawn with Pakistan rather than drawing and losing respectibly. It's not like the results were inequivocal.
Its hard to see how they were when they won only one test against a half decent test side in the 3 year period in question(and that was against England at home in 2004/05). And if a few stars had aligned differently they could have lost 3-1 to England both home and away.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
But the opposite one to that which everyone was expecting. :p And only by 1 wicket, in the end. But I'll try to avoid getting into that again...

Anyway, I don't think it was unreasonable to expect, for whatever reasons, Warne's performances of The Ashes 2005 to come down a bit in his next series bar 1.
I think Kallis has shown a more delicate side to his batting against spin in recent times, hes shown more application against spin than Ponting(despite what many would like to believe) has ever shown against spin and has started to play with softer hands. The only reason Ponting has ever managed to score any runs against spin is because of his nimble footwork, for he still possesses the same traits that he had right at the start of his career and i have no doubt that putting more fielders close up to him while he is batting causes him problems when he comes in to bat against spin.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
I've had words with a few people about this - not really. Smith's problems in recent years, against good bowling and poor, has been the fact that he simply does not leave like he used to. It used to be almost impossible to get him caught at slip, even at the time people did have a ghost of a chance with the inswinger. Recently he's hardly been out to inswingers at all, much of it has been (not dissimilarly to Strauss) hitting the ball in the air on the off too much, instead of waiting for the bowlers to bowl to his strengths.

Smith is indeed yet to score runs against quality seam attacks - but of late he's also failed to score that many even against mediocre ones.
I think we've been through this one before, Smith doesnt need to be out lbw to actually prove that he has a weakness against it. As such, if you honestly dont think Brett Lee and Australia had him tied up in knots during the series (both test and ODIs) down under, so much so in fact that Smith's technique was in pieces at the end of the ODI series in Australia. It was painstakingly obvious to everyone that his technique at the end of the series was completely different from what it was at the start of the summer, and as such he was struggling to adapt to his new technique.
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not just 3 Tests, though, is it? It's 6.
IF Gillespie returns they might. If he doesn't (and, sadly, that looks a possibility), obviously Australia's attack is no stronger than it was this summer. I'd say it's probably realistic to suggest that Warne can't possibly have such a good series again for a little while, and while McGrath is likely to be injured less, if Lee and Tait play (which ATM looks pretty on-the-cards) Australia will have to perform miracles to win even the home series, never mind the away one, 3-0.
Australia are not light-years ahead of SA because they've regressed seriously last summer.
Heh.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
There may have been 1 or 2 occasions he did bowl reasonably accurately, but much of the time he barely bowled at all. Why? Because the rest of the attack was keeping the Australian batsmen under the pump far more than he was, and not just because they were getting more movement, because they were generally putting it in better areas.
Or could it be that the conditions were not conducive to his type of bowling? Does it not surprise you that he bowled considerably less at Old Trafford when the ball was reverse swinging as early as 15 overs into the new ball? Or in the first innings at TB when Hoggard was swinging it both ways? Fact is that Harmison has never been particularly adept at swinging the ball in any manner, and with Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones (the latter two of which were so dangerous because they were threatening in ALL conditions) being more capable in certain conditions there was no need for him to be given a bowl. Such is the benefit of a 5 man attack. Similarly, Hoggard bowled near to nothing at Edgbaston and OT, not because he bowled the wrong lines and lengths, but simply because he lacked penetration in the conditions.


And I still don't think Gayle's poor scores that series had much to do with seam-movement. Was there seam-movement? Yes, plenty. But most of Gayle's dismissals were due to poor strokes - to average balls, not seaming ones. And given that he does at least normally have little trouble with unthreatening bowling, I do think his form that series was less good than it has been at other times.
I find it hard to conceive how anyone who has watched Gayle bat can suggest that Gayle plays any innings without poor strokes. No the problem is that on flat tracks his poor strokes are made to look like good ones. As i have said before, slogs are celebrated when they go over the rope, but when they knock your middle peg back they make you look like a clown.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Whilst i dont think Australia need to perform miracles to win the home test series, i do agree with Richard on his statement that that the gap between the 2 sides is nowhere near as far as it was the last time around. There is no doubt in my mind for example that SA's pace bowling attack is superior to Australias, and there is also no doubt in my mind that as long as Macgill doesnt play, in Harris, SA have a considerably better spin option. If SA had one more star batsman in their side, the gulf between the 2 batting sides might have been a whole lot smaller.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Whilst I have never been a big fan of Hayden, i think it is fairly clear that ATM he is a far better batsman than he has ever been at any other point in his career. I still dont doubt that he will struggle against a good outswing bowler in conditions that favor swing, but alternatively i feel that he has tempered his technique and strokeplay to be able to survive in seam friendly conditions. His worth to the side was only really shown when he dropped out of the Perth test against India which was the only test that his team ended up losing (or looked like losing) in the series.
i give him credit for being able to make these changes at his age, and for him to maintain the sort of level he is at 36 is quite remarkable indeed.
 
Last edited:

shortpitched713

International Captain
Whilst I have never been a big fan of Hayden, i think it is fairly clear that ATM he is a far better batsman than he has ever been at any other point in his career. I still dont doubt that he will struggle against a good outswing bowler in conditions that favor swing, but alternatively i feel that he has tempered his technique and strokeplay to be able to survive in seam friendly conditions. His worth to the side was only really shown when he dropped out of the Perth test against India which was the only test that his team ended up losing (or looked like losing) in the series.
i give him credit for being able to make these changes at his age, and for him to maintain the sort of level he is at 36 is quite remarkable indeed.
Richard agreeing with above opinion was what I more had in mind. I personally agree that Hayden has improved his ability to score in a number of different conditions. And tbh, its no fault of his that he hasn't had to be tested all that much in challenging conditions for the better part of the past decade.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Whilst i dont think Australia need to perform miracles to win the home test series, i do agree with Richard on his statement that that the gap between the 2 sides is nowhere near as far as it was the last time around. There is no doubt in my mind for example that SA's pace bowling attack is superior to Australias, and there is also no doubt in my mind that as long as Macgill doesnt play, in Harris, SA have a considerably better spin option. If SA had one more star batsman in their side, the gulf between the 2 batting sides might have been a whole lot smaller.
and yet....how many tests did Australia win vs SA????
 

tooextracool

International Coach
and yet....how many tests did Australia win vs SA????
Well the two sides are quite different from the last time they matched up. Australia are without Mcgrath, Warne, Langer, Gilchrist, possibly Macgill and Ponting could very well be on his decline(or quite conceivably nowhere near the force he was last time). Meanwhile SA have lost Pollock, but they've gained Steyn(arguably as good a bowler on either side), Harris ( a quite decent finger spinner), hashim amla and McKenzie(if he is allowed to bat in his regular position). I think this time around it will be a much closer contest.
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Whilst i dont think Australia need to perform miracles to win the home test series, i do agree with Richard on his statement that that the gap between the 2 sides is nowhere near as far as it was the last time around. There is no doubt in my mind for example that SA's pace bowling attack is superior to Australias, and there is also no doubt in my mind that as long as Macgill doesnt play, in Harris, SA have a considerably better spin option. If SA had one more star batsman in their side, the gulf between the 2 batting sides might have been a whole lot smaller.
That quote is 3 years old, Richard isn't talking about the current teams, he was talking about the 2005/2006 series, which is why I found the bold statement so amusing.
 

pup11

International Coach
Well the two sides are quite different from the last time they matched up. Australia are without Mcgrath, Warne, Langer, Gilchrist, possibly Macgill and Ponting could very well be on his decline(or quite conceivably nowhere near the force he was last time). Meanwhile SA have lost Pollock, but they've gained Steyn(arguably as good a bowler on either side), Harris ( a quite decent finger spinner), hashim amla and McKenzie(if he is allowed to bat in his regular position). I think this time around it will be a much closer contest.
South African batting is their big weakness as far as test matches are concerned, they have been getting out cheaply very consistently off-late and that is one area where they could struggle against Australia. They depend too heavily on Kallis to build good totals in test matches, which is problem they would have to sory out if they have to compete against Australia.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Well the two sides are quite different from the last time they matched up. Australia are without Mcgrath, Warne, Langer, Gilchrist, possibly Macgill and Ponting could very well be on his decline(or quite conceivably nowhere near the force he was last time). Meanwhile SA have lost Pollock, but they've gained Steyn(arguably as good a bowler on either side), Harris ( a quite decent finger spinner), hashim amla and McKenzie(if he is allowed to bat in his regular position). I think this time around it will be a much closer contest.
Yet for some reason South Africa lose test matches at home to India, Pakistan and WI.

I hope you're right and the gap is closed, but whilst South Africa were fairly competitive when they toured Aus back in 05/06, I'm quite tired of having high hopes and expectations when they play Australia in test cricket and then they get thumped.

A little off topic, but for me India are clearl the better test team, and will prove that in their next test series at home vs. South Africa where I don't think they'll look like losing a test.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I do not doubt that Adams is a better bowler than Hauritz. Heck i do not doubt that any spinner in the 16 years that i have watched cricket was a better bowler than Hauritz. But i think comparing Adams to Hauritz is a bit like dividing 10 by 0 and 1 by 0. Whatever you do, the answer still comes up to 0 for neither had any hope of suceeding in test match cricket.
Yet Adams did, on a very small handful of occasions - including that seven-for in Pakistan. Useless as he has been most of the time, he's had his (very occasional) moments.
Its hard to see how they were when they won only one test against a half decent test side in the 3 year period in question(and that was against England at home in 2004/05). And if a few stars had aligned differently they could have lost 3-1 to England both home and away.
I don't see how such a thing could have happened in England, not at all, both South Africa's victories over here were comfortable. Quite unlike England's 2 victories in South Africa.

I believe I already went through why South Africa's results in the time in question weren't really terribly bad earlier in the thread, my comments still stand.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think we've been through this one before, Smith doesnt need to be out lbw to actually prove that he has a weakness against it. As such, if you honestly dont think Brett Lee and Australia had him tied up in knots during the series (both test and ODIs) down under, so much so in fact that Smith's technique was in pieces at the end of the ODI series in Australia. It was painstakingly obvious to everyone that his technique at the end of the series was completely different from what it was at the start of the summer, and as such he was struggling to adapt to his new technique.
I didn't watch the series closely enough to notice such a thing, but I'll take your word on it. And no, of course he doesn't need to be out lbw constantly to know he has a weakness there, but unless that weakness is being exploited he can't really be said to have been worked-out - or at least, being worked-out cannot be said to be the reason for his failures.

His failures - against good and less good bowlers - of the last 2 years have had more to do with playing bad off-side strokes than missing inswingers.
 

Top