Trevor Hohns resigns as chairman of selectors

[Richard]

Yea i know the pitches in the 2001/02 summer vs NZ & SA were flat thats what i said along with the ashes summer & the 2003/04 home series vs India were the flattest since to date in the 21st century. In other summers though that hasn't been the case

I'd say only very rarely has a pitch that could not be described as "flat" been produced in Australia since 2001\02.
For instance - The WACA 2002\03.
Of course, the odd pitch (SCG 2002\03) started flat then became uneven.

Look at the Australian attack that played initially during the summer Bracken, Gillespie, Bichel, Lee, Williams. None were great exponents of the short ball, even Lee who only of recent has gotten consistent accuracy when bowling his short balls. Added to that the pitches were so flat other than probably the gabba on the 1st 2 days that bowling short to the Indian's would not have helped much.

And how were things different in the ODIs? No, bowling a few short balls is something any fool can do. Australa tried it and it didn't work - as it largely never does.

Fair enough, but it was VERY good.

Not in my estimation - just pretty reasonable.

Yea mistake again i meant elbow-injury. Has i said for the first part of his career in those 7 test he showed great potential then stats show he was poor for 31 test but slets analyse him series by series starting from the 2001 ashes, because its not as if he was POOR in every single game or series:

2001 ashes - he was poor
2001/02 vs NZ - he bowled well on some flat pitches
2001/02 vs SA - was average but not poor
2001/02 in SA - had one good spell but overall was poor
2002/03 in PAK - was poor for sure
2002/03 ashes - looked threatening at times IMO but was poor
2002/03 in WI - he bowled pretty well on some flat pitches i thought
2003/04 summer vs BAN/ZIM/IND - yea he had a shocker
2005 ashes - overall he was inconsistent i would say he was POOR since he bowled well at lord's, second innnings at Edgbaston, 1st innings here, 2nd innings at the Oval.

So overall he was absolute rubbish in those 31 test he had 1 good series for me vs WI & bowled well in patches in the ashes.

I certainly don't think he bowled well in 2005 except at Lord's (where any fool could have bowled well, it said a lot that only McGrath on the first afternoon and Lee did so), he was just flattered by his figures in the innings' where they were good.
Indeed, that happened once or twice in other series between 2001 and 2005, but most of the time he got the poor figures his bowling deserved.

 

[aussie]

And how were things different in the ODIs? No, bowling a few short balls is something any fool can do. Australa tried it and it didn't work - as it largely never does.

If Australia had a good all-round seam attack i'm sure it would have since in the return series in India McGrath/Gillespie & Kasper used that tactic very well on some equally flat pitches.

Not in my estimation - just pretty reasonable.

hmm i think Lee's [URL=''[record since the ashes]http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=5966;class=testplayer;filter=advanced;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0;startdefault=1999-12-26;start=2005-10-15;enddefault=2006-04-20;end=2006-04-04;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduleddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;result=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;viewtype=bow_summary;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype"]http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=5966;class=testplayer;filter=advanced;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0;startdefault=1999-12-26;start=2005-10-15;enddefault=2006-04-20;end=2006-04-04;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduleddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;result=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;viewtype=bow_summary;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype[/URL]is a bit better than just resonable, but i wont argue too much anymore..

I certainly don't think he bowled well in 2005 except at Lord's (where any fool could have bowled well, it said a lot that only McGrath on the first afternoon and Lee did so), he was just flattered by his figures in the innings' where they were good.
Indeed, that happened once or twice in other series between 2001 and 2005, but most of the time he got the poor figures his bowling deserved.

Thats being a bit rough saying that he was flattered by the figures in the innings they were good. If he bowled well there you got to give him credit.

 

[andyc]

Aussie, can you please put those links into a shorter version. If you want to make it so a word or words contain the link, just highlight the words, click the little picture of the world and the paperclip-like thing on the task bar, and enter in the URL. Or, at the very least, shorten it by simply typing in [u r l] [/u r l]. It's just that I'm too lazy to copy and paste the link into my browser, since it for some reason doesn't work for me, it just goes all blue when I put my mouse over it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Aussie, can you please put those links into a shorter version. If you want to make it so a word or words contain the link, just highlight the words, click the little picture of the world and the paperclip-like thing on the task bar, and enter in the URL. Or, at the very least, shorten it by simply typing in [u r l] [/u r l]. It's just that I'm too lazy to copy and paste the link into my browser, since it for some reason doesn't work for me, it just goes all blue when I put my mouse over it.

I think he's getting the prompts in the wrong order.

 

[marc71178]

Aussie, can you please put those links into a shorter version. If you want to make it so a word or words contain the link, just highlight the words, click the little picture of the world and the paperclip-like thing on the task bar, and enter in the URL. Or, at the very least, shorten it by simply typing in [u r l] [/u r l]. It's just that I'm too lazy to copy and paste the link into my browser, since it for some reason doesn't work for me, it just goes all blue when I put my mouse over it.

To be fair though, it's nice to see a long post of gobbledegook not written by Richard once in a while.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

To be fair though, it's nice to see a long post of gobbledegook not written by Richard once in a while.

 

[Richard]

If Australia had a good all-round seam attack i'm sure it would have since in the return series in India McGrath/Gillespie & Kasper used that tactic very well on some equally flat pitches.

Oh, come on! The pitches in India in 2004\05 were nothing like as flat as in Australia in 2003\04! The Fourth Test pitch befriended pretty much anyone who picked-up a ball (as shown by Clarke getting 6 wickets and Hauritz 5) and the Third Test was a green seamer. I didn't watch any of the games but I hardly think bowling short would be remotely neccessary in either.
Equally, India's batsmen dealt well enough with the Australian seamers (only time in the series they did) in Chennai, suggesting that IF the tactic was used it wasn't too successful. Nor was that pitch flat at all, it offered turn and bounce, if less as the game progressed.
As for Bangalore, that wasn't as flat as any of the Australian pitches, either, even if it evidently wasn't anywhere near as bad as it looked (someone, might've been Dean Jones, called it a "lamb in wolf's clothing"). By all accounts India simply batted (and bowled) badly.

hmm i think Lee's record since the ashes is a bit better than just resonable, but i wont argue too much anymore..

The record looks good, but that's 3 very seam-friendly pitches and 3 games against a very poor team.
As I say - SA handled him well enough in Aus.

Thats being a bit rough saying that he was flattered by the figures in the innings they were good. If he bowled well there you got to give him credit.

Err, if he had bowled well I'd give him credit. He didn't bowl well, though. It's just that even the worst bowlers get good figures in some spells if they bowl enough. If you or me bowled in 50 Test innings, there'd be an occasion or 2 where we'd get decent figures, too.

 

[aussie]

Aussie, can you please put those links into a shorter version. If you want to make it so a word or words contain the link, just highlight the words, click the little picture of the world and the paperclip-like thing on the task bar, and enter in the URL. Or, at the very least, shorten it by simply typing in [u r l] [/u r l]. It's just that I'm too lazy to copy and paste the link into my browser, since it for some reason doesn't work for me, it just goes all blue when I put my mouse over it.

i dont get whats going on, on my last 2 attempts at it, i thought i finally got it since in Richard's replies it comes out good as you can see.

 

[aussie]

Oh, come on! The pitches in India in 2004\05 were nothing like as flat as in Australia in 2003\04! The Fourth Test pitch befriended pretty much anyone who picked-up a ball (as shown by Clarke getting 6 wickets and Hauritz 5) and the Third Test was a green seamer. I didn't watch any of the games but I hardly think bowling short would be remotely neccessary in either.
Equally, India's batsmen dealt well enough with the Australian seamers (only time in the series they did) in Chennai, suggesting that IF the tactic was used it wasn't too successful. Nor was that pitch flat at all, it offered turn and bounce, if less as the game progressed.
As for Bangalore, that wasn't as flat as any of the Australian pitches, either, even if it evidently wasn't anywhere near as bad as it looked (someone, might've been Dean Jones, called it a "lamb in wolf's clothing"). By all accounts India simply batted (and bowled) badly.

well is should have been more precise in my last post, i meant to only mention the Bangalore & Chennai test. But anyway i agree with what you say here.

The record looks good, but that's 3 very seam-friendly pitches and 3 games against a very poor team.
As I say - SA handled him well enough in Aus.

Well admitedly the didn't look at sea againts him but, but he caused them enough headaches in every innings of the 6 test he bowled to them thats for sure.

Err, if he had bowled well I'd give him credit. He didn't bowl well, though. It's just that even the worst bowlers get good figures in some spells if they bowl enough. If you or me bowled in 50 Test innings, there'd be an occasion or 2 where we'd get decent figures, too.

fair enough..