*Official* Zimbabwe in Australia Thread

[age_master]

OK - 300 in 50 overs, for 10 wickets, is no different overall to 300 in 100 overs for 10 wickets - strike-rate doubled, economy-rate halved.
It is different only in attitude to play - with the first, you could take the view that "now we've got more time to bat"; on the other hand, you could take the view that "now they've got more time to bowl us out". The batting side, meanwhile, could take the view "now we've got more time to bowl them out" or the view "now we've wasted all that time we could be batting in".
If victory is the only consideration then it is clearly easier to argue that 300ao in 50 overs is best. However, the view of "look to win at all costs" is not one shared by all, and for some (myself included) not losing comes before winning.
Given your residence, in the land of NSW, it is safe to assume you an Australian? And, at present especially, the attitude to cricket has been "win" before "don't lose".
In England it's the other way around. Some would argue that's why England don't do as well but it's impossible to prove, it can only ever be opinion.
And if you ask me it's rather more likely that the attitude problem is one of not taking the game seriously enough at the domestic and recreational level.

Australia are playing attacking cricket at the moment, england are not, but they are getting better, why? cause Vaughan and Trescothick know how to score runs at better that 1 run per over. look at all the great teams, the Widnies team of 2 decased ago, and the current aussie team in particular, why do they win games, becuase they dont worry about their economy rates as much and they get out there and attack, with the bat and the ball, draw's are boring, wins are much better, even if it eventually costs us a loss or 2 we win a hell of alot of games, and we are drawing more and more people to the games to watch.

 

[Mister Wright]

I'm yet to jump into the Brett Lee debate, but I think it is time that I have my say.

I have no doubt we need Brett Lee for the one-day game without question, where short destructive spells can be the difference between winning and losing he is a great asset. Strike rates are relly important in the one day game because a bowler can't bowl anymore than 10 overs, so if the strike rate is low they are doing their job. Average, while important, is not as important as s/r in one-dayers.

As far as tests go, Brett Lee has been found out, other teams know what he is doing now, he is fast. But, honestly, in recent times how often has he got a wicket (that isn't a tail ender) just because of his pace. I could justify him keeping his spot ahead of Bichel in the test arena if he was ripping through the tail, but Gillespie usually does that, so while Lee struggles to get regular top order wickets I can't see why he should be in ahead of Bichel.

 

[Eclipse]

I think one thing that may have changed with Lee since his injurey
is his delivery hight.

He used to get his bowling arm a bit higher and therefore would get more bounce from his length balls.

Right now a Brett Lee ball on offstump hitting the top off offstump can be driven quite easy on a good pitch and hence the reason he is now only really efective with the new and old ball were he can swing it quite along way.

He comes onto the bat nicly and is easy to drive in comparison to say somone like McGrath for example. Also while Lee get's alot of swing he does not extract much movment form the pitch.


It's also interesting to look at score card's of matches both International and Domestic before his injurey and he was infact very economical witch to me ether say's he did not deliver the ball as flat and skidy or he bowled much better line and lengths.

 

[Bazza]

I have no doubt we need Brett Lee for the one-day game without question, where short destructive spells can be the difference between winning and losing he is a great asset. Strike rates are relly important in the one day game because a bowler can't bowl anymore than 10 overs, so if the strike rate is low they are doing their job. Average, while important, is not as important as s/r in one-dayers.

I disagree with this statement. If you have a good SR it is still possible to have a high economy rate and hence an ordinary average.

If you have a good average, it either means you have an excellent SR but average economy (maybe Lee?), or great economy and average SR (say Pollock), or a nice balance in both (Murali?). Either way, you are getting the job done.

 

[Craig]

Australia are playing attacking cricket at the moment, england are not, but they are getting better, why? cause Vaughan and Trescothick know how to score runs at better that 1 run per over. look at all the great teams, the Widnies team of 2 decased ago, and the current aussie team in particular, why do they win games, becuase they dont worry about their economy rates as much and they get out there and attack, with the bat and the ball, draw's are boring, wins are much better, even if it eventually costs us a loss or 2 we win a hell of alot of games, and we are drawing more and more people to the games to watch.

Actually two of the draws in the New Zealand and Australia series in 2001 were very entertaining.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Australia are playing attacking cricket at the moment, england are not, but they are getting better, why? cause Vaughan and Trescothick know how to score runs at better that 1 run per over. look at all the great teams, the Widnies team of 2 decased ago, and the current aussie team in particular, why do they win games, becuase they dont worry about their economy rates as much and they get out there and attack, with the bat and the ball, draw's are boring, wins are much better, even if it eventually costs us a loss or 2 we win a hell of alot of games, and we are drawing more and more people to the games to watch.

I completely agree

Actually two of the draws in the New Zealand and Australia series in 2001 were very entertaining.

Only because of brilliant, aggressive declarations and intent from Waugh and Fleming. That doesn't counter the point. Playing to not lose rarely produces good cricket.

By that I mean setting out with the intention of not losing from the off, rather than something like Atherton and Russell's brilliance at Johannesburg.

 

[Richard]

Looking at the bare stats of it, is Test stats haven't been great since the 3rd Test of the 2001 Ashes series in England (right after he came back after surgery):
Still, an average of 35 isn't ridiculous. It's high for sure but not bad considering he's been a 'project player' for a while now. When he's leading the attack, if those stats remain where they are, there'd be more questions I'd say. The bulk of the wicket-taking is left to Glenn McGrath, Warne, Gillespie etc. and Brett Lee is left as the 'shock' bowler which means that although he'll often take a crucial wicket or two, his average will be relatively high.

Now in ODI cricket, a different picture emerges:
Since the 2001 Ashes series, his bowling averages has been 20.78. Anyone who saw him bowl last year in the CUB series, the year before, the WC in South Africa etc. would know he's been bowling superbly in ODI's, taking wickets and lowering his economy rate by a greater than significant margin. He's been called upon as the bowler to rip a batsman out and also has ben called upon to bowl tightly. He's done that very well if his stats are anything to go by and just in my own viewing, his improvement as a bowler has been marked, yet not borne out in his Test stats yet. They will be eventually.

Why just the Third Test? Why not the first two?
It is fair to say that in ODIs there is no case for Lee's exclusion, but it is not possible to say his Test stats WILL bear out his improvement in your opinion.
You might believe they will, and for all we know they might, but you can't say they will.

 

[Richard]

And herein lies the issue.

I think back to the Second Test between England and Pakistan in 2001 for fairly solid proof of the risks of "not losing". It is so easy for the wheels to fall off and the sides of the hole to become near-vertical.

The way cricket - and any sport - should be played IMO is to treat it with the maximum possible aggression and focus and pure bloody-minded desire to win at all times. I mean, it works for Australia...

That Test was a watershed in many ways. The dropped catches were the most important and noticable one - Knight (the best slipper in the land) dropped Razzaq on 0 and though Razzaq went on to score 1 and play Caddick on, 11 more were put down in that match, and 17 in the next 2. Those dropped catches more than anything else cost the first two Ashes Tests.
Another nasty England habit that recurred in that match was the collapse of the middle- and lower-order, even though the middle was made of Ward and Knight (two openers) and Pakistan did have Waqar and Wasim. There were some inept shots played, whereas tail-end runs were such an important part of the period of success hitherto.
At around that time injuries started to resurface, though that really started with Hussain's thumb being broken by Akhtar at Lord's.
The negativity is something I often think was overblown. Why so many people forget that Waqar told Saqlain to bowl outside Trescothick's leg-stump for a long period on the fifth morning is beyond me. Trescothick could never have been called a Test-class batsman until that double-century, but it's completely unfair to ask anyone to try and score from the stuff Saqqie was bowling.
Waqar bored England out of the game and, after all, England were 1-0 up. Some nasty habits were recalled in that game, but still it would almost certainly have been drawn if Eddie Nicholls and David Shephard had kept their eyes on the crease.

 

[Richard]

Australia are playing attacking cricket at the moment, england are not, but they are getting better, why? cause Vaughan and Trescothick know how to score runs at better that 1 run per over.

And it's no coincidence that Trescothick has only looked like a Test-class player when he scored that 200 (and the twin 50s last year, at the same ground), in a defensive vein. Nor that Vaughan's finest hour came in a very defensive innings against Ambrose and Walsh.
As an opening batsman, you simply cannot play as Trescothick and Vaughan so often try to play and expect to get away with it. In England. Clearly you can in some parts of The World, but even then if the bowling's good and accurate then you won't often get away with it.
Australian groundsmen aren't fools, but foreign ones, it seems, are. You want to beat Australia, you simply can't let them pile-up 400 almost every innings. And they will almost invariably do that if there's no seam or real turn in the pitch, because hardly any bowlers can exploit conditions where there's no seam or real turn ATM.

 

[marc71178]

even though the middle was made of Ward and Knight (two openers) and Pakistan did have Waqar and Wasim.

IIRC wasn't it the 2 W's with the old ball though, in which case openers would not be best suited to facing them?

 

[Richard]

IIRC wasn't it the 2 W's with the old ball though, in which case openers would not be best suited to facing them?

Yes, my point exactly! Openers should be picked at one and two, not six and seven.
I was criticising the selection, not overtly the performance of Ward. I think he was most unfortunate to be branded a failure having batted at five and six when he's never been anything but an opener.
I was saying the collapse, while still disappointing, was not quite as disappointing as it might seem because two batsmen who I expected to fail failed.

 

[Top_Cat]

It is fair to say that in ODIs there is no case for Lee's exclusion, but it is not possible to say his Test stats WILL bear out his improvement in your opinion.
You might believe they will, and for all we know they might, but you can't say they will.

Hair-splitting, dude. It's pretty clear that what I'm saying here is my opinion without me having to either preface my opinion with "In my opinion....." or to end the paragraph with same.

Yes, my point exactly! Openers should be picked at one and two, not six and seven.
I was criticising the selection, not overtly the performance of Ward. I think he was most unfortunate to be branded a failure having batted at five and six when he's never been anything but an opener.

Agreed there. If I guy opens at FC level, why not pick him for the same purpose at Test level? Greg Blewett suffered from the same thing I reckon. Although he was eventually made an opener and did alright, by then it was a bit too late for mine. He'd become to cautious and was expected to be the dour one with Mike Slater at the other end and it didn't suit him.

Nor that Vaughan's finest hour came in a very defensive innings against Ambrose and Walsh.

Maybe so and he's lucky he has the capacity to play in both a defensive and attacking manner. But I submit to you this; when he plays defensively, he looks Test-class; when he plays in an attacking manner, he looks a potential great.

 

[age_master]

And it's no coincidence that Trescothick has only looked like a Test-class player when he scored that 200 (and the twin 50s last year, at the same ground), in a defensive vein. Nor that Vaughan's finest hour came in a very defensive innings against Ambrose and Walsh.
As an opening batsman, you simply cannot play as Trescothick and Vaughan so often try to play and expect to get away with it. In England. Clearly you can in some parts of The World, but even then if the bowling's good and accurate then you won't often get away with it.
Australian groundsmen aren't fools, but foreign ones, it seems, are. You want to beat Australia, you simply can't let them pile-up 400 almost every innings. And they will almost invariably do that if there's no seam or real turn in the pitch, because hardly any bowlers can exploit conditions where there's no seam or real turn ATM.

most people think that Australia's bowling is its strength, atm we are a little weak through injuries and Warneys suspension, but generally we have by far the best bowling attack in the world. if there isa good fast pitch (like a regular waca wicket) or a good turning pitch, we have the bowlers to exploit it, and we have batsmen who can play well on the type of pitch, and play agressivley and well on those types of pitches, Matty Hayden can bat well against any type of attack, on any type of pitch, he is brilliant against pace and spin.


why, can the australian team, generally led by Hayden, bat so well in any conditions, because we get on top of oposing attacks, and trust me, you font do that by blocking, you do that by attacking, look at the Australian batting strike rates,

Hayden - 61
Langer - 52
Ponting - 57.5
Martyn - 51
Waugh - 48.5 (and on the up)
Lehmann - 61
Gilchrist - 83 (96 or something against england i beleive)
Lee - 58

and the SR's of our bowling, some of the best ever

Lee - 51
McGrath - 52
Gillespie - 51
Macgill - 52


we win games by getting on top of the oposition and do this by attacking not by playing defensivley.

look at Vaughan - SR - 51, trescothick sr is 52 - they are sort of changing the guard from old fella's who score more slowly like Butcher and Hussain. they will bring people to the grounds, and win england many more games. but they need to be the tred setters, and not just conform to what is leading english cricket to death. defensive play.

the more attacking you play, the more games you win and the more support you get. growth in cricket, overall good for the game

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

All time SR ranks....

Gillespie - 24th
B. Lee - 27th
McGrath - 35th
MacGill - 37th

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Top 10 best SR's of all-time...
Gilchrist, A C* - 84.15
Flintoff, A*- 71.93
Smith, G C* - 64.80
Smith, I D - 63.17
Kaluwitharana, R S* - 61.54
Hayden, M L* - 61.34
Klusener, L*- 60.04
Lara, B C* - 59.29
Ponting, R T* - 57.46
Habibul Bashar* - 57.12

*active players.

Yes, Zulu is still considered active.

 

[marc71178]

Interesting stat there Liam - I raise the question, is Test Cricket getting too quick?

 

[age_master]

Interesting stat there Liam - I raise the question, is Test Cricket getting too quick?

it brings the crowds, and is more interesting for more people to watch, it is continuing to grow the game in australia, despite that its already huge here, it gets more kids playing the game, and is producing some great cricketers, and has over the last 10 years, seems to work

 

[Neil Pickup]

Interesting stat there Liam - I raise the question, is Test Cricket getting too quick?

I totally disagree. Test cricket is becoming more aggressive, more positive and with more intent filtering through from the ODI game, which raises the level of the whole thing.

 

[Rik]

Interesting stat there Liam - I raise the question, is Test Cricket getting too quick?

There's the problem with the general attitude about Test Cricket. One Day International Cricket opened up people's eyes to what could be achieved. In most cases it's not in a side's best interists to score slowly, you can only win if you play positively. Just because there are 5 days in a Test match doesn't mean you need to use them all up, basically life is short, why waste some of it? If a ball is there to hit why block it? Current players block far less bad balls now, they block the good balls and go after the bad, and sometimes even hit the good ones. Really there is no point in just going out and blocking all the balls weather they are bad or good, cricket is all about runs and wickets, runs are needed so if you block a bad ball and get out to a good one, what was the point in that? Your team needs to score the runs so score them, a duck doesn't help anyone whilst if you hit 4 then at least you've scored something. Just because Test Cricket is 5 days long doesn't mean it has to last 5 days. In most cases I think batsmen would rather score a quick 70 and win a match rather than score a slow 150 which drags it to a draw. This is the philosophy of OD cricket coming in and IMO it's only helping the game, as a spectacle and also technically.

When you play Brian Lara Cricket or Cricket 2002 in Test Match mode do you sit there and block every ball? Play in a real Test match way? Nope cause it's too boring. In a game like that it's just an excuse to hammer the bowlers for longer with no constraints.

So no, in my view, it's not getting too fast. Someone gave the view that cricket is a boring slow game. Now it's opening up and defying that. Cricket is whatever it wants to be, no one said it had to be slow, there's no rule in there saying it, so when a player comes out and scores quickly it's immediately "oh no he's scoring too quickly he won't do well for long" which is rubbish, just because Kevin Pietersen has a FC strike rate of 70odd doesn't mean he doesn't have the technique for Test Cricket, I don't really see why people view attacking play as something bad, you know if you keep blocking you will still probably get out in the end. Anyway I'm glad it's getting faster, it's more exciting which is what the viewers want. Also it's more exciting and challanging for the players, which is only good for the game.

Ta Da!

 

[Eclipse]

There's the problem with the general attitude about Test Cricket. One Day International Cricket opened up people's eyes to what could be achieved. In most cases it's not in a side's best interists to score slowly, you can only win if you play positively. Just because there are 5 days in a Test match doesn't mean you need to use them all up, basically life is short, why waste some of it? If a ball is there to hit why block it? Current players block far less bad balls now, they block the good balls and go after the bad, and sometimes even hit the good ones. Really there is no point in just going out and blocking all the balls weather they are bad or good, cricket is all about runs and wickets, runs are needed so if you block a bad ball and get out to a good one, what was the point in that? Your team needs to score the runs so score them, a duck doesn't help anyone whilst if you hit 4 then at least you've scored something. Just because Test Cricket is 5 days long doesn't mean it has to last 5 days. In most cases I think batsmen would rather score a quick 70 and win a match rather than score a slow 150 which drags it to a draw. This is the philosophy of OD cricket coming in and IMO it's only helping the game, as a spectacle and also technically.

When you play Brian Lara Cricket or Cricket 2002 in Test Match mode do you sit there and block every ball? Play in a real Test match way? Nope cause it's too boring. In a game like that it's just an excuse to hammer the bowlers for longer with no constraints.

So no, in my view, it's not getting too fast. Someone gave the view that cricket is a boring slow game. Now it's opening up and defying that. Cricket is whatever it wants to be, no one said it had to be slow, there's no rule in there saying it, so when a player comes out and scores quickly it's immediately "oh no he's scoring too quickly he won't do well for long" which is rubbish, just because Kevin Pietersen has a FC strike rate of 70odd doesn't mean he doesn't have the technique for Test Cricket, I don't really see why people view attacking play as something bad, you know if you keep blocking you will still probably get out in the end. Anyway I'm glad it's getting faster, it's more exciting which is what the viewers want. Also it's more exciting and challanging for the players, which is only good for the game.

Ta Da!

I have never agreed with you more well said :P

Alot of people are quick to make judgments on players based on the fact they are "to aggresive" or that they are to unorthadox etc..

I remember an Indian comentator saying that he did not think Gilchrist would avrage over 25 in Test cricket because off his aggresive nature well just look how wrong he was.

I think One Day cricket has done wonders to test cricket.