Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[Son Of Coco]

If they manage that then people like you will find something else to nit pick about.

After demolishing Pakistan in summer 2010, people said "well, we'll see how they go in Australia." Broad got injured, but Anderson had the best series by a visiting quick for 20 years.

"Ah, but that Australian line up was crap" people said. "Sri Lanka and India will pose a much sterner test of their abilities."

Then they dominated both. "Oh, but that's at home. Let's see how they do in Asia."

They both averaged under 30 in the UAE, and Anderson bowled beautifully in Sri Lanka.

Now it's "we'll ignore how well they've bowled against the West Indies because they're crap. Let's see how they fare against South Africa."

Then, should they do well against South Africa, it'll be "they haven't done it in India." (even though Anderson has.)

Australia's line up was pretty ordinary (it's still not promising overwhelming consistency, but its bowling has improved), but Broad and Anderson bowled well. They showed us how important it is to keep it in the right areas while you're doing whatever it is you do with the ball (whether it be swing it both ways or nip it around a bit). In fact, the whole England line-up was very disciplined and still are. It only took us another 18 months or so to catch on. Mind you, we haven't seen how our bowlers will go against a decent batting line-up yet. Hopefully it's better than when Mitch was around.

 

[Spark]

I was going to say SA, but then I remembered that that was basically one Watson h4x spell and an 18yo

so yeah

 

[GIMH]

India came to England ranked #1 with an enormously star-studded and highly rated batting line-up. Better batting line-up than SA's you'd imagine, so I don't personally see that skittling Saffa will prove anything that isn't already proven.

Furball has pretty much summed it up anyway. Pretty pathetic tbh.

(@ Arachnodouche (sp?))

 

[vic_orthdox]

When was the last time a team put on a 100 run opening partnership against England?

(Probs be in Sri Lanka now that I've brought it up)

 

[Spark]

SL at Lord's. Biiiig opening partnership, but how applicable that is I'm not sure.

 

[GIMH]

1st Test V Pakistan.

 

[Spark]

1st Test V Pakistan.

That was a 100+ run partnership? Really?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, 114.

 

[Furball]

SL at Lord's. Biiiig opening partnership, but how applicable that is I'm not sure.

Sri Lanka at Lord's was also the last time any side has managed to score 400 or more against England. Since then England have played 12 Tests without conceding 400 in any innings.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, 114.

Oh yeah now I remember. Oops.

 

[GIMH]

I didn't remember tbh, worked backwards after Jack's post

 

[Ruckus]

Australia's line up was pretty ordinary (it's still not promising overwhelming consistency, but its bowling has improved), but Broad and Anderson bowled well. They showed us how important it is to keep it in the right areas while you're doing whatever it is you do with the ball (whether it be swing it both ways or nip it around a bit). In fact, the whole England line-up was very disciplined and still are. It only took us another 18 months or so to catch on. Mind you, we haven't seen how our bowlers will go against a decent batting line-up yet. Hopefully it's better than when Mitch was around.

Yeah indeed. For me, there are only two really solid sides in world cricket atm (and for the past year or two really) and they are England and SA. The fact that England dominated us in the last Ashes really just doesn't mean that much. As you said they did bowl very well, but the batting at the time simply wasn't very good. Watson looked, as he usally does, like he was in good form, and he had a decent series. Hughes, Smith, Khawaja and North, for whatever reasons, just weren't of proper test standard (and subsequent/previous performances against 'lesser' teams have showed that). Clarke was definately in poor form (and looked it) prior to even playing in the Ashes. Ponting, I thought, actually looked in reasonable nick coming into the first test, but soon after he massively lost form and looked probably the worst he has even in his extended poor run. Some credit obviously has to be given to the bowlers there for forcing that change and creating pressure by bowling with consistency, but Ponting's form problems even way before the Ashes were obvious, and still seemingly persist today. Hussey and Haddin both looked in good form and made some runs. I don't want to make it seem like there is no relationship between bad form and good bowling - there is. But you also have to take into account external factors, and frankly, a lot of them probably contributed to the poor performances of the Aus batsmen during that series (e.g. either the calibre of player simply wasn't very good, or the form of the batsmen was questionable prior to the first ball being bowled).

 

[Furball]

lol, Watson had a poor series.

England's domination in the Ashes means plenty, it's part of a 3 year long trend ffs.

 

[Ruckus]

India came to England ranked #1 with an enormously star-studded and highly rated batting line-up. Better batting line-up than SA's you'd imagine, so I don't personally see that skittling Saffa will prove anything that isn't already proven.

Furball has pretty much summed it up anyway. Pretty pathetic tbh.

(@ Arachnodouche (sp?))

eh, the Australian bowlers also dominated them equally, so perhaps a more pertinent comparison for Saker to make would be with the current Aus bowling line up rather than an all time great one. While both the Eng and Aus bowling against India was top notch, considering the massive magnitudes of defeat in both series', you can't help but think one shouldn't get carried away with the success either. Probably a bit more than just excellent bowling going on there as well imo.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ponting was coming off a good series against India away. Don't buy it. I really don't think that there was a massive difference in the quality of his batsmanship from England to India at home, there was a bit of a change in tactics with him being less adventurous outside off at the start of his innings.

Clarke I'm prepared to give some leeway to, there were some issues with his back; he looked all over the shop against not particularly amazing bowling in Brisbane.

And Hussey was superb. The rest weren't up to the requisite standard. Yet they have looked better against others than what they did in the Ashes - Watson, North in Ashes 2009 for example, show that England have definitely improved.

India haven't painted themselves in glory since, but you couldn't say that their players looked terribly out of form during the series vs England. VVS just kept on getting himself out in the first couple of Tests after looking good, Tendulkar was choked by great bowling, and Dravid was just bloody awesome.

A lot of hindsight in that post.

 

[Ruckus]

lol, Watson had a poor series.

England's domination in the Ashes means plenty, it's part of a 3 year long trend ffs.

He averaged 48, and was the second top Aus runs scorer... poor series my ass.

 

[Furball]

He averaged 48, and was the second top Aus runs scorer... poor series my ass.

I'll argue this in full later. His average looks good in isolation but he played 1 innings of any substance all series, his average is boosted by an irrelevant not out in Brisbane and places him 7th in the list of series averages. Hardly a good series.

 

[GIMH]

eh, the Australian bowlers also dominated them equally, so perhaps a more pertinent comparison for Saker to make would be with the current Aus bowling line up rather than an all time great one. While both the Eng and Aus bowling against India was top notch, considering the massive magnitudes of defeat in both series', you can't help but think one shouldn't get carried away with the success either. Probably a bit more than just excellent bowling going on there as well imo.

India left these shores battered and low on morale. Not to take anything away from Australia, because I said long before we beat India that Australia would do just that, but those batsmen were bowled out of form here and arrived for Australia with a completely different complexion than when they arrived here.

Or, what jack said.

 

[vic_orthdox]

India left these shores battered and low on morale. Not to take anything away from Australia, because I said long before we beat India that Australia would do just that, but those batsmen were bowled out of form here and arrived for Australia with a completely different complexion than when they arrived here.

Or, what jack said.

The thing was that they did have a chance to get some confidence back, they played some cricket against the Windies at home and defeated them. If they got a sniff in Australia, it could've gone either way; they didn't bat all that badly against Australia in the first Test. It took some very good bowling in the first two Tests to snuff them out.

The capitulation had a lot to do with the English series. But, similar to the series in England, it was sort of an "earned" capitulation.

 

[Ruckus]

Ponting was coming off a good series against India away. Don't buy it. I really don't think that there was a massive difference in the quality of his batsmanship from England to India at home, there was a bit of a change in tactics with him being less adventurous outside off at the start of his innings.

Clarke I'm prepared to give some leeway to, there were some issues with his back; he looked all over the shop against not particularly amazing bowling in Brisbane.

And Hussey was superb. The rest weren't up to the requisite standard. Yet they have looked better against others than what they did in the Ashes - Watson, North in Ashes 2009 for example, show that England have definitely improved.

India haven't painted themselves in glory since, but you couldn't say that their players looked terribly out of form during the series vs England. VVS just kept on getting himself out in the first couple of Tests after looking good, Tendulkar was choked by great bowling, and Dravid was just bloody awesome.

A lot of hindsight in that post.

Frankly I don't buy that anyone can know what Ponting will produce in a series these days. He could play a series against Bangladesh tmrw and average 20 and I doubt anyone would be particularly suprised. His form had been on and off for ages, way before the Ashes. In any case, I don't remember him actually being the recipient of exceptionally lethal bowling or anything during the Ashes. There were a fair few pretty poor shots though. Have no problem whatsoever with the idea that England (particularly their bowling attack) has improved though - it clearly has. But at the same time, I don't think the success against Aus in that series really proves that much.