30.51. Guess I guessed right.
Well Kallis didn't exactly fare terribly against Warne ITE, did he?
Yes, because you get more chance to get used to someone.because playing him in an entire series would make them play him better wouldnt it?
He is, AFAIC. MacGill hasn't always conquered poor players of spin.
Nathan Hauritz will never be able to lace Adams' boots, and never has been able to either.
No, it doesn't, teams fail to win games they should have won ATT.
Nico Boje could at that time bowl better than Chris Martin with conditions in his favour.
thanks guys...
If there's a moderator out there, this circle-jerker ought to be banned. Have a look at his posts. Nothing but abusive.
'you fkn loser ffs'
Oh yes, nothing personal.
Has Jamee paid up on this one?
Two months. I'm watching you like a hawk.My av's a bit busy atm
Is that really what you meant? I don't see that me and tec compared to an oligarchy in any way shape or form. Though things were a bit different back in mid-2005, of course.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kallis has made vast strides against spin since, there is no doubt about that. He played Warne well no doubt, but equally Warne was neutralized by the flatness of many of the wickets and still ended up amongst the top bowlers for both series. And as some were suggesting earlier in this thread, SA did get whitewashed in one of the series against Australia.
Im afraid those are very small boots to lace. you are skating on thin ice with regard to Paul Adams, because I cannot see how anyone would consider him to be anything other than useless and once most players got past his frog-in-blender bowling action, it became ridiculously easy to play him. Unconventional actions are almost always likely to be doomed at the international level which is why i have never quite followed the logic behind bowlers like Malinga, Tait or Adams because none of them can ever be expected to sustain a given level of accuracy for a consistent period of time and unsurprisingly enough all 3 of them have had inconsistent careers to date.
Teams being incapable of beating extremely poor sides cannot be considered to be any good. You cannot rate a side based on what they look like on paper because you need to produce performance to actually be a decent side. I am sure that if the current SA side added one more batsman of the highest caliber they would be most likely to challenge the Australian hierarchy, but back in 2005 they simply did not have the bowling or the batting resources to be able to challenge anyone.
Chris Martin is capable of being a very fine bowler IMO, if he got a few things straightened out. He has as good an inswinger as any bowler going around and he can bowl at a decent pace.
I think it would be apt to mention a certain cliche at this point: "The more things change, the more things stay the same."
I had high hopes for Simon Jones for longer than I can remember. Its a crying shame that someone of his caliber has had his career ruined entirely due to injury. At least with Bond, he played enough to contradict any theories that suggest that he was not good enough, with Jones there are still many more question marks about how good he really was and how good he could have been.
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.
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.
He's become better in the last year, perhaps 2, than he'd ever been before, but in 2005 his career had been a wholly average one, no better than Nico Boje's.
But the opposite one to that which everyone was expecting.
And only by 1 wicket, in the end. But I'll try to avoid getting into that again...
