Ashes 2006/07 = Walkover?

[marc71178]

Doesn't really matter. Fact is he outbowled the other seamers, and Warne for that matter, and he certainly wasn't doing that in the Ashes.

Wasn't he fresh and the rest of them knackered?

 

[GotSpin]

The cornerstone to beating Australia is to contain Ponting and Hayden, and score 400 in your first innings. If England can do those two things (as they did in 2005) they should retain the Ashes. With Vaughan and Jones out, their chances of achieving the above are much reduced, but still realistic.

Hmm warne doesn't matter does he

 

[steds]

Hmm warne doesn't matter does he

Can always score all your runs off Gillespie/Lee/Tait.

 

[GotSpin]

Can always score all your runs off Gillespie/Lee/Tait.

Remind me, how many wickets did Warne take?

 

[steds]

Remind me, how many wickets did Warne take?

In the 05 Ashes? Twice as many as Lee at less than half the average and over three times as many as Kasper, Gillespie and Tait put together.
The result: An England win.
The moral: one bowler (no matter how awesome) can't carry you forever.

 

[GotSpin]

In the 05 Ashes? Twice as many as Lee at less than half the average and over three times as many as Kasper, Gillespie and Tait put together.
The result: An England win.
The moral: one bowler (no matter how awesome) can't carry you forever.

Yet, presuming Warne's form continues, which is likely based on his county performances, and the return of Gillespie to some of his old form and Lee improving as always, with both Freddie and Vaughan injured, i see a different result.

 

[GIMH]

It'll be a five-nil whitewash, with two of England's wins likely to be by an innings and more. Now stop this silly talk, because the Ashes belong to us, and shall stay put.

 

[steds]

Yet, presuming Warne's form continues, which is likely based on his county performances, and the return of Gillespie to some of his old form and Lee improving as always, with both Freddie and Vaughan injured, i see a different result.

15 wickets @ 44.20 against County batsmen != any sort of form, never mind Gillespie's "old form" which got him over 250 test wickets at an average of around 26.

And it's funny how Lee is always improving, yet we never see improved results from him. His average is the same as at the start of the Ashes and higher than it was 20 Tests ago.

I'm not doubting the result, Australia will win, but the rest of Australia's bowling attack is weak and there'll be a day when Warne and McGrath aren't there to take all your wickets for you (as proved by McGrath in the last Ashes).

 

[GotSpin]

15 wickets @ 44.20 against County batsmen != any sort of form, never mind Gillespie's "old form" which got him over 250 test wickets at an average of around 26.

And it's funny how Lee is always improving, yet we never see improved results from him. His average is the same as at the start of the Ashes and higher than it was 20 Tests ago.

I'm not doubting the result, Australia will win, but the rest of Australia's bowling attack is weak and there'll be a day when Warne and McGrath aren't there to take all your wickets for you (as proved by McGrath in the last Ashes).

No, Warne will bowl until his 50

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Lee's average has certainly gone down since before the Ashes. Just because it's over 30 doesn't mean it hasn't gone down.

 

[Jamee999]

We're not that good

 

[howardj]

Hmm warne doesn't matter does he

Of course he matters.

He'll pick up his standard 30-35 wickets.

That won't eliminate the chance England retaining the Ashes though (see 2005).

 

[steds]

Lee's average has certainly gone down since before the Ashes. Just because it's over 30 doesn't mean it hasn't gone down.

It's gone down a grand total of 0.21. Not worth writing home about and hardly going to have Kevin Pietersen shaking in his boots.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I doubt Kevin Pieterson would shake in his boots to anyone, he's way too ****y.

EDIT: I take your point though, I thought it had gone down more than that. I didn't bother to check.

 

[aussie]

And it's funny how Lee is always improving, yet we never see improved results from him. His average is the same as at the start of the Ashes and higher than it was 20 Tests ago.

Those numbers clearly don't show the truth & how the hell can you say Lee isn't showing any results?, because for anyone who has watched Lee bowl since the ashes would know that he has definately improved..

I'm not doubting the result, Australia will win, but the rest of Australia's bowling attack is weak and there'll be a day when Warne and McGrath aren't there to take all your wickets for you (as proved by McGrath in the last Ashes).

How can the rest of Australia's bowling attack be weak?, i wouldn't doubt even though Gillespie came back & bowled extremely well in Bangladesh he has struggled in the county championship & probably wont get back to the form that he was between 97-2002 but it would foolish to right him off while Kasper is probably a spent force at the international level these days, but other than that Clark has done very well since coming into the side, Lee has improved since the ashes so much that he is capable of leading the attack while MacGill is a proven international performer.

Then they are three talented young bowlers in Tait, Johnson & Cullen who have good signs in the initial stages of their careers on the international stage, but its early days for them. But right now to refer to the rest of the Australian bowling attack as weak is wrong.

 

[steds]

Those numbers clearly don't show the truth & how the hell can you say Lee isn't showing any results?, because for anyone who has watched Lee bowl since the ashes would know that he has definately improved..

Anyone who saw him get flayed in the Supertest or take only two wickets and go for almost 4 an over against Bangladesh, who he should be tearing through? Even in the home series against South Africa, he took wickets rather sporadically for someone who's improved so much. Lee may have improved, but we haven't seen any consistent results.

How can the rest of Australia's bowling attack be weak?, i wouldn't doubt even though Gillespie came back & bowled extremely well in Bangladesh he has struggled in the county championship & probably wont get back to the form that he was between 97-2002 but it would foolish to right him off while Kasper is probably a spent force at the international level these days, but other than that Clark has done very well since coming into the side, Lee has improved since the ashes so much that he is capable of leading the attack while MacGill is a proven international performer.

Key word about Gillespie highlighted. Taking wickets against Bangladesh isn't much of an acheivement. I'll give you MacGill. Clark's done decently, but not jaw-droppingly. He'd slipped my mind, actually. Taking wickets against a poor West Indies team and having two half decent series' against South Africa, whilst still going at 3.5 an over more often than not, qualifies you to lead the attack these days, though?

Then they are three talented young bowlers in Tait

Please. Tait's no better than Mahmood.

 

[aussie]

Anyone who saw him get flayed in the Supertest or take only two wickets and go for almost 4 an over against Bangladesh, who he should be tearing through? Even in the home series against South Africa, he took wickets rather sporadically for someone who's improved so much. Lee may have improved, but we haven't seen any consistent results..

In the super-test he was flawed in the 1st innings & bowled much better in the second innings he bowled much better in the second innings even though he only took a wicket & from that point he bowled tremendously well throughout the home summer & in the SA series. Againts Bangladesh as was the situation with the entire aussie side they were obviously burnt & it affected them especially in that 1st test.

Plus i don't know how you can say Lee took wickets sporadically vs SA at home & was inconsistent , its like you didn't even watch the series because Lee was clearly very threatening in all the 9 test he played vs SA & WI, the only period i remember him honestly looking wayward or back to his old erratic self was on the 1st day of the adeladie test vs WI when he took the new-ball & was bowling crap to Lara & was punished

Key word about Gillespie highlighted. Taking wickets against Bangladesh isn't much of an acheivement. I'll give you MacGill. Clark's done decently, but not jaw-droppingly. He'd slipped my mind, actually. Taking wickets against a poor West Indies team and having two half decent series' against South Africa, whilst still going at 3.5 an over more often than not, qualifies you to lead the attack these days, though?.

Who are you refering to here Clark or MacGill?

Please. Tait's no better than Mahmood.

You gotta be crazy dawg, Tait is by far the better young bowler between these two, Mahmood has done nothing impressive for England other than his superb 3 wicket opening spell burst on his debut at lord's other than that he has been utter crap, geez he wouldn't even make Lancashire's starting XI these days.

Tait on the other hand impressed in the two test he played in the ashes wihtout having fantastic figures, before that he broke Australia's domestic record for the most wickets in a season & that was made even more superb because he is form Sout Australia & had to bowl on that flat pitch for the majority of the time againts some very good domestic batsmen. Even before Australia went to SA he ran through NSW in the ING CUP FINAL & almost single handled won the game for his state when they were pretty much out of it in another exhibition of his great talent. Mahmood hasn't done anything close to that, so i dont see how you can say Tait is no better than Mahmood.

 

[steds]

Plus i don't know how you can say Lee took wickets sporadically vs SA at home

Do you know what sporadically means? He took his wickets at a strike rate of 61.3, which is hardly impressive for such a good strike bowler. I never said anything about him not being threatening.

Who are you refering to here Clark or MacGill?

The end bit? Your comments tha Lee could lead the attack.

Tait on the other hand impressed in the two test he played in the ashes

No he didn't. He sprayed it all over the place.

Even before Australia went to SA he ran through NSW in the ING CUP FINAL

He bowled 14 wides, ffs! That's pathetic.

Tait is just as bad as Mahmood.

 

[aussie]

Do you know what sporadically means? He took his wickets at a strike rate of 61.3, which is hardly impressive for such a good strike bowler. I never said anything about him not being threatening..

Sporadically means doing something on a irregular basis, so by saying that you are suggesting that Lee was not very threatening. Figures don't tell the whole truth & even though his strike may have bee that (over which ever period you summarized from) he has improved & consistent results where shown throughtout the test matches vs WI & SA.

The end bit? Your comments tha Lee could lead the attack..

An attacking bowler who bowls as fast as Brett Lee one cannot reasonably expect them to go at under 3 runs per-over most of the time, even when Akhtar ran through England last winter he was going at over 3.5 an over.

On Lee again he had a fantastic series in South Africa & in in Australia even though he averaged 30 odd he definately bowled better than what those figures shows. So your intial statement that he had 2 half-decent series vs SA while going at 3.5 an over most of the time is clearly false based on these figures & if watched him bowl during the series.

No he didn't. He sprayed it all over the place..

Yes he srayed it on occassion but he still bowl well at times & the times he did bow well he was impressive, its not like he bowl absolute crap in the ashes which you are trying stupidly proclaim.

He bowled 14 wides, ffs! That's pathetic..

Tait is just as bad as Mahmood.

an the 6 wickets mean nothing then?, look at the scores one can easily assume that since SA where trying to defend such a low total Tait would have going all out for pace to try to win in for his side & a accuracy would have been sacrificed. Geez if you don't like Tait just say so dont try to stupidly under-rate him based on nothing at all.

 

[GIMH]

Look, it's simple, Australia crap, England good. Ashes = ours.