• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Main problems each side needs to confront before start of series...

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
chaminda_00 said:
Bring in MacGill and Australia have no 4th bowling problem...
They haven't?
So someone taking 3-120 or something of that order every Test isn't a problem?
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Richard said:
Why's that?
Generally if you show an aggressive attitude against accurate bowling you'll pay for it - we've seen that often enough in recent Ashes Series.
If you are referring to the last Ashes series, I think that Australia showed an impatient attitude with the bat in hand. While England's batsmen showed an aggressive intent throughout, which clearly unsettled Australia's bowlers.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
TheEpic said:
So, I would think very carefully before you make these sort of comments about England's pace attack, which has proved itself all over the world over the past couple of years against better batting line-ups than the current Aussie one.
Which batting lineups are better than the current Aussie one? You could make arguments for South Africa or India, but I'd be interested to see why you think either of them are clearly better, especially given the recent poor performances from the likes of Smith, Sehwag and Tendulkar. Australia still has comfortably one of the strongest batting lineups around.

Anyway, I wasn't writing off the English attack (at least, that wasn't my intent), I was simply saying that I think they may struggle to have the same impact as they did in England. That's why I said there were "some questions", rather than "England's bowling is crap", for instance.

If I'm being presumptuous in questioning how well Hoggard will translate his recent excellent performances into Australian conditions, you are certainly doing the same in assuming that Jones will be fit and in form come the Ashes. He might be, but he hasn't played any test cricket in six months, and he's never played in Australia extensively. Personally, I think Flintoff and perhaps Hoggard are likely to have good series, but I think England will struggle to mount the same diverse challenges of an in-form five man attack that they offered last time. If one bowler struggles you can certainly cover it with good bowling depth, but if Jones is unfit or Harmison gets belted around or Giles doesn't play or whatever, it makes things much more difficult. England have a very good pace attack, but it's much more difficult to bowl (especially swing) in Australia than many people realise, and I think you might find that England's attack doesn't look quite as lethal over here.

We are, after all, discussing concerns, rather than foregone conclusions. We'll see how they go.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
TheEpic said:
That's a rather silly approach to take. I don't know how you can have any feasible doubts about Matthew Hoggard, as he has surely shown in South Africa last year, and then again in Pakistan and India this winter, he can adapt to any condition and has become a fantastic bowler since the last Ashes tour. Most people write off Hoggard as only effective in gloomy English conditions on green pitches, but it has been shown time and time again that this is not the case. I expect him to top the wickets tally.

Never ever write off Harmison on a bouncy track either. He can lose confidence and pace at times, but if the pitch suits him the shaky Australian middle order will find it difficult to cope.

I also fully expect Simon Jones to be as great a danger as in the 2005 series. He will have plenty of cricket before the Ashes to get back to full fitness and rhythm providing he is injury free, and this is dangerous for Australia. He can reverse swing any cricket ball, as was shown on previous England 'A' tours, and he has also added traditional swing alongside bristling pace to his locker. He is nearly the finished article, providing he can shake off various niggles.

So, I would think very carefully before you make these sort of comments about England's pace attack, which has proved itself all over the world over the past couple of years against better batting line-ups than the current Aussie one.

WATCH OUT! :laugh:
Really... how many particularly good batting-line-ups have we faced of late?
India's was terrible by their standards - no Ganguly, Laxman facing just 1 ball in the series, Tendulkar not even at the races, Sehwag with some overdue rubbish, another opener who's done little at Test level, and two far-from proven middle-order players.
Pakistan were, of course, better - but still, aside from Inzamam, it wasn't exactly formidable - a stopgap opener, Butt (who scored far more runs than he ever has against anyone else), Younis (who didn't do much in his 2 games), Mohammad Yousuf who did nothing until that dropped catch at Lahore (and who's generally done nothing against strong attacks in any case), one very poor excuse for a batsman (Raza), a far-from-proven batsman-wicketkeeper, and a glorified slogger.
Australia had a pretty weak line-up - Martyn and Gilchrist who were both due a lean trot; Clarke who's still to suggest he's Test-class; Katich who was pretty poor for whatever reason; Hayden who was, finally, worked-out; and Ponting and Langer who were both nowhere near as good as normal (both got some good balls, but also played more than their normal share of bad strokes).
Before that there was South Africa, who weren't up to much aside from Kallis - Amla, Hall and Tsolekie who're barely worth mention; van Jaarsveld, Boucher and Pollock who were below-par; Smith who was WAY below par; Dippenaar and Rudolph who are very far from proven Test batsmen; Gibbs who had 1 good game and 3 very poor ones; de Bruyn who inexplicably got just 1 game; and de Villiers who was messed-around far too much and only opened in half his innings.
Then there was New Zealand and West Indies... most of whom, despite a good batsman or two, did little of note.
Really, we haven't faced a strong batting-line-up since South Africa in 2003. Even Sri Lanka in 2003\04 were far from convincing.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
vic_orthdox said:
If you are referring to the last Ashes series, I think that Australia showed an impatient attitude with the bat in hand. While England's batsmen showed an aggressive intent throughout, which clearly unsettled Australia's bowlers.
I was referring to 1998\99, 2002\03 and to a lesser extent 2001.
In each series which England's batsmen tried to dominate when, purely and simply, the bowling would not permit such an approach to be successful.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
And of course Hoggard hasn't made any improvements at all since then...
Of course he has. That doesn't mean that he will bowl as well as he did in India though, it's a new environment.

Richard said:
Really - what is it about fourth- and fifth-day wickets?
They tend to turn? Actually, especially in Australia, pretty much all the pitches will turn a little bit later in the game (not the WACA, normally, or Hobart), even if they don't early on, and having a spin option will be quite valuable. As I said in my first post, the only situation in which I think England should pick five seamers is if Giles is missing and another seamer puts their hand up in a significant way in test cricket between now and then, like Anderson for example if he keeps bowling well. A spin option means variety, and variety means the ability to exploit different conditions, and if you're dealing with a pitch like Adelaide (for example) which is usually flat for the first few days and turns significantly later, England will be missing a trick if they can't take advantage of it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
vic_orthdox said:
8 years is a decent stretch. They've shown in the last 3 or so years a clear reluctance to head into a game of cricket without two recognised medium pace or quicker bowlers.
Oh, right... sorry, didn't realise, you should've said "in the last 3 years or so". :)
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Really... how many particularly good batting-line-ups have we faced of late?
India's was terrible by their standards - no Ganguly, Laxman facing just 1 ball in the series, Tendulkar not even at the races, Sehwag with some overdue rubbish, another opener who's done little at Test level, and two far-from proven middle-order players.
Pakistan were, of course, better - but still, aside from Inzamam, it wasn't exactly formidable - a stopgap opener, Butt (who scored far more runs than he ever has against anyone else), Younis (who didn't do much in his 2 games), Mohammad Yousuf who did nothing until that dropped catch at Lahore (and who's generally done nothing against strong attacks in any case), one very poor excuse for a batsman (Raza), a far-from-proven batsman-wicketkeeper, and a glorified slogger.
Australia had a pretty weak line-up - Martyn and Gilchrist who were both due a lean trot; Clarke who's still to suggest he's Test-class; Katich who was pretty poor for whatever reason; Hayden who was, finally, worked-out; and Ponting and Langer who were both nowhere near as good as normal (both got some good balls, but also played more than their normal share of bad strokes).
Before that there was South Africa, who weren't up to much aside from Kallis - Amla, Hall and Tsolekie who're barely worth mention; van Jaarsveld, Boucher and Pollock who were below-par; Smith who was WAY below par; Dippenaar and Rudolph who are very far from proven Test batsmen; Gibbs who had 1 good game and 3 very poor ones; de Bruyn who inexplicably got just 1 game; and de Villiers who was messed-around far too much and only opened in half his innings.
Then there was New Zealand and West Indies... most of whom, despite a good batsman or two, did little of note.
Really, we haven't faced a strong batting-line-up since South Africa in 2003. Even Sri Lanka in 2003\04 were far from convincing.
Wow, look at that. Every batting lineup in the world is so, so unbelievably bad!
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Richard said:
I was referring to 1998\99, 2002\03 and to a lesser extent 2001.
In each series which England's batsmen tried to dominate when, purely and simply, the bowling would not permit such an approach to be successful.
I think some of that can be attributed to the talent available in those tours as opposed to the most recent one, as well.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Of course he has. That doesn't mean that he will bowl as well as he did in India though, it's a new environment.
No, it doesn't. But it seems to me that he's just been gradually building-up, bowling steadily better since the start of the calender-year 2004. I'd not be too surprised if he continues to bowl as well as he did in India - though of course until such a thing happens, one series isn't too meaningful.
They tend to turn? Actually, especially in Australia, pretty much all the pitches will turn a little bit later in the game (not the WACA, normally, or Hobart), even if they don't early on, and having a spin option will be quite valuable. As I said in my first post, the only situation in which I think England should pick five seamers is if Giles is missing and another seamer puts their hand up in a significant way in test cricket between now and then, like Anderson for example if he keeps bowling well. A spin option means variety, and variety means the ability to exploit different conditions, and if you're dealing with a pitch like Adelaide (for example) which is usually flat for the first few days and turns significantly later, England will be missing a trick if they can't take advantage of it.
Aside from Adelaide, I've seen absolutely no evidence of any Australian grounds producing pitches which start non-turning and change into turners in the course of a 5-day game. Indeed, it's very, very rare anywhere in The World in this day and age.
Variety is no use unless the conditions to allow what that particular variety exploits are in place - and I can't see much likelihood of any pitches at The 'Gabba, The WACA (given that we got the quadrennial turner last year) or The MCG helping Giles at any stage in the match. Hence, as in most cases, I feel the side would be strongest without a spinner.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Wow, look at that. Every batting lineup in the world is so, so unbelievably bad!
Well, there hasn't been too much good batting in the last year, no.
You'd be hard-pressed to miss that India's and Australia's are nowhere near as good as they were 2 years and more ago; you'd be hard-pressed to suggest South Africa's has been convincing of late; you'd be extremely hard-pressed to suggest England's has; and, indeed, West Indies, too.
I don't really think anyone would have claimed Pakistan, Sri Lanka or New Zealand's line-ups have been that strong at any recent time.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I think that the MCG (well, if it's a drop in wicket) will help Giles. They tend to be a lot slower in nature than a natural wicket and don't really have that much bounce, which won't worry Giles as he rarely bowls with much topspin.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
vic_orthdox said:
I think some of that can be attributed to the talent available in those tours as opposed to the most recent one, as well.
Hmm... to me, the constant-attack reflects a lack of ability.
Trescothick in 2001 and 2002\03, for instance, attacked too much and paid for it. He didn't pay for an approach that was no different in 2005, because a) the catching and no-balling were poor and b) the accuracy wasn't a patch on the 2 previous series.
Even batsmen like Butcher, Hussain and Ramprakash, who have had many of their best moments playing defensive innings', at times got caught-up in the problems in said 3 series (albeit Thorpe only played 2 Tests out of 15). Players like Stewart, obviously, always got into problems occasionally due to over-aggressiveness, against any attack.
And the 1 batsman who pretty much never had problems being too aggressive was Atherton, and he usually got Jaffas from McGrath.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
vic_orthdox said:
I think that the MCG (well, if it's a drop in wicket) will help Giles. They tend to be a lot slower in nature than a natural wicket and don't really have that much bounce, which won't worry Giles as he rarely bowls with much topspin.
Slowness isn't really helpful to spin, though - and certainly not when there's no turn.
When was the last time we saw a turning pitch (ie that turned for fingerspinners) for a 'Gabba or MCG Test?
And has there ever been 2 consecutive WACA Tests on turners? Only ever seems to happen once every 4 years to me.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Richard said:
Slowness isn't really helpful to spin, though - and certainly not when there's no turn.
When was the last time we saw a turning pitch (ie that turned for fingerspinners) for a 'Gabba or MCG Test?
And has there ever been 2 consecutive WACA Tests on turners? Only ever seems to happen once every 4 years to me.
The drop in pitches do turn more than your average Australian pitch though - just slower, and with not as much bounce. A slower pitch can often be a real advantage, as it makes it a lot harder for batsmen to play aggressive shots from the front foot.
 

howardj

International Coach
One of the things that needs to be emphasised by Ponting (the team's best batsman) is that you can't bully this English pace battery (of Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison and Jones). For instance, Matt Hayden barely troubled the scorers in the 2005 series, until the Oval Test Match, where he was more circumspect and respectful towards the English quicks.

Likewise, Gilchrist was far too aggressive early on against the quality of fast bowling, and the conditions, he was confronting. A few of the Aussies became so used to bullying attacks, that (it appeared to me) when they were failing against a quality English pace battery, they found it very difficult to get out of the bullying mindset, and get in the trenches.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Well, there hasn't been too much good batting in the last year, no.
You'd be hard-pressed to miss that India's and Australia's are nowhere near as good as they were 2 years and more ago; you'd be hard-pressed to suggest South Africa's has been convincing of late; you'd be extremely hard-pressed to suggest England's has; and, indeed, West Indies, too.
I don't really think anyone would have claimed Pakistan, Sri Lanka or New Zealand's line-ups have been that strong at any recent time.
Australia's batting lineup is quite strong, really. There's some middle order issues with Martyn being inconsistent, Clarke, Symonds and Watson in and out of the team and so on. However, the top three is comfortably the strongest in world cricket, and when you add Hussey and Gilchrist to that, it's a strong lineup. India isn't the same right now obviously, but it's still a good lineup, as is Pakistan's, and South Africas. There's certainly more good batting lineups than bowling attacks around right now.
 

Top