***Official*** England in Pakistan

[greg]

1. I understand them both pretty well thank you and both are happening more right now than in the 80s or 90s. Why ? because the pitches are grassless. A grass-less pitch degrades far more than a grassy pitch, since the grass holds the soil together ( not unlike top soil erosion, really). Surrey loam or whatever, it is not the same as having grass on the pitch, as the plant root-system is the best erosion preventer, nomatter how much congealed goo you produce in a lab.

There is no grass on concrete, and that doesn't break up

OK let's try a different track. When was the last time you saw an English test pitch "break up"? Indeed when was the last time any finger spinner prospered in England?

2. English spinners have declined since 1970s - bear in mind that Underwood was the last great find of the English spin repertoire and that was in the 60s.

I addressed this above. Uncovered Pitches.

3. English supply line of fast bowlers have been rejuvinated primarily because they finally understood reverse swing. Pretty much thats it. but there is no way you can say that pitches are crumbling less these days than in the 70s,80s or even mid/late 90s.
That is, utter codswallop.
Flat pitches help pacers more than spinners, which is why you dont see many spinners ( %-wise) taking a huge hit in this era of flat pitches but a lotta pacers have taken significant hits.

You completely missed the point. In the eighties England had an endless supply line of medium pacers (c80mph) who could exploit English conditions but got hammered when they played anywhere else in the world. The number of FAST bowlers 88-90mph + over the whole period could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Today there are that many in one age group. Reverse swing is neither here nor there.

 

[C_C]

There is no grass on concrete, and that doesn't break up

True, but there is no naturally produced soil that would hold firmer than a grassy patch.
As per when was the last time English pitches were breaking up, the last India tour is the most clear example of that.

You completely missed the point. In the eighties England had an endless supply line of medium pacers (c80mph) who could exploit English conditions but got hammered when they played anywhere else in the world. The number of FAST bowlers 88-90mph + over the whole period could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Today there are that many in one age group. Reverse swing is neither here nor there.

The point i am trying to make, is that this is the best time for spinners in the world for a helluva long time and Ashley Giles is lucky that he isnt 10-30 years older.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The point i am trying to make, is that this is the best time for spinners in the world for a helluva long time and Ashley Giles is lucky that he isnt 10-30 years older.

Not really. It's better for spinners than the 80s was, but if you recall the 90s was much more friendly for seam bowling than most pitches are today, but as Warne would testify you also got far more pitches breaking up on the final day. Warne himself has said that one of the reasons he doesn't take his wickets at the same sort of average he did early on his career (but takes more) is because the pitches are flattening out, which means he is required to bowl early on more often, and the pitches break up less so he gets less opportunities to dominate on a 5th day turner. This doesn't apply to spinners in the subcontinent, but everywhere else it does. A grassy wicket is indeed worse for a spinner than a dead flat pitch, but your average wicket with a bit of life isn't necessarily a green top, and will break up much more as the match does on.

 

[greg]

True, but there is no naturally produced soil that would hold firmer than a grassy patch.
As per when was the last time English pitches were breaking up, the last India tour is the most clear example of that.

The last India tour? Are you serious?

EDIT: I'll pre-empt you by accepting that India's spinners did fairly well on that grassless desert that is Headingley

 

[Pratters]

I'd like to know how you can just list 4 series where he gets a good average as "proof" that he can cope in conditions that aren't actually that frequent in their occurance.

Aha! You can give the example of 2 series and do not regard 4 series as evidence of him being sound - series where he faced varied conditions.

 

[marc71178]

The 2 series have conclusive proof of it, the 4 series you named do not.

They also don't have much evidence of bowlers capable of exploiting anything that may have been there.

 

[Pratters]

The 2 series have conclusive proof of it, the 4 series you named do not.

They also don't have much evidence of bowlers capable of exploiting anything that may have been there.

So you think all the bowlers in those series were crap capable of exploiting nothing? If some one truly had such a genuine weakness he would not manage those many runs.

 

[marc71178]

Of course he would if his weakness doesn't happen in that series

 

[Pratters]

Of course he would if his weakness doesn't happen in that series

Any specific reason for his weakness not happening in so many series where he faced tough conditions against proper bowlers and specificly in a couple of series? Bah.

 

[marc71178]

Because the conditions weren't there for the weakness to be exploited?

If it's a flat wicket and no real overhead cloud - it doesn't tend to swing around.

 

[Pratters]

How can you be so sure there was no cloud in any of the matches he scored the runs.

 

[marc71178]

Is that a straw you're clutching at

 

[Pratters]

Is that a straw you're clutching at

Neat way of discarding some thing you cant prove . I have made this point pretty clear. Prove against it or you dont have an arguement.

 

[marc71178]

Why do I have to prove something with evidence you're providing?

The onus is on you to show that those runs came in seaming conditions against great (or even good) seam bowling - something which you're clearly unable to do.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes that is exactly my point. Similarly wont some one who is 6 1 derive more bounce than some one who is 5 10. So how can you claim Pollock and Ealham are similar bowlers if Pollock does not have his pace.

yes so he might get a bit more out of a wicket than ealham, which is why hes in the test side while ealham is not. but 6'1 isnt good enough to get extra bounce off the wicket, and we've seen plenty of fast bowlers of similar height struggle once they've lost pace.

I have not evaded any arguement. You made the claim regarding Hayden being a flat track bully. It is you who should prove your theories regarding his weaknesses convincingly.

It is not other wise. If I claim some one has a character trait. I will explain why I believe that. I will not ask the other person why he doesn not believe otherwise.

i have already shown several times in the past that hayden has never scored in seamer friendly conditions. if you want i shall go through all the games where hayden faced swing or seam:
Brisbane 00/01
MCG 00/01
Edgbaston 01
Lords 01
Trent bridge 01
Headingly 01
durban 02
Antigua 1st inning 03
darwin 04
nagpur 04/05
perth 04/05
basin reserve 04/05- first 15 overs
Lords 05
Edgbaston 05
Old trafford 05
Trent Bridge 05
edit: add the 4th day of the oval test match in there

out of all those games only once did he pass 50, and its not particularly surprising that it happened at basin reserve.

 

[aussie]

Antigua 1st inning 03.

nah Antigua didn't have much seam or swing it was similar to the pitch at the Oval this year, his dismall in that first innings showed that where he was caught at straighish mid-on off a mistimed pull of Lawson.

 

[tooextracool]

Hayden regularly got starts in the tests as well. He was clearly in decent form and hitting the ball well, but had mental problems relating to not scoring runs in tests for a long time, and when he worked through the early conventional swing he usually threw his wicket away in some fashion or another. Quite a number of his wickets had nothing to do with technical deficiencies and in fact were just stupid shots or bad luck, where he hit a half-volley straight to a fielder or played the ball on to his own stumps.

im sorry what?
for one thing there was no conventional swing for nearly 4 out of the 5 tests(TB and 4th day at the Oval). so its glaringly obvious why he got starts in some of those tests and it was only after flintoff and jones came on and started reversing it that he looked all at sea.
as far as 'quite a number of his wickets had nothing to do with technical deficiencies', id think that anyone who was worked out 6 out of 9 times in a series, managed nothing other than being technically exposed.

In the final test you saw exactly how Hayden succeeded against swing for so long despite his technique not apparently being particularly well made for it, which is by being extremely watchful, defending late and being a superb leaver of the ball. It wasn't the most convincing century you'll ever see, but I think it's fairly obvious that he'd gone off and considered his problems and come back and returned to the way he used to play swing bowling.

yes he did indeed, but you also saw 2 other things:
1) that the ball didnt swing conventionally or reverse anywhere near as much as the last 4 tests.
2) in the first 4 tests he played with the same technique hes played with all his career, therefore i think we can safely say that hes been getting away with that weakness for all of his career until now.

 

[tooextracool]

nah Antigua didn't have much seam or swing it was similar to the pitch at the Oval this year, his dismall in that first innings showed that where he was caught at straighish mid-on off a mistimed pull of Lawson.

antigua for the first couple of days had plenty of seam movement.
after that it turned into the traditional antigua wicket and got flatter to bat on as the days went by.

 

[tooextracool]

Batsman X many have a poor record in Y country or vs Z team. That does not necessarily prove any thing.

Hayden has made runs in many other countriesagainst good opposition -

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

Australia in South Africa, 2001/02 [Series]
Aus 3 309 122 61.80 1 2 - - - - 4 0

The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 2002/03 [Series]
Aus 5 496 197 62.00 3 0 - - - - 8 0

Trans-Tasman Trophy (Aus/NZ) in Australia, 2001/02 [Series]
- 3 297 136 59.40 1 2 - - - - 0 0
South Africa in Australia, 2001/02 [Series]
Aus 3 429 138 107.25 3 0 - - - - 2 0

firstly, for a swing bowler to swing the ball he needs the conditions to do so.
in SA there was no pollock, and the rest of the bowlers- ntini(doesnt swing the ball), nel(debut series) and donald was completely past it. if thats a quality pace bowling attack then the current SA attack must be Gods.
in the 2002/03 ashes there was hoggard and caddick, bowling in conditions where the ball didnt swing one iota.
nor did the ball swing or seam in the australia vs NZ series or SA-aus series. which is quite typical of conditions in australia off late.

Can you convince that none of the conditions supported swing bowling and only England or a specific country has conditions to expose Hayden's weakness? I really dont buy that arguement. Sehwag has a poor record against Zimbabwe. Does that mean he is not adept at facing them?

just because someone has a high overall average it doesnt mean that they succeeded in conditions that assisted pace bowlers. hes now played against seam and swing plenty of times during his career, enough to be able to say conclusively that hayden cant play against it.

 

[tooextracool]

How can you be so sure there was no cloud in any of the matches he scored the runs.

probably if you've watched them.
or really even if you read reports about them.