***Official*** England in Pakistan

[Pratters]

err someone whos 6'5 is going to derive more bounce than someone whos 6'1. you only have to look at steve harmison and andrew flintoff in the ashes to realise that.

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.

you've once again evaded the argument. lets forget about the swing for a second. give me a reasonable explanation as to why he failed twice in england, and why he scored prolifically in the warm up games and still looked out of depth in the test format.

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.

 

[aussie]

Hayden can play all kinds of bowling pretty well whatever I have watched in various conditions.

mate i haven't missed any Hayden test innings in the last 4 years & i know that is not true...

 

[cricket player]

the problem with hayden is,

his front foot comes froward before the ball is even pitched therefore if there is any swing he is in trouble i am sure you will agree with me if you have seen the ashes,hoggard got him plumb infront a few times like that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

you've once again evaded the argument. lets forget about the swing for a second. give me a reasonable explanation as to why he failed twice in england, and why he scored prolifically in the warm up games and still looked out of depth in the test format.

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.

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.

 

[marc71178]

I did not make the statement regarding Hayden. So I am not the one who should provide evidence. Look who is attacking now.

So how can you refute it when TEC is fully backed by what has happened?

 

[greg]

Utter bollox.
Pitches the world over are getting flatter and flatter. As such, a spinner does typically better on flat pitches ( because ultimately, all pitches start crumbling) than a pacer/seamer does.

This statement is rubbish. The whole point is that pitches are not breaking up like they used to, especially in England which is where the argument is most relevant to Giles.

EDIT: and the fast pace that test cricket is being played is meaning that bowlers' chances of seeing a fifth day pitch is dramatically reduced anyway.

 

[Pratters]

So how can you refute it when TEC is fully backed by what has happened?

Are you trying to put me vs TEC in some way? Unnecessary in my opinion.

Hayden has been out of confidence in internaitonal level for some time now. I dont regard the Ashes slump any thing more than that.

 

[marc71178]

So explain 2001 then.

 

[Pratters]

So explain 2001 then.

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

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?

 

[marc71178]

Have you even examined the series you listed (and in particular the "attacks" he faced in them)?

 

[BoyBrumby]

The real reason Goughie isn't touring...

Spending time with the family, eh, Daz? From the Beeb's website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4282486.stm

The steaming great mincer.....

If you listen carefully you can just hear the sound of an international career ending!

 

[Barney Rubble]

If you listen carefully you can just hear the sound of an international career ending!

I think that sound was heard a while back - when Gilchrist thumped him through the covers for the five millionth time this summer.....

 

[Pratters]

Have you even examined the series you listed (and in particular the "attacks" he faced in them)?

The attacks may not be as good as the current one he faced vs England but I wont say all were entirely poor ones. Also the conditions - as I stated I am not a weather man but to think none of the innings he played had any bowler having any quality swing would be poor.

 

[marc71178]

Perhaps you need to revisit the series then...

 

[Pratters]

Perhaps you need to revisit the series then...

How can you prove Hayden faced no conditions in the sessions he scored runs? I will never know

I have seen Hayden upteem times and he is a quality, adept player.

 

[C_C]

This statement is rubbish. The whole point is that pitches are not breaking up like they used to, especially in England which is where the argument is most relevant to Giles.

EDIT: and the fast pace that test cricket is being played is meaning that bowlers' chances of seeing a fifth day pitch is dramatically reduced anyway.

Utter bollox.
Every pitch breaks up, primarily due to footholes from the bowlers.

On Flat pitches, spinners are more advantaged than pacers- simply because pacers benifit the most from bounce/seaming pitches while the spinners can wait till the second innings pops up and wait for the pitch to crack a bit and exploit it.
A pitch with grass helps pacers a LOT more than it helps spinners simply because grass holds the pitch together and keeps it from cracking - and the spinners like a cracking pitch.
On almost all flat pitches, spinners are at an advantage because while the pacers have nothing in it - no pace, bounce or movement, spinners can get the ball to spin out from the cracks in the latter half of the test.
This millenia has seen the pitches go flatter and flatter. An analysis of records show that while pace bowlers have been severely affected ( except the brilliant few like McGrath), spinners have been affected less so.

The pitches in England are breaking up a whole lot more than it did in the 70s or 80s or even the 90s - primarily because of the lack of grass on the pitch- something that holds the pitch together ( if you see pitches from the 80s, they had unpredictable bounce all around but rarely did they break up in England/OZ as they do today).

 

[aliG]

so yea like..england sucks and its players are drunk poopsicles right?
hhehe just kidding. eventhough its prolly true. but who am i to make that comment.

 

[marc71178]

How can you prove Hayden faced no conditions in the sessions he scored runs? I will never know

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.

 

[greg]

Utter bollox.
Every pitch breaks up, primarily due to footholes from the bowlers.

On Flat pitches, spinners are more advantaged than pacers- simply because pacers benifit the most from bounce/seaming pitches while the spinners can wait till the second innings pops up and wait for the pitch to crack a bit and exploit it.
A pitch with grass helps pacers a LOT more than it helps spinners simply because grass holds the pitch together and keeps it from cracking - and the spinners like a cracking pitch.
On almost all flat pitches, spinners are at an advantage because while the pacers have nothing in it - no pace, bounce or movement, spinners can get the ball to spin out from the cracks in the latter half of the test.
This millenia has seen the pitches go flatter and flatter. An analysis of records show that while pace bowlers have been severely affected ( except the brilliant few like McGrath), spinners have been affected less so.

The pitches in England are breaking up a whole lot more than it did in the 70s or 80s or even the 90s - primarily because of the lack of grass on the pitch- something that holds the pitch together ( if you see pitches from the 80s, they had unpredictable bounce all around but rarely did they break up in England/OZ as they do today).

Do you understand the difference between "pitches breaking up" and "rough caused by bowlers follow throughs"?

The fact is (and maybe you wouldn't appreciate this from Canada) that it is pretty universally recognised fact that the decline in English spin bowling resources in recent years has a great deal to do with the pitches that have been produced. Obviously the end of uncovered wickets (that made bowlers like Underwood so dangerous) was the major change but also in recent years more and more English pitches have been being relaid with "surrey loam" - which has a feature that it is very long lasting and does not break up like pitches did in the past. This is in combination with harsh penalties for groundsmen producing poor pitches, which has resulted in more and more belters. Remember County cricket in the past used to be only 3 day matches which would be a total farce if played on todays pitches.

Of course spinners don't benefit from pitches where the fast bowlers can run through the first two innings in a day and a half, but it does not follow that the lack of such pitches means that spinners should prosper.

Every country tends to produce bowlers to suit its pitches, and struggle to produce bowlers who don't. Hence Australia with its true bouncy pitches has always produced legspinners, India has struggled to produce pace bowlers, and England have historically produced hundreds of medium pacers (and like i say historically finger spinners who exploited uncovered pitches). It is no-coincidence that England are in recent years suddenly starting to produce a good supply line of fast bowlers, and medium pacers are becoming less common, so ineffective are they. Similarly fingerspinners, except at isolated outposts like Northampton and to do a job in one-day cricket.

 

[C_C]

Do you understand the difference between "pitches breaking up" and "rough caused by bowlers follow throughs"?

The fact is (and maybe you wouldn't appreciate this from Canada) that it is pretty universally recognised fact that the decline in English spin bowling resources in recent years has a great deal to do with the pitches that have been produced. Obviously the end of uncovered wickets (that made bowlers like Underwood so dangerous) was the major change but also in recent years more and more English pitches have been being relaid with "surrey loam" - which has a feature that it is very long lasting and does not break up like pitches did in the past. This is in combination with harsh penalties for groundsmen producing poor pitches, which has resulted in more and more belters. Remember County cricket in the past used to be only 3 day matches which would be a total farce if played on todays pitches.

Of course spinners don't benefit from pitches where the fast bowlers can run through the first two innings in a day and a half, but it does not follow that the lack of such pitches means that spinners should prosper.

Every country tends to produce bowlers to suit its pitches, and struggle to produce bowlers who don't. Hence Australia with its true bouncy pitches has always produced legspinners, India has struggled to produce pace bowlers, and England have historically produced hundreds of medium pacers (and like i say historically finger spinners who exploited uncovered pitches). It is no-coincidence that England are in recent years suddenly starting to produce a good supply line of fast bowlers, and medium pacers are becoming less common, so ineffective are they. Similarly fingerspinners, except at isolated outposts like Northampton and to do a job in one-day cricket.

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.


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.

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.