The ``ASHES`` and the Pietersen diillema

[andyc]

If I were an English supporter (and can I stress once again, I am not!!!! ), my main concern would be how the English batting can cope with the relentless attack of McGrath,Gillespie,Kaspa and Warne.

I reckon if he keeps it up, Lee will get a run in the Ashes. England will most definitely be very confident for this tour, and what better way than to destroy that by hurling 150-160 kph cricket balls at them?

 

[chaminda_00]

take Murali out of the mix and SL have a **** poor bowling attack

Take harmison out of the attack england have a **** poor attack as well, but we u didn't ask as to compared the england attack that included Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones, Anderson and Giles did u. Also Vaas is a better bowler then any of the english bowlers and Hearth is better then Giles and Jones and on par with Hoggard. Dilhara fully fit who know how good he could be. Add to that we have better depth in Zoysa, Maharoof, Malinga, Chandana and Suraj then the english.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well a fully fit Pakistan attack is aleast on par with the England. Ahktar is better then Harmison, considering current form and the fact that he has bowled well aganist quality sides unlike Harmison. Sami and Rana are on par with Hoggard and Flintoff, maybe Hoggard abd Flintoff are slightly better but not by much. Kanieria is so much better then Giles it it not funny. Jones is pretty average and Kaneria is better then him and Giles put together. So therefore unless Harmison regains his form or Jones continues to improve Pakistan are on par with England.

Will the english attack is as bad on indian pitches as the indians are on english pitches. They both as good as each other at home, so what makes the english attack so much better then them.

Flintoff and Hoggard > > > Sami and Rana

It's not even close in all honesty. Sami will bowl one, maybe two, good spells in a series - andit's pretty tragic to see a bowler of Rana's quality leading a line that's included Imran, Wasim and Waqar in my lifetime.

 

[Swervy]

There is a reason that England can now be comfortably considered number two in the world at the moment!!!!!

Now,I wouldnt suggest that Englands batting is as good as India or Australia....so somewhere along the line the English bowling must be steppig up and performing.

Over the last 16 matches, here are the best bowling performances by the England team(in reverse chrono order)
vs SA
Flintoff 19 6 44 4
SP Jones 15.3 3 47 4
Hoggard 34 2 144 5
Hoggard 18.3 5 61 7
Flintoff 31.1 7 79 4
Hoggard 20 4 56 3
SP Jones 13.1 3 39 4
Harmison 13 1 46 6
Hoggard 22 3 83 4
Harmison 13.4 3 44 4
Flintoff 12 1 26 3
Giles 22 6 46 3
Giles 30.3 7 65 4
Giles 21 9 57 5
Flintoff 10 4 25 3
Giles 35 9 81 5
Harmison 25 7 51 3
Flintoff 20 3 60 3
Giles 24 6 46 4
Harmison 36.2 8 74 4
Hoggard 15 4 75 4
Harmison 16 5 57 3
Harmison 29 8 76 4
Harmison 18 6 42 3
Flintoff 16.2 2 58 5
Hoggard 14 4 35 4
Harmison 15.1 5 34 3
Harmison 20.1 5 61 6
Jones 15 2 57 5
Hoggard 18.4 3 68 3
Harmison 12.3 8 12 7

There you go..pretty much in every innings someone has done the job and got England into the postion of victory...can any other team in the world other than Australia match the allround ability of the England bowlers to take wickets like this...I certainly cant think of anyone

 

[SJS]

Gough has retired from tests so he isnt in the equation.

Harmison,Hoggard,Flintoff,Jones and Giles is better than Pakistan's by a fair distance IMO.
Re: India on certain surfaces!!! So by that you mean Indian tracks...which really has nothing to do with playing in England.

Kiwi attack..so thats with Bond I take it....coz without him NZ test attack isnt too hot.

So lets start again ...name me a team with a better bowling attack than England's in test matches

Look its a question of opinion right.

I dont think if Harmison bowls as he is doing now he is as good a bowler as Shoaib and remember we started with the premise that England attack with Harmison bowling the way he is ?

Then Kaneria is a better spinner than Giles according to me. You differ ? Fine. Its a matter of opinion, right.

That makes the best new ball bowler and the best spinner. Maybe Flintoff is better than Pakistan's next best new ball bowler. I dont think that makes Englands attack superior to Pakistan. The way Pakistan restricted Aussies in the absence of Shoaib speaks a lot about their second line, by the way.

I rest my case

 

[SJS]

take Murali out of the mix and SL have a **** poor bowling attack

Thats a great argument. In todays thin bowling resources, thats true for most sides barring Australia. Why take Murali out when he takes more than half the wickets that Sri Lankans claim. Taking Murali out is like taking almost two bowlers out of most attacks. take out Harmison and Flintoff from England attack and what have you ?

 

[Swervy]

Well a fully fit Pakistan attack is aleast on par with the England. Ahktar is better then Harmison, considering current form and the fact that he has bowled well aganist quality sides unlike Harmison. Sami and Rana are on par with Hoggard and Flintoff, maybe Hoggard abd Flintoff are slightly better but not by much. Kanieria is so much better then Giles it it not funny. Jones is pretty average and Kaneria is better then him and Giles put together. So therefore unless Harmison regains his form or Jones continues to improve Pakistan are on par with England.

Will the english attack is as bad on indian pitches as the indians are on english pitches. They both as good as each other at home, so what makes the english attack so much better then them.

have a gander at the list of English bowling performances over the last year...if you can find a team (other than Aussies) that can match Englands knack of having a bowler to step up and take wickets when the others might be struggling, then fair do's..but I cannot think of another team that can consistantly do this like England have in the last year (over 30 sets of figures in 16 matches that could be considered either match winning or having a strong positive effect on England winning tests)

 

[Swervy]

Thats a great argument. In todays thin bowling resources, thats true for most sides barring Australia. Why take Murali out when he takes more than half the wickets that Sri Lankans claim. Taking Murali out is like taking almost two bowlers out of most attacks. take out Harmison and Flintoff from England attack and what have you ?

England have more bowling depth than anyone else in the world at the moment (barring Australia)..this is why England are now able to force low totals from the oppostion, because there is rarely a let up in pressure.Sri lanka cannot do that, and thats pretty much why they are not to hot a bowling team..Murali cant do everything.

Same goes for NZ..Bond cant (even when healthy) bowl from both ends all day...

Pakistan!!!! Shoaib is brilliant for short spells but other than that, they do not have a game winner in their bowling..one of the reasons Pakistan arent that good a team.

India!!! Sorry, but Indias ability to let a batting team off the hook with sloppy pace bowling just takes them way off the screen.Harbhajan is a class bowler....Pathan will improve,but where are the others. Any team who can consider Nehra, Zaheer or Balaji as premier pacers has some severe problems in the bowling dept.

 

[Swervy]

Look its a question of opinion right.

I dont think if Harmison bowls as he is doing now he is as good a bowler as Shoaib and remember we started with the premise that England attack with Harmison bowling the way he is ?

Then Kaneria is a better spinner than Giles according to me. You differ ? Fine. Its a matter of opinion, right.

That makes the best new ball bowler and the best spinner. Maybe Flintoff is better than Pakistan's next best new ball bowler. I dont think that makes Englands attack superior to Pakistan. The way Pakistan restricted Aussies in the absence of Shoaib speaks a lot about their second line, by the way.

I rest my case

I agree Kaneria is a very good bowler.

And yeah Shoaib is great in short (and few) spells, but what good is that really with no real support.

 

[chaminda_00]

Pakistan!!!! Shoaib is brilliant for short spells but other than that, they do not have a game winner in their bowling..one of the reasons Pakistan arent that good a team.

You ever heard of a guy called Danish Kaneria, a better bowler then any of the English bowlers. Pakistan have two better bowlers then any of the english bowlers. Maybe England have more depth in their five bowlers but Pakistan strike power in those two bowlers.

England have more bowling depth than anyone else in the world at the moment (barring Australia)..this is why England are now able to force low totals from the oppostion, because there is rarely a let up in pressure.Sri lanka cannot do that, and thats pretty much why they are not to hot a bowling team..Murali cant do everything.

Sri Lanka is the same Vaas and Murali are better then any of the english bowlers.

India!!! Sorry, but Indias ability to let a batting team off the hook with sloppy pace bowling just takes them way off the screen.Harbhajan is a class bowler....Pathan will improve,but where are the others. Any team who can consider Nehra, Zaheer or Balaji as premier pacers has some severe problems in the bowling dept.

India also have two bowlers that are better then any of the english bowlers in Kumble and Harbarjan and Pathan is as good as Flintoof and Hoggard. Overall england may have more depth in their 1st choice bowling attack but doesn't nessary make then a better bowling attack.

Overall these 4 bowling attacks are on par if all fully fit.

 

[SJS]

Just to supplement the Murali vs two English bowlers argument.

Since 1st January 2003 the se are the wickets per match taken by these bowlers.

Harmison : 4.2

Hoggard : 3.9

Flintoff : 3.2

Murali 7.3

When you have a bowler like Murali he is worth two opposition bowlers. This argument is like saying that in the thirties Australian batting had no depth because take away Bradman and England were superior !!

 

[chaminda_00]

I agree Kaneria is a very good bowler.

And yeah Shoaib is great in short (and few) spells, but what good is that really with no real support.

You may not rate Sami and Rana but they do provide suffient support to Ahktar and Kaneria. The short spells that Ahktar bowls is countered by the long spells and effective spells that Kaneira is capable of bowling.

 

[Swervy]

Pakistan in the last year or so
Danish Kaneria 49.3 7 188 7
Shoaib Akhtar 27 4 109 5
Danish Kaneria 39.3 5 125 5
Shoaib Akhtar 22 1 99 5
Abdul Razzaq 23.1 9 35 5
Danish Kaneria 60 20 118 7
Shoaib Akhtar 19 3 60 5
Mohammad Sami 21.4 5 71 4
Danish Kaneria 38.2 4 117 4
Umar Gul 12 2 31 5
Danish Kaneria 6.4 2 14 3
Shoaib Akhtar 17 4 62 3
Shoaib Akhtar 20.3 5 48 5
Shoaib Akhtar 18 3 30 6
Shabbir Ahmed 43.2 9 117 5
Mohammad Sami 16 4 44 5
Shabbir Ahmed 26 8 74 4
Shoaib Malik 17 4 42 4
Shoaib Akhtar 14.3 2 36 4
Danish Kaneria 28.3 8 46 5

that list is pretty much dominated by 2 players....this list also doesnt show the number of times the Pakistanis have been mauled...if one of the 2 good bowlers doesnt perform (or isnt playing),where really does Pakistan turn to get the wickets...well by the looks of it recently ony Razzaq!!!!!! 'nuff said

 

[Scallywag]

Just to supplement the Murali vs two English bowlers argument.

Since 1st January 2003 the se are the wickets per match taken by these bowlers.

Harmison : 4.2

Hoggard : 3.9

Flintoff : 3.2

Murali 7.3

When you have a bowler like Murali he is worth two opposition bowlers. This argument is like saying that in the thirties Australian batting had no depth because take away Bradman and England were superior !!

How many overs have each of these players bowled per test.

 

[Swervy]

Just to supplement the Murali vs two English bowlers argument.

Since 1st January 2003 the se are the wickets per match taken by these bowlers.

Harmison : 4.2

Hoggard : 3.9

Flintoff : 3.2

Murali 7.3

When you have a bowler like Murali he is worth two opposition bowlers. This argument is like saying that in the thirties Australian batting had no depth because take away Bradman and England were superior !!

but then couple in the fact that SL arent a winning team and England are, it kinda changes things. SL are way way too reliant on Murali to get the wickets to be considered a good bowling outfit. England have players who regularly perform outstandingly...thats why England are winning tests and SL, pakistan etc arent

 

[SJS]

How many overs have each of these players bowled per test.

You will get more overs if you bowl better. The fact remains that Muraliu takes 35% of the wickets that fall to Sri Lanka in the matches he plays so just saying that take away Murali and what do they have is childish.

And spinners bowl more overs and have lower strike rates is well known but what matters finally, in test matches, is a combination of strike rates and eco rates, which is reflected in the bowling averages or runs per wicket.

 

[Scallywag]

that might have looked like I was trying to find holes in your argument SJS but I wasnt I was just interested in how many overs each of the bowlers bowled.

 

[garage flower]

India!!! Sorry, but Indias ability to let a batting team off the hook with sloppy pace bowling just takes them way off the screen.Harbhajan is a class bowler....Pathan will improve,but where are the others.

Anil Kumble?

 

[chaminda_00]

but then couple in the fact that SL arent a winning team and England are, it kinda changes things. SL are way way too reliant on Murali to get the wickets to be considered a good bowling outfit. England have players who regularly perform outstandingly...thats why England are winning tests and SL, pakistan etc arent

Well if we played 8 Test agansit the current Windies team then we would be a winning side as well.

 

[Swervy]

pakistan since the start of 2004 ave 44.4 runs per wicket and concede 3.74 rpo in tests
england since the start of 2004 ave 30 runs per wicket and concede 3.36 rpo in tests