The ``ASHES`` and the Pietersen diillema

[Swervy]

I agree with that except that for this to be true Harmison must be in better form. Thats our only difference, really.

but why...England have shown they can bowl teams out even without Harmison playing well.Of course if harmison is playing well this summer then Englands chances rise..but the same could be said about any other player

 

[marc71178]

Error. It should have been singular .

In which case you're writing them off as having not done something that they've never had the chance to do!

 

[Swervy]

In which case you're writing them off as having not done something that they've never had the chance to do!

thats right..that is my point when I said that about Harmison never playing vs Australia when he has been bowling well (that point seems like a long time ago now though )

 

[chaminda_00]

With regards to other teams...well without a doubt Murali is SL's weapon,Shoaib is Paks main weapon, Pollock is SA's main weapon....if they fail, generally there is no-one else to step up...and that is why I beleive the Aussies and the English have the two best bowling attacks in the world

You seem to always forget about bowlers like Kaneria and Vaas who are both better then any of the english bowlers. When u have two bowlers better then any of the five english bowlers, then that counters the depth of England's bowling attack. It not as clear cut as u think when it comes to 2nd best bowling attack

SA on the other hand, well until Ntini preforms most consistenly and Nel or Charl make the step up, their bowling attack wont be rated.

 

[Swervy]

You seem to always forget about bowlers like Kaneria and Vaas who are both better then any of the english bowlers. When u have two bowlers better then any of the five english bowlers, then that counters the depth of England's bowling attack. It not as clear cut as u think when it comes to 2nd best bowling attack

SA on the other hand, well until Ntini preforms most consistenly and Nel or Charl make the step up, their bowling attack wont be rated.

well give me a Pollock-less SA bowling attack over a Murali-less Sri lanka attack any day of the week.

Why do you think Vaas is better than Flintoff or Hoggard (he may well be...but why is it as clear cut as that)....

And I dont think it does counter Englands allround bowling depth....England have been brilliant this last year at keeping pressure on the batsmen throughout an entire innings...dont underestimate the effect of letting the throttle off for even just 10 overs in a day (in reality a team like SL will have relativly poor bowling going for more like 30 overs a day)....those 10 overs can completely change the complexion of a test....that is something England have done better this year than I have ever seen them do

 

[garage flower]

You seem to always forget about bowlers like Kaneria and Vaas who are both better then any of the english bowlers. When u have two bowlers better then any of the five english bowlers, then that counters the depth of England's bowling attack. It not as clear cut as u think when it comes to 2nd best bowling attack

But if you've got 2 bowlers who aren't good enough, teams can see off the quality bowlers and make hay against the others. England now have a bowling line-up that is able to maintain pressure in similar fashion to the brilliant Aussie quartet. I think that's more important than having (arguably) the 2 most effective strike bowlers, but little or no depth.

EDIT: Sorry, pretty much repeated Swervy's response.

 

[marc71178]

You seem to always forget about bowlers like Kaneria and Vaas who are both better then any of the english bowlers.

Better at what?

Tiddlywinks?

 

[Scaly piscine]

2004 stats

Danish Kaneira 29 wickets @ 33.24
Vaas 40 @ 28.65
Harmison 67 @ 23.92
Flintoff 43 @ 25.62

 

[chaminda_00]

well give me a Pollock-less SA bowling attack over a Murali-less Sri lanka attack any day of the week.

Why do you think Vaas is better than Flintoff or Hoggard (he may well be...but why is it as clear cut as that)....

And I dont think it does counter Englands allround bowling depth....England have been brilliant this last year at keeping pressure on the batsmen throughout an entire innings...dont underestimate the effect of letting the throttle off for even just 10 overs in a day (in reality a team like SL will have relativly poor bowling going for more like 30 overs a day)....those 10 overs can completely change the complexion of a test....that is something England have done better this year than I have ever seen them do

I think u guys r under estimating Hearth and Suraj (maybe not now butin a couple years). Also Chandana got a 10wh against Australia, how many spin bowlers have done that aganist Australia, in Australia. We will still be competitive without Murali, maybe not world beaters but. I do get what ur saying about keeping pressure on batsmen with bowling depth, but Sri Lanka do have bowling depth, it just that Tilleratne didn't know how to use it. Since Atapattu has taken over we have improved our abilty to keep pressure on the opp.

 

[SJS]

but why...England have shown they can bowl teams out even without Harmison playing well.Of course if harmison is playing well this summer then Englands chances rise..but the same could be said about any other player

We seem to be going around in circles dont we ?

1. I think with Harmison(which means Harmison in full flow), England are the second best attack in the world

2. Without Harmison, they are more or less at par with Pakistan - one can argue either way- and India on certain types of wickets.

3. With Harmison, they may be able to surprise Australia, just may, along with their present batting side.

4. Without Harmison, they would not be able to surprise Australia (within the realms of imagination...anything is possible of course). However, without Harmison, they may still be good enough for most other sides in the world.

Note : without Harmison means Harmison in present miserable form.

This is what I think.

You are welcome to differ

 

[Swervy]

I think u guys r under estimating Hearth and Suraj (maybe not now butin a couple years). Also Chandana got a 10wh against Australia, how many spin bowlers have done that aganist Australia, in Australia. We will still be competitive without Murali, maybe not world beaters but. I do get what ur saying about keeping pressure on batsmen with bowling depth, but Sri Lanka do have bowling depth, it just that Tilleratne didn't know how to use it. Since Atapattu has taken over we have improved our abilty to keep pressure on the opp.

ok....but there are a lot of if's and but's there....maybe I am under-estimating some of the SL 'other ' bowlers...when I have seen them they havent impressed me too much but obviously potential is there...but that doesnt mean that they are as good as a proven outfit like Englands attack....but they may well develop more into being that way..but no-one here can 100% guarantee that..but we KNOW England have done it and so probably can continue doing it

 

[Swervy]

We seem to be going around in circles dont we ?

1. I think with Harmison(which means Harmison in full flow), England are the second best attack in the world

2. Without Harmison, they are more or less at par with Pakistan - one can argue either way- and India on certain types of wickets.

3. With Harmison, they may be able to surprise Australia, just may, along with their present batting side.

4. Without Harmison, they would not be able to surprise Australia (within the realms of imagination...anything is possible of course). However, without Harmison, they may still be good enough for most other sides in the world.

Note : without Harmison means Harmison in present miserable form.

This is what I think.

You are welcome to differ

fair points....and as I say, obviously an in form harmison will increase Englands chances, but IMO Harmison isnt the be all and end all, they have wicket taking ability throughout the bowling attack.

No harmison means less chance...but i would also say that about Flintoff or Hoggard

 

[chaminda_00]

ok....but there are a lot of if's and but's there....maybe I am under-estimating some of the SL 'other ' bowlers...when I have seen them they havent impressed me too much but obviously potential is there...but that doesnt mean that they are as good as a proven outfit like Englands attack....but they may well develop more into being that way..but no-one here can 100% guarantee that..but we KNOW England have done it and so probably can continue doing it

Well just give Sri Lanka 18 months under Atapattu, it amazing what a good captain can do to a team. Just look at England under Vaughan, compared to them under Hassain.

 

[Swervy]

Well just give Sri Lanka 18 months under Atapattu, it amazing what a good captain can do to a team. Just look at England under Vaughan, compared to them under Hassain.

England became a good team under Hussain dont forget...but yeah I see your point...but again thats all speculation and doesnt really count for much in this discussion

 

[chaminda_00]

England became a good team under Hussain dont forget...but yeah I see your point...but again thats all speculation and doesnt really count for much in this discussion

A good team but not the 2nd best bowling attack, as u seem to think they are.

 

[Swervy]

A good team but not the 2nd best bowling attack, as u seem to think they are.

hahahha..yeah but they are now in my opinion..and really all that matters is how they currently are doing (or in the last year anyway)...thats an indicator to what may happen in the near future.

 

[SJS]

fair points....and as I say, obviously an in form harmison will increase Englands chances, but IMO Harmison isnt the be all and end all, they have wicket taking ability throughout the bowling attack.

No harmison means less chance...but i would also say that about Flintoff or Hoggard

I agree Flintoff and Hoggard are important but against Australia in particular, the shock of an early break through as Shoaib managed a couple of times is vital. Then the Hoggards and Flintoffs can consoidate the gains. Without the quick initial break throughs the Aussie top order can run away with the match. The quick three - four wickets at the start is the mantra to defeating this Ausssie side. For this you need Shoaib/Harmison kind of bowlers.

Against India for example, who do not rely so much on the top order running away with the match but are basically a solid middle order dominated side, Flintoff and Hoggard type of bowlers can do the job without the shock of the Express bowler. Thats why in Pakistan, India were more vulnerable to the medium pacers than to Shoaib.

This is my feeling about how Aussies can be defeated.

 

[Swervy]

I agree Flintoff and Hoggard are important but against Australia in particular, the shock of an early break through as Shoaib managed a couple of times is vital. Then the Hoggards and Flintoffs can consoidate the gains. Without the quick initial break throughs the Aussie top order can run away with the match. The quick three - four wickets at the start is the mantra to defeating this Ausssie side. For this you need Shoaib/Harmison kind of bowlers.

Against India for example, who do not rely so much on the top order running away with the match but are basically a solid middle order dominated side, Flintoff and Hoggard type of bowlers can do the job without the shock of the Express bowler. Thats why in Pakistan, India were more vulnerable to the medium pacers than to Shoaib.

This is my feeling about how Aussies can be defeated.

fair enough...although you do appear to have changed tack slightly...an hour ago you were basically saying England were crap with the ball..now I dont think you are saying that..anyway..you are right, england do need the ability to get say 2 or three wickets before lunch to assert themselves..then the only prob is the middle order..hahahaha

Although I think England should be more worried about the batting than the bowling. England can be prone to the collapse, and I would also be slightly concerned about the batting order. I think if Australia bowl as well as they can,England will struggle. The key batsmen for me are Trescothick and Flintoff. These two can quickly demoralise any team...if Tresco gets going, England could rack up 130 before lunch on the first day,and then who knows what could happen (that first day of a series is so important in my eyes)..and Flintoff could have the same effect that botham used to have on Australia after 1981...ie. oh ****, ...if he puts a couple of big scores under his belt.

England cant afford the silly lapses of concentration (head in the air shots etc)..they have to play at the top of their game..I dont think they did that vs South Africa, if they had have done, I could have seen that series being a 4-0 win...but if England do play as well as they have done in the last year,and consistantly, I think this series could be a narrow win for Australia and maybe even a draw

 

[Arjun]

Would you have Geraint Jones 'keeping? His batting seems average, while there's a leak behind the stumps. With Chris Read, you will have some safety there, but he's been found wanting with the bat, though Giles hasn't.

 

[SJS]

fair enough...although you do appear to have changed tack slightly...an hour ago you were basically saying England were crap with the ball..now I dont think you are saying that..anyway..you are right, england do need the ability to get say 2 or three wickets before lunch to assert themselves..then the only prob is the middle order..hahahaha

Although I think England should be more worried about the batting than the bowling. England can be prone to the collapse, and I would also be slightly concerned about the batting order. I think if Australia bowl as well as they can,England will struggle. The key batsmen for me are Trescothick and Flintoff. These two can quickly demoralise any team...if Tresco gets going, England could rack up 130 before lunch on the first day,and then who knows what could happen (that first day of a series is so important in my eyes)..and Flintoff could have the same effect that botham used to have on Australia after 1981...ie. oh ****, ...if he puts a couple of big scores under his belt.

England cant afford the silly lapses of concentration (head in the air shots etc)..they have to play at the top of their game..I dont think they did that vs South Africa, if they had have done, I could have seen that series being a 4-0 win...but if England do play as well as they have done in the last year,and consistantly, I think this series could be a narrow win for Australia and maybe even a draw

I dont think I said England were crap. You can trace back from where it started. Yes I was very sarcastic with the reapeated remark "second best attack indeed" or something like that . That was just showing irritation at the confidence with which you made the first statement. I was over doing it maybe.

No I dont think I have ever described Englands attack as crap. In fact, if you look at this very page of CC, you will find a thread on "how good are Flintoff and Harmison" where I have asked how far do we have to go to find a pair of bowlers , in an England attack as good as these two.

Someone made a nine point argument on what England can do and I had answered that while I agree with everything, I am surprised that only three points relate to bowling whereas if England are to beat Australia, they have more bowling issues than batting. I agree a year back it was reverse. But now, with the coming in of Strauss and Pieterson AND the bad form of Harmison the things have changed. Thats all.

Oh, I dont think Englands batting is as good as Australia's. This is not what I am saying. But it is beginning to look better. Vaughan is the one big worry in the batting and who goes in at number three ???