The Ashes won't be close

[FaaipDeOiad]

Erm...they werent raging turners. Bangalore didnt offer much to the spinners, Nagpur was a green top. Chennai was typically true to nature and the only "raging turner" on offer was at Mumbai.

No, Mumbai was the biggest turner of the lot, but Banglore and Chennai were both huge turners by world standards, as were two of the pitches in Sri Lanka.

 

[Craig]

Never know, we could always bring Croft out of retirement.
Indeed, it's a shame we've never got to try Croft and Giles together on a turner against Australia, because I can't help feeling they'd be knocked-over cheaply plenty.
Giles hasn't missed any Tests with injury so far in his career except The Ashes 2002\03 with the freak-accident broken-wrist, so I don't see that it'd be too much of a risk.
And as I say - I hardly think a turning pitch is going to make Warne significantly more dangerous than he'll be anyway.

I hardly call having your wrist broken by not wearing an arm guard as a freak accident. Freak accident would be slipping down some steps, tripping up something. It was his own fault (surely he could have borrowed one?).

 

[Craig]

Yeah but Hogg is nothing special in FC matches, he can't even get a game for WA in the Pura Milk Cup. For test seclections in terms of spin bowling Hauritz is in front of him and his know about 7th best spin bowler in Australia. Australia spin bowling ranks IMO:
1. Warne
2. MacGill
3. Cullen
4. White
5. Kerjza
6. Dorthey
7. Haurtiz
8. Hogg
9. Casson
10. Bailey

Kerjza at 5?

I don't think he is that special just yet.

 

[age_master]

hes more useful than white (with bat and ball ) personally i rate hoggy and Casson higher than him bowling at the moment

 

[age_master]

should have Clarke, Katich and Lehmann in there too

 

[age_master]

I expect Harmison.

Anybody who watched the 02/03 Ashes would see Harmison was bowling a lot better towards the end of the series then when he was at the beginning.

yeah he was, he even went under 1 wide per over for a time

 

[chaminda_00]

Kerjza at 5?

I don't think he is that special just yet.

Jason would walk into any other state side in Australia, in terms of bowling alone only Warne, MacGill and Cullen are better. Add to that his abilty with the bat he is slightly better then Xaiver, Hogg and Casson. Hogg is a better batsmen but Jason is a better FC bowler. That makes him number 5, IMO.

 

[marc71178]

yeah he was, he even went under 1 wide per over for a time

Ho ho, so funny.

5 wides in the whole series (132.3 overs)

 

[tooextracool]

Despite the fact that Butcher is one of the few players who actually has troubled them in the last 5 or 6 years?
As you see

or rather one series. in his last series against australia he averaged 31, which is certainly not 'troubling them'.

 

[tooextracool]

I agree with your Flintoff comment. Because of all the talking up of Flintoff, I can see the Aussie's doing a lot of planning and targeting him. Just ask Stephen Fleming what its like when Aussie target you as the dangerman.

stephen flemings failures had more to do with him opening the batting, than anything else

 

[tooextracool]

I think if you are being targetted by the Aussies means that you are good player which is a nice compliment.

or rather you are the best player of the current test side(no disrespect to fleming here), but really it doesnt take much to be better than the rest of the NZ batsmen.

 

[tooextracool]

Thorpe certainly didn't underperform, he managed 3 significant innings.

wow 3 significant innings in a 5 match series, give him a medal for averaging 35, which is below his career average and far below what hes been averaging since his return.
and your problem is compounded further by the fact that it was 2 good innings.

Flintoff was exposed as not perhaps as good as the summer made him look, Key was exposed as substandard..

so how much of that series did you watch? key wasnt exposed as anything, he still looked to have plenty of potential. and with flintoff, well you need to get over it, because hes had 2 consecutive good summers, and id back him to have no 3.

 

[tooextracool]

No, most people can tell that Vettori and Giles are very, very, very similar bowlers.

people who havent watched both of them bowl, yes.

 

[age_master]

Ho ho, so funny.

5 wides in the whole series (132.3 overs)

interesting i thought hes accuracy problems were less limited to the ODI games.

 

[marc71178]

His problem was the game at Lilac Hill when he bashed his head on the advertising board, and although it was a declaration game the umpires were using the one day wide rule.

 

[tooextracool]

ok on topic, for england to even come close to winning this series, every player is going to have to perform to full potential, because as most people would know, man for man england is no match for australia. further i think england's best chances would come on pitches that were had extra bounce, because it doesnt take a genius to figure out that those are the kinds of wickets that harmison likes. further its fairly obvious that england's bowlers are a bit quicker than the australian bowlers, certainly flintoff, jones and harmison can all bowl in the 90s. they couldnt perform too badly on turners either, assuming of course they're somewhat capable against warne this time around, id think that giles being a left arm spinner may cause australia problems, while harmison would once again be well suited to the uneven bounce on a wicket that develops cracks. the worst thing they could possibly do is to prepare seamer friendly wickets, because really they might as well give up before facing gillespie,mcgrath and kaspa. another thing of notice, is that gillespie off late has been extremely inconsistent- hes either been extremely good or extremely poor, with the latter outnumbering the former, if thats the weakest link to exploit in the bowling. with regard to playing mcgrath,well its fairly obvious that in genuine english conditions, you'd be far better off playing him aggresively,because hes far too good a bowler to not produce deliveries that will eventually get you out anyways in helpful conditions. the 2 possible weaknesses in the australian batting are hayden and clarke, neither of whom have proven to be particularly good players of seam and swing yet.
for harmison, well the best thing that could happen to him is that he would get wickets early on in the series, because you can bet your bottom dollar that australia are going to take the attack to him and giles very early on in the series and not let them get into a rhythm.

 

[Craig]

or rather you are the best player of the current test side(no disrespect to fleming here), but really it doesnt take much to be better than the rest of the NZ batsmen.

What relevance does my comment has to Stephan Fleming here TEC?

I wasn't even talking about him in my post?

 

[Craig]

ok on topic, for england to even come close to winning this series, every player is going to have to perform to full potential, because as most people would know, man for man england is no match for australia. further i think england's best chances would come on pitches that were had extra bounce, because it doesnt take a genius to figure out that those are the kinds of wickets that harmison likes. further its fairly obvious that england's bowlers are a bit quicker than the australian bowlers, certainly flintoff, jones and harmison can all bowl in the 90s. they couldnt perform too badly on turners either, assuming of course they're somewhat capable against warne this time around, id think that giles being a left arm spinner may cause australia problems, while harmison would once again be well suited to the uneven bounce on a wicket that develops cracks. the worst thing they could possibly do is to prepare seamer friendly wickets, because really they might as well give up before facing gillespie,mcgrath and kaspa. another thing of notice, is that gillespie off late has been extremely inconsistent- hes either been extremely good or extremely poor, with the latter outnumbering the former, if thats the weakest link to exploit in the bowling. with regard to playing mcgrath,well its fairly obvious that in genuine english conditions, you'd be far better off playing him aggresively,because hes far too good a bowler to not produce deliveries that will eventually get you out anyways in helpful conditions. the 2 possible weaknesses in the australian batting are hayden and clarke, neither of whom have proven to be particularly good players of seam and swing yet.
for harmison, well the best thing that could happen to him is that he would get wickets early on in the series, because you can bet your bottom dollar that australia are going to take the attack to him and giles very early on in the series and not let them get into a rhythm.

How about belief? It is just as important IMO.

Trescothick, Thorpe, and Butcher have played in at least two losing Ashes series (Iknow Butcher and Thorpe have played more, but you know what I mean), and to an extent Ashley Giles.

Hoggard, Harmison, Vaughan, Robert Key have all played in one losing Ashes series each (maybe more but I forget and not really counting Simon Jones who bowled only 7 overs), and really only Strauss, Flintoff, G. Jones, and Anderson yet to play in an Ashes series.

They also have to belief that is Australia get a good start, or dominate a period of play, that they must believe that they can fight back and dominate. and when in the field they must look to make it 11 on two and put pressure on Australia and keep it on them. It only takes a nick through the slips etc. to go for a four and the pressure has gone. And anybody who has read Steve Waugh's tour dairies will know he has talked about his.

England can win, they just have to believe in it enough (and play well enough), and have the desire and hunger to do it, then I shouldn't see why they can't. Look at Greece in Euro 2004 despite having really no hope of winning by the experts (not even the players thought they could win it before the tournament).

I would like to see England win it for once, just so we have somebody else to dominate.

 

[Zinzan]

How about belief? It is just as important IMO.

Trescothick, Thorpe, and Butcher have played in at least two losing Ashes series (Iknow Butcher and Thorpe have played more, but you know what I mean), and to an extent Ashley Giles.

Hoggard, Harmison, Vaughan, Robert Key have all played in one losing Ashes series each (maybe more but I forget and not really counting Simon Jones who bowled only 7 overs), and really only Strauss, Flintoff, G. Jones, and Anderson yet to play in an Ashes series.

They also have to belief that is Australia get a good start, or dominate a period of play, that they must believe that they can fight back and dominate. and when in the field they must look to make it 11 on two and put pressure on Australia and keep it on them. It only takes a nick through the slips etc. to go for a four and the pressure has gone. And anybody who has read Steve Waugh's tour dairies will know he has talked about his.

England can win, they just have to believe in it enough (and play well enough), and have the desire and hunger to do it, then I shouldn't see why they can't. Look at Greece in Euro 2004 despite having really no hope of winning by the experts (not even the players thought they could win it before the tournament).

I would like to see England win it for once, just so we have somebody else to dominate.

Yes...it would be great for cricket if England did win the ashes, but lets be realistic. I give them no chance. Unfortunately for England this Australian side is just too good right across the board.

 

[tooextracool]

What relevance does my comment has to Stephan Fleming here TEC?

I wasn't even talking about him in my post?

you quoted someone who was referring to fleming though, and from what i got you were at least in part referring to fleming.