"You can quote me on this........"

[Richard]

Or could it be that the conditions were not conducive to his type of bowling? Does it not surprise you that he bowled considerably less at Old Trafford when the ball was reverse swinging as early as 15 overs into the new ball? Or in the first innings at TB when Hoggard was swinging it both ways? Fact is that Harmison has never been particularly adept at swinging the ball in any manner, and with Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones (the latter two of which were so dangerous because they were threatening in ALL conditions) being more capable in certain conditions there was no need for him to be given a bowl. Such is the benefit of a 5 man attack. Similarly, Hoggard bowled near to nothing at Edgbaston and OT, not because he bowled the wrong lines and lengths, but simply because he lacked penetration in the conditions.

Hoggard's lines and lengths in the Second and Third Tests were hardly outstanding either, he was conceding more than the rest of the bowlers in addition to not being threatening.

Harmison not merely looked more innocuous than the rest of the attack but also more often than not conceded more than them.

I find it hard to conceive how anyone who has watched Gayle bat can suggest that Gayle plays any innings without poor strokes. No the problem is that on flat tracks his poor strokes are made to look like good ones. As i have said before, slogs are celebrated when they go over the rope, but when they knock your middle peg back they make you look like a clown.

Of course they do, but I don't seem to be getting across what I'm trying to say - Gayle's dismissals in the West Indies vs England series in 2004 didn't have much to do with the pitches not being flat. They were simply strokes to the wrong ball or ill-executed strokes, which would have been the wrong ball or ill-executed regardless of the surface. Gayle may not often play terribly well, but he has certainly played far better of times than he did in that series.

 

[Richard]

Richard agreeing with above opinion was what I more had in mind. I personally agree that Hayden has improved his ability to score in a number of different conditions. And tbh, its no fault of his that he hasn't had to be tested all that much in challenging conditions for the better part of the past decade.

So?

It's not my fault I can't bowl as well as Allan Donald either.

 

[Richard]

A little off topic, but for me India are clearl the better test team, and will prove that in their next test series at home vs. South Africa where I don't think they'll look like losing a test.

In India they're undoubtedly the better team, IMO, and I'll be surprised if they don't win that series. But South Africa should still win in South Africa, even if they did manage to lose a Test to West Indies there not so long ago.

 

[tooextracool]

South African batting is their big weakness as far as test matches are concerned, they have been getting out cheaply very consistently off-late and that is one area where they could struggle against Australia. They depend too heavily on Kallis to build good totals in test matches, which is problem they would have to sory out if they have to compete against Australia.

It is, there is no doubt about that. Without Kallis their batting is flimsy, perhaps if they picked Duminy who has an excellent FC record, and moved McKenzie down the order things might be different. But if you look at the current Australian bowling attack, bar Lee it looks just as flimsy as SAs batting card. Meanwhile SA's bowling is as strong as it has been in a very long time, especially if Nel can get his act together.

 

[tooextracool]

Yet for some reason South Africa lose test matches at home to India, Pakistan and WI.

The WI loss was a shocker, and i certainly have no idea how to explain that. Although it must be said that Powell, Taylor, Bravo and Edwards bowled considerably better than the crap that they have dished out over the last few years.
Losing a test match to Pakistan, be it home or away, when they have Akthar, Asif, the 2 Ys and Inzamam and with Woolmer as coach is surely not a crime. I do put it down to selection blunders though- the non-selection of Dale Steyn, not only for the game against Pakistan but also in the game that they lost to India, was baffling to say the least.

I hope you're right and the gap is closed, but whilst South Africa were fairly competitive when they toured Aus back in 05/06, I'm quite tired of having high hopes and expectations when they play Australia in test cricket and then they get thumped.

A little off topic, but for me India are clearl the better test team, and will prove that in their next test series at home vs. South Africa where I don't think they'll look like losing a test.

South Africa might not be the most consistent, but with a pace attack of Steyn, Ntini, Morkel and Nel along with a support in Harris i expect them to be able to compete against any team in the world.
I do think that India have the potential to be the best team in the world over the next few years, but whether that claim materializes depends a lot on external factors(motivation, fitness, coaching, corruption) rather than talent. I cant remember a time when India have had such a long line of fairly good pace bowlers and backups- Zaheer, Sreesanth, RP, Ishant, Munaf, and i have even heard good things about Pankaj, although i am yet to watch him bowl live. The batting might be an issue as to whether they will be able to replace the quality of Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman over the next few years.

 

[tooextracool]

Yet Adams did, on a very small handful of occasions - including that seven-for in Pakistan. Useless as he has been most of the time, he's had his (very occasional) moments.

1 swallow does not make a summer, especially a swallow on a dustbowl. Pakistan are notorous for being amongst the worst players of spin in the world, in contrast to their subcontinental neighbors. It is not exactly the first time that they collapsed to Paul Adams either.

I don't see how such a thing could have happened in England, not at all, both South Africa's victories over here were comfortable. Quite unlike England's 2 victories in South Africa.

I believe I already went through why South Africa's results in the time in question weren't really terribly bad earlier in the thread, my comments still stand.

I think its pretty obvious that had they not have batted as poorly as they did in the first innings at Lords, or even have batted 2nd, they would not have lost that game.Similarly at Headingly had they not bowled too short, like they always seem to do against tailenders,r to Zondeki after they had SA on the ropes, they would have easily have won that game as well.
Such is test cricket, there is always one moment in the game where you can look back and say if we had done things a bit differently we might have won. Bottom line is that it wasnt done and it explains why the test side is not very good.

 

[tooextracool]

I didn't watch the series closely enough to notice such a thing, but I'll take your word on it. And no, of course he doesn't need to be out lbw constantly to know he has a weakness there, but unless that weakness is being exploited he can't really be said to have been worked-out - or at least, being worked-out cannot be said to be the reason for his failures.

His failures - against good and less good bowlers - of the last 2 years have had more to do with playing bad off-side strokes than missing inswingers.

So if quality bowlers have dismissed him easily for every single series in a 6 year career, it does not mean that he has a weakness that is being exploited? Surely it cant be just coincidence. If hes playing poor shots only when good bowlers are on, then it must be because, oh shocker, he is just not very good.

 

[tooextracool]

Hoggard's lines and lengths in the Second and Third Tests were hardly outstanding either, he was conceding more than the rest of the bowlers in addition to not being threatening.

and because he conceded more runs it does not mean that he did not bowl the right lines or lengths.

Harmison not merely looked more innocuous than the rest of the attack but also more often than not conceded more than them.

Yes because the pitches did not suit him. Again, hardly a shocker.

Of course they do, but I don't seem to be getting across what I'm trying to say - Gayle's dismissals in the West Indies vs England series in 2004 didn't have much to do with the pitches not being flat. They were simply strokes to the wrong ball or ill-executed strokes, which would have been the wrong ball or ill-executed regardless of the surface. Gayle may not often play terribly well, but he has certainly played far better of times than he did in that series.

I do not think Gayle has played better than he did in that series at any point of his career. His career has followed a similar trend, rubbish on seamer friendly pitches and efficient slogger on flat pitches occasionally.

 

[shortpitched713]

So?

It's not my fault I can't bowl as well as Allan Donald either.

Why are we watching Test cricket then?

Fact is that although the game has changed in the past few years, it hasn't undergone any fundamentally radical changes. One's performance right now does mean something. I dare say it means as much as it has at any other period. One just has to acknowledge that things are a little different now and move on from there.

Hayden's performance for the better part of the last decade has been phenomenal by the standards of any time period. Even taking the conditions hes played in during this period into account he still comes out as far and away the best opener of the 2000s, and his consistency in scoring runs on all manner of tracks more than makes up for his coming a cropper a few times when the going got tough.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Haha, laughed so much when I saw the 5 or so consecutive TEC posts.

All hail the oligarches...

 

[Richard]

Why are we watching Test cricket then?

Fact is that although the game has changed in the past few years, it hasn't undergone any fundamentally radical changes. One's performance right now does mean something. I dare say it means as much as it has at any other period. One just has to acknowledge that things are a little different now and move on from there.

Hayden's performance for the better part of the last decade has been phenomenal by the standards of any time period. Even taking the conditions hes played in during this period into account he still comes out as far and away the best opener of the 2000s, and his consistency in scoring runs on all manner of tracks more than makes up for his coming a cropper a few times when the going got tough.

He does. It's not, however, a given that a player who is better at one thing is better at all. Someone like Michael Atherton, who never had anywhere near Hayden's rubbish-bowling-bashing capabilities, could indeed be much better at most other times in history. I don't buy the notion that someone who is better than someone under ABC circumstances will always be better than the same person under XYZ circumstances.

I'd argue that the game since 2001\02 is more different from any other time in history than any other time is from any time other than 2001\02-2005\06 (that does make sense, but you might need to read it several times).

 

[Richard]

Haha, laughed so much when I saw the 5 or so consecutive TEC posts.

Why?

 

[Richard]

the non-selection of Dale Steyn, not only for the game against Pakistan but also in the game that they lost to India, was baffling to say the least.

Steyn played in the lost Test against India - he just got injured after 10 overs. And missed quite a lot of cricket thereafter - I think he was picked again as soon as he was available.

 

[Richard]

1 swallow does not make a summer, especially a swallow on a dustbowl. Pakistan are notorous for being amongst the worst players of spin in the world, in contrast to their subcontinental neighbors. It is not exactly the first time that they collapsed to Paul Adams either.

Yes, there are plenty of poor Pakstani batsmen against spin (though also 1 or 2 very good ones) and yes, it was a turning surface, and yes, it was just the odd performance. But Adams has had the occasional other excellent performance. Yes indeed also, those performances have got worse as his career progressed. If anything, though, the fact that Pakistan have struggled against him more than once means his presence on that tour strengthened South Africa's side more than it would have under other circumstances.

I think its pretty obvious that had they not have batted as poorly as they did in the first innings at Lords, or even have batted 2nd, they would not have lost that game.Similarly at Headingly had they not bowled too short, like they always seem to do against tailenders,r to Zondeki after they had SA on the ropes, they would have easily have won that game as well.
Such is test cricket, there is always one moment in the game where you can look back and say if we had done things a bit differently we might have won. Bottom line is that it wasnt done and it explains why the test side is not very good.

Indeed it is. I won't bother continuing to argue this.

 

[Richard]

So if quality bowlers have dismissed him easily for every single series in a 6 year career, it does not mean that he has a weakness that is being exploited? Surely it cant be just coincidence. If hes playing poor shots only when good bowlers are on, then it must be because, oh shocker, he is just not very good.

We seem to be going around in circles. Harmison was not considered a remotely good bowler (other than by eternal optimists) before that series, he did not bowl any particularly remarkable balls at Gayle, so it was not quality getting Gayle out, nor any recurring weakness against a certain delivery (and yes, inswinger, or outswinger, or off-cutter, or leg-cutter, would indeed all fit that descrption), but simply Gayle playing bad strokes. And as I said at the time, before that series I'd have backed Gayle to spank Harmison (and indeed he did, often, in the return series) rather than repeatedly get out to nothing deliveries.

 

[Richard]

and because he conceded more runs it does not mean that he did not bowl the right lines or lengths.

Yes because the pitches did not suit him. Again, hardly a shocker.

Look, without exact pitchmaps we cannot offer a conclusive answer to this. You feel Harmison and Hoggard both bowled decent lines and lengths; I don't. If you know where we might be able to attain pitchmaps (we can rest assured some were taken, as they always are when there's a HawkEye at a game these days) then we can continue this. Until then, I don't see any point.

I do not think Gayle has played better than he did in that series at any point of his career. His career has followed a similar trend, rubbish on seamer friendly pitches and efficient slogger on flat pitches occasionally.

But to be rubbish because of seam-friendly surfaces, it requires bowlers to get him out with deliveries that seamed. Nothing much of that ilk happened that series.

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't buy the notion that someone who is better than someone under ABC circumstances will always be better than the same person under XYZ circumstances.

Agreed, but on the same token only if you think that Test cricket is some lesser art now for the changes it has undergone can you legitimately devalue Hayden's superior achievement in it compared to his contemporaries and not a second sooner.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd argue that the game since 2001\02 is more different from any other time in history than any other time is from any time other than 2001\02-2005\06 (that does make sense, but you might need to read it several times).

Sense is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Richard]

Agreed, but on the same token only if you think that Test cricket is some lesser art now for the changes it has undergone can you legitimately devalue Hayden's superior achievement in it compared to his contemporaries and not a second sooner.

I do indeed think Tests have been somewhat lesser, at the very least between 2001\02 and 2005\06. I don't think the standard of play was anywhere near so high in that period as it was beforehand. A high standard of play requires good balance between bat and ball, and such a thing eminently was not present in said period, and possibly still thereafter, though there's no doubt it's got a bit better in the last 2 seasons.