Australian Batting vs English Batting

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Dan Cullen? 43 wickets in his first Pura Cup season as a 20 year-old. Suggestions from a few top spinners, including Terry Jenner and Ashley Mallet that he should have been the second spinner on this Ashes tour.

I must admit, i don't follow the Pura cup as close;y as i should in regards to non-Bulls players. Good news indeed if what you say is true Leafy. I honestly never rated Hauritz as a class spinner and was surprised he got a test.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Firsly, Australia went without Warne for reasonable spells after shoulder reconstructions and the one year ban. McGrath was out for a year with ankle injury. We still kept winning though. While they are important players, they are not the only reason Australia have had such a long period of success.

I am not going to dispute that Australia man for man have been the best team in the world... But what I am saying is that Warne and McGrath made them vastly superior..I think they would still have won the series they did but they may not have won them with so much ease.

You also have to take into account Gilchrist - there is nobody like him in world cricket...

Having said that McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist will retire and I really cannot see you replacing them like for like.. Haddin may be a good keeper - but in First Class cricket he only has and average of 37 and just 4 tons in 60 odd games (a century ever 15 games) while Gilchrist has a first class average of 46 and in 162 F/C games has scored 28 centirues (one every 5) and of those F/C games 72 have been Tests.

Haddin only has a batting average of 17 in ODI's while Gilchrist avaerages double that.

I am not saying Australia don't have talent, but I do not beleive they have the same level of Talent they had 10 to 5 years ago....

The fact is that MacGill would have played a huge amount of Tests if he had been born in any other Test playing nation, or if he had been born in another era...

You are right to say depth of talent. I belive England have that as well... If we lose a batsmen we can bring in Key or Collingwood, or perhaps Joyce.. If we lose a bowler we can look towards Tremlett or Anderson... We have some options, maybe not as good, but we do have options...

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Seamer

We still kept winning though. While they are important players, they are not the only reason Australia have had such a long period of success.

I don't dispute that Australia have been the best team over the past 10 years Seamer; however, they have suffered without McGrath and Warne; your worst home result of recent times was probably the Indian series in 2003/04, when the second-string bowling attack came out decidedly second-best against Dravid, Sehwag and Tendulkar. Of course there was also the Kiwi series, but the Indian result was probably worse for Australia. Before that, the Test and series defeat that broke up the 16 match streak also came in India, when Warne had been "figured out" by the Indian batsmen and rendered ineffective (by his high standards anyway). Australia have undoubtedly relied a lot on Warne and McGrath for their success; without these two, the gap is much narrower. This is why I believe that in future, whoever is number 1, will not enjoy the complete dominance over every other team that Australia have done; other teams are catching up in any case.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Australia have undoubtedly relied a lot on Warne and McGrath for their success; without these two, the gap is much narrower. This is why I believe that in future, whoever is number 1, will not enjoy the complete dominance over every other team that Australia have done; other teams are catching up in any case.

Maranello,

You ahve summarised my point beautifully... If you look at the ICC ratings Australia are so far away from everyone else. For me this gap will narrow as the players mentioned retire and there isn't anyway of the same level to replace them....

 1 Australia 33 4382 133

2 England 32 3635 114

3 India 27 2998 111

4 South Africa 35 3517 100

5 New Zealand 26 2598 100

6 Sri Lanka 24 2354 98

7 Pakistan 26 2474 95

8 West Indies 32 2359 74

9 Zimbabwe 18 509 28

10 Bangladesh 25 158 6
 

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

You are right to say depth of talent. I belive England have that as well... If we lose a batsmen we can bring in Key or Collingwood, or perhaps Joyce.. If we lose a bowler we can look towards Tremlett or Anderson... We have some options, maybe not as good, but we do have options...

We do appear to have good resources now FF. I would disagree with you on Anderson though. I really think he's lost it. Whatever it was that got him to playing for england so young, that zip, the swing, just a little extra pace, all seems to have gone. This is a fellow averaging over thirty in the second tier of the County Championship, playing against the likes of Derbyshire! Something has gone horribly wrong.

[Chuck Palumbo]

I think I have been vindicated in voting for there not being much in the two sides batting line up.

I always believed that with the loss of the Waugh brothers, the Australian middle order is now much weaker than it once was. Katich is no where in the class of the Waugh's. Clarke is very talented, but hasn't got the knack at this stage of his career of delivering regular centuries like Steve Waugh did at No.5.

Personally the only players out of the Australian top 7 I would take in the England team are Gilchrist and Ponting. Hayden has been exposed as vunerable against any sort of swing or pace...against the medium pacers of India and New Zealand he can just plump his front foot forward and hit through the line on pitches with little or no swing. Against the 90mph pace of Harmison, Flintoff and Jones or the prodigous swing of Hoggard on pitches doing a bit, he hasn't been able to get away with this and has looked lost. Langer has shown lots of fight and guts, but little class. Martyn has shown his vunrablitity to high quality seam bowling with the bowl just outside off stump troubling him all series. Katich has been average throughout the series.

All these 50+ averages mean nothing now...they have been exposed.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

Personally the only players out of the Australian top 7 I would take in the England team are Gilchrist and Ponting. [...] All these 50+ averages mean nothing now...they have been exposed.

I'd rather have Read than Gilchrist: he's definitely a better gloveman and I reckon he's more use with the bat in any situation that actually matters. Gilchrist may bea good man to score quick runs and bats sides out of a game if you're already on top... but he's no damn use at all when it really counts.

Read has a good head on him... and is a good man for a crisis... and can block and improvise with equal facility: Gilchrist is, by comparison, one dimensional.

Of the rest.. Langer still looks like the best opener in world cricket... Ponting looks classy... Martyn looks at least the equal of Vaughan (with a similar strengths / weakenesses).. and Clarke has been showing just why he's considered the natural successor to the mantle of Tendulkar and Lara whilst also showing the folly of expecting maturity of kids.

They've underperformed.. and Hayden and Gilchrist have been passengers: I'd take the rest any day (including Katich, who strikes me as having more of Fletcher's beloved "team" mentality and ethos (and more fight) than ANY other Aussie bat.

Bottom line: England haven't really excelled with the bat thus far... and only Vaughan, in his big century, has looked truly special (and he looked awful against McGrath at Lords and showed typical poor judgement against Warne at Trent Bridge). The rest look no better than the sides of the 90s... and with Jones at 7 instead of Russell look exceedingly dependent on a feisty tail.

[Chuck Palumbo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'd rather have Read than Gilchrist: he's definitely a better gloveman and I reckon he's more use with the bat in any situation that actually matters. Gilchrist may bea good man to score quick runs and bats sides out of a game if you're already on top... but he's no damn use at all when it really counts.

Read has a good head on him... and is a good man for a crisis... and can block and improvise with equal facility: Gilchrist is, by comparison, one dimensional.

I don't think even the most ardent Chris Read supporter would have him in their side over Gilchrist.

You say Chris Read is a good man for a crisis...well there were plenty of crisis situations in Sri Lanka and the West Indies and Read did next to nothing there.

How many times have you seen Gilchrist score big runs when Australia have been struggling at 150-200/5??? The man is unbelievable..but he has just happened to come up against a bowler in Flintoff who has had his number this series...no disgrace in that.

[Rob.]

Sorry Rachael, I know I am supposed to give courteous replies and I will try my best, but Read over Gilchrist??!!

You have to be joking. Adam Gilchrist is the best wicketkeeper batsman to ever play the game. Average of 53 is phenomenal and I am sure he will go away from this England tour and start smashing runs all over the place again. He is awesome. His keeping is also very much underated. He has had some bad innings in this series, but fielding hasn't been a feature of this series really has it? Gilchrist has kept brilliantly in all parts of the world, including the subcontinet most importantly, and I would have him in my XI anyday.

Chris Read on the over hand is just a good lower order county batsman who doesn't have the technique for test cricket. Reads a good one day batsman, where his improvisation comes into it's own, but his batting is not anywhere near test class in my opinion.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

You say Chris Read is a good man for a crisis...well there were plenty of crisis situations in Sri Lanka and the West Indies and Read did next to nothing there.

Wrong, especially on the Sri lanka front. Chris Read's record in Sri Lanka was pretty impressive. You can't really judge by runs scored as he never once came to the crease in a situation where runs mattered: he went out each and every time with England in deep trouble and playing for a draw... and did impressively.

Read's a better player of spin than most... having, as so many top 'keepers do, a good enough eye and fast enough reactions to more than compensate for any technical weaknesses. He might not have what it takes to SCORE against quality spin... but he can score nicely against seamers... albeit with improvisation and a few well trusted shots rather than with an ability to smack any ball anywhere in the park.

Gilchrist has rarely flourished on the sorts of pitches (and in the sorts of situations) that Read has faced in test cricket: he's a player to thrive when the bounce is true and there's no movement... a flat track bully. England don't need such a player as they've already got several who excel in that role: they miss brains... and Read's ODI batting shows he has that.

ps. Have you noticed how much Read's batting's improved this past 18 months? His batting has been a major factor behind Nottinghamshire's resurgence this year.