Australian Batting vs English Batting

[acker]

You can tell most people voted before the series started, our batsmen have been marginally better than useless.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Irish Left Armer

I thought Kasprowicz was significantly better than Gillespie in the test he played and he gives Aus the option of bowling him later on in the innings

Lets be honest if Kaspa or Tait are not playing in the next Test, then the Ashes will probably go to England. Having a bowler not fireing in a five man attack is difficult, but when you only have four bowlers then it really leaves you exposed

Originally Posted by Irish Left Armer

The way Aus are lining out they are relying on McGrath to rip through the batting lineup with the new ball and if he doesn't then Ponting just throws the ball to Warne and bowls him forever whether it's working or not.

There is no Plan B at the moment, and the England players are expoliting that. Vaughan has so many more options and this is why they are doing better.

Originally Posted by Irish Left Armer

Ponting was afraid to bowl him in the 2nd innings at Old Trafford and I am sure he won't play again in this test series.

The problem was that Warne was not taking wickets... they may have been able to keep the runs down if he was... but with Warne not taking wickets it really did make it easy for Strauss and Co...

[Cliff-UK]

Talking of bowling. And widening it, if you would allow. One thing that interests me is Kim Hughes' opinions about the state of world bowling over the last few years. that the Australian batsmen - many of whom average 50 plus- haven't been tested really since Ambrose and Walsh retired. And this is the first time since then they are coming up against real pace and a good attack comprising of more than one top class bowler.

I don't know what Allan Border's average was - but it was over 50, wasn't it? He was an all time great batsman, of course. Viv Richards was also 50 plus. But the Australian batsmen of today are in the same bracket as those masters as far as averages are concerned. Are they really that good, or has Kim Hughes got a point?

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Cliff-UK

Are they really that good, or has Kim Hughes got a point?

Lets look at the teams

South Africa - Pollock and Ntini World Class - Nel is good but inconsisitent - some potential with Steyn

India - Pathan World Class - Khan, Nehra and Agakar can be good on their day - rely too much on their spinners

Pakistan - Sami and Shoaib World Class - but all to often inconistent - Naved-ul-Hasan looks good - really depends on which Pakistan team turns up

Zimbabwe - Heath Streak World Class - but nothing after him

Sri Lanka - Vaas World class - Zoysa is good - too often rely on Murali

New Zealand - Bond if fit is world class - Martyn and Franklin are fairly ordinary

West Indies - Best and Edwards could be great - but at the moment they are all over the shop and cannot seem to play more than one match in a row... the otehr bowlers are ordinary

Bangladesh - Mortza is test class - but they reall have no-one else

IMO Australia are facing the most complete seam bowling attack (outside of their own)

[Ninjaman]

Tino Best could be great??

Are you a comedian in disguise?

Lawson is better than him.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Tino Best could be great??

He could be - he just needs to learn to use the natural pace he has more effectivly - and cut the hysterics....

Could be doesn't mean will be....

[Cliff-UK]

so what do you reckon... have the Australian batsmen been over-rated and are they finally being exposed. They 've nevr had to face their own bowling and other teams for many years have been cowed when playing them - and haven't played to their abilities- if England are anything to go by. In oth

Or is it a genuinely "great" crop of batsmen who fortunately peaked together and are now simply fading a little with age?

hmmmm?

[flanflinger]

Dunno - I think it may be both..

They haven't realy been tested... but that does not mean that arenot s eriously good batting line-up..maybe the first big test is coming now that they are past their peak...

[greg]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Tino Best could be great??

Great at bowling beamers.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Dunno - I think it may be both..

They haven't realy been tested... but that does not mean that arenot s eriously good batting line-up..maybe the first big test is coming now that they are past their peak...

I think the series has to go to it's full conclusion before we can say that really. Yes they have had a poor series to date, but to judge a team or individual from two or three tests is to reach a premature concusion.
Consider Bell's or Vaughans first two tests. Going by that, you would have to draw the conclusion that they are hopeless batsmen would'nt you? Then look how they performed in the third test and it completely smashes apart those conclusions.
I noticed that Adam Gilchrist has been written off as "exposed". It was only a month ago that he scored a magnificent century in the Natwest challenge.
As i said, we should wait for the full series to run it's course before drawing hasty conclusions or the batsmen we wrote off may end making us look rather silly.