Ashes Bowling attack

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The way to deal with the Aussies has to be forgetting pace and preparing a damp minefield. Give conditions in which Flintoff's normally very ordinary deliveries are jumping and keeping low.

LOL Rachael, Flintoff is anything but ordinary, he for a start is Englands best bowler at left handers, mikes better than the others.
For such an ordinary bowler, he has been Englands best bowler most times off late, all last year nearly, and injured he was only second to Hoggard in South Africa, and only by a couple of wickets.
.

Originally Posted by Rachael

. where Hoggard is odds-on to swing the ball all over the shop... where Harmison's full length deliveries are seaming so wildly as to be virtually unplayable... and where batsman are basically not going to middle a ball in an entire session.

Rachael for Hoggard to do well, he needs the conditions, he needs it humid, lots of cloud cover, because swing is his only weapon.
We need pace, because Englands bowlers are quicker than the Australians, Harmison might stray a little, but Flintoff is fast and accurate, and he won't be injured.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Then you need batsmen who can do what the Aussies can't, and thrive in such conditions: forget the strokeplayers and get Butcher and Thorpe crawling to half centuries off thick edges and leg byes.

Why are Australias bowlers that good?, with respect they are not like the Australia of old, who bowled to players like Viv Richards, Ian Botham Imran Khan.
With respect this series is a test for the Aussies, they beat Shri Lanka due to great captaincy by Ponting, they struggled to beat India, they won but ther will always be a question mark over that rain ruined match.
They have beat Pakistan still not found replacements for Akram and Younis.
When they last played England, Flintoff never got a game injured, Simon Jones was Englands great hope, and we all knew what happened to him.
To get back to your point, if you are relying on edges as a plan, the Aussies will love that, edged will in the end be caught, that tactic with respect wont work on it's own.
I am not saying Australia are poor, just they are past their best, we hear talk over and over again about the teams England have played being poor, to be fair Australia over the same period have done no better, they beat New Zealand out of site, so did England, West Indies where poor, Austraia beat pakistan who are rebuilding, Australia beat India. England beat South Africa, Pollock kallis and all.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Easy in theory.. but we've no longer got Hussain to grit it out.. and I'd not back the likes of Tresco, Strauss, Flintoff and Jones to do any better than the Aussies on such a track.

Again I say why, do you think the England players are so poor that they cant play an ageing attack, at their pace the ball will just come nice onto the bat.
I have said this before, McGrath is so accurate, England will just have to block his spells out,(you have likened him to Pollock, but he broke no eggs against England).
Shane Warne is Englands biggest threat, the best bowler in the world, so it is not so much doctering pitches for Flintoff and Harmison, more to blunt Warne.

[Beny]

Why are Australias bowlers that good?, with respect they are not like the Australia of old, who bowled to players like Viv Richards, Ian Botham Imran Khan.

Because they are Ern, There is a school of thought which suggests they are better than the West Indies attack ever was.

to be fair Australia over the same period have done no better, they beat New Zealand out of site, so did England, West Indies where poor, Austraia beat pakistan who are rebuilding, Australia beat India. England beat South Africa, Pollock kallis and all.

Ern, How many teams have beaten India at home over the last say... 20 years?? The answer... 1, US. The India tour is something we couldent win in 2001 when we were supposedly at our best. Now we've achived it and you are trying to use an abandoned test match which could have gone either way, even if we had lost it we still would have ended up with either a win or a draw in the recognized hardest touring place on earth. What's more is we did it with only 1 spinner, suicide according to most. Yet our bowlers came good in conditions where the ball wasent even bouncing above chest height.

Again I say why, do you think the England players are so poor that they cant play an ageing attack, at their pace the ball will just come nice onto the bat.

Ern, when is the last time you've ever faced 130 km/ph?? In his article, Richardson reminds us of this...

Originally Posted by Richadson

You simply cannot do what I did and try and "out-patient" the Australians because you go nowhere and become a sitting duck. When we did OK at Perth a few years backour plan was to leave McGrath alone as he dosent attack the stumps that often and we looked to score of the other bowlers. It worked because Gillespie attacked and missed his lengths from time to tim, as did Lee, and Warne was yet to regain his best.
However on our return last November, the plan didd'nt work. Yes we tried to deny McGrath. But unfortunetly Gillespe was tighter than ever. Warne was at his best again and the "New" guy called Kaspa was as unrelenting with his accuracy as McGrath [.....] When you rely on Poor Balls to score, playing Australia becomes a very, very mentally testing experiance indeed

Originally Posted by Richardson

We Kiwis once had a chap like that (McGrath)- his name was Richard Haddle. It's Sir Richard Haddle now. He was knighted because he bowled the ball into the wicket, top of off stump, down the channel

You see Ern, Just because Harmison and Flintoff can ball fast (and it's not really that fast), dosent mean they are going to be effective. The Aussie team can live with the bumps and bruises... Langer is renowned for loving it.

Originally Posted by Richardson

He (McGrath) will ball fast enough, he will ball in the awkward area [...] he will ball you a bouncer [...] he will seam the ball on even the most batter freindly wicket

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Beny

How many teams have beaten India at home over the last say... 20 years?? The answer... 1, US.

Suggest you change the answer to "few" or "not many". Minor point, but SA 1999/00 0-2 to SA. Prior to that the late 80's saw Pakistan victorious and Pakistan won a one-test series (is that an oxymoron?) in the late 90's in the Asian Championship (or something similarly titled).

Other than this minor amendment, agree wholehearted with the post. I don't remember any batsman suggesting that McGrath's deliveries "come nice onto the bat", probably because many batsmen would prefer not to think about a thin edge as part of the bat (or nice for that matter).

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Why are Australias bowlers that good?, with respect they are not like the Australia of old, who bowled to players like Viv Richards, Ian Botham Imran Khan.

No, and let us all be grateful for this. I guess we'll just have to wait until the Ashes commence to be able to properly answer the first part of your question Ern. As for the statement regarding the bowlers of old, I can understand why you hark back to this era, weren't these times (the early to mid-eighties) the last that England proudly held aloft the Ashes replica? No wonder you want the Aussie bowlers to bowl like their predecessors...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

Because they are Ern, There is a school of thought which suggests they are better than the West Indies attack ever was.

With respect Beny, I don't agree with that opinion, Lillee and Thompson where better than anyone in the present Australia team.
I will tell you why I say that, I have seen them bowl, and they where good, and with respect to all other teams, England included, they bowled at better batsmen

Originally Posted by Beny

and you are trying to use an abandoned test match which could have gone either way, even if we had lost it we still would have ended up with either a win or a draw in the recognized hardest touring place on earth.

Could have gone either way!, well I think India where the favorites to win that game, but forget that, had India won that game, it would have lifted that team, and who knows, I only said "a question mark".

Originally Posted by Beny

You see Ern, Just because Harmison and Flintoff can ball fast (and it's not really that fast), dosent mean they are going to be effective. The Aussie team can live with the bumps and bruises... Langer is renowned for loving it.

Well we will have to see, this will be the test, just because a player can stand the pain, means nothing,(Brian Close) used to let Lillee and Thompson hit him rather than give his wicket away, but this did not score runs, it just bought time, and gave Close lots of bruises.

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon 44672

No, and let us all be grateful for this. I guess we'll just have to wait until the Ashes commence to be able to properly answer the first part of your question Ern.

No matter how good this Australia attack has been, it would have been better when the players where younger, this is a cruel fact of life.
"All good things have got to come to an end"
*Golf: Nick Faldo was invincible for years, then he got older and began to slide down.
*Snooker: Steve Davies was like a machine, winning tournements after tournements, but as he got older his hunger went, younger players started to beat him, Steve Hendry took his place, now other have took Hendry's place.
*Tennis Pete Sampras could win major tournements injured, he could be 2 sets down, but would still come back and win 3-
*Tennis the lady player who's name I can't spell Martina N seemed unstoppable, but she got older.
*Grand Prix Nigel Mansell seemed he would never be beat, but he got older and looked pathetic at the end.
*Soccer The once mighty Germany, where are they now, their best players got older, even England thrashed them.
*Soccer Brazil dominated the world, but players like Pele got older, and teams like Italy took over.
I could say the same about athletices, with Steve Ovett, and Cram dominating, but they had to give way as they got older, and all manner of sports, all I am saying is, no matter how good McGrath and co have been, "All good things must come to an end"

Originally Posted by Leafyseadragon

As for the statement regarding the bowlers of old, I can understand why you hark back to this era, weren't these times (the early to mid-eighties) the last that England proudly held aloft the Ashes replica? No wonder you want the Aussie bowlers to bowl like their predecessors...

I watched the series you are talking about, but Lillee was way past his best, he should have retired while he was at least near his best, the same with Botham, I watched him bowl on his come back, pathetic is the only word for it, in fact Lillee and Botham both bowled in the same match, both at half pace.
Be honest how long can McGrath go on, he can't go on forever.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

LOL Rachael, Flintoff is anything but ordinary, he for a start is Englands best bowler at left handers, mikes better than the others. For such an ordinary bowler, he has been Englands best bowler most times off late, all last year nearly, and injured he was only second to Hoggard in South Africa, and only by a couple of wickets.

I agree, absolutely, that throughout much of last year your man was at least challenging for the accolade of "best bowler". Two things though:

{i} Flintoff was best at helping Vaughan retain control when things were going badly.. not (ever) best at putting in match-winning performances when things were going well. He still has a crappy acton and is still second rate whenever he tries anything other than containment - he's useful (because consistently accurate) when he's back of a length and trying to keep the run rate down... but the moment he pitches the ball up and tries to take wickets he's no better than Zaheer Khan, Nel, Razzaq or Collymore.

{ii} The competition was not exactly impressive: Harmison only turned up for half of last year (impressive when it clicked, indifferent when it didn't)... Hoggard spent the first half of the year fearing his Test career was all but over (and whilst I'm an enthusiastic advocate of his bowling, was workmanlike rather than special)... Jones couldn't even win his own captain's confidence (and did little of note).. and Giles just about did enough to ensure his survival without ever threatening to set the world alight.

Let's face it.. his bowling now is still not such that he'd have displaced Gough, Caddick or White when those three were at their peak.

Originally Posted by Ernest

Again I say why, do you think the England players are so poor that they cant play an ageing attack, at their pace the ball will just come nice onto the bat.

Two things here as well:

{i} The English batsmen are not poor.. just not a match for their Aussie rivals (they are decent but I'm not sure a single one of them is a match for Hussey or Katich, yet alone for the likes of Langer, Ponting, Martyn and Gilchrist). The England batting record over the past 18 months is very ordinary. The collapses have been as familiar and ubiquitous as at any time in the last 20 years.. it's just that with the WI, NZ and SA managing bigger ones it hasn't mattered too much.

{ii} The current Aussie bowling attack is arguably the strongest the world has seen in the last 25 years... not because McGrath and Warne are at their peak (McGrath may be close, but Warne's surely now merely outstanding rather than truly sensational). It's the backup bowling that strikes me as the difference: Gillespie and Kasprowicz have, in the last 12 months, looked at least a match for the first choice pairings for most other countries (rivalling even Pollock-Ntini and Harmison-Hoggard).

Few bowling attacks in history have had such a well matched and experienced quartet: most have had at least one weak link (e.g. Patterson)... or have had to rely on guys who hadn't mastered their trade (as when Ambrose and WAlsh were starting out).

ps. McEnroe is still a match for pretty well anyone in a one set match.. especially in doubles; it's getting up and playing a second match the next day that stops him competing. Navratilova likewise. Sampras did actually win the last grand slam he ever played. Agassi remains one of the few to be an equal for Federer and Roddick. Mansell always sucked.. but Alain "the professor" Prost just got better and better with every passing year.

You can't generalise about age in cricket: Botham faded early.. and Tendulkar was sensational from a tender age... but Hadlee, Walsh, Gooch and Steve Waugh all peaked in the second half of their careers. Some do what comes naturally, make an immediate impact and then fade... others just gradually mature into the finished article. All seem agreed, however (and this includes Flintoff.. who reckons his peak is 5 years away): the optimum age for a cricketer is early 30s - which is about where most of these Aussies are.

[acker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

{ii} The current Aussie bowling attack is arguably the strongest the world has seen in the last 25 years... not because McGrath and Warne are at their peak (McGrath may be close, but Warne's surely now merely outstanding rather than truly sensational). It's the backup bowling that strikes me as the difference: Gillespie and Kasprowicz have, in the last 12 months, looked at least a match for the first choice pairings for most other countries (rivalling even Pollock-Ntini and Harmison-Hoggard).

Think about it Rachael
Warne and McGrath at 75% of their peak are still far superior to other world bowlers.
This period of Australian cricket will be remembered forever in history for those two's dominence in their sport much like Don Bradman was in his day.
The fact that the Aussie team is even more domineering now than it was in 1948 is testament to the fact that Shane Warne & Glenn McGrath have come through in the same era and team. Look at Australian cricket from 1994 to now and you will see what I mean.
As to Harmisson, Flintoff or Hoggard challenging Warne or McGrath even in their twighlight years.

I DOUBT IT

Keep trying luckless pom....

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I agree, absolutely, that throughout much of last year your man was at least challenging for the accolade of "best bowler". Two things though:

He managed it in most series.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Flintoff was best at helping Vaughan retain control when things were going badly.. not (ever) best at putting in match-winning performances when things were going well. He still has a crappy acton and is still second rate whenever he tries anything other than containment but the moment he pitches the ball up and tries to take wickets he's no better than Zaheer Khan, Nel, Razzaq or Collymore.

Lot of comments here, yes he is Englands most reliable bowler, he does attack with succsess, like with his fast accurate bouncer (one thing McGrath can't do), and pitching up, he has got batsmen out with reverse swing, not the worlds best at pitching up, but his yorker is a good surprise delivery.

Originally Posted by Rachael

The competition was not exactly impressive: Harmison only turned up for half of last year (impressive when it clicked, indifferent when it didn't)... Hoggard spent the first half of the year fearing his Test career was all but over (and whilst I'm an enthusiastic advocate of his bowling, was workmanlike rather than special

Well England kept winning, against opposition just as good as Australia faced, Hoggard is only any good when overhead conditions are right, if not he gets pasted all over the park, that was why he feared for his place.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Let's face it.. his bowling now is still not such that he'd have displaced Gough, Caddick or White when those three were at their peak.

Gough was a better strike bowler, Caddick was not consistant, to many poor first innings displays, and Flintoff stands head and shoulders above White,not at the time, but comparing best for best.

Originally Posted by Rachael

The English batsmen are not poor.. just not a match for their Aussie rivals (they are decent but I'm not sure a single one of them is a match for Hussey or Katich

Not sure about the Aussie openers of late, but the Aussie batsmen are good, but Rachael they will have to be, if England are on song, they will face a more deadly attack than they have for years.

Originally Posted by Rachael

The current Aussie bowling attack is arguably the strongest the world has seen in the last 25 years... not because McGrath and Warne are at their peak (McGrath may be close, but Warne's surely now merely outstanding rather than truly sensational).

Like I said in my post to Leafyseadragon, "all good things come to an end", McGrath Australias linchpin, is ageing, if Trescothick and Strauss fire, the Aussies are in trouble, because they pin their hopes on their attack, big mistake IMHO.

Originally Posted by Rachael

McEnroe is still a match for pretty well anyone in a one set match

Yep it's like saying McGrath will be ok in a limited no of overs per day.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Sampras did actually win the last grand slam he ever played. Agassi remains one of the few to be an equal for Federer and Roddick. Mansell always sucked.

Yes but Samras got that he was getting prone to injury, Agassi bucks the trend, what a guy."Mansell sucks" whi he was a winner, did he not go to the USA and win back to back Indie races.

Originally Posted by Rachael

You can't generalise about age in cricket: Botham faded early: the optimum age for a cricketer is early 30s - which is about where most of these Aussies are.

You can't generalise about age in cricket, I agree when you mention things like Botham faded early, Wash was always good, as was Ambrose, I don't agree about cricketers peaking in their early 30s, not pace bowlers anyway, I think some of the Australian attack are in their mid thirties..

Originally Posted by acker

Think about it Rachael
Warne and McGrath at 75% of their peak are still far superior to other world bowlers.

I don't think so, but bowling world wide is at a low, that's what I have been saying for ages.

Originally Posted by acker

This period of Australian cricket will be remembered forever in history for those two's dominence in their sport much like Don Bradman was in his day.

Not this last two years it won't IMHO, who have Australia beat of late?, Pakistan still rebuilding, an unlucky India, a New Zealand team that England had demoralised.

Originally Posted by acker

As to Harmisson, Flintoff or Hoggard challenging Warne or McGrath even in their twighlight years.

I DOUBT IT

I look at the combined ages of both attacks, and smile to myself.

Originally Posted by acker

Keep trying luckless pom....

Like I have said three times in this thread, "All good things come to an end".
I compare the present Australia attack, with a brave now old horse call "Red Rum", he had a habit of winning the Aintree Grand National", then he got to old, "All good things come to an end.with respect.

[Rachael]

There's one thing I still don't get, Ernest: I can see you are living in the hope that the two giants of the Australian attack will have dropped from being exceptional, through merely superb and down to a lowly "very, very good"... and can see why you might feel that Gillespie and Kasprowicz will prove merely "good" rather than (as the rest of us suspect) very, very good.. but I still can't quite see how you reckon that puts England in with a chance

I can just about find intelligible your quite extra-ordinary conviction that Harmison will be quite exceptional: it doesn't strike me as likely... but I concede that he possibly has it in him, if he really excels, to be something on an English Ambrose (i.e. superb). I suspect I also rate Hoggard far higher than you do: I like to think of him (optimistically) very, very good.. albeit not quite up there with Kasprowicz and Gillespie. If I entered your fantasy world I'd also have to accept Flintoff as being on that level (complete ******** of course, but I'll go along with you for a moment).

Thing is... even on this most optimistic (I would say dreamy) of readings.. you are at best looking at a 5 man English attack just about managing parity (overall) with a 4 man Aussie attack that is "very good" throughout. That's hardly giving England an "edge".

All seems to boil down to your optimistic reading of the English batsmen really... a reading that suggests they are somehow more than a match for an Australian batting line up that many would say is the best there has ever been in the history of the game.

[Trescothick's Footwork]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If I entered your fantasy world

That's bang out of order and you should now have the balls to apologise for your blatant crass comment.