English Cricket going down hill?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

It does show that niether side are reliant on just one bat, although england seem to be (on this poll at least) heavily realiant on Harmisson. I hope he doesnt read this 1

[Ernest]

Well if I am on my own, well so be it.

A lot of factors come into play here than just stats, Rachael and others may drool at the stats of the Australian team, well I dont, I go on what I think, and what are historical facts.

Bowling, Australia have no bowlers to match the pace of Harmison or Flintoff, and don't count Lee, Anthony McGrath would be preferable to him.

Whats more about Harmison and Flintoff, and this is where the battle lines may well be drawn, how will this mighty Australian Batting line up cope with balls going at their throats at 90mph plus.

They are only human beings, not super beings, and they hurt just like we so, ask Brian Lara.

So Rachael what about 1981, where Australia not red hot favourites then, they could not cope with Botham, and they could not cope with a hostile Bob Willies.
Lessons of history have it would seen not been learned, Australia are beatable, to much heed IMHO has been taken by the banging of the Australian drum by Rachael, Beny, and to a lesser extent Milo.

We will be playing in England, the crowds roaring England and Flintoff, and Harmison on, no good saying that does not count "it does".
With England on the up, and Australia not having the fire power they once had, stat books are redundent, what used to be, is past, what is now is Flintoff, and Harmison, and a competent team to back them up, a team full of skill the likes of Thorpe, Butcher, Vaughan (who plays best against the Assies.)

Ern

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Ernest

No stats, no ratings, no numbers, man for man, England I would say are now superior to Australia, Ern

I'm such a big fan of confident hopefulness -there is nothing quite like listening to a buoyant English fan hopeful of Ashes glory. I reckon it takes a lot of guts to support any team with that sort of enthusiasm - so without going into the rights and wrongs of the argument I just stand and up and say 'well done'! If England thrash Australia next summer , we'll all eat humble pies , not to forget Erne will automatically become King of Predictions - may we all be blessed with such qualities of sanguinity! Amen!

[Ernest]

Hi Zainub, nice to have you back.

Well not a lot more to say really, I have just had a peep on Rachaels thread in the Australian forum, and almost conceded Australia had the better batting line up just.

One lives in hope I live in anticipation

Ern

[Rachael]

There is one very good reason to feel confident about England's prospects against Australia over the next few years.. and that's the order of the contests: home first (in conditions that kinda level things up a bit and ensure an upset is possible) then away (not until 2007, by which time we genuinely might be ready to compete).

Thing is... even managing to compete with home advantage in 2005 or scraping a lucky win isn't really going to vindicate Ernest's optimism: there are stacks of teams we've been able to compete against with a mix of home advantage and home conditions..

To really justify Ernest's optimism we've got to consistently get the better of their batting line up... emerge as strong, man for man, as they are... show McGrath up as over the hill.. and send the visitors home worried about facing us on Australian soil in 2007: that's a very, very tall order.

As Ernest says.. it's not inconceivable... bizarre things do happen in sport.. but the truth remains that it would be a bizzare turnaround.. and one which is pretty much inconceivable without a quite spectacular implosion on the part of the Aussies.

Basically.. if the Aussies capitulate and do themselves less than justice asthe Indans did in the recent Aus tour.. then we'll win... but that's not what Ernest is suggesting: he's saying they can come over here, play their best cricket.. and STILL get beaten!

[Beny]

Originally Posted by Ernest 23682

Well if I am on my own, well so be it.

A lot of factors come into play here than just stats, Rachael and others may drool at the stats of the Australian team, well I dont, I go on what I think, and what are historical facts.

Bowling, Australia have no bowlers to match the pace of Harmison or Flintoff, and don't count Lee, Anthony McGrath would be preferable to him.

Whats more about Harmison and Flintoff, and this is where the battle lines may well be drawn, how will this mighty Australian Batting line up cope with balls going at their throats at 90mph plus.

They are only human beings, not super beings, and they hurt just like we so, ask Brian Lara.

So Rachael what about 1981, where Australia not red hot favourites then, they could not cope with Botham, and they could not cope with a hostile Bob Willies.
Lessons of history have it would seen not been learned, Australia are beatable, to much heed IMHO has been taken by the banging of the Australian drum by Rachael, Beny, and to a lesser extent Milo.

We will be playing in England, the crowds roaring England and Flintoff, and Harmison on, no good saying that does not count "it does".
With England on the up, and Australia not having the fire power they once had, stat books are redundent, what used to be, is past, what is now is Flintoff, and Harmison, and a competent team to back them up, a team full of skill the likes of Thorpe, Butcher, Vaughan (who plays best against the Assies.)

Ern

.You mean pace like Lee and Tait? I remember in the world cup seeing Lee bowl a 161 km/h bowl (100 MPH) and getting smashed to the fence. Have you ever seen a game at Perth?? The Aussies arn't likely to care that much.

.Speaking of roaring crowds Australia have just been playing in India and won.

Australia not having the fire power they once had

That is an oppinion not supported by anthing or anybody.

[Ernest]

Beny,
I mean this with respect, face it, McGrath has been one of the GREAT bowlers, but all good thing come to an end, sure he will bowl accurate, and I will tell you how England will counter this, this will just not attack him, he can't bowl all day, and he has not the speed to blast England out, and Lee is no replacement, he may well have bowled at 100mph, but he is not as hostile as Flintoff or Harmison, because they are quick, not 100mph, but quick and accurate.

One thing puzzles me Beny, Pollock was being hailed, but as the series with South Africa draws near, no one mentions him, with any gusto.
The reason I mention this, Rachael holds him in high regard, maybe not the same as McGrath, but pretty dam near, wonder why the hush.

By the way Beny, a guy that bowls over 90mph is classed as fast,not FM or MF, and if LEE has bowled at 100mph, what would that delivery be called.

Ern

PS I think the Aussies will bother about being bowled short fast deliveries, it bothered the world record holder.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Beny

.You mean pace like Lee and Tait? I remember in the world cup seeing Lee bowl a 161 km/h bowl (100 MPH) and getting smashed to the fence. Have you ever seen a game at Perth?? The Aussies arn't likely to care that much.

LOL - I really do find this idea that Aussies don't like pace very, very funny :-D

To be fair to Ernest... when Harmison is on song (struggles with his rhythm a lot)... and on the right wicket (seems to need a bit of pace and bounce)... and is finding the right length (not his strong point)... he gets such exceptional bounce off a good length that anyone not used to it is likely to need time to adjust: instinct says that a ball of that length needs to be played.. and yet the thing is going way over the stumps.

If the groundsmen prepare a wicket with a bit of uneven bounce he'll be hell to play... simply because you can't leave balls that you expect to spit into your chest and you daren't play a cross bat shot... but my own feeling is that on a true pitch, when as the ball softens.. there will be guys in the Aussie top 7 who will be able to see young Harmison off..

There's only one of him.. and he can't bowl all day.. or from both ends!

As I'm in "support Ernest" mode I'll also put in a good word for Freddie: the guy has a horriby muscular action that he can't sustain for long spells or for many overs a day.. and can only shape the ball the one way... but he WILL test the temperament of Aussie strokeplayers who don't like being tied down as he is damn good at cramping them for room: it's not bowling that will in ANY way shape or form worry the likes of Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist... but it IS bowling that gives ample opportunity for suicidal batting.

My own feeling is that England success of the 2005 series is actually going to hinge, rather, on Giles and Hoggard: we kinda know what we're going to get from Harmison (excellent at times) and Flintoff (consistently average).. but we've no idea how Giles will do (or if he'll keep his head as the likes of Hayden and Clarke take him apart).. and we're reduced to speculating about the ability of the ECB to ensure we get helpful wickets and conditions when talking about Hoggard's potential impact.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

LOL - I really do find this idea that Aussies don't like pace very, very funny :-D

To be fair to Ernest... when Harmison is on song (struggles with his rhythm a lot)... and on the right wicket (seems to need a bit of pace and bounce)... and is finding the right length (not his strong point)... he gets such exceptional bounce off a good length that anyone not used to it is likely to need time to adjust:

This is true about all true fast bowlers, with the possible exeption of Michael Holding, and Malcolm Marchall, give him a pitch with pace, and he will rip theAussies to pieces.

Originally Posted by Rachael

If the groundsmen prepare a wicket with a bit of uneven bounce he'll be hell to play... simply because you can't leave balls that you expect to spit into your chest and you daren't play a cross bat shot...
There's only one of him.. and he can't bowl all day.. or from both ends!

You are part Right Rachael, but two things, Flintoff is more accurate on this sort of pitch, and therefore more dangerous than Harmison in that respect, although Harmison has that bit extra pace.
The two would be a handfull on such a pitch, and the Aussies have nothing to counter it with, and please don't say Lee, on such a pitch, we would win it with extras alone with LEE bowling.

Originally Posted by Rachael

As I'm in "support Ernest" mode I'll also put in a good word for Freddie: the guy has a horriby muscular action that he can't sustain for long spells or for many overs a day.. and can only shape the ball the one way... but he WILL test the temperament of Aussie strokeplayers who don't like being tied down as he is damn good at cramping them for room: it's not bowling that will in ANY way shape or form worry the likes of Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist... but it IS bowling that gives ample opportunity for suicidal batting.

It is the pace that will worry the likes of the Aussie stroke makers, they will commit suicide.and rachael Flintoff has developed away swing, and has a good yorker.

Originally Posted by Rachael

My own feeling is that England success of the 2005 series is actually going to hinge, rather, on Giles and Hoggard:

Yes support bowling is important in any side, I have always said England are a good TEAM.

Ern

[Beny]

McGrath rarely bowls more than 130-135 km/h. You're assumption that he is too old is not shared by the Indian's who's comments I posted earlier, nor the facts about McGrath. The fact being that he is as fit as he has ever been. If you think that England can simply play defensive against him (20 overs a day) and still win then... First of all that means you are loosing 20 overs worth of runs and second McGrath did not get to where he is having not played against teams who do that sort of thing. He will still get wickets even if you try to play him out. Infact the only way England could win is if they do attack him and get away with it.