England Have The Batting!,Have They Got The Bowling?.>

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Ernest

A lot would depend on the form of Trescothick, and the mood of Flintoff.

If Flintoff is in his innings building mode, and
Trescothick is on form, then edge to England methinks

hmm...I strongly disagree Ern, but you have a right to your opinion mate, however strange it may appear to others!

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Maranello

I thought I did mention Pathan, Patel, Harbhajan and Kumble, all of whom can stick around as much as Giles and Hoggard can. Pathan and Patel though are much better than Giles or Hoggard, and have more potential as batsmen, both can develop into long-term Test no.6 or 7, if India ever had a batting crisis!

You did indeed. I even think Murali Kartick (or whichever way you spell it, apologies to him) is a good batting prospect. Now, only if India could find bowlers, other than spinners who can consistently get u 20 wickets on all kinds of surfaces, they'd be such an awsome team...

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Alison

I'm not entirely sure about lining the two teams up according to where they bat, and picking the best for each position, surely their batting positions aren't all set in stone are they?

Very intelligent comment Alison, and a shame I did not think of it first....

A better approach might be to see how many of the Indian top six would play in a combined Indland (ind+eng) top six... I can think of four: SRT, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman.

For England, only Thorpe would play in the combined Indland team.

The second opener slot would be vacant, I guess I could include Vaughan there.

So its 4-2 to India, but the difference in class is greater than that, England simply have no answer to SRT and Dravid, two of the best Test batsmen of our era, if not the two best, full stop.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

You did indeed. I even think Murali Kartick (or whichever way you spell it, apologies to him) is a good batting prospect. Now, only if India could find bowlers, other than spinners who can consistently get u 20 wickets on all kinds of surfaces, they'd be such an awsome team...

Hopefully that wouldn't happen anytime soon....!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

A lot would depend on the form of Trescothick, and the mood of Flintoff. If Flintoff is in his innings building mode, and Trescothick is on form, then edge to England methinks

You have to be joking on the first count: Trescothick in great form is about on a par with Sehwag in average form... and only Vaughan in the form he showed in Australia is close to matching Sehwag in top form. Tresco's capable of getting starts quite regularly.. but has hardly ever done more than that.

Laxman vs Flintoff is more interesting.. because they are just so very different.

I suspect that on a pitch that made batting against seam bowling very, very tough.. Laxman is about as much use as toffee... whereas Flintoff is just about passable on the simple grounds that when out of his depth he resorts to method.. whereas on a pitch where batting against spin is tough... Flintoff is about much use as toffee.. whereas Laxman is at least average.

Thing is.. whilst both players would actually be at their most impressive in situations where they can take the attack to the bowlers.. meaning true pitches with pace and bounce.. but in totally different ways: as a block or bash man.. Flintoff would hold his own against a second rate attack that gave him plenty to hit and allowed him room to swing his arms.... but Laxman has shown that he can take even the greatest attacks apart - unlike Flintoff, he's able to score off even very good balls.

So.. adapting Ernest's phrasing.. it would depend on whether the attack was crummy enough to make it hard for Laxman to really demonstrate his superiority.

[Zainub]

Flintoff - Laxman is...what's that word, yes, intresting. Youhave to take into acount that Freddie's never played against Aus, we don't know how well he'll fair against them, Laxman, well, there is the impression amongst some people that he plays well only against Australia...

To be fair to the Indian batsmen though, Maranello is right, there is way too much gulf in class here to think Trescothick and Freddie or even the whole of the top 6 batsmen being in top form would make England's line up better than India's - yes, they might outscore India on a given day Erne, anything can happen on a given day, Kenya beat Sri Lanka on a given day, John Davison scored a 100 against WI on a given day....but speaking in terms of quality, we'd really be doing injustice to both the English batsmen and the Indian batsmen by doing a comparision, wouldn't be fair on either party. India's line up comprises mostly players who are now at their peak, well settled into their careers, most of them having played for well over a decade, England on the other hand, barring Thorpe boast of batsmen that have just recently seen glory, Freddie as Rach often argues has just had 1 year of not being the old irresponsible fat and ineffective Freddie, Strauss hasn't even completed his first year in test cricket, Vaughan and Tresco too are relatively new to the arena when compared to the likes of Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid.

Of coarse anything can happen on a given day, but I don't think there is much doubt in the argument that India have the better set of players, who scores how many runs on a given day, we can speculate on that forever, but India are the more accomplished side by far for my money.

[Maranello]

In addition to all that ZR, India do have two very classy players... no matter how much experience and Tests and seasons and series any of England's current top 6 get, they will not attain the heights of SRT and Dravid. That's a fact that even Ern will agree with....right?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You have to be joking on the first count: Trescothick in great form is about on a par with Sehwag in average form... and only Vaughan in the form he showed in Australia is close to matching Sehwag in top form. Tresco's capable of getting starts quite regularly.. but has hardly ever done more than that.

I am talking about when Trescothick had his best form when he started, all the commentators thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Laxman vs Flintoff is more interesting.. because they are just so very different.

I suspect that on a pitch that made batting against seam bowling very, very tough.. Laxman is about as much use as toffee... whereas Flintoff is just about passable on the simple grounds that when out of his depth he resorts to method.as a block or bash man.. Flintoff would hold his own against a second rate attack that gave him plenty to hit and allowed him room to swing his arms.... but Laxman has shown that he can take even the greatest attacks apart - unlike Flintoff, he's able to score off even very good balls.

The first part of the above surprises me, you are saying that Flintoff has a defence, as well as outright attack.

Flintoff I don't think you have ever realy appreciated Rachael, he can be block or bash if the need is there, but he can drive with the best, and he see's the ball as early as any batsman in the world today.
Spin yes is record is not good, but it is the part time spin that gets him into trouble up to date.

Unlike Laxman, you are right, he can play when it apears he is out of his depth.

Intersting post,but Rachael you do not need room to swing your arms to play some of the OFF drives he plays, when his timing is there.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Flintoff I don't think you have ever realy appreciated Rachael, he can be block or bash if the need is there, but he can drive with the best [...] Unlike Laxman, you are right, he can play when it apears he is out of his depth [...] Intersting post,but Rachael you do not need room to swing your arms to play some of the OFF drives he plays, when his timing is there.

LOL Ernest: block or blast isn't a term of derision... it's a style of play. It's what Boycott goes on about: playing a straight bat to the good balls and making the bowler play for the bad balls (usually with an orthodox shot). Driving the overpitched delivery is obviously central to such an approach.

Flintoff's slightly different.. in that his blocked balls tend to fly... but it remains true that his scoring is heavily dependent on big hitting (notably the drive)... and that such shots.. if played in orthodox fashion (which is what Flintoff attempts) requires the ball to be there to be hit (i.e. overpitched, short, wide or drifting onto the legs.

The difference with Laxman... as all who witnessed his legendary innings against the Aussies will attest.. is that he doesn't DO block or blast.. he puts bat to ball in any which way but none... improvising, using his soft hands, and generally finding some way or another of finding a gap no matter what delivery (however perfect) is sent his way.. and no matter what field is set.

That's the gulf between the two, Ernest: Flintoff can destroy the morale of any bowler who tends to err in width or length.. as every mistake tends to get brutally punished.. but Laxman can break a bowlers heart by just taking runs off even the most perfect of deliveries - apparently with impunity.

The reason I say that the pitch can even things up is that Laxman's approach needs a true wicket: hitting anything and everything, no matter how good it is, isn't really feasible when faced with uneven bounce.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

LOL Ernest: block or blast isn't a term of derision... it's a style of play. It's what Boycott goes on about: playing a straight bat to the good balls and making the bowler play for the bad balls (usually with an orthodox shot). Driving the overpitched delivery is obviously central to such an approach.

Rachael, I am sure I agree your remarks were not derision, I was surpised you made those remarks, bur I was pointing out, he can bat a bit more than just block/blast, I think you have agreed with me before he has a good eye, seeing the ball soon, that is one of his strong points, and it makes him appear at times that batting is easy.

Originally Posted by Rachael

. but it remains true that his scoring is heavily dependent on big hitting (notably the drive)... and that such shots.. if played in orthodox fashion (which is what Flintoff attempts) requires the ball to be their to be hit (i.e. overpitched, short, wide or drifting onto the legs.

But is this not the way of all good batsmen, waiting for the ball that is there to be hit, I am sure Boycott would approve, he can when he is free to do so, take an attack apart playing unorthadox shote, I know this will make you shudder, but it is less of a fact these days.

Originally Posted by Rachael

That's the gulf between the two, Ernest: Flintoff can destroy the morale of any bowler who tends to err in width or length.. as every mistake tends to get brutally punished.. but Laxman can break a bowlers heart by just taking runs off even the most perfect of deliveries - apparently with impunity.

Yes Rachael I agree to a very large amount of what you say here, and if Flintoff does try and play like Laxman, and I have seen it, it does not look right, each to his own.

Originally Posted by Rachael

The reason I say that the pitch can even things up is that Laxman's approach needs a true wicket: hitting anything and everything, no matter how good it is, isn't really feasible when faced with uneven bounce.

This is why every team would benifit with a player like Flintoff, I differ from a lot of people, the nature of pitches in England has changed, they are not as good.