Seam v Spin? - In Sri Lanka>

[engssmoothcriminal]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I agree on one point: Swann isn't going to block an end up and build pressure for Monty. If anything, it will be the other way around: Monty firing in deliveries to build pressure... and being treated with respect... building pressure that encourages batsmen to go after better flighted, more aggressive (if less consistently accurate) bowling from Swann.

Well that would be the optimistic way of viewing it. However the Sri Lankan batsmen are a far more pragmatic conservative bunch (picking Mubarak over Tharanga is something of a statement of intent over their approach) and will not commit suicide against Swann on the back of a few Monty maidens. They will be quite content to patiently sit back and pick off the looser offerings served up Swann and look to grind Monty into the ground and wait for him and England to crack first.

As for lesser spinners getting caned on the sub-continent... Michael Clarke might disagree (recall those 6 wickets for 9 runs in India)... as might (more significantly) Darren Lehmann: check out this game... his return of 19-2-50-3 in the first innings was impressive: he outdid Shane Warne on average, strike rate AND economy. He then came back in the second innings and did even better: his figures of 17-2-42-3 once again eclipsed Warne's.

I'm sure it helped having Warne the other end... but I'd not rule out Swann having the same sort of impact in tandem with Panesar.

Well if we come across a pitch of that standard this series then even if we called up Rashid from the acadamy and went in with the three frontline spinners (gave Bopara and Collingwood the new ball and packed the batting) it would be pretty irrelevent as Murali wouldn't allow us to top 100 in either innings.

And the key factors outside of the presence of Warne (something Monty with the best will in the world can't remotely hope to replicate) in Lehman's exploits from 4 years ago were a) Australia won the toss and batted first b) Australia batted supremely well in both innings which gave him plenty of runs on the board to work with c) he was part of a 5 man attack and d) had the injured McGrath played Lehman would have barely bowled and Australia would have won far more comfortably.

ps. I wonder how Jayasuria, Sehwag and Tendulkar would view your comment about bowlers of their callibre?

Well I doubt part timers Tendulkar and Sehwag who average around 50 with the ball in test cricket would lose too much sleep over them and Jayasuria has always struck me as an honest guy who would willingly admit thathad he not had a certain Muttiah Muralitharan operating from the other end his bowling average would probably be about 10 runs higher.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You always have over-rated that 2005 attack: Jones apart... it was pretty ordinary.

Well no Rachael not really - as you know I posted for over a year that England had the better bowlers than #1 ranked Australia - and that stance was vindicated.People will always point to the fact that McGrath took 5 wickets in the first test at Lords, but then again so did Harmison.People will point to the fact that McGrath got injured, again this was matched by the fact that Harmison never again in that series reached the peak he did at Lords.I will go furthur - in 2005 the England attack would have beat IMO any world lX, let alone players the caliber of Ponting - Langer and Hayden was made to look ordinary.To go to your team Rachael it is unreal that you would place in* your side Broad ahead of Flintoff - look at the facts before Flintoff was injured again in 2005.He was most series the better bowler, in South Africa when Harmison first showed his inapitude for touring - Flintoff was only one wicket behind Hoggard in the series bowling.Plus more often then not 2004/05 he topped the batting, if nnot he came in the top three.Look at results - when he was captain he has brought silverwear to England than* either Strauss, Vaughan or Collingwood since the ashes in 2005.First he captained England to a credible drawn series in India, and topped the batting averages (I think) with an average in the 50's. and even won a test in India, not many England captains have achieved that of late.Afer the 2005 ashes debacle caused by the worst quad selected ever, he managed to at least salvage the VG (or whatever) one day series .Let Broad top that.

Originally Posted by Nott's Exile

Spinners improve with age and Swann is getting better every season [...] Suggesting he's not remotely in the same class as Giles massively exaggerates the Wheelie Bin's talent [...] He's a far more attacking bowler than any of those previously mentioned.

Well you are right over Swann NE, but IMO wrong over Giles - it's my opinion that Giles has been very underrated as a bowler, not exaggerated.

Look at his econ rate - he would have tok more wickets but for him being ordered to bowl in a negative way, that was because of the shorcomings of the England batsmen to match opposition totals, so he was used to restrict them most of the the series he was castigated for in India in I think 2003.

[Rachael]

1. The wickets England took at Lords were almost all gifted: Harmison was eminently playable... and whilst he offered some very good deliveries, he didn't sustain that quality for ball after ball after ball... and would not have been worth backing to dislodge a batsman like Kirsten or Kallis (to pick just two who valued their wickets more highly that the Aussies did that day). None of the Aussie batsman's technique was exposed as McGrath exposed the technique of England's top order: Harmison was very much flattered by his haul as a resut of Australia looking to dominate instead of showing due respect.

2. Hoggard, in 2005, was not a patch on the bowler he has since become. When conditions suited (as at Trent Bridge) he was very good... but he hadn't the subtlety and guile he can now demonstrate.

3. Flintoff's willingness to bend his back was, on the whole, matched by quality: his best spells were more Andre Nel than Lindwall. Where he excelled was in consistency: he was no match for Jones and Hoggard when the ball swung.... and not even close to Jones when the ball was reversing... but no matter WHEN Vaughan tossed him the ball, he did build some pressure.

4. Jones was by far the most penetrative bowler on display (from either side) but was still flattered by some shocking Aussie batting: lack of form combined with self-evident inexperience in handling quality swing led the likes of Hayden and Kattich to bat in a fashion that made Jones look very much like a latter day Lindwall... but in truth, his performances were good rather than great.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

1. Harmison was eminently playable... .. and would not have been worth backing to dislodge a batsman like Kirsten or Kallis . None of the Aussie batsman's technique was exposed ......

Harmison exposed Ponting who is a better bat then Kallis (just) or Kirsten. He pushed him back with a couple of very quick short ones and then got him caught at slip when he failed to come forward. The pace and ferocity of that spell surprised the Aussies and set the tone for the series. Funnily enough the Aussies rated (and still do) Harmison highly.

Originally Posted by Rachael

2. Hoggard, in 2005, was not a patch on the bowler he has since become......

Fair enough but with the attack we had in '05 Hoggard wasnt needed that much anyway.

Originally Posted by Rachael

3. ... he was no match for Jones and Hoggard when the ball swung.... and not even close to Jones when the ball was reversing.......

Flintoff was easily a match for Jones. He was quicker got more bounce and consistantly troubled all the Aussie batsman weather the ball was swinging or not.... Have a look at his marathon spell in the last test - Jones could not have done that.

Originally Posted by Rachael

4. Jones was by far the most penetrative bowler on display (from either side) ......

I recently watched some of the series and Jones bowled A LOT of 4 balls. He was unable to build pressure like Flintoff and got wickets by bowling very good swinging deliveries and in a few cases batsman chasing wide ones. It was the Aussie batsmans inability to play the swinging ball and that was their downfall.
Think of a slightly less wayward Mahmood .

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Flintoff was easily a match for Jones.

I quite agree: whenever the ball was doing nothing.. Flintoff emerged as head and shoulders above his counterparts by simply bending his back and getting balls somewhere near where he wanted them. Neither Hoggard nor Jones could do that... and Harmison, after that first match, never really did anything very special.

What I actually said was that Flintoff "was no match for Jones and Hoggard when the ball swung.... and not even close to Jones when the ball was reversing"... and I stand by that: for the short periods of the entire series that gave Hoggard and Jones the chance to shine.... they were in a different league - and in fairness, aside from arrogance it was the Aussie inadequacies in those spells that cost them the Ashes.

ps. Harmison went at nearly 4 an over in that 1st innings at Lords: the batsmen were looking to get after him. They were not leaving the short balls, were jumping on width and were more interested in playing through the ball when getting forward than in ensuring they got a good contact with the ball.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

... and Harmison, after that first match, never really did anything very special..

Apart from taking the vital wicket at Edgebaston. To be fair Harmison did trouble Ponting with the short ball. He's the only quicky i've seen do that.

Originally Posted by Rachael

... What I actually said was that Flintoff "was no match for Jones and Hoggard when the ball swung.... and not even close to Jones when the ball was reversing"... and I stand by that...

Even when the ball was reversing Flintoff still swung it and continuously troubled the Aussies whereas Jones surprised them with the straight one a couple of times.

Originally Posted by Rachael

... ...aside from arrogance it was the Aussie inadequacies in those spells that cost them the Ashes.

Agreed.

Harmison may have went for runs at Lords, infact all of the bowlers did! A lot of that was down to Aussie agression and Vaughan setting attacking fields - because although the Aussies were scoring at 4 an over England were taking wickets.

[Rachael]

Take a look at Cricinfo - A tale of two metronomes

The Australians didn't help their cause by playing in one-day mode - they let only 71 out of 254 deliveries go through to Geraint Jones. A more cautious approach might have been the need of the hour on the first-day Lord's pitch, but then Australia only play their cricket one way.

[pie_chucker]

England tried the cautious approach when they batted and that didnt work either. The only English batsman who suceeded (Pieterson) was the one who batted with controlled agression and never let McGrath bowl at him. Vaughan was quick to notice this and for the rest of the series wanted the English top order to be more positive.

[Rachael]

Pietersen didn't thrive by being aggressive... he thrived because he got his back foot across his stumps and got into line with balls angled in off the slope - something none of the others managed. The failure of the rest had NOTHING to do with being attacking or defensive: it was a simple matter of technical failings being exposed.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

... he thrived because he got his back foot across his stumps and got into line with balls angled in off the slope ..

But Pieterson also got forward very well, again something none of the others did. Pietersons positive footwork was due to his positive mentality. If you look to score of every ball you will find that more often than not your feet movement - either forward or back is also positive and you are in the correct position to attack, block or leave the ball. The rest of the England top order planned to try and survive by half plonking their front foot down the wicket and trying to block the ball..... Strangley enough they all got out playing that shot... Treco, Strauss, Flintoff, Bell and Vaughan all persihed that way.

When i say Pieterson was positive thats what i mean - positive intentions and footwork. He looked to dominate the bowling but if he couldnt hit the ball he was in a good position to ensure he didnt get out to it conversely if the ball was there to hit it got hit.

McGrath could have bowled 6 half volleys in an over and no runs would have been scored the other batsman had been on strike, they would have just looked to survive and thats why they failed.