The Ashes 2006/07: The Brisbane Test Thread - Day Two

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

What makes you think Tresco would have faired better than Cook? The ball from McGrath was excellent:

Flintoff bowled a lot of excellent balls to Ponting, but Ponting managed to play - so it follows that Trescothick a far more experienced player than Cook would not have got out just because of an excellent ball, excellent players cope with such deliveries.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Now.... many top players would have coped... but the obvious way of coping was using the feet, getting well forward and thereby smothering the lateral movement

Trescothick without his problems dose not give bowlers the chance to settle into a good line, Cook as yet does not have Tresco's know how, and neither does Strauss IMO.

Originally Posted by Rachael

(and given Tresco's record against McGrath I'd have had Cook in ahead of Tresco even if Tresco were in 2005 shape).

Not on this track - a real featherbed to a good player.
Rob Key is supposed to be a flat trach bully, Fletcher is supposed to be expert on these matters, why did he not bring Rob Key into this game, if only to exploit the conditions, and also bring with his a left hand - right hand opening combination.

IMO Australia's attack is not good enough to have taken 3 wickets for so little on this track, so the players England have on show were just not up to the job.

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Ernest 119934

IMO Australia's attack is not good enough to have taken 3 wickets for so little on this track, so the players on show were just not up to the job.

What the......

Well they did, and as you would say they can only bowl to who has the bat in there hands. They did take three wickets so they are good enough to take the wickets, weather your you want to be in denial or not.

What they are good at is making batsman play, the more times the ball is in the spot the more chance they have of getting out.

One of the major factors for England last Ashes was the ability of the bowlers to use swing, I think you will find that the ability of the Aussie bowlers in the series is the ability to use the bounce and line and length needed to optimise that bounce. This extra bounce the England batsman will not be use to as the Aussie bats are not as use to the swing bowling in England.

A prime example of this is Tendulkar - great batsman - but is very prone to the extra bounce of the ball in Australian conditions - Look at his average between the Gabba 7.66 verus the SCG 249.00.

I think you will see the English bowlers bowl better in Adelaide - this is the game I have penciled in as a possible win to England - as the conditions here suit swing bowling more than any other ground.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Cook is one of the brightest academy prospects of his generation and the fact that he got caught on the crease early on is no basis for condemning him out of hand: many top batsmen have taken a few overs to really get their feet moving well... and whilst Jacques would be a better short-term fix if he could suddenly become England qualified... and Michael Vaughan would be a good bet if he could miraculously become match fit... Cook is, without doubt, the best available option (and given Tresco's record against McGrath I'd have had Cook in ahead of Tresco even if Tresco were in 2005 shape).

I tend to agree with you here, Cook is the best prospect for Tresco's opener slot but I still have my reservations about whether he can deal with really high quality bowling. It's all very well being able to cash in on average bowling, its when you have to deal with quality bowling that sorts the men out from the boys.

I also noticed Cook missed yet another catch yesterday, not an easy one by any means - but one that should have been taken. Cook is becoming a bit of a liability with his poor fielding.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

One of the major factors for England last Ashes was the ability of the bowlers to use swing, I think you will find that the ability of the Aussie bowlers in the series is the ability to use the bounce and line and length needed to optimise that bounce. This extra bounce the England batsman will not be use to as the Aussie bats are not as use to the swing bowling in England.

I don't know what Ern is talking about either to be honest. The Australian bowlers bowled far better to the English batsmen than the English bowlers to the Australians. I agree that the Australian bowlers bowled a far better line and forced the English batsmen into playing at balls they would much prefer to leave alone - something that was abjectly missing from the England performance where far too many 'gimme' balls were smacked for 4. Apart from Flintoff and Hoggard Englands bowling was pretty poor and allowed Australia to rack up probably 200 runs more than they should have - this is a 400 - 450 pitch, not 600+.

Why England were bowling length balls to tailenders I'll never know, as soon as Flintoff switched to yorkers and a 'you miss I hit' strategy he took a wicket - why an earth weren't more slower balls and yorkers bowled at the Aussie tailenders? They allowed Australia to get almost a 100 runs out of Warne, Lee and Clark and thats simply not good enough at this level.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I don't know what Ern is talking about either to be honest. The Australian bowlers bowled far better to the English batsmen than the English bowlers to the Australians.

Scott,
I will tell you what I was talking about.Australia scored 600+, England just 53-3.

Australia's bowlers where flattered by an inept England batting display, despite Flintoff and Hoggards considerable efforts - on this pitch it was just not good enough.

Australia should not have been able to have England at 53-3 on the same track that a team has just scored 600 runs on, that's my point.

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

Well they did, and as you would say they can only bowl to who has the bat in there hands. They did take three wickets so they are good enough to take the wickets, weather your you want to be in denial or not.

The same A-Y - if a team scores 600 on a pitch depite Flintiff bowling well, and backed up by Hoggard the second day, then it follows that there was some pretty bad batting, rather than unplayable deliveries that has been mooted.
Good batsmen leave unplayable deliveries ,or should be able to.
This is not getting at the Aussie bowlers, just stating a fact about the England side.

Originally Posted by Ernest

IMO Australia's attack is not good enough to have taken 3 wickets for so little on this track, so the players on show were just not up to the job.

On reflection A-Y it would seem this could be seen as notbthee best of comments- I believe that no bowlers should have got 3 wickets like that on this pitch, but my comment was a reflection on the England opening batsmen, rather than a pop at the Aussie bowling - which was just an opinion.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Australia should not have been able to have England at 53-3 on the same track that a team has just scored 600 runs on, that's my point.

Perhaps if Englands bowlers had bowled like the Australians they wouldn't have scored 600+ ? And that was my point.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

this is a 400 - 450 pitch,

At 53-3 it's debatable if England will get 400+, opening batsmen are there to blunt good opening bowling, even if they find it hard to score - not to capitulate, and finish with 3 for hardly any.
Cook and Strauss first job is to see off the new ball attack, so that players like Pietersen and Flintoff don't have to face a nearly new ball, scoring runs is secondary to staying at the crease.

Strauss-Cook and Collingwood should have blocked what they could, I find it hard to believe they all got unplayable deliveries.

[Ernest]

Please use this link http://www.world-a-team.com/showthread.php?t=7757 to post comments on day three.
Thank you.