| | |
| | |
| Welcome to the World-A-Team Cricket Forum. We promote friendly, good-natured, quality cricket discussion. |
| |||||||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
| Quote:
A series draw would not be that surprising. T |
| ||||
| Quote:
The two big men are the key to the bowling department, Harmison and Flintoff. The batting is more complex, Thorpe in form is a must, in particular if we are going to keep Trescothick opening, Butcher and Vaughan, vaughan in particular, need to be in some form. These three matter, because Strauss and key, are not really bedded in as yet, mind you by the time Australia are here, they should be getting there.
__________________ Ern  |
| |||
| [quote=ernest]The two big men are the key to the bowling department, Harmison and Flintoff. Nope: the two key men are Hoggard and Giles. If we can get those two giving us the fundamental basics of control and pressure then it's possible (if there's a bit of pace and bounce in the pitch) that the hit-the-deck merchants can squeeze the top order to the point that we see the sort of implosion that the Aussies managed a couple of times in Sri Lanka.. but without Hoggard and Giles getting enough out of the pitches to tie people down I just don't see us managing much of anything. Quote:
|
| ||||
| Quote:
We have had good starts before, and ended up with totals well short of 300, I still think a key player is Thorpe, if he is in form, it make one feel comfort that he is there should Strauss and co fail. Trescothick will not have to swat at balls of McGrath, you know what I think, but he is accurate, and it wont do to take liberties. Vaughan is a key Rachael, he is captain, and playing up the same order as Key and Strauss could be crucial. The England top order never seems to fire all at once, that is why I am citing key players like Vaughan and Thorpe to keep things together. I have not mentioned Flintoff or Jones in the hope they will not have to come in - in desperate situations. I have a feeling you will not enjoy the bowling Rachael, Harmison and Flintoff INO, will be batting under orders to bowl short and fast at the Australian bats, vaughan had no scruples againsed the West Indies.
__________________ Ern |
| |||
| Quote:
Quote:
Alas.. if Harmison and Flintoff are enjoying the conditions than McGrath and Gilespie will be positively revelling in them.. and that doesn't sound too cool. Our best hope is that Hoggard and Giles love the conditions.. because Hoggard is as good as any bowler in the world right now when conditions really suit.. but pretty ordinary when they don't.. and Giles' threat goes up pretty significantly when there's some decent rough for him to exploit. The key point, for me, is that Giles and Hoggard can only compete with Warne and Gillespie if there's a bit of moisture in the pitch and rapid degradation where the bowlers follow through: two things that don't really help the Aussies THAT much as even Warne is a "pace and bounce" merchant (doesn't need the rough) and none of the seamers are first and foremost swing bowlers. Offer Harmison the pace and bounce they like and I think we'll get a caning.. but offer Giles and Hoggard what they like and we'll compete. |
| ||||
| Quote:
I have seen a little bit of Braken and Williams, and have heard a bit about Tait, but none seen to be of the same rare talent. I do not expect the next Ashes series will be easy for either side to win. In previous years it has all been over very quickly. I do not see that happening. Even if England do not win this time, by the time of the next tour to Australia, one maybe two of Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Lehmann or Martyn may not be there, while I really cannot see Warne or McGrath still heading up the attack. England will probably not have Thorpe and possibly not Butcher, but the rest of the side will be there. Beny - one comment that distrubs me is your idea that England will not devlop any further. In three years of the Acadmey talent is bursting through - Strauss, Key, Bell, Jones, Harmison, Flintoff, Anderson have all been through. In four years time you may see a team dominated by Academy players that may be the best in the world. I hope it doesn't hurt too much when we are.. |
| ||||
| Quote:
The same goes for Thorpe, he has been outstanding, and he has batted with Flintoff, to repare damage done by a failing top order. No they can't all fire at once, but you would expect 3 from the top 5 to make a score regularily. Quote:
And IMO Rachael, there is nothing McGrath and Gillespie could do about it, they have not the pace, and if they try they will be bowling no more than long hops. I am torn over these tactics, I am sure Vaughan and Fletcher will use them, winning the Ashes back will be of paramount importance.that is why I am torn.I am not against the short ball, as a surprise tactic, but I think it will be a mane weapon, S Afriac may tell a tale. Quote:
I said McGrath was finished as a fast bowler as such, but he is still accurate, and will be hard to score off, this is the danger. And warne can extract turn from nowere, as I see it such pitches will be evening up the odds.
__________________ Ern |
| |||
| Quote:
The problem is that what counts as "OK" for one guy is not necessarily OK for another. Tresco is perhaps THE most reliable and consistent player in world cricket right now: he's not in the team to graft out an anchoring innings of 3-4-5 sessions.. nor to score 100+ runs.. but to do what he does best: get us a few runs on the board on a consistent basis and as often as not see off the new ball. He does all this pretty well, and has been doing so for so long now that he fully deserves his spot at the top of the order. Butcher is completely different: he's there on the offchance that he'll be able to play himself in, get an innings going and then (once ina while) ride his luck to compile a big score. He's not expected to get starts more than once in every three innings.. and isn't expected to get lucky every time... but is expected to (and does) convert starts into solid innings..whether they be his traditional anchor-man's century... or his increasingly common much needed sheet-anchor 50. Flintoff's different again: he's more of a random element thrown into the melting pot to see what happens... there to do the best he can of a reasonably mundane job of sticking to a task to see what develops... but first and foremost on the understanding that if he does that for even a very modest period he'll turn a game around. You can't really judge any of these guys by any standard measure: they are picked for different reasons... and only Thorpe and Vaughan are actualy in that slightly better class where the reason is first and foremost "adaptability". That's 2 out of 6 who can be expected to look the part no matter WHAT they are asked to do. The great hope that Vaughan should cling to is that Ponting alone seems to be in that class for the Aussies. The great fear he should harbour is that Ponting alone is pretty well all they NEED to be in that class when they have one-dimensional but extreme talents like HAyden and Gilchrist just itching to bat an opposition so far out of a game that there's no coming back. Quote:
It's a shame that the current WI lot are so poor against genuine pace and bounce.. but hardly surprising: the WI wickets have been getting lower and slower for a generation now, the bounce on WI tracks has been getting less dependable.. and the facilities for- and organisation of - the preparation for Test cricket has so faltered that touring teams like England are now routinely better prepared for the games that come up than the home team is. I really don't think you should draw conclusions from that Ernest: draw, rather, from the fact that when Richie Benaud selected his 6 or 8 contenders for his "all time XI" not ONE WI fast bowler was on the list: not Marshall, nor Ambrose, nor Holding... not one. I haven't seen his final selection.. but his shortlist speaks volumes about broader Aussie attitudes to "hostile" bowling - they just don't rate it. Theres' a reason McGrath is considered the greatest fast-medium Aussie bowler of his generation: he's a class act. He's not hostile. He doesn't resort to short stuff because to do so would be a stupid waste of energy and effort. He does, however, maximise the impact of what pace he does have by extremely astute use of pitches, conditions and observation of a batsmen's strengths and weaknesses: that's why he will go down as a great and faster men (including Flintoff) will not. |
| ||||||
| Quote:
Trescothick at the moment has not looked at the top of his form, but he will get there, throuble is if only 2 of the top 5 do well, it is down to Flintoff to bat with Thorpe or Strauss, to get some sort of a score, and then the tail needs to wag. Quote:
Quote:
Good fear factor there for England. Quote:
That is the reason I am saying the Australian batsmen are in for a nasty surprise, they dont have bowlers as good as Flintoff or Harmison bowling at them at home, or they would be in the team. Quote:
And they have tried ever sinse to get another like them, look how they have persisted with Lee on and off, Richie is quite a romantic where cricket is concerned but he does appreciate the odd ball fizzing round a batsmans earhole. Quote:
Yes he will go down as a great player, but to say Flintoff wont is premiture, would you say Botham was not a great player, forget you dont like him. I think as I said, and I hope it is not used to excess, that the Austraian batsmen are in for a battering with short pitched bowling on unpredictable English pitches, Rachael they would do the same if they had the firepower, but for once they have not, and I can't see Vaughan or fleture giving any quarter. I could be completley wrong, we could have Hoggard finding conitions right, and the ball swinging all over the place, giles may find a lot of turn, trouble is, so may Warne. I would say Rachael.Warne has just as much right to greatness as McGrath, there has never in the history of cricket been a bowler the same as Warne.
__________________ Ern |
| ||||
| If I remember correctly one thing that inspired Langer to pick out Harmison (I've tried looking up the article on cricinfo, but I can;t find it - it may have been an interview on the beeb) was a ball he bowled to Hayden early in the series (2nd test?). It was short, Hayden went to hook as he so often does and the ball just seemed to be on him in a flash. He half played at it, half bailed and lobbed the ball to third man. Think back to Grievous's early career with me (cue wobbly effects and tinkly music). How often did he get batsmen caught at third man? At times, it seemed the only way he could take wickets. The point of this reminisnce is that even a real greenhorn bowler can bowl a ball that is unhookable if he has the right attributes:- sufficient pace, steep bounce and just a tipple of movement off the pitch or in the air. Even if the batsmen is amongst the best hookers around, as Hayden is undoubtedly, it'll still rip them up like cleenex at a snot party. If you have a bowler who can, given a bouncy enough pitch, produce them on demand your only option as the bat is to leave them all in case this one is that one. I suspect this was very much Langers point:- "Jeez, if this guy can get some control......". Naturally attacking players do not like leaving short, seemingly hittable balls. If ECB produce some bouncy pitches, and I suspect they will, expect Harmison to be encouraged to have a good old dual with the AUS openers in those first overs. And if they are ducking and diving and playing and hitting boundaries and missing and getting wellied occassionally, esp. the lefties (CF. Richardsons comments after the NZ series), on the back foot, they are not only likely to hole out to the jaffa they are much more likely to muff the "good ball" pitched up. Its the old fast bowlers one-two:- first to the face, second to the toes. Flintoff is also likely to thrive on nice hard pitches, though he lacks the edge to produce those evil bouncers Harmison has in the past. Ern is quite right to expect some short stuff. Its a gamble, win or lose stuff. ENG aren't in this for a draw, and they are quite right to go in with that mentality. As for McGrath, your comment that he's not aggressive is, well, risible, isn't it? I can't think of many who are more aggressive on the field or off. If you tried, it would turn into a Tino the Goat routine anyway. He doesn't bowl short often, (though with the new ball you get one every over or so which is hardly a rarity), becuase at his pace - maybe just less than Hoggard - that would be suicide. Don't mistake inability to bowl short with a general tactical superiority of bowling long. Similarly great bowlers of the 80's WI vintage, several of whom were just as accurate - Ambrose, Garner, Marshall - bowled three of four short balls an over at times. Because they could. On a fast, bouncy pitch Harmison can too. The only edge ENG are likely to have over AUS is the gamble that our young bowlers can overcome thier aging greats. ECB have to play to that, which means hard, bouncy pitches with plenty of grass.
__________________ Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
