Ponting quaking in his boots

[tbenson]

Originally Posted by Beny

brett Lee: Average 31.55, econ 3.45, ODI average 22.31
Andrew Flintoff: Average: 37.40

Not sure why you're comparing a specialist bowler with an all-rounder, but lets see how they compare.

B Lee Career bowling average 31.55, last 10 Match average 37.27

A Flintoff Career bowling average 37.40, last 10 Match average 24.70.

On recent form the statistics would suggest that Flintoff is having somewhat more success than Lee, particularly when you consider Lee is just coming back from injury.

I think it says a lot about how much England have progressed that England's all-rounder seamer on recent form is not only significantly better than one of Australia's specialist seam bowlers, he's also comparable to one of Australia's best seam bowlers in Gillespie, and actually has a better recent 10 match average than Gillespie does.

Want to start comparing Kasprowicz, Hogg etc now? I think you need to realign your thoughts on Australia's superior pace attack over Englands.

McGrath is the only Australian seam bowler to have better recent and career bowling averages than any of England's seam bowlers, but he's 34, how much longer can he go on?

T

[tbenson]

Originally Posted by Beny

It's not the worst in the world, but there're no-where near as good as the hype being generated over in England would suggest.

Forget the hype, look at the statistics. They speak for themselves - that's not hype.

T

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by tbenson

Not sure why you're comparing a specialist bowler with an all-rounder, but lets see how they compare.

B Lee Career bowling average 31.55, last 10 Match average 37.27

A Flintoff Career bowling average 37.40, last 10 Match average 24.70.

On recent form the statistics would suggest that Flintoff is having somewhat more success than Lee,

I did the comparing of the bowlers answering one of his posts, I though all our main bowlers stould the comparason well.

Not so sure these days Flintoff bowling is that of an all rounder, he is used as a strike bowler these days, but even so and i never used a book,

David Gillespie, Alison and yourself have proved me right, filtered stats are the only way to find how a player is performing now.

[Rachael]

The ODI final between Aus and Pak at Amstelveen returns some VERY up to date indications of potency... and the news for those who dismiss the Aussies is bleak: bowling at a VERY strong Pakistani batting line up.. and at a batting line-up under no real pressure (target of 193 from 50 overs).. they returned the following:

McGrath 7.1 1 12 1
Gillespie 9 0 22 1
Lee 7 1 29 1 (2w)
Hogg 7 0 43 1 (1w)
Symonds 7 1 25 2
Lehmann 10 0 36 2

If we take it that Gillespie is your honest, world class technician, bowling to a standard that Gough, Caddick and Harmison matched only at their best, to a standard that would not have looked out of place in support of Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, Alan Donald and Shaun Pollock, or indeed any other class frontline attack... then what stands out is that (a) he did another fine job; {b} he was (as ever) stacks better than Lee; and {c} he was completely eclipsed by McGrath, who doesn't seem to be struggling with age in any way, shape or form.

ps. anyone wanting to look at Gillespie's 10 most recent Tests might want to look at the fact that 3 were against the best batting attack the world has seen in a generation or more (and on very true pitches).. and 5 were against a very, very strong Sri Lankan batting side that ate England's seamers for breakfast not so long back.

Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in Australia, 2003/04 [Series]
- 3 139.1 377 10 4/65 4/82 37.70 2.70 83.5 0 0
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
Aus 3 110 316 10 4/76 5/101 31.60 2.87 66.0 0 0
Sri Lanka in Australia, 2004 [Series]
Aus 2 81.4 210 7 3/116 5/155 30.00 2.57 70.0 0 0

[Alison]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The ODI final between Aus and Pak at Amstelveen returns some VERY up to date indications of potency... and the news for those who dismiss the Aussies is bleak:

Oh, I wouldn't argue with anyone saying that Australia have a very god bowling attack, probably still the best in the world, I'm just arguing that we've got a good attack of our own, who are still developing and are currently improving rapidly, and that it would be foolish for people to underestimate them.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The ODI final between Aus and Pak at Amstelveen returns some VERY up to date indications of potency... and the news for those who dismiss the Aussies is bleak: bowling at a VERY strong Pakistani batting line up.. and at a batting line-up under no real pressure (target of 193 from 50 overs).. they returned the following:

McGrath 7.1 1 12 1
Gillespie 9 0 22 1
Lee 7 1 29 1 (2w)
Hogg 7 0 43 1 (1w)
Symonds 7 1 25 2
Lehmann 10 0 36 2

The Aussies could only muster 198, from an international attack that I would say is ordinary by any standards, and the Pakistan batting is strong, as opposed to very strong.
Now I take heart from these stats you have kindly provided Rachael.
Mc Grath, his returns are about the same as we would expect from Flintoff, being accurate is the name of the game in ODIs, and Mc Grath is accurate, not enough in Test cricket though, he has lost a lot of his match winning potential, with injury and age.being accurate as a specialist Test Match bowler will not win test Matches in this day and age, OK for ODIs.

Gillespie I find his figures the most interesting, not bad without being special.

Lee one of his better days, not a lot to fear there i would think.

Hogg, Rather have Trescothick bowling than him, going for 6 an over.

Symands and Lehmann, respectable figures, without being outstanding.
Yes from the igures you provided Rachael, we who believe Australia are not the force they where, can only take heart from these numbers.
The thing is Rachael IMO, care has to be taken with this kind of cricket match, it was only a one day encounter, of no real matter, but it would counter your argument that we who think the Aussies are not quite what they are is bleak.IMHO.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Alison

Oh, I wouldn't argue with anyone saying that Australia have a very god bowling attack, probably still the best in the world, I'm just arguing that we've got a good attack of our own, who are still developing and are currently improving rapidly, and that it would be foolish for people to underestimate them.

Australia IMO have a decent attack, but but the ravishes if time have caught up with one or two of thier key players, the difference between Australia and England is, we are on the way up, and we will meet them soon, going the other way, time waits for no team, not even Auistralia.

[DaveGillespie]

Rachael, I think you do Gillespie a great disservice (yes, I am talking about the Australian and not myself). Surely McGrath/Gillespie must rank up there along with Wasim/Waqar and Donald/Pollock. Gillespie more than deserves to be considered up there with the very best of modern pace bowling, and were he not repeatedly struck down with injury he would have taken certainly 300 and probably over 400 wickets by now, rather than the comparitively paltry 206 he stands on at the minute. He remains the most consistely underrated seamer of his generation - the Martin Bicknel of international cricket, if you will.

Gillespie and Warne undoubtedly remain among the top 2 or 3 at their job in Test cricket at the moment - Gillespie along with Pollock and possibly Harmison, Warne along with Kumble and Murali. Both are unquestionably still class, as is probably McGrath but I await confirmation of that in test cricket. Brett Lee, however, is all blow and no go. He believes his own press, and so do the rest of the Aussies. Kasprowicz is clearly a better bowler, but hopefully they don't realise that.

Gillespie career average 24.19, last 10 Match average 27.07
Harmison career average 24.73, last ten Match average 23.75


Gillespie is 29, Harmison 26, who's improving, who's peaked and who's getting better?

Lets see Harmison maintain that average until he (hopefully) gets to 200 test wickets - then we can consider him to be undoubtedly in the class of Gillespie.

Mc Grath is accurate, not enough in Test cricket though.

Ernest, that's a very, very silly and ill-informed comment. The guy has taken 440 test wickets at an economy rate of under 2.5. Along with, and possibly above, Pollock he is the most accurate seam bowler of his generation. Exactly how much more accurate would you like him to be?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Alison

Oh, I wouldn't argue with anyone saying that Australia have a very god bowling attack, probably still the best in the world, I'm just arguing that we've got a good attack of our own, who are still developing and are currently improving rapidly, and that it would be foolish for people to underestimate them.

To be fair.. it would be foolish to underestimate ANY attack at ANY level of cricket: even the likes of Tino Best, Fidel Edwards and Jermaine Lawson, or the less-than-household names that have been bowling well for Warwickshire this season, need treating with SOME respect.

On the other hand.. we've an attack that is longer on hostility than patience... and which has yet to show THAT much stomach for the really hard yards of bowling with an old, soft ball on a true wicket against batsmen who KNOW they have the measure of everything the opposition can throw at them.

I'm pretty hopeful that Harmison will, in time, become something of an English McGrath.. but I don't see it happening in the next 12 months: right now he looks more like the new Caddick... especially on the opening day of Tests where he's consistently been poor... and most especially in any situations which have involved any real thought and consideration (which just doesn't seem to be a strongpoint). To my mind: more promise than anything else.. but good on promise.

After Harmison, Giles strikes me as the best of the rest... but where's he at? It's still hard to say: no-one's really sure just how to evaluate a guy who gets so close to the stumps when bowling what would traditionally (from wider of the stumps) have been termed a "negative" line: he's finding rhythm both at home and abroad, gtting a bit more turn, maintaining sensational accuracy and looking as good as any spinner we've had in years - but he's only just getting the idea.. and even at his best is more MacGill than Warne in terms of threat.

Following Giles, Hoggard strikes me as a poor man's Pollock... who's just starting to find ways of maximising his impact.. going for less of the excessive lateral movement.. sorting out means of maximising the impact of more modest lateral movement... working out what to do when even THAT movement couldn't be found consistently... and generally "maturing". Much in the same bracket as Giles, really: promises a fair bit, but more Kasprowicz than Gillespie.

Following Hoggard it seems we have three very different guys who are all able to "do a job" without really setting the world alight: honest toilers... let down in one case (Anderson) by inexperience and an action that just doesn't look capable of being developed in ways that will allow him to develop the control and accuracy he will need.. let down in a second case (Jones) by inexperience and a one-dimensionality that is not matched by the sort of consistency needed to threaten when conditions don't suit... and let down in a final case (Flintoff) by inexperience and an action that precludes any kind of guile and yet demands so much the guy cannot be asked to sustain a full workload.

Take Harmison out of the above equasion and I reckon you are looking at an attack that doesn't look THAT much more impresive than all the others we've tried since Gough, Caddick, White and Croft were taking the world by storm in 2000/01: it's got more PROMISE than others we've tried... but it's not one (as yet) to inspire any more confidence than (say) the equally inexperienced (but perhaps more talented) Indian equivalent of Kumble, Harbhajan, Khan, Argakar, Pathan and Nehra.

Bottom line: Vaughan will still be hoping that home pitches, for the forseeable future, have quite a lot in them for his bowlers... because he will not feel confident that they can do the job without help. That is NOT a worry that Ponting will have when he looks down a teamsheet and sees the names of McGrath, Gillespie, WArne and Kasprowicz.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie

Ernest, that's a very, very silly and ill-informed comment. The guy has taken 440 test wickets at an economy rate of under 2.5. Along with, and possibly above, Pollock he is the most accurate seam bowler of his generation. Exactly how much more accurate would you like him to be?

Dave,
I wondered what on earth you was on about, then I looked at my post below:-

Originally Posted by ernest

Mc Grath is accurate, not enough in Test cricket though.

, I am going to have to edit my post, what I meant was, I agree that McGrath is still a very accurate bowler, however being accurate is not enough on it's own in Test Cricket, to be a potent force, I think injury and age, has made him less effective, I bet Mike Atherton wished Mc Grath was bowling at the pace he is now, rather than when he had to face him, Mc Grath was Athertons nightmare.

BTW "has taken"is not the same as will take again.