Ponting quaking in his boots

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by 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

No real argument from me on Gillespie vis-a-vis other bowlers active today Dave: I'd say he's right up there in the top draw.. hence my comment that he could have held his head up in some pretty illustrious company of the recent past - he surely deserves at least that level of recognition.

I've always been a little wary of the bad press that suggests he cannot really lead an attack single handedly.. that he cannot... as Murali does for Sri Lanka.. as Ambrose did for the WI... and as Pollock did before Ntini matured for South Africa... bear the burden alone. That argument has always seemed to me to falter on the fact that he generally bowled on pitches that were stacks more batsmen friendly than anything found in Sri Lanka, SA or the WI.

I'd have no problem with the idea that both Warne and McGrath, at their peak, could have shouldered that burden single-handed if need be... and I should perhaps extend that same reverence to Gillespie.. but I guess I'm just a coward: I'm not sure that I, personally, could defend it.

Can you?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by ernest

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.

Ernest, your obsession with pace emerges once again: it would be harsh to say McGrath never had ANY pace.. just as it would be harsh to say Pollock never had ANY pace.. but it remains true of each that they never realy worried about mustering more than a "lively pace"... and that if they have slowed a little it hasn't materially affected their potency in the way slowing has impacted on the potency of lesser bowlers like Darren Gough.

Bottom line: McGrath has always primarily hunted for his wickets on pitches where he can get steep bounce off a good length with a new ball and worked on a small amount of well disguised lateral movement (in the air or off the pitch) on good length balls to ensure the batsmen is ALWAYS wondering whether to play... the slips are ALWAYS interested... and the unwary are ALWAYS susceptible "through the gate" or to the LBW.

Your "accuracy is not enough" comment is dead right: if it were, Flintoff would be a god. What the accuracy does allow, though.. and this is a reason that Flintoff deserves a LOT of plaudits... is an option of contributing to a team's cause when NOT hunting for wickets. McGrath and Warne are, in that sense, the Gus Frasers of the Aussie side, able to "do a job" even where they cannot be the "main man".... but of course.. they are also the Abdul Qadir and Curtley Ambrose of the Aussie side when given the CHANCE to be the main man.

[DaveGillespie]

No, I couldn't. Hence why I stated earlier that I had reservations about his ability to lead an attack on his own. But out of the great bowlers of the 90s, only Pollock and Walsh (post-Ambrose retirement) had to lead an attack slingle handedly. McGrath, Warne, Ambrose, Donald, Wasim, Waqar, and Murali (receives brilliant support from Vaas) have all had support from one of the others mentioned here, and hence never had to prove that they could lead an attack singlehandedly. So, why should praise be witheld from Gillespie on that same basis?

McGrath and Warne are, in that sense, the Gus Frasers of the Aussie side, able to "do a job" even where they cannot be the "main man".... but of course.. they are also the Abdul Qadir and Curtley Ambrose of the Aussie side when given the CHANCE to be the main man.

I would contest that Gus Fraser was also both the Gus Fraser and the Curtly Ambrose of the England side. Look what happened when a pitch had even a sniff of something in it for him - absolute carnage. The man would have been an absolute god had he been born 10 years later and paired with Harmison right now, or even not handled shockingly by the England management.

[tbenson]

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie

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.

You would expect someone to get better as they progress in their career, interestingly Harmisons average at 100 wickets is almost identical to Gillespie's.

Gillespie average to and including 102 wickets 24.72
Harmison average to and including 102 wickets 24.73

Bearing in mind Harmison had a pretty dreadful start to his career, that's pretty good going. Harmison will get better, and will probably have a better average at 200 wickets than Gillespie has. As far as I'm concerned Harmison is as good as if not better than Gillespie right now and will only improve.

If Gillespie is reckoned to be the best Australia has, we've got more than a match for him in Harmison.

T

[DaveGillespie]

Bearing in mind Harmison had a pretty dreadful start to his career, that's pretty good going. Harmison will get better, and will probably have a better average at 200 wickets than Gillespie has. As far as I'm concerned Harmison is as good as if not better than Gillespie right now and will only improve.

If Gillespie is reckoned to be the best Australia has, we've got more than a match for him in Harmison.

Balderdash. McGrath's first 7 Tests resulted in 19 wickets @ 38. Poor start is no excuse, unless someone is chucked into the limelight when they are palpably not ready a lá Flintoff. Harmison has the capability on any given day to be as good as Gillespie, but on a consistent basis? Probably not yet.

[tbenson]

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie

Balderdash. McGrath's first 7 Tests resulted in 19 wickets @ 38. Poor start is no excuse, unless someone is chucked into the limelight when they are palpably not ready a lá Flintoff. Harmison has the capability on any given day to be as good as Gillespie, but on a consistent basis? Probably not yet.

Excuse me, it's not balderdash. Why bring McGrath into it, I was talking about Harmison and Gillespie's averages at the same point in their careers - 102 wickets. Having a poor start to your career will always drag your overall average down, and skew the results. Had Harmison not had such a poor start to his career, his average would be a lot better than Gillespies.

Harmison first 10 wickets @ 45.30, 15 @ 40.73, 30 @ 35.50
Gillespie first 10 wickets @ 25.44, 15 @ 24.13, 30 @ 22.34

Harmison's start to his career was very poor as can be seen by the averages above, this is born out by the recent form of the pair of them that removes this part of their careers, that I showed in an earlier post.

Harmison has the capability on any particular day to be far more destructive than Gillespie as their best for's suggest -

Gillespie 7/37
Harmison 7/12

T

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ernest, your obsession with pace emerges once again: it would be harsh to say McGrath never had ANY pace.. just as it would be harsh to say Pollock never had ANY pace.. but it remains true of each that they never realy worried about mustering more than a "lively pace"

I think you are mistaking my use of the word pace, as in constant bodyline type pace, not so, when Mc Grath and Polock where at thier peak, they did bowl at a lively pace, but that made them more potent, I am not talking about short balls now, I am talking about the delivery that beat the batsman for pace.

Atherton could never come to terms with the pace and accuracy of Mc Grath, time and time again he was beaten outside the off stump, outdone with spot on bowling at a lively pace, and like as not he sooner or later got an edge,if not he would be out LBW beaten for pace. Pollock was the same, he would dish out more short balls though, he would really mix it up.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Bottom line: McGrath has always primarily hunted for his wickets on pitches where he can get steep bounce off a good length with a new ball and worked on a small amount of well disguised lateral movement (in the air or off the pitch) on good length balls to ensure the batsmen is ALWAYS wondering whether to play... the slips are ALWAYS interested... and the unwary are ALWAYS susceptible "through the gate" or to the LBW.

I have left this unedited because this is what I have been saying, but to get steep bounce of a good legnth, you need to put your back in it, but my point being he has lost some of the fire, only a younger fitter man could acheive, to get that steep bounce, I would IMO doubt it.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Your "accuracy is not enough" comment is dead right: if it were, Flintoff would be a god. What the accuracy does allow, though.. and this is a reason that Flintoff deserves a LOT of plaudits... is an option of contributing to a team's cause when NOT hunting for wickets.

Rachael this is my main worry over the England team at the moment, Vaughan is having to put Flintoff on in search of wickets, to break partnerships others could not...

The Ashes will not be about Flintoff, or for that matter about Mc Grath, we know what they can do, and the same for Giles, he has his limitations but is worth his place in the tea,.

The factor IMO deciding the outcome of the Ashes will be the Form of Harmison, and Hoggard, or Anderson, if they bowl well Australia will struggle, on the other hand, Gillespie and Warne are going to be crucial for Australia, and it would seem unless they have a secret weapon, they are a bowler short, because I dont see Lee or Lehmann, troubling England that much.
We have a strong batting line up,Butcher,Strauss,Vaughan,Thorpe,key, and if they break through these, they have to face Flintoff and a strong tail.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by ernest

Atherton could never come to terms with the pace and accuracy of Mc Grath, time and time again he was beaten outside the off stump, outdone with spot on bowling at a lively pace, and like as not he sooner or later got an edge,if not he would be out LBW beaten for pace.

Atherton beaten for pace? I think not. Not in the sense of being beaten by a ball from McGrath that was just too fast for him, anyway. McGrath was simply not fast enough for that (though I'll concede the bad back often made it look like he was in trouble even when he was reasonably comfortable).

Unfortunately for Atherton, McGrath at his best got the sort of late movement that was simply wasted on most batsmen: the ball would deviate.. and where most batsmen would not be good enough to get an edge... Atherton would. To compound the problem... where those who DID get an edge would often get lucky because the ball would fly off rapidly wide of the slips... Atherton's soft hands would ensure he got no such luck.

There is such a thing as being too darned good for your OWN good!

[Beny]

ok these posts are going to be broken up a bit as im not sure how to structure it.


We'll start with Lee.I compleatly agree that he is a quick strike bowler who relys on having McGrath and Gillespie. He goes in a scares the $#% out of the batsmen, takes a few wickets and then we get him out of there before he costs us too many runs.

"Ask Brian Lara"

You mean the guy who hit you for 400 runs?

Dont bag Kaspa, the guy took seven wickets against Sri Lanka recently.

And that brings me to another point. Who has Australia played over the last ten matches... India, Zimbabwe, Sri lanka. That includes a series in Sri lanka bowling on a surface which was doctored to suit spiners.(and which we won 3-0) Ponting called it 'the sahara'.

Who has England Played... West Indies and New Zealand. Ranked 7th and 8th on the Icc points table.
Im not finished...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Atherton beaten for pace? I think not. Not in the sense of being beaten by a ball from McGrath that was just too fast for him, anyway. McGrath was simply not fast enough for that (though I'll concede the bad back often made it look like he was in trouble even when he was reasonably comfortable).

I am not talking raw pace now, but McGrath was fast more than fast enough to beat Atherton with the ball moving away, Atherton never seemed to have time to adjust when he was playing against Mc Grath.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Unfortunately for Atherton, McGrath at his best got the sort of late movement that was simply wasted on most batsmen: the ball would deviate.. and where most batsmen would not be good enough to get an edge.
There is such a thing as being too darned good for your OWN good!

That is just what I have been saying, I liked Atherton, he had the right attitude to be an opening bat, he was patient, he would wait for the right ball to hit.

However McGrath had the measure of him, Atherton just could not work out how to play him, like I say McGrath had more pace in them days, and he was accurate, and some of his deliveries where unplayable, and if the ball moved, Atherton more often than not, edged to the slips.

But he relied on being fast enough to beat the batsmen, no good moving the ball, if there is plenty of time to play it, he can just be blocked.
That is what I mean when I say McGrath is not the player he was, oh he will be accurate and difficult to score off, but he wont have the penetration he once had.

The only way I can seee him being effective against our batsmen, is if they lose patience and try hitting him out of the attack, and Trescothick in particular must be made aware of this.