Ponting quaking in his boots

[Beny]

About Amsterdam.

Irrelevent. The match was almost called off because the conditions were considered dangerous. Lee had 2 catches droped in the slips.

[Beny]

McGrath has never been a quick bowler. He usually sits around the 130-140 km/h mark. He can hit a marked spot on the pitch on command.


The Best thing about our attack is the way its structured. An accurate bowler, a quick, decently accurate bowler, a world class spinner and the fastest bowler in the world. Individually they have problems, add them together and they all compliment each other.

[Rachael]

It strikes me that with all the years of struggling with second rate bowlers... many English cricket followers have forgotton just how lean a great attack can be: the idea that you only really need 3 bowlers is just plain alien, now, to a generation used to fearing that 5 was not enough.

First things first: even when we had Caddick, Gough and White all bowling well and Croft going OK in support.. we stil looked a bowler short. Gough was best used in short spells as a "shock" bowler and really did look a bit 2nd rate when asked to do longer spells or "bore" the opposition out. Caddick had a tendecy (now echoed by Harmison) to manage entire speels where he just never managed to get the ball on a decent length. White was a bit one-dimensional. Croft needed help from the pitch to be threatening.

Even now things are much the same: Hoggard and Gile are only just getting reliable enough to be workhorses.. Harmison's best used sparingly... Flintoff's barely able to shoulder half a load.. and even poor sides are forcing a half-workload out of Anderson / Jones. We fear that a TOP batting line up might stretch our 5 man attack to the full.

What this overlooks is that McGrath, Gillespie and Warne will happily shoulder a greater workload than any English equivalent since Fraser: like Ambrose and Walsh, or Pollock, or Muralitheran, they will manage 180-200 overs in a series... and manage those overs to a reliable standard that leaves the captain options even with a mere 4 man attack: Lee and Kasprowicz have been, in effect, luxuries in an attack that could just about have managed just as a trio.

With that sort of quality combined with that much stamina... a guy like Lee (who'd be have been a disaster in most English sides of recent vintage) become VERY useful optional extras.

I think this is the point we'll eventually get to with either Jones or Anderson: our four man attack will hopefully manage somethigng approaching what the big three Aussies can manage (though perhaps not with the same devastating effects).. and Jones / Anderson will take on that Brett Lee role of final throw of the dice.

The point is.. it doesn't really matter if Lee or Kasprowicz is weak relative to McGrath, Gilespie and Warne: they don't need that bowler anyway!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Ernest

"Ask Brian Lara"

Originally Posted by Beny

You mean the guy who hit you for 400 runs?

Yes I wrote that, it was the deadest pitch ever to play a game of cricket on, and Lara was not that clever, in maling these runs, he ensured his team had no chance of winning.

Originally Posted by Beny

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...

Well with respect I dont rate India that high, Ok they are a good batting side, but the plain fact is, they have a weak attack, that is why they are never no 1 in the world.
Zimbabwe, well thats a team to shout about, Bangladesh would beat them at the moment.

Shri Lanka,
Yes you beat them, fair play, but that was doen to the skill of Ponting, Australia did not half dig some holes for themselves.Still you beat them,

What position was New Zealand Ranked before they came to England, I will tell you Beny, there was a lot of hype, but we beat them 3/0 what more could we do?

So we beat the West Indies 7/0, ,taking the seies here and in the West Indies.

I just wonder would Australia have won 10 out of thier last 11 test Matches, and drawn the other, they may have???

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Even now things are much the same: Hoggard and Gile are only just getting reliable enough to be workhorses.. Harmison's best used sparingly... Flintoff's barely able to shoulder half a load.. and even poor sides are forcing a half-workload out of Anderson / Jones. We fear that a TOP batting line up might stretch our 5 man attack to the full

I think Rachael you are underestimating the England attack, these bowlers have taken 200 wickets out of the last 200, not counting the draw.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by ernest

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.

Ernest.. Bicknell and Saggers are more than fast enough to beat ANY batsman with the ball moving away: you don't have to be any more than brisk medium pace to manage that. The trick is ensuring it is LATE movement.. and that has lots to do with technique and pretty well bugger-all to do with pace.

I saw Atherton struggle often enough against McGrath.. but that was to generally not to individual balls that would have challenged and/or beaten pretty well any batsman to have ever played the game.. but to entire spells of such balls. They were not ever quick spells.. and Atherton never really looked to be struggling with the pace... and contrary to what you suggested... he DID (unlike Stewart and other such lesser batsmen) have enough time to react to the late movement.

The problem with playing such players that well.. is that the margin between gtting it right and getting fried is very very small: lesser players didn't take on those sorts of odds... and reduced them by picking a line, sticking to it and playing firmly so that edges were more likely to fly clear than to go to hand.. but Atherton never took that rather crummy way out.

Very similar to Thorpe vs. Murali last winter, really: pretty well everyone else, including Vaughan, just padded up with orthodox thrusts down a vaguely anticipated line... tried to cover the stumps.. and either got the bat out of the way or swung firmly. Thorpe didn't back out like that: mcuh of the time he went back, backed himself to pick the delivery, and adjusted late (as only he of the current crew can) to play the ball softly off his stumps.

Thorpe took on the challenge.. batted superbly... emerged with huge credit... and ended up got by Murali more thn any other player in the side: 5 times I belive. Did that make him Murali's bunny? I don't see it that way: if that's being Murali's bunny then I just wish we'd had more players who were Murali's bunnies!

[Alison]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Even now things are much the same:

I can't help thinking you're being very pessimistic about our bowling attack, granted none of them are the finished article yet, but they are doing well.

I don't know how accurate the pwc ratings are, but 4 of our bowlers are currently in the top 20, so they must be doing something right and they've been taking the wickets every match.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ernest.. Bicknell and Saggers are more than fast enough to beat ANY batsman with the ball moving away: you don't have to be any more than brisk medium pace to manage that. The trick is ensuring it is LATE movement.. and that has lots to do with technique and pretty well bugger-all to do with pace.

I will take Bicknell here, I dont rate Saggers at all, and the reason Bicknell was able to beat batsmen, was because he was strong, and could extract bounce, and could move the ball away from the bat, and he was accurate.

Originally Posted by Rachael

I saw Atherton struggle often enough against McGrath.

Well with respect I disagree here, Atherton struggled more than most against McGrath, he would seem to be playing Ok, then all of a sudden , he would be out, Mc Grath was no Medium Pace plodder, he could send some sharp deliveries down at times, Come on Rachael,how many times did McGrath find the edge of Athertons bat?, late movment yes, but with enough pace to decieve.Not Malcolm Marshall type of pace.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Very similar to Thorpe vs. Murali last winter, really: pretty well everyone else, including Vaughan, just padded up with orthodox thrusts down a vaguely anticipated line... Thorpe didn't back out like that: mcuh of the time he went back, backed himself to pick the delivery, and adjusted late (as only he of the current crew can) to play the ball softly off his stumps.

Thorpe played Murali correct, he of couse was aided by the fact he was a left hander, so had more time to see the turn, having said that, that is how to play Murali, and he has not troubled an England side as much before, as he did last year.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Thorpe took on the challenge.. batted superbly... emerged with huge credit... and ended up got by Murali more thn any other player in the side: 5 times I belive. Did that make him Murali's bunny? I don't see it that way: if that's being Murali's bunny then I just wish we'd had more players who were Murali's bunnies!

I suppose it did make him murali's bunny in a way, but please Rachael I hope you are not comparing Thorpe and Murali, with Atherton and McGrath, different all together.

McGrath got Atherton out time and time again, simple as that,there was nothing Atherton could do about it, where Thorpe chose to play the way he did, and could have shut up shop had he wanted.

[Beny]

"I just wonder would Australia have won 10 out of thier last 11 test Matches, and drawn the other, they may have???"

We havent lost a test since we played India last Summer. Just remember your talking about a team with the record for going unbeaten.

Id also like to point out that we could loose all our matches from now until early 2006 and stay top of the table.

"Yes you beat them, fair play, but that was doen to the skill of Ponting, Australia did not half dig some holes for themselves.Still you beat them, "

The skill of ponting? He dident do all that much.

There is no way that England is a better team than Australia. Dont believe your own hype. Last time we played you guys you couldent even get past Hayden and Langer. In 2005 it wont be much different.

[Goatman]

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:

The AUS bowling is the best in the world - still - and the PAK lineup was strong. HOWEVER! Most unlike your billing above, 193 is actually quite a decent score on the VRA pitch, which is slow, two-paced and takes spin well. PAK were under considerable pressure from the start. The view of those this side of the North Sea who actually watched the game is that PAK would have won the game had it not been for some execrable running from Youhana and the lower order giving thier wickets away. It was poor batting rather than good bowling.

As far as I see it there are four unalienable truth's to this discussion:-

1) AUS are the best team in the world - period.

2) All things come to an end, and one day AUS will no longer be considered the best team in the world.

3) all bar 1 of AUS first XI are the wrong side of 30. All bar 2 of ENG's first XI is under 30. ENG are likely to get better over the next 2-3 years, and AUS will decline. The timing of the next Ahes series may actually suit ENG quite well. As Piggy Styris says, someone has to do it some time and this time seems as good as any.

4) The comparison between this AUS side and the WI side of the lastest 80's is compelling - strong reliance on 2 againg great bowlers, no younger seamers coming through. And please, don't give me this crap about Lee. I don't know what's gone wrong, but he's going backwards so fast he must be expereincing a doppler shift. As as for Kasper, he may have been a good bowler but age is catching up with him too. I doubt is he is as good as Hoggard these days. Just like WI in the latest 80's, AUS are showing signs of losing thier winning edge and teams will increasingly be able to bat out the draw. A couple more retirements and things may begin to seem a little thin.......... I'm not saying this will happen, but it would be simply stupid to say that it could not happen.