After 2 Tests what do we know?

[Clive Dunn]

Heh nice and sarcastic I tend to feel that McGrath was a huge loss for the Aussies - their only seamer who has the accuracy to stop the opposition scoring and take wickets as well. In fact the two attacks look quite similar after a fashion, Flintoff / McGrath to slow the scoring rates when needed, Lee / Harmison as the strike bowlers who'll concede runs and occasionally get pasted but will take wickets.

I think we've learnt that Australia's support bowlers are just that - support bowlers. Without the main striking threat in McGrath they can look very average indeed. I suspect it would be exactly the same if we had to bowl Jones and Hoggard for 40 overs in a day.

[Richard Jenkins]

Anyone who thinks Australia are a one man team is seriously, seriously kidding themselves. Mcgrath is world class. So are most of the australian side!! Look at the Australian team on paper Ernest and tell me seriously that If they were English you wouldn't pick them for the England team.A team doesn't become bad just one one performance. Old Trafford will be interesting thats for sure, but write off the aussies , who nearly won the last test ( and really should have!) at your peril.

Yes It's interesting to sum up the situation, but the thing is the aussies took their time to find thier feet in the one day game and then just ran away with it. At Lords, they ran away with it and very very nearly pulled it out of the bag at Edgebaston.

Ok it's good for the game of cricket and keeps football off the back pages. And writers who were scratching their heads saying 'why are the ashes so late in the season , by the time it finishes Chelsea will be top of the premiershoip and football will be God' have been shown to be wrong.

What do we really know then?

England

1) G.O Jones as a wicketkeeper batsman hasn't really worked. So far
2) S Jones bowls too many loose deliveries
3) Hoggard looks tired
4) Flintoff's batting seems to be coming back and his bowling looks world class
5) Trescothic looks in good nick. Not sure that Strauss is a bona fide opener though
6) Giles responds to criticism
7) Bell looks like he'll be ok if given a chance
8) Harmison looks world class, but needs to think a bit more.
9)Vaughan needs some coaching on his 'harlem shuffle'
10) Peiterson looks like he was born into test cricket.

Australia
1) langer looks class and is due a big score
2) hayden looks like he's wondering what to do next
3) ponting seems to be just coming into touch, but lacks imagination. puting everyone on the boundary was just desperation. he needs a plan.
4) martyn's been unlucky, looks good
5) Clark excellent
6)Gilchrist looks ok behind the timber, but just not hitting his straps on the batting side
7) warne is a genius
8) lee looks good but still too wayward
9 gillespie and kasparwich need to think about what to do next
10 mcgrath is world class. It's probably his swansong so get him fit asap


Options for England.
1)Think about dropping Bell, G.O Jones, Hoggard for Key /solanki, read,and a spinner (et al)
2) changing the order so pieterson comes at 3

Options for Australia
1) picking mcgill for kasparwich........
2) dropping katich and pick tait.
3) Tell hayden to pull his finger out.

One things for sure and that is the cricket circus ( and increasingly the sporting circus) goes to Old Trafford to witness a test match in a series that will be talked about for decades to come and that's after 2 matches. The idea of test matches being a slow or dull experience seems to be increasingly wrong post 1990. The days of someone spending 5 hours to score 100 may be gone and instead we'll see a 50 posted in under an hour.However, I'd still like to see a double or triple century over a few days and it would be a silly person who bet against any of the top order of Australia or England to do just that.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

Options for England.
1)Think about dropping Bell, G.O Jones, Hoggard for Key /solanki, read,and a spinner (et al)
2) changing the order so pieterson comes at 3

Jones will play 'cos he caught the winning catch. Not that he did much else right, more byes conceded than runs scored and a missed stumping.

Bell looked fine second innings and was unlucky to be given out. Solanki's not scoring any runs for Worcestershire, Collingwood is well ahead of him.

Hoggy's a worry.

I'd have KP at four, not three or five. Most Test # 3's could open the innings, leave the skipper there if we have to pick him !

[anthman]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

Options for Australia
1) picking mcgill for kasparwich........
2) dropping katich and pick tait.
3) Tell hayden to pull his finger out.

Hayden hasn't been the same player since the summer when India deliberately bowled extremely wide of him to restrict his scoring. I don't think his form has justified his selection for a long time and he's only in the side for his fielding. I think that's a mistake and I hope the selectors realise that before it costs us the series, but once you make the Aussie team as batsman you've basically got to die before they'll drop you.

I think Langer and Martyn are in form, and Clarke is going ok. I don't think any of the rest of them are. And before you say it, I acknowledge that form is to an extent a fuction of the bowling your facing. This is why I don't think we can carry Hayden against England's attack. We're already handicapped without McGrath. Unfortunately we may well be 2-1 down before the selectors come to the same decision.

This is probably too radical for the current Aussie brains trust, but I'd be tempted to drop Hayden, let Clarke open (since that's where he's played some of his best cricket) and move Gilly up to 5 so he has more time to think about his batting, instead of coming in and going the tonk straight away. I hate seeing him "in" like he was in the first innings only to run out of partners. Then maybe bring in either Shane Watson since he's the favoured all rounder or another batter at 7.

[Ernest]

John,

I am surprised at your sarcasm, but the fact is on day one England came out to attack, and despite Warne made just over 400, what difference would McGrath made on that pitch, I doubt very much.
Also my argument was reasoned, Edgbaston has not been the best of grounds for McGrath, the stats say that-not I.
Also if you are harping back to Lords and his 5 wickets, Harmison also got 5 wickets, so it does not follow McGrath would have done it again, Harmison did not.

Richard to say Australia lost because Glen McGrath was not there, is = to saying they are a one man team, I am not saying how you have accessed the players is wrong, but the fact is that in general the batting from both sides has been ordinary with a few exceptions, and the Australia bowling has been poor except for Lee and Warne, so had McGrath played, he could have expecred little back up.

Hoggard is poor at the moment, Simon Jones is of target, but gets the odd wicket, and the difference between the two sides is Harmison and Flintoff, and IMHO even a 35 year old McGrath can't bridge that gap.

Why did England get hammered at Lords?, because our top order capitulated, Vaughan is like reducing the team to 10 men batting wise, Bell is not much better.

I have said before John, probably before you joined this board, that England had the better bowling attack, and Australia had the edge batting, and I see no reason to change that.

[John]

Ern,
Sorry about the sarcasm but I find the premise for reasoning rather far fetched. To make those sort of assumptions about one of the best fast bowlers whose played the game I can't go a long with.
No present England bowler is close to Mcgrath so to somehow conclude with only the most tenuous evidence that he would have no effect on the game is outrageous. Can you see any other commentator seriously saying Mcgrath would have no effect.

[Dans]

The one man team tag is rubbish, frankly. McGrath is a difference maker. With him in the team Australia increase their chances of winning. It's really that simple.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I have said before John, probably before you joined this board, that England had the better bowling attack, and Australia had the edge batting, and I see no reason to change that.

You were talking up the England attack as if it were better than the Australian equivalent from the moment you hit this board... and whilst Flintoff has delivered on some of the promise you talked of... that's not really been true of the others: Harmison's been OK (one wonder ball, lots decent, but no world-beater); Simon Jones has looked like the best guy on the park when he's going well. and the worst when it's not; Hoggard's gone backwards... and Giles really hasn't had that much of a role (not least because the innings have all been so short that he's not really been needed).

What's clear is that McGrath's bowling to date is a class apart from anything provided by ANY of the others... and Warne's been the best of the rest. Sadly, the odd passable spell from Lee apart, that's been it for the Aussies: the two guys who SHOULD be keeping Lee out of the team have been dire... and simply not getting close to the form that's been there this last year or so.

Thus far we've had one decent attack on display: McGrath, Harmison, Flintoff and Warne. That's one that would rival most of the better attacks in the history of cricket. We've also had one of the most ordinary on display: a 5 man affair that reads Lee, Jones, Hoggard, Kasprowicz and Giles.

Sadly... that latter attack would be bettered by Caddick, Gough, Bicknell, Cork and Croft....

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by John

Ern,
No present England bowler is close to Mcgrath so to somehow conclude with only the most tenuous evidence that he would have no effect on the game is outrageous. Can you see any other commentator seriously saying Mcgrath would have no effect.

No problems John,
I was giving my opinion, not making a staement of fact.

Originally Posted by Ernest

I don't think McGrath would have made any difference at Edgbaston, he has never plated well at that ground agaist England.

I think that this is fair comment,and I backed this with McGrath's stats at Edgbaston, and I don't normaly do that he has only taken 8 wickets at a cost of 47 or so.
Attack the best bowlers, and with the rub of the green, you are going to get runs, McGrath is only a human being like the rest, talented I agree, but at 35 years of age, he can't be the same bowler he was.
I think, that some players hold McGrath in awe, and pay him to much respect at times allowing hime to settle into a good line and length.

Originally Posted by Ernest

what difference would McGrath made on that pitch, I doubt very much.

I was also taking into account the fact that McGrath would not have batted as well (maybe I should have expressed this better), and would not have stood up to the bowling of Flintoff and Harmison like Warne and Kaspa did.
But again this was just my opinion, backed up by the way the pitch was playing.


But I really don't think even he could have stopped Flintoff or Pietersen on the first day, for me to say different would be degrading the efforts of Tresco-Fllintoff and Pietersen.

[greg]

Originally Posted by Rachael

We've also had one of the most ordinary on display: a 5 man affair that reads Lee, Jones, Hoggard, Kasprowicz and Giles.

Sadly... that latter attack would be bettered by Caddick, Gough, Bicknell, Cork and Croft....

Can i have some of what you have been drinking?
Caddick - If he didn't get a wicket in his first spell would sulk all game.
Gough - Best on both lists.
Bicknell - We will never know
Cork - Show pony
Croft - Worst spinner to play for England.