After 2 Tests what do we know?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

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)

Yes I have talked the England attack up, and I gave my reasons why, I have always said that the Aussie attack was ageing, and the England attack was young and the best to come.
Well you mention Harmison being no world beater, he was the world no1 before the tour to South Africa.
You have alway maintained the Aussie attack was better, the fact is the series is one all.
Talking of South Africa, we had all the talk up of Pollock like McGrath now, and the fact is, he made no difference.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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.

You have no evidence to back that up, as McGrath did not play in the last Test, he got 5 wickets at Lords, and so did Harmison, so what's the difference?.
Warne Rachael you know full well I have always said he would be the main threat to England, and he has performed, Simon Jones and Lee are about the same, the rest have performed very poor.
Hoggy-Gilly and Kaspa.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Thus far we've had one decent attack on display: McGrath, Harmison, Flintoff and Warne.

I agree, how could I not this is what I have been saying, however Australia being no1 in the World, should have been able to cope without McGrath.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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

Forget the rest lets talk about Caddick, the match on past performances would have been over with much sooner had he played, he's the second innings wicket taker specialist.
In fact I will concede, drop Hoggy and put him in.

[King Aragorn]

Originally Posted by Ernest

You have no evidence to back that up, as McGrath did not play in the last Test, he got 5 wickets at Lords, and so did Harmison, so what's the difference?.

Ernest,

McGrath got a total of nine wickets compared to Harmison's eight. Yes, that surely isn't that big a difference. But what also matters greatly, especially in such low scoring games is the economy rate. McGrath gave away around 2.94 runs per over in the first innings and 1.70 r/o in the second innings. Meanwhile, Harmison leaked 3.84 r/o in the first innings and 1.97 r/o in the second innings. McGrath, as you can clearly see is in the ascendency here.

[Rand al thor]

right now the english bowlers are much better than the aussies.

harmy vs lee.harmy wins
flintoff vs kasper.flintoff
hoggy vs gillespie draw
warne vs gilo.warne

so england win.besides jones is also an extra option

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by King Aragorn

Ernest [...] McGrath, as you can clearly see is in the ascendency here.

Forget the stats: McGrath bowled one of the greatest spells in the history of the game of cricket.... and Harmison didn't bowl anything that different from what he normally serves up!

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

...Harmison didn't bowl anything that different from what he normally serves up!

I'm assuming you haven't broken a habit of a lifetime and actually praised one of our decent players - I thought actually Harmison bowled well at Lords , he didn't try too hard to bowl short and pitched it up well onto a good length and decent line constantly. He thoroughly deserved his eight wickets, a good performance.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Lemming

He thoroughly deserved his eight wickets, a good performance.

Absolutely. Not earth-shattering... but I guess I'm considering Harmison's SA escapades as an abberation and actually crediting Harmison with the ability to build pressure fairly consistently and get his due reward on a fairly regular basis.. much as any of the top bowlers always have done and always will.

Harmison still strikes me as having a bit to learn in terms of both variation (though that slower ball to dismiss Clarke the other day was stunning) and in terms of really imposing himself (he's better than the others... but can be a bit anonymous, without the presence that Jones and Flintoff, for instance, can bring to a really top spell). Thing is... he's got time on his side: he'll not reach his peak for another year or two.. and should be at his peak for 5-6-7-8 more years after that - quite a prospect.

My point was simply that Harmison bowled a good few spells and got some well deserved wickets... but McGrath bowled a spell that will go down in history as one of the best anyone has ever seen: that's the sort of spell Harmison might well produce in a few years' time... but is not one he's really ready for right now.

[Lemming]

For maybe the second time in my short, yet prolific, WAT posting career I agree with what you say 100% Rachael!

Well done, go and reward yourself with a lovely cup of tea, Rachael, and maybe 2, no actually 3 chocolate biscuits. You're learning, you're learning!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by King Aragorn

Ernest,

McGrath got a total of nine wickets compared to Harmison's eight. Yes, that surely isn't that big a difference. But what also matters greatly, especially in such low scoring games is the economy rate. McGrath gave away around 2.94 runs per over in the first innings

A considered post, however this is just one game, and Harmison does not give that many runs away as a rule, and also taking nothing away from McGrath, he was flattered by one of the poorest batting displays in decades, reminds me of England in the 80s.

Also to go back to Harmison, he was bowling against what is said to be the best batting line up in the world, so little wonder his economy rate was worse than McGraths, by this logic of Australia having a strongest batting line up in the world, did not Harmisons 5 wickets prove he was the better bowler?.

Also they are different types of bowlers, even the great West Indies bowlers went for runs, with top edges and the like, but like Harmison, they got the wickets.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Lemming

For maybe the second time in my short, yet prolific, WAT posting career I agree with what you say 100% Rachael!

Originally Posted by Rachael

and Harmison didn't bowl anything that different from what he normally serves up!

100% Lemming

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Ernest

A considered post, however this is just one game, and Harmison does not give that many runs away as a rule, and also taking nothing away from McGrath, he was flattered by one of the poorest batting displays in decades, reminds me of England in the 80s.

Also to go back to Harmison, he was bowling against what is said to be the best batting line up in the world, so little wonder his economy rate was worse than McGraths

That was nicely shuffled around there Ernest, but you still have to consider who the wickets McGrath got and who did Harmison get?

Harmison ;

Ponting
Katich (1st & 2nd)
Warne (1st & 2nd)
Lee
Gillespie
Martyn

McGrath ;

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Flintoff
G Jones
Giles
Hoggard
S Jones

So to answer you Ernest this does not make Harmisson the better bowler as he failed to get out a lot of Australia's top order batsman. While McGrath was able to dismiss everyone in the English Team besides Harmison and Pieterson. Katich twice and Martyn once is the best batsman Harmison was able to get out, while Pieterson was the only top order McGrath failed to get out - but of note he had the best economy rate of all the bowlers who bowled to Pieterson.

You say you don't use stats, but you keep using stats that Mcgrath has not performed well on this ground - well I can use stats as well, the team who bats first on this pitch will lose - because thats what the stats say. This was not a typical pitch and no one knows how McGrath would have gone but if you compare economy rates with Lee and McGrath from the same ground in 2001

Lee - 1st innings = 5.92 2nd innings = 5.28
McGrath - 1st Innings = 3.94 2nd innings = 2.62

They are a huge difference in run rate, the fact that McGrath only took 5 wickets in the match is due to the fact he put pressure on the batsman who could not score off him and took risky shots against Gillispie and Lee. Then Warne came in and took over.

You also said that Australai would win Lords (They did by 239 runs - in the end an easy win), but you said that England would win here (They did by 2 runs - now the worry is that this is suppose to be the easiest win for them as they where expected to win). This means Australia must of played much better than England did and deserved to win.