After 2 Tests what do we know?

[English_Al]

It's so tricky to judge at the moment who's doing well, both teams have some great players, some hitting form and some not, but generally the bowlers are on top.

For me, the best two bowlers are McGrath and Warne, both are (still) world class, McGrath the best seamer in the world in recent times, Warne probably the best spinner of all time. After that there is Harmy and Flintoff, Harmy bowling not bad, Flintoff bowling as well as I've ever seen. Apart from that:

Lee: Not great, needs swinging conditions or a bouncy pitch to be look good
Gillespie: A very good bowler out of nic, the England batsmen are going at him hard to keep him down
Kasprovich: Haven't seen much of him, seems OK but not too special
Jones: Changeable, can be really good or bad, maybe down to that fiery temperment
Hoggard: Looking pretty bad at the moment, without swing he is doing very little indeed
Giles: Not bowling too bad at the moment, does need a turning pitch against high class batting

Not sure what Australia's options are but the only change I'd make with ours is Hoggard. He is doing so little that he's loading the other bowlers up, gotta change him.

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Ernest

And if McGrath would have made a difference, it just proves that Astralia are a one man team, can't manage without McGrath.

We have already stated that without Flintoff England would not have won that test - This does not equate back to England is a one man side. Some performances help a team to win more than others. I have seen Gilchrest blast an attack and add 140 more runs on the borad than there should have been allowing our bowlers some room to work. Then going from in trouble to being on top. This does not make Australia a one mane team with Gilchrest.

In all team sports some people in the team will be more important to aside than another. McGrath certainly is due to his ability of taking wickets and restricting runs. Flintoff is due to his ability to smash an attack and get quick runs. McGrath and Warne can bowl brilliantly, but if the batsman do not perform and get the runs then we do not win. Everyone has to perform.

[Rachael]

Nicely put points... but it's never right to judge a bowling performance purely by wickets and other raw stats: what stood out most at Lords was not so much the wickets as the way England's supposedly first-rate batsmen were, Pietersen excepted, shown up as either having severe technical limitations or as lacking the temperament and composure to play as technically proficiently as we know they can.

By contrast, Harmison did a good job of giving willing batsmen ample opportunity to lose their wickets but gained his results largely through inducing batsmen into something rash rather than reducing them to technical inadequacy: this isn't a criticism as few bowlers can even begin to exert the pressure that Harmison mustered.... but it emphasises just what a stunning display of skill and experience McGrath managed.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

That was nicely shuffled around there Ernest, but you still have to consider who the wickets McGrath got and who did Harmison get?...So to answer you Ernest this does not make Harmison the better bowler as he failed to get out a lot of Australia's top order batsman.

There's no doubt McGrath is a better bowler than Harmison. I for one am not going to try and say he is, he's not!

But the Harmison can only get tailenders out argument never washes with me. I didn't see McGrath moaning when he cleaned up the tail in the second innings at Lords, and quite rightly, a wicket's a wicket. Plus it's not always an easy thing to do as we saw yesterday. It takes a certain bit of nouse to get tailenders out, occasionally we see balls wasted too often when bowlers constantly attempt to bounce the tailenders, or bowlers bowl too wide. The best bowlers at tailenders often get their man by bowling fuller and straighter. But you've got to get them out to bowl out the whole team and if you have a guy who can do it pretty quickly like someone like Flintoff can then they are pretty valuable. Those tailenders can be tricky little customers to get!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

We have already stated that without Flintoff England would not have won that test - This does not equate back to England is a one man side.

I don't think England would be in the possition they are now but for Flintoff.

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

In all team sports some people in the team will be more important to aside than another. McGrath certainly is due to his ability of taking wickets and restricting runs. Flintoff is due to his ability to smash an attack and get quick runs.

With respect this is not accurate at all, I would his bowling is far more important than his batting, if he keeps up his bowling standard thus far in this Ashes series, though to the end, I think he will be quite high in the World rankings not only as an all rounder, but as a bowler in his own right.

Originally Posted by Rachael 62120

Nicely put points... but it's never right to judge a bowling performance purely by wickets and other raw stats: what stood out most at Lords was not so much the wickets as the way England's

Rachael you have thrown stats at me ever sinse I joined this board.

Originally Posted by Rachael

supposedly first-rate batsmen were, Pietersen excepted, shown up as either having severe technical limitations or as lacking the temperament and composure to play as technically proficiently as we know they can.

This in my opinion is far from correct, the so called smash and grab merchants Flintoff{who can bat as well as anyone in that England line up), Trescothick with Pietersen aided by the tail, have been the ones responsable for the series being 1-1.
What has Vaughan-Bell done, Australia with Vaughan are facing a 10 man batting line up.

Originally Posted by Rachael

as few bowlers can even begin to exert the pressure that Harmison mustered.... but it emphasises just what a stunning display of skill and experience McGrath managed.

This is pure hero worship, like what you said about Pollock, and we all know what happened in South Africa.
The fact is I have always been optimistic about Englands chances, and have never called one Ausssie bowler to my knowlage, unlike you have been less that flattering about Bret Lee.I have said the Australian attack(including McGrath) are getting older, and with some it shows.
Even Acker in a thread agrees.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

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

Well after this second match, I wonder if the wickets of Warne and Lee are not that bad to get, also Ponting is no mug, and niether is Martyn.
So lets look who McGrath got out,
Strauss-a long way from his best.
Vaughan-Anyone could have got that wicket.
Bell-same again, not yet found his feet against top opposition.
G Jones-exposed to soon after top order failure.
Flintoff-exposed to soon after top order failure.
Giles-he wont get him every time, another Warne.
Hoggard and Jones-surley not counting these.
So when you look close, it was a top order failure that caused the collapse, and McGrath is not the only one to claim these scalps, Englands biggest worry, but Aussie batmen are fairing no better on the whole.

Originally Posted by Assie-Yank

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 - 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

Lets take the stats first, well this reflects bad on Ponting, trying to defeat history by putting England in.
I said the night before, it could have been to you, I hope England bat first, and get a score on the board, and thanks to Ponting, England did just that.
If I had to pick between Lee getting 10 wicket, or McGrath 5, I would take Lee, even though i have seen Flintoff work players over, only for another bowler to reap the benefits, look at Lee's 5-28 in the 2nd innings, got to be Lee.

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

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.

Good point, I have always said Aussie was favorite to win at Lords, and maybe at the Oval, now many don't agree over the Oval, and think this is one of Englands best chances, but the Oval does not have the pace it did, and the bounce is true, it will take an accurate bowler like McGrath to bowl on such a pitch, Flintoff is an accurate bowler just bowling back of a length, so he should do well, but Aussie have the Warne factor, who can bowl on any surface.
Am I worried because England won by only two runs, not at all, and I was not surprised.
England did the same in Australia a few years ago, it seemed we were going to win, and Aussie kept chipping at the lead, but with not many runs to get I think it was Bob Willis finished off the job.

I must admit I had visions of the final of the ICCC Trophy against West indies last year.

But to get back to your point, I think the two run defeat will have deflated Aussie more, coming so close, england should believe they can finish the job, whatever the odds.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Strauss-a long way from his best.

I don't think it's so much that.. He just hasn't got much of a clue against Warne.

[Lemming]

In the first innings at Lords, Strauss got a horrible ball. It pitched on a good length on leg-stump, seamed and would have passed off-stump if Strauss hadn't done brilliantly to get an edge on it.

That ball would have done for a lot of left handers, Strauss' was the wicket in that amazing spell which really could not have been avoided (Flintoff's was unlucky - I think - but Strauss had no chance), when you get them from the new ball you just have to walk back to the pavilion and admit defeat.

[Pete]

Important that we bat first at Old Trafford, so Vaughan better win the toss. I don't back our guys against Warne on a 4th day pitch in Manchester

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Pete

Important that we bat first at Old Trafford, so Vaughan better win the toss. I don't back our guys against Warne on a 4th day pitch in Manchester

I don't back Vaughan to win the toss!