The Ashes
-
-
@MN5 434 test wickets at under 30 when you've had to play 119 tests at home isn't World Class? averaging 24.5 in Oz
You have a tough definition of world class?
Kapil wasn't up there with the absolute best in my opinion
Maybe not but was world class. Especially considering he probably had to do most of that in India
-
Especially considering he probably had to do most of that in India
I think that is what @dogmeat is referring to with the 119 tests at home comment.
I'm going with "India have produced a single world class fast bowler". Struggling to think of others that are right up there.
-
-
I'm going with "India have produced a single world class fast bowler". Struggling to think of others that are right up there.
By that standard, we've produced:
Hadlee
Bond (truncated)
...Yes. 100% more than India.
I'll leave it to you to remind the Indians of that.
-
-
@kiwipie The thing about Beefy was less about his overall stats and more what he did to change the course of a match in a particular spell, be it bowling or batting. He had some pretty dreary spells bowling and then out of nowhere came a devastating spell that just turned things on their head. His batting was also a bit hit and miss but there were quite a few times he was asked to go out there and swing hard. Looks great for a short while but buggers up your stats.
All rounders are harder to qualify IMO. Looking at the stats, you'd have to say Kallis is the man, but how many of those big innings were done at a pace that suited the match. Sobers stats do not compare that well with Kallis but I'd have him in the team every day over the Saffer - and over Botham too.
-
@catogrande said in The Ashes:
@kiwipie The thing about Beefy was less about his overall stats and more what he did to change the course of a match in a particular spell, be it bowling or batting. He had some pretty dreary spells bowling and then out of nowhere came a devastating spell that just turned things on their head. His batting was also a bit hit and miss but there were quite a few times he was asked to go out there and swing hard. Looks great for a short while but buggers up your stats.
All rounders are harder to qualify IMO. Looking at the stats, you'd have to say Kallis is the man, but how many of those big innings were done at a pace that suited the match. Sobers stats do not compare that well with Kallis but I'd have him in the team every day over the Saffer - and over Botham too.
How do Sobers stats not compare with Kallis? They're extremely similar.
-
@mn5 More the longevity of Kallis and the sheer number of tons the bloke got. More test tons than most regular batsmen. Anyway, my point being (in relation to Botham's effectiveness), who had the most profound effect of the games played? A bit like Gilchrist, his stats don't bear comparison with Kallis but bloody hell he turned some matches for Aus.
-
@catogrande said in The Ashes:
@mn5 More the longevity of Kallis and the sheer number of tons the bloke got. More test tons than most regular batsmen. Anyway, my point being (in relation to Botham's effectiveness), who had the most profound effect of the games played? A bit like Gilchrist, his stats don't bear comparison with Kallis but bloody hell he turned some matches for Aus.
I think Kalliss stats surpass his aura if that makes sense but fuck me he was one of the very best batsmen of his generation with the added bonus of being about as good as Chris Martin with the ball!
-
Why have England got black arm bands?
-
England's attack looking a bit pop-gun at the moment. Bowling tidily, keeping the scoring rate down but basically just waiting for a batsman error. The contrast with Starc and Hazelwood last night is noticeable. A lot of the commentators have been commenting that England are bowling too short and I agree - their tactic with Warner for example seems to be tying him down, a cover sweeper if they pitch a bit too short and hope he gets frustrated. In itself that isn't a bad tactic but only after you've tried to get him out with the new ball - but they never pitched the ball up enough to make him drive and find an edge.
As was noted, Starc's first delivery of the English innings (his loosener) was immediately the fastest ball of the match.
-
Well Marsh has guaranteed himself another 3 years of selection with that 100
-
England are insipid.
5 - 0.
-
Trash. 143/7 in Adelaide? fucking hopeless. This should be all over by tomorrow.
-
Go the pink ball at night!
3 down.
Healy gutted at that last wicket
-
41 for 3
-
Eeeeedge ... drops in front offirst slip
-
Out!
-
Smith reviewing. Only if he hits it.
Out
Out
Out -
Oooh barely pitching outside leg... deserved to be out
-
That was a pearler by Anderson and so so close. The ball two deliveries later was a great one to that had Smith in no mans land.
-
Out again?
-
High?
-
Close
-
Umpires call.
Fuck off!
-
Smithy out. 50 for 4.
Pink ball at night doing it's thing and changing it all it up.
-
Lyon? Night watchman
-
So... anyone think the bullshit about not enforcing the follow on is just crap?
So VVS made mincemeat of you 20 years ago ... in India... on a road ...
... and you're rested ... on a cool evening ... with a pink ball at night ....
Dumb.
As dumb Joe Root electing to bowl.
-
Can someone clarify for me? Why was the first Smith LBW not an umpires call with the pitch of the ball given part of the ball was in line with leg?
Are there different rules for that because it isn't a prediction of the balls path rather a record of it's actual pitch? -
Can someone clarify for me? Why was the first Smith LBW not an umpires call with the pitch of the ball given part of the ball was in line with leg?
Are there different rules for that because it isn't a prediction of the balls path rather a record of it's actual pitch?I think it's the proportion of the ball that is judged to be in line with whatever.
-
So... anyone think the bullshit about not enforcing the follow on is just crap?
So VVS made mincemeat of you 20 years ago ... in India... on a road ...
... and you're rested ... on a cool evening ... with a pink ball at night ....
Dumb.
As dumb Joe Root electing to bowl.
Ha! Was just logging in to post that. Was surprised when Oz didn’t enforce the follow on under lights, and unsurprised to wake up to 53/4.
Maybe one day Oz will get over 2001...
-
The non enforcement of the follow on isn't dumb because the Aussies already have enough runs to win.
Another 50 from here makes the game safe.Best 4th innings there is 233 in 2003 pre ground development.
At this stage oz are miles in front of the test. The follow on thing ain't that relevant in my opinion
-
The problem with enforcing the follow-on is if the other team bats well you find yourself batting last in the most difficult conditions, under all sorts of pressure. In this case it made sense given the new ball under lights, but I can see why teams are more reluctant nowadays given the way pitches can flatten out during the middle stages of a test.
-
Hindsight is a marvellous thing. Smith would obviously regret not enforcing, like Root would regret not batting first.
But that analysis is too simple. England bowled beautifully last night. Only a handful of loose deliveries in 27 overs. If they'd bowled like that on the first morning we'd have a very different game.
Australia could have had England 4-50. Or they could be a bit ragged and let England get to 1-80. On a flattish pitch they set us 150, which we have to chase... under lights.
Root's decision to bowl was negated by his own bowlers, much like Smith's decision to bat was negated by his fragile top order.
First hour is critical. We get through with only 1-2 down then we can push the lead out to 300+, but there's a chance we're skittled quickly and then it's game on.
-
75-6, 290 run lead. Need minimum another 60-70 runs. Then bowl them out at dusk
-
KP is a terrible commentator.
"Umpires are too scared to make a decision ..." wtf?
Post 159 of 662