2007 Ashes and the aus bowling attack
October 11th 2006 11:34
Dear all
I'm writting on the Australian test team and contrasting the england and australian bowling attack.
In the last ahes series, Australia were looking all honky dory, smashing the living shite outta England, and then it ll turned pear shaped after the second test. Sure there was all this talk about england's Flintoff[ being the best allrounder being there and with his partner in crime, Simon Jones[B]Your text goes here taking wickets even before Australia could even put forward a decent batting performance. Then there was the McGrath injury, the pitiful performance of Jason Gillespie and our infamous middle order collapses.
And then i believe Greg Matthews wrote up something that basically could have summed up the entire fracas of why we were beaten a team we have always beaten, even when the stats don't make sense. He basically said it was all due to the conservative tactics used by the selectors.
For time immemorial, we have always fielded a 3 pace 1 spinner attack, making way for a seventh batsman. Now it was all well and good... but not when 2 out of 3 of the main pace attack were not themselves or even fit (injuries to Mcgrath, a lost of form in Jason Gillespie even in the one day series prior to the Ashes were sure telling signs).
So why the hell did they let poor Dizzy bowl for three test and rake up such horrible figures?? Sure he is one of the top bowling men and a regular performer... but only when he's fit! The selectors should have taken alternative measures to make up for Glenn;s injury and Dizzy;s form. Instead they took the "hmmm.. lets wait and see" approach, and "if it ain't broke, don;t fix it." state of mind even though our bowlign attack was significantly diminished after the second test.
And then there is the "Australian FFASSSSSSST BOOOWWWWLER" (add boagan accent for effect) red neck yell, even though the amount of turn Warnie got when he took out Strauss and took many top order England wickets were evident of spinning tracks. Hell, we had the second best leg spinner (MacGill) just up there int he pavillion, and he was never called forth. The success of Warne could have meant that a second spinner could have been employed and we would have seen a possible 4-1 victory.
Instead, we called up Tait and Kasper... one with gross inexperience, the other (Kasprowicz) did a decent job as a seamer performing the holding role.
And this is what the conservative selectors had to say: "Duhh.. Macgill and Warne together have shown pretty good results in the past, but they didn't always work together,"... pfft... even Katich manage to get pretty decent turn as a part-timer.
Now here is why England won: They hardly have the best batting figures to boast about, and their 4 pace-1 spin bowlign averages are about 6 points on average worst off than australia's,,, but they nevertheless had 5 bowlers, with different bowling styles. They had 3 swingers (Hogard being the classical conventional swinger, and Jones and Flintoff producing prodigal reverse swing with front-on actions) one seamer in Harmison (who could produce massive bouncers, or lifters) and a orthodox left spinner with decent batting performances in Giles. Five bowlers meant ample sharing of the work load to ensure that they were rearing to go everytime they had a small spell
On the other hand, we had 2 seamers, with an express strike bowler with some ability to swing the ball (Lee) and the best spinner (Warne). that meant that spells were often long, with Warne bowling up to 9 overs straight in order for the pacers to recharge. When conditions meant swingers could capitalise, we fielded seamers.. smarttttt.....
When tracks were turning, we still fielded the same amount of pace men in order for the "hold 3-1 formula" to be kept untarnished.
Look, if we want to screw the living daylights outta england and get back that urn, we need 2 spinners and at least 3 pacemen. When Pakistan and South Africa came round for their test series, Macgill and Warne absolutely smashed them silly on turning tracks, Pakistan being a team known to play spin very effectively.
Time to break convention and make use of the best we got. 2 spinners mean more chances to take wickets against England (a team known to be ineffective to spin attacks, just look at Murali's figures when Sri Lanka toured England).
The only good news is that we manage to get Troy Cooley onboard so that we can get our bowlers to have some swing and maybe reverse it. The more weapons you have, the better you can slay the dragon.
My hand goes up for Macgill, Warne, Bracken, Mcgrath and Lee.
Stuff convention
I'm writting on the Australian test team and contrasting the england and australian bowling attack.
In the last ahes series, Australia were looking all honky dory, smashing the living shite outta England, and then it ll turned pear shaped after the second test. Sure there was all this talk about england's Flintoff[ being the best allrounder being there and with his partner in crime, Simon Jones[B]Your text goes here taking wickets even before Australia could even put forward a decent batting performance. Then there was the McGrath injury, the pitiful performance of Jason Gillespie and our infamous middle order collapses.
And then i believe Greg Matthews wrote up something that basically could have summed up the entire fracas of why we were beaten a team we have always beaten, even when the stats don't make sense. He basically said it was all due to the conservative tactics used by the selectors.
For time immemorial, we have always fielded a 3 pace 1 spinner attack, making way for a seventh batsman. Now it was all well and good... but not when 2 out of 3 of the main pace attack were not themselves or even fit (injuries to Mcgrath, a lost of form in Jason Gillespie even in the one day series prior to the Ashes were sure telling signs).
So why the hell did they let poor Dizzy bowl for three test and rake up such horrible figures?? Sure he is one of the top bowling men and a regular performer... but only when he's fit! The selectors should have taken alternative measures to make up for Glenn;s injury and Dizzy;s form. Instead they took the "hmmm.. lets wait and see" approach, and "if it ain't broke, don;t fix it." state of mind even though our bowlign attack was significantly diminished after the second test.
And then there is the "Australian FFASSSSSSST BOOOWWWWLER" (add boagan accent for effect) red neck yell, even though the amount of turn Warnie got when he took out Strauss and took many top order England wickets were evident of spinning tracks. Hell, we had the second best leg spinner (MacGill) just up there int he pavillion, and he was never called forth. The success of Warne could have meant that a second spinner could have been employed and we would have seen a possible 4-1 victory.
Instead, we called up Tait and Kasper... one with gross inexperience, the other (Kasprowicz) did a decent job as a seamer performing the holding role.
And this is what the conservative selectors had to say: "Duhh.. Macgill and Warne together have shown pretty good results in the past, but they didn't always work together,"... pfft... even Katich manage to get pretty decent turn as a part-timer.
Now here is why England won: They hardly have the best batting figures to boast about, and their 4 pace-1 spin bowlign averages are about 6 points on average worst off than australia's,,, but they nevertheless had 5 bowlers, with different bowling styles. They had 3 swingers (Hogard being the classical conventional swinger, and Jones and Flintoff producing prodigal reverse swing with front-on actions) one seamer in Harmison (who could produce massive bouncers, or lifters) and a orthodox left spinner with decent batting performances in Giles. Five bowlers meant ample sharing of the work load to ensure that they were rearing to go everytime they had a small spell
On the other hand, we had 2 seamers, with an express strike bowler with some ability to swing the ball (Lee) and the best spinner (Warne). that meant that spells were often long, with Warne bowling up to 9 overs straight in order for the pacers to recharge. When conditions meant swingers could capitalise, we fielded seamers.. smarttttt.....
When tracks were turning, we still fielded the same amount of pace men in order for the "hold 3-1 formula" to be kept untarnished.
Look, if we want to screw the living daylights outta england and get back that urn, we need 2 spinners and at least 3 pacemen. When Pakistan and South Africa came round for their test series, Macgill and Warne absolutely smashed them silly on turning tracks, Pakistan being a team known to play spin very effectively.
Time to break convention and make use of the best we got. 2 spinners mean more chances to take wickets against England (a team known to be ineffective to spin attacks, just look at Murali's figures when Sri Lanka toured England).
The only good news is that we manage to get Troy Cooley onboard so that we can get our bowlers to have some swing and maybe reverse it. The more weapons you have, the better you can slay the dragon.
My hand goes up for Macgill, Warne, Bracken, Mcgrath and Lee.
Stuff convention
| 117 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
