Dec 3-7: 2nd Test: Australia v England at the Adelaide Oval

[War]

If you couldn't see that the Aussie seamers were struggling due to the numbers of overs they had to bowl in such heat then I don't see where this is going to go. Harris had a niggle and his pace was slightly down, Siddle's pace slowed down to around 83-81 and he struggled to look menacing while Bollinger was barely medium pace due to the overs he had bowled and his lack of fitness prior to the match. Even Watson who was barely bowling that much looked as though he was running in quicksand when in the field all of this while the spinner was playing.

I'm not saying they're going to break down in a heap but if you have seamers bowling for a whole day they'll end up unbelievably tired and struggle to be effective thereafter.

Well of course they would struggle. Any attack who conceeds 1100 runs in two consectutive bowling innings whether its all pace attack or an attack than even has two spinners would get fatgiued.

But what has happened in the last two test doesn't reflect the true ability of AUS pace attack. Unless you personally believe it does & every test AUS play with a 4-man pace attack they would conceed 500-600+ from now on??.

Just a few tests ago on even flatter pitches in India againts a stronger batting line-up than Englands, that same AUS pace attack kept that batting line-up in check & where 1 wicket away from winning that 1st test. Plus of course they bowled out ENG for 260 @ the 1st innings @ Brisbane.


Fact is none of 5 quicks that have played in the 1st two test have historical injury woes with fragile bodies like Bond, Flintoff, Schultz, Cairns, Tyson.

Bollinger yes his pace declined in this test, but that simply because he was probably a bit uncooked going into this test. Otherwise he has been a very fit bowler throughout his test career.

Same goes for Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Harris. Only Harris as i mentioned before could still be problem in the coming years, given his knee issues.

So basically any 4 them that lines up in a test will:

(A) Last a test comfortably

(B) Will have more Brisbane day 1 days as an attack. Rather than Brisbane 2nd innings & Adelaide 1st innings as a 4-man pace attack.

NOTE: Watson role as i think i mentioned to you before once AUS adopt a 4-man attack. Showed be revised into a luxury option like what S & M Waugh was for AUS during the early - mid 90s.

Giles. Cite his few five wicket hauls again if you want but he was there primarily to hold up an end (as his strike rate suggests. Infact Hauritz averages a 5 wicket haul every 8.5 matches with a strike rate of 66 in comparison to Giles' 10.8 matches in between his 5 wicket hauls with a strike rate of 85) while the seamers where rotated, ask any England fan and they'll agree.

I'd also say that Vettori borders on being there mainly to keep things tight in the hope of boring players out but that would be harsh on him to say the least.

Wow. Listen to what i said again:

Please give me an example of any test spinner in test history who main strenght was just to hold up & end (a job Hauritz never really did either) & could never become a wicket taking threat when he got favourable conditions. That had a long test career????

Do you understand the difference here??. The fact that Giles took 5 wicket hauls on more than 50% of the times he played on turners againts good batting sides all over the world. Proves my point that he evolved from a primary job as holding spinner & was a wicket-taking threat when he got favourtable conditions.

Who unlike Hauritz struggle on every occassion & never took 5 wicket hauls or looked a wicket-taking threat, when he got played on turners againts good batting sides in his entiring career.

So again you ridiculously trying to compare & equate the two or suggest that Hauritz was in anyway better than Giles as spinner in the second thread in a row. Unfortunately conclusively proves that you really dont understand those two bowlers careers nor basics of what spinners do in test history.

Plus if you can bring England fans who are with shocking notion of yours , go right ahead my friend. Since i can bring 100 more erudite fans who dont be on chat forums who would laugh at this position of yours, which is utter madness.


Secondly Vettori in recent years has lost some of his spin of his youth that aiding him taking alot 5 wicket hauls on turners indeed. Thus currently generally does a holding job for NZ.

His problems now are bit unique. Given his loss of spin, againts defensive batting sides or sides that are trying to save a game on last day turners. His lack of massive turn & special deliveries can make him struggle to take 5 for in such conditions.

But as he did in the test vs India recently & his overall test record vs Australia. Againts agggressive batting sides who may look be aggressive in the above scenario, he would still take 5 wicket hauls. Since he is an excellent bowler to batsmen when they are trying to be aggressive, which is why his ODI & T20 record is so superb.

So basically unless you can find better examples. Basically no spinner in test history who could not be wicket-taking threat in test history when he got favourable conditions (took 5 wicket hauls) ever lasted in any side in test history.

 

[shravi]

I've lost count of how many times I've read the same thing now...

 

[War]

Ojha currently seems to be doing the holding job for India.

Boje did it for a fair bit for South Africa while the pacers revolved around him.

Clearly their is either a lack of understanding or confusion of what a holding spinner is & isn't.

If you term a bowler a holding spinner as his main & only trait. You are saying his main strenght not just on 1st innings wickets but crucially on 4th/5th day turners is to just tie up & end with his non-turning spin. The bowler has no ability to utilise & be a wicket taking threat on those 4th/5th day turners for his side. Such bowlers have never lasted in test history.

Tweakers like Giles, Paul Harris, Boje, the new Vettori, Bapu Nadkarni, Ray Bright, Stephen Boock etc etc. Where a level above that. Given on those same crucial 4th/5th day wearing pitches they where able to become as serious a wicket-taking threats more of than not for their captains. Which is why they always had some use in tests even if they where just average spinners in general.

I would put Ojha in this group since although he is very accurate he certainly turns the ball big enough in Indian conditions & has been unlucky not to have better figures at this stage of his career. He is very similar to Rangana Herath. Ojha probably be less effective overseas though.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Didn't we already disprove you, with stats, that Giles, Bright and so many of those names you brough up were never wicket-taking threats even when conditions helped them?


Oh right, I forgot. You saw them play, therefore you must be right, even if they don't have the stats or performances to back them up.

Doh, silly me.

 

[Highlander999]

I've lost count of how many times I've read the same thing now...

I feel whenever I visit the Ashes section it is Groundhog Day I swear it is just a conspiracy by Zorax, War and Themer to make me think I'm going insane

 

[War]

Didn't we already disprove you, with stats, that Giles, Bright and so many of those names you brough up were never wicket-taking threats even when conditions helped them?


Oh right, I forgot. You saw them play, therefore you must be right, even if they don't have the stats or performances to back them up.

Doh, silly me.

Haha. Its time time again folks!!. The planetcricket comedy session hosted ZoraxDoom. Where readers & posters will be captivated by some of the most mind-boggling cricket discussion & reasoning since the invention of cricket chat forums on the internet. Lets go!!!

So to begin todays episode you are saying that Giles & Bright(of the two names you have used) where never - i repeat according to ZoraxDoom - never wicket taking threats even when conditions helped them. Then quite clearly cricinfo has been lying to us & thanks to ZoaraxDoom cricinfo's conspiracy & manipulation has been revealed.

Ashley Giles | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo - Ashley Giles never took five 5 wicket hauls in his test career againts good batting opposition in his career when he got conditions that helped him. That never happened, those are manipluated stats. Unbelievable.

Ray Bright | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Bright never took four 5 wicket hauls in his career & one 10 wicket haul in his career againts good batting opposition when he got conditions that helped him. That never happened, those are manipulated stats. Unbelievable.

So theirfore if i'm following the astonishing discovery, other bowlers like those two mentioned who did same according to cricinfo is also a lie. OMGGGG

Congradulations sherlock Zoraxdoom holmes on your wonderful investigative skills which has revealed this cricinfo conspiracy to cricket fans worldwide. Your nobel piece prize for stupidity awaits.

 

[Themer]

I swear it is just a conspiracy by Zorax, War and Themer to make me think I'm going insane

You love it really. Outlandish claim made by War, disproven by everyone, counter claim that he's seen them play and their stats don't reflect it and reset although this time with War increasingly becoming ruder.

 

[angryangy]

War, are you zMario in disguise?

 

[Highlander999]

More like Precambrian

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I was thinking Aussie_Ben, but he was racist too...

 

[shravi]

I think we should just have some sort of a filter on the words "4 seamers", "4 pacers", "4 quicks", "4 fast bowlers", "Hauritz", "Smith", "Doherty", "O'Keefe", "tweaker" or just delete posts that have anything to do with Australia playing a 4 man pace attack... Like Tom, I question my sanity at times when I read those posts...

 

[War]

You love it really. Outlandish claim made by War, disproven by everyone, counter claim that he's seen them play and their stats don't reflect it and reset although this time with War increasingly becoming ruder.

Ok. As usual thats the only thing you can come up with. Baseless accusations that i'm being rude.

But in attempt to try & get an answer out of you one last time with this Giles vs Haurtiz discussion. How is your statement that:

Giles. Cite his few five wicket hauls again if you want but he was there primarily to hold up an end (as his strike rate suggests. Infact Hauritz averages a 5 wicket haul every 8.5 matches with a strike rate of 66 in comparison to Giles' 10.8 matches in between his 5 wicket hauls with a strike rate of 85) while the seamers where rotated, ask any England fan and they'll agree.

How is that any less rude that anything i said then???. You basically derailed the debate & any potential response i could give by stating that. As if to suggest you have superior people intellect here or outside of planetcricket. So i simply returned the favour by saying i know people as well who would state my claims.

So what now, you cant take it when someone uses backs your own tactics againts you??.

Secondly you people keep harping on the point that if in a case of player when you state stats to make your point & i may say "the stats dont reflect the situation of the respective player fairly in my opinion". So i ask now two things:

1. Do you believe thats all stats in cricket history never lie & it always represents a 100% accurate representation of every players series performance or career record?.

OR

2. Do you believe the old cricket adage that simply says "Stats dont tell the whole truth" & it is not 100% accurate representation of every players series performance or career record?.


The answer to this question will clarify the misguided position of you anyone else who may believe Hauritz is better than Giles.


Finally to your point on the respective SR & 5 wicket ahuls both Giles & Hauritz took:

Cite his few five wicket hauls again if you want but he was there primarily to hold up an end (as his strike rate suggests. Infact Hauritz averages a 5 wicket haul every 8.5 matches with a strike rate of 66 in comparison to Giles' 10.8 matches in between his 5 wicket hauls with a strike rate of 85) while the seamers where rotated.

As i described in my own words before as the difference in terming a bowler a simple "holding spinner":

If you term a bowler a holding spinner as his main & only trait. You are saying his main strenght not just on 1st innings wickets but crucially on 4th/5th day turners is to just tie up & end with his non-turning spin. The bowler has no ability to utilise & be a wicket taking threat on those 4th/5th day turners for his side. Such bowlers have never lasted in test history.

Tweakers like Giles, Paul Harris, Boje, the new Vettori, Bapu Nadkarni, Ray Bright, Stephen Boock etc etc. Where a level above that. Given on those same crucial 4th/5th day wearing pitches they where able to become as serious a wicket-taking threats more of than not for their captains. Which is why they always had some use in tests even if they where just average spinners in general.

Do you disgree with this description?. If yes explain why?.


Also explain to me what relevance SR has has in discussion?. Since i do not see the logic behind that. Does it mean anything in your view that the only 5 wicket hauls Hauritz took againts Pakistan team last summer who where in turmoil with all the scandals & match fixing issues, thus 5 for those count??. A view that is even shared on this website by a Pakistani supporter:


http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/1960654-post92.html

^quite right about the Pakistan thing. Pakistan's batting has been horrible and I would say at best at par with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Hauritz's performance against Pak is hardly of any credence as far his ability is concerned. These days any one who can roll him arm over can get fifers against us.

Thus Hauritz failures to actually take 5 wickets hauls againts the other good opposition in his career when he got turners is the accurate reflection of his career?. So theirfore Giles who actually took 5 wicket hauls/looked a serious wicket taking threat, againts good opposition batsmen more than 50% of time he got turning pitches. Is infinately superior to Haurtiz?. Do you disagree with this assesment?

 

[RoboRocks]

Australia may as well give Krejza or Smith a go.

Smith will give them a good lower order batsmen and a good fielder (which they need judging from their last game).

Krejza was harshly dropped for me. He had one bad test and was left out of the squad. He should be somewhere in the reckoning since Australia need a wicket-taker for flat pitches and their seamers aren't up to the job.

 

[offdriven4]

I don't believe that England will be concerned by any spinner australia select,even when krezja took the 13 wicket haul,he still went for 350+ runs

 

[Themer]

SMH. My goodness some of you really living in wonderland. Or maybe as loyal English fan you are sarcasitcally calling for Hauritz to be recalled since you know our batsmen will smoke him like they did to Doherty?. I really hope its the latter.

You are pretty certain based on what?. Magic?.

The only thing ridiculous as usual as you trying to question universally accepted cricket logics, to justify your utter drivel.

Do you understand the difference??????

SR are not relevant, why in god's name do you keep bringing it up???

I have no intention are arguing with people who are ridiculously trying to reshape cricket history in an effort to support your misguided logics.

Hahaha what hole of stupidy did you crawl out from. This boy is mad man.

Only on the internet could i find such reasoning on cricket matters.

Where is "here"?. Your imagination?

I cannot be blamed if you the reader, comprehension & understanding skills of what i said is lacking.

This is such an inaccurate way of looking at things my friend. I dont even where to start.

. Some of you posters (fellow English posters) here have a weird way of acusing people of displaying a patronizing superior attitude in my posts. Thus mixing that up with a normal stating of opinion.

. Dear god where is all this coming from. Apparantley apologising for something i know i didn't do isn't good enough for you???. Now i'm not very respectful in my posts?. This is getting ridiculous now, what kind of foolish mischaracterisation of my posting is going on here now??

Secondly. I dont recall ever haven any of much debate with you on this forum with regardless to anything. So your suggestion that i dont admit i am wrong in debates or whatever is so blatantly false i wont even argue. I probably spend most of my time debating with a small group of AUS members & contructive debate on point is always present.

It seems like some of you has had this on your chest for a while.

Congradulations sherlock Zoraxdoom holmes on your wonderful investigative skills which has revealed this cricinfo conspiracy to cricket fans worldwide. Your nobel piece prize for stupidity awaits.

Baseless accusations that i'm being rude.

Completely baseless.

Out of interest I wasn't being rude then. I was merely saying ask other fans who saw him play and they're pretty likely to agree with me that Giles was there to hold up an end to allow the seamers to rotate. But alas you took it as a personal jibe.

Themer added 6 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

Haha. Its time time again folks!!. The planetcricket comedy session hosted ZoraxDoom. Where readers & posters will be captivated by some of the most mind-boggling cricket discussion & reasoning since the invention of cricket chat forums on the internet. Lets go!!!

Missed another one.

Really enjoyed this test mainly because the England were near superb with bat and ball whilst Australia the opposite. Looks like they'll need both McGrath and Warne to make a comeback the way things are going.