England collapse again - last 7 wickets in 50 mins or so.
5-0
5-0
Ashes II - 2013/14 - In Australia
- Thread starter NinjaFletch
- Start date
Harris, who no one thought would be able to complete a 5 test series, let alone be on the right end of a 5-0.
Johnson, much mocked by all of us and Clarke, who took over a rabble and has captained fabulously.
Well played.
Johnson, much mocked by all of us and Clarke, who took over a rabble and has captained fabulously.
Well played.
England were fecking pathetic, I actually cannot believe how weak and fragile they have been.
I agree. I'd have called the men in white coats on you if you'd told me the Aussies would win in a white wash.
Might head down to one of the pubs near the ground for a few.
Poor stuff by England. Ruined what could have been a great series.
Well played Australia who played fabulous cricket, England on the other hand were a shambles in every test.Back to the drawing board boys.
How well can you comprehend what you read?
I have commented on general batting of India's players in swinging conditions since always. Very few have tackled it successfully. It remains to be seen how these young players will do and there isn't much evidence either to believe that they will be moving mountains in those conditions. As I said, it is long time away and chances of each team can be better assessed before the series or 1-2 matches into the series.
How is the performance of third rate players in the past even relevant to judging the performance of these players, who've come away with excellent performances against the best bowling line-up in the world?
If it's not, why would you even point it out?
England's bowling is nowhere near SA's bowling as well.
Chip on your shoulders about Indian players.
Our batting lineup was supposed to get thrashed in SA aswell. Indians on here need to understand that as a batting unit, this group is extra-ordinary and is the second best batting lineup in the world after the Saffers right now.
3rd rate players? lol... Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman, Sehwag, Gambhir were all 3rd rate? You are one of the most deluded person I have come across. The discussion was about swinging conditions and there was hardly any in SA though that attack is definitely better than England. Are you Liverpool fan? That will explain lot of your delusion. But then there is only so much one can expect from someone who said Rohit Sharma has technique to tackle SA conditions.
You were talking about players who failed. If you think that Sachin(54 average), Ganguly(65) and Dravid(69) 'shit themselves' in England.. you must be really obtuse.
And yes, Pujara, Kohli and Rahane have already played innings better than Gambhir ever did, including his 8 hour stay at Napier which was never a question of technique, but time.
Sehwag and Laxman are the only ones from that list who can match up to this. Two players is hardly a sizeable sample to draw a conclusion from, isn't it? Obtuse and bitter.
My thoughts...
1. Credit to the Aussies. This was the best fast bowling attack I've seen since the great Windies sides of the 80's & 70's. Johnson & Harris were outstanding, you don't get better fast bowling than that. On this form Johnson & Harris are going to destroy the South African batsman as well on the harder pitches. Also, credits to their back up bowlers. I thought Siddle, Lyon and Watson really raised their games. Having said that, I still think there are some major issues with the Australian batting, that may be their downfall.
2. I don't agree England's pathetic performance was just down to the batting. In the first 3 tests the England batsman were continuously under scoreboard pressure. And they had to face some of the best fast bowling I've ever seen. So I think England had to fight fire with fire. Broad & Anderson are not genuine fast bowlers. We needed a fast bowler to combat the big hitting of the Australian lower order. When England were successful in the last series in Oz, they had Finn and Tremlett bowling 90mph. England have at least 5 bowlers I can think of who can bowl 90mph+. So why didn't England select any of them?
3. Don't play Bell at 3, play him at 5 or 6. At 5-6 he's one of the best batsman in the world. We've been here before. It's the same why Australia don't play Clarke at 3.
4. I don't think Cook should be captain. He doesn't have that mental strength if you ask me and I suspect his batting is suffering for it. He's still potentially the best opening test batsman in the world, so I think he should concentrate on that. Broad would be a much better captain, everything about him has captain written on it. Captains don't have to be popular, they have to be be tough & street wise. Broad has plenty of that and captains need to command that respect. Broad also loves being in the thick of things. The more distractions, the better he plays himself it seems. They way Broad came back to score some runs in the last 2 tests, after being demolished by Johnson in the first 3, says everything about Broad's character.
5. England need to sort the spinner out. If they want to play a specialist spinner and they don't want to play Panesar, then play Kerrigan. Kerrigan is England's biggest spinner of the ball and in county cricket he bowls very accurate. So give him a few games and don't judge him on one bad performance. Shane Warne got 1-150 on his test debut. If England don't want to play a spinner specialised then use Root as spinner with 4 quicker bowlers. He takes his bowling seriously and he's more accurate than Borthwick is at the moment.
6. Looking forward, there's actually plenty to be positive about for England. Sam Robson is an outstanding world class talent. He's already ample good enough for test the level IMO. (Apparently Lehman wanted to pick him last summer when Warner was suspended, but when the Aussie board was told he'd chosen to play for England they were furious.. they had very high hopes for him). It's only a matter of time before he gets selected and it wouldn't surprise me if he starts at 3 when at England's next test-match in June. I'd drop KP and Bell down the order. Both need to bat lower down the order to suit their swashbuckle styles IMO.
I thought Carberry performed admirably whilst being put under impossible pressure (mainly thanks to the failings of the more senior batsman), so I'd give him another chance. He's much better than Compton any rate.
I also like the look of some of the young fast bowlers coming through in county cricket. Finn will come good, but he's still learning his trade. I like the look of Mills. He's very very quick. And there are others to look out for as well.
If England don't have a world class spinner to replace Swann and the it's not turning much (like most pitches away from the sub continent) then don't pick a spinner.
So I guess next test match will look something like Captainless Cook, Carberry, Robson, Root, KP, Bell, Prior, Stokes, Broad (C), Finn (or other young FB), Anderson (or other young FB). On paper that's a bloody good side if you ask me. There's plenty of bowling there. And if you can get batsman like KP, Bell, Prior in only against the older ball and tiring bowlers then England will be scoring 400+ runs like fun at a decent rate.
1. Credit to the Aussies. This was the best fast bowling attack I've seen since the great Windies sides of the 80's & 70's. Johnson & Harris were outstanding, you don't get better fast bowling than that. On this form Johnson & Harris are going to destroy the South African batsman as well on the harder pitches. Also, credits to their back up bowlers. I thought Siddle, Lyon and Watson really raised their games. Having said that, I still think there are some major issues with the Australian batting, that may be their downfall.
2. I don't agree England's pathetic performance was just down to the batting. In the first 3 tests the England batsman were continuously under scoreboard pressure. And they had to face some of the best fast bowling I've ever seen. So I think England had to fight fire with fire. Broad & Anderson are not genuine fast bowlers. We needed a fast bowler to combat the big hitting of the Australian lower order. When England were successful in the last series in Oz, they had Finn and Tremlett bowling 90mph. England have at least 5 bowlers I can think of who can bowl 90mph+. So why didn't England select any of them?
3. Don't play Bell at 3, play him at 5 or 6. At 5-6 he's one of the best batsman in the world. We've been here before. It's the same why Australia don't play Clarke at 3.
4. I don't think Cook should be captain. He doesn't have that mental strength if you ask me and I suspect his batting is suffering for it. He's still potentially the best opening test batsman in the world, so I think he should concentrate on that. Broad would be a much better captain, everything about him has captain written on it. Captains don't have to be popular, they have to be be tough & street wise. Broad has plenty of that and captains need to command that respect. Broad also loves being in the thick of things. The more distractions, the better he plays himself it seems. They way Broad came back to score some runs in the last 2 tests, after being demolished by Johnson in the first 3, says everything about Broad's character.
5. England need to sort the spinner out. If they want to play a specialist spinner and they don't want to play Panesar, then play Kerrigan. Kerrigan is England's biggest spinner of the ball and in county cricket he bowls very accurate. So give him a few games and don't judge him on one bad performance. Shane Warne got 1-150 on his test debut. If England don't want to play a spinner specialised then use Root as spinner with 4 quicker bowlers. He takes his bowling seriously and he's more accurate than Borthwick is at the moment.
6. Looking forward, there's actually plenty to be positive about for England. Sam Robson is an outstanding world class talent. He's already ample good enough for test the level IMO. (Apparently Lehman wanted to pick him last summer when Warner was suspended, but when the Aussie board was told he'd chosen to play for England they were furious.. they had very high hopes for him). It's only a matter of time before he gets selected and it wouldn't surprise me if he starts at 3 when at England's next test-match in June. I'd drop KP and Bell down the order. Both need to bat lower down the order to suit their swashbuckle styles IMO.
I thought Carberry performed admirably whilst being put under impossible pressure (mainly thanks to the failings of the more senior batsman), so I'd give him another chance. He's much better than Compton any rate.
I also like the look of some of the young fast bowlers coming through in county cricket. Finn will come good, but he's still learning his trade. I like the look of Mills. He's very very quick. And there are others to look out for as well.
If England don't have a world class spinner to replace Swann and the it's not turning much (like most pitches away from the sub continent) then don't pick a spinner.
So I guess next test match will look something like Captainless Cook, Carberry, Robson, Root, KP, Bell, Prior, Stokes, Broad (C), Finn (or other young FB), Anderson (or other young FB). On paper that's a bloody good side if you ask me. There's plenty of bowling there. And if you can get batsman like KP, Bell, Prior in only against the older ball and tiring bowlers then England will be scoring 400+ runs like fun at a decent rate.
What about them being 3rd rate as mentioned by you dumbtard? and how much those averages helped us? What happened results wise? Our record in England, of winning, is worse than in Australia and South Africa, percentage wise. The only time we came up with a good bowling line up in England was in 2011 and we know what happened. The England team of 1996 tour, 2002 tour were easily beatable yet we couldn't.Also, about current crop, are you telling me all 6 can counter swing well? I would only trust no. 3,4 and 5 to counter it.
You really are deluded beyond belief and don't have basic comprehension ability to understand what is being said. Carry on, fools like you are great entertainment.
Also, about current crop, are you telling me all 6 can counter swing well? I would only trust no. 3,4 and 5 to counter it.
You really are deluded beyond belief and don't have basic comprehension ability to understand what is being said. Carry on, fools like you are great entertainment.
Let me break it down:
"Third rate" was a reply to your "players who cannot play swing" statement.
I assumed you had an iota of intelligence and would not be referring to the obvious greats who actually played swing bowling well. Apparently you don't have even that much intelligence and are under the impression they failed in England.
The conversation is about batting ability. What does our bowling have to do with the statement "Indians shit themselves at swing bowling", which is the statement I replied to?
Are you saying that when you said "Indians shit themselves at the sight of swing", you actually meant "We don't have a good enough bowling to win in England"?
TMH, go easy on the name calling and such.
Here is a stat for you THM, before the last 4-0, England had not beaten us at home in a test series since 1996. During the same time we had drawn 2 and won one test series there. The reason why those series were drawn had nothing to do with the batting but the fact we had at best above average bowlers. Everyone knows you can not win test matches unless you have a bowling attack to take 20 wickets.
So much so for Indian batsmen shitting themselves in swing conditions. You made an idiotic statement and instead of owing up, have doubled down on it with more non sense.
So much so for Indian batsmen shitting themselves in swing conditions. You made an idiotic statement and instead of owing up, have doubled down on it with more non sense.
Our batsman generally have a good record in England. It's in places like Australia and SA where we really struggle. I'd add NZ to that struggling list tbh.
I suspect India will have a similar problem next summer to what England had in Australia. England have Anderson & Broad to flourish in English conditions and India don't seem to have the bowlers to fight fire with fire.
Let me break it down:
"Third rate" was a reply to your "players who cannot play swing" statement.
I assumed you had an iota of intelligence and would not be referring to the obvious greats who actually played swing bowling well. Apparently you don't have even that much intelligence and are under the impression they failed in England.
The conversation is about batting ability. What does our bowling have to do with the statement "Indians shit themselves at swing bowling", which is the statement I replied to?
Are you saying that when you said "Indians shit themselves at the sight of swing", you actually meant "We don't have a good enough bowling to win in England"?
OK, so point out who are these 3rd rate players then? From all the series I have seen us play in England, we have hardly been comfortable playing swing. The fortunate thing was, prior to 2011 tour, England were shit themselves. Yet, we wasted many chances of winning series, except once. You put the point that previously Indians didn't play well because they were 3rd rate as compared to this lot and then go back to my point of 'shitting themselves.'
What happened to your experts of swing play when they came up against good swing bowling of 2011? Please tell along with defeat margins.
Read my original quote again where I have said that the young crop is good but they will be handling swing first time. It is not said that these players will be failing DEFINITELY. If you have had basic comprehension ability, so much explanation wouldn't have been unnecessary. Sadly you don't have it and you prove it time and again.I take it as compliment when you talk about intelligence or lack of.
Nah we'll be fine. This batting lineup just tackled the best bowling lineup in the world quite normally. I don't expect Anderson and Broad to provide us with too many problems, besides the swinging conditions will help the likes of Shami, Zak.
Our bowling really worries me though. One flat pitch and we could easily concede 600 in 150 overs or so.
Read my post previous to this. The good thing about England from India's point of view prior to 2011 was, they never had that good bowling attack. Forget not 'losing' stats, show me the winning ones. Those tours were easily winnable, yet India didn't. In the tours we drew, we ended up losing matches as well and took time to settle into series.
Yeah, I know few our batsmen had good record in England but I don't agree that Indians in general play swing well. Whenever India came up against good bowling in swinging conditions, they invariably failed.
You guys can continue beating drum of how good Indian team is/was, their record suggest otherwise.
You can't compare SA to England IMO, completely different conditions and a Dukes ball. Philander & Steyn would be a totally different opposition in English conditions, they would flourish in England (..as they do in county cricket, Philander's learnt his trade in England). But Mitchell Johnson, for example, would be less effective in English conditions.
You know, not many agree with it, but as I have said here, I find Indian batsmen more 'capable' of playing in Australia and South Africa conditions than swinging ones. Indian batsmen generally have good hand-eye co-ordination and once they settle, they even score runs quickly in Australia and South Africa with the pace and true bounce. The records suggest otherwise, as compared to England because, Australia and South Africa have had good bowling lineups whereas England didn't(except 2011).
Maybe.
Johnson is a beast tbh. With his height and speed, he could trouble any batsman on any pitch, that's what makes him unique tbh. He's not dependent on the pitches. He recovered his mojo by playing IPL.
My point exactly. I find conditions of England tougher. Mind you, weather plays part. There are times when England seems a batting paradise, something you can never say about Australia and South Africa. But, when the conditions help swing, it is one of the most toughest of places. Teams, even other than India, haven't struggled as much there because prior to Anderson/Broad, it was average attack at best.
btw, to my point of Indians shitting themselves in swinging conditions, please refer tour of NZ in 2002. 2-0 in tests and 5-2 in ODIs
Gambhir, MS Dhoni, Wasim Jaffer, Mongia, Manjrekar, Rathore, Raina, Ajay Jadeja, Ratra.
Because no person who has followed cricket with any regularity could've made the statement "Indians shit themselves at the sight of swing bowling" and actually refer to Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly.
So you are either referring to the set of players mentioned on topand are an idiot who is equaling Pujara, Kohli and Rahane with that lot. Or an idiot who is ignorant of the achievements of Sachin and the others.
In 2011, Indian had an untested player in Abhinav Mukund(replaced by a clearly unfit Sehwag after 2 tests) and Gautham Gambhir(who is third rate playing away), Raina in the top 6. Raina is clearly crap when playing abroad.
This leaves Sachin, Dravid and Laxman. Perhaps you missed Dravid's 3 centuries, but the other 2 failed and age was clearly not on their side.
Do reply to crappy's points also.
That's harsh.
When we won the series there, England had a pace bowling attack of Sidebottom, Tremlett and Anderson which was good especially at that when Tremlett was bowling 140k plus.
That's an overly optimistic post. Oz bowled superbly but they were gifted plenty of wickets by the English batsmen especially at Perth and Adelaide. A call will have to be taken about KP, if he is in permanent decline now or not. I think someone like Bell whilst being good has failed to make that step up. He is still clueless against spin after so much time, his mid-off chipped dismissal against pedestrian bowling off Lyon was embarrassing. Trott being off form and leaving was a bit of problem since he along with Cook saw off the new ball plenty of times for England. The front three can really make the game if they shield the middle order against the new ball.
Finn is a huge problem for England right now, not long back he was one of the best young bowlers about and could not even get picked for a single test here.
Good thing for England is that their next test series are at home where they can re-consolidate.
Dear god, I just explained to you that you can not win a test without taking 20 wickets. Reason why we could not win those draw series despite batsmen doing well. Likes of Srinath while being good were not that good that they could win a match on their own let alone a series. Kumble was always a below average bowler on foreign pitches, reason why I have never rated him highly.
@KM Does name calling apply to everyone? This Mr. delusion and low on comprehension ability is clearly rattled and blabbering and name calling as he is incapable of anything else.
Rathore, Ajay Jadeja and Ratra
You really are getting desperate.What happened to your 'best players of swing' in NZ my dear Mr. delusion?
Can't you understand simple point that 3 players batting well on occasions didn't bring India any fruit? Did someone hit you on head during childhood? Or you are just like this? Totally incapable of understanding what someone else is saying and blabbering bullshit. Carry on, you have made my Sunday afternoon grand entertainment.
England have batting worries. There are not a lot of good reserve batsmen.
They can cope at home with their bowling, because Graham Onions will be effective, if his domestic record is to be believed, and can complement Anderson, Broad well with Stokes chipping in. This is assuming that Panesar bowls well enough and is trusted by Flower/Cook.
Batting, however.. Trott was their biggest player when it came to giving solidity and tying their top order together with the middle order and you can clearly see it in the results ever since he turned up at the 2010 Ashes.
Carberry, Ballance look like alright players but will need to improve drastically to restore England to the position they were in. In the reserves they have the likes of James Taylor who are pretty much of the same ilk.
They've tapped up an Australian already, maybe he'll come good.
They can cope at home with their bowling, because Graham Onions will be effective, if his domestic record is to be believed, and can complement Anderson, Broad well with Stokes chipping in. This is assuming that Panesar bowls well enough and is trusted by Flower/Cook.
Batting, however.. Trott was their biggest player when it came to giving solidity and tying their top order together with the middle order and you can clearly see it in the results ever since he turned up at the 2010 Ashes.
Carberry, Ballance look like alright players but will need to improve drastically to restore England to the position they were in. In the reserves they have the likes of James Taylor who are pretty much of the same ilk.
They've tapped up an Australian already, maybe he'll come good.
My point exactly. I find conditions of England tougher. Mind you, weather plays part. There are times when England seems a batting paradise, something you can never say about Australia and South Africa. But, when the conditions help swing, it is one of the most toughest of places. Teams, even other than India, haven't struggled as much there because prior to Anderson/Broad, it was average attack at best.
btw, to my point of Indians shitting themselves in swinging conditions, please refer tour of NZ in 2002. 2-0 in tests and 5-2 in ODIs
England's bowling was awful before Troy Cooley came on the scene. When Flinthof first played a test match he was bowling 75mph floaters. After Cooley arrived that all changed. England have much better bowlers nowadays, on most days in an English summer the conditions are such that they'll seam & swing the ball on slowish difficult to score pitches.
Without bowling we can't win a test is given. Yet, on this England tours, we had manage to win odd tests. If batting was so good, the losses could have been prevented against attacks which were average.
@KM Does name calling apply to everyone? This Mr. delusion and low on comprehension ability is clearly rattled and blabbering and name calling as he is incapable of anything else.
Rathore, Ajay Jadeja and Ratra
What happened to your 'best players of swing' in NZ my dear Mr. delusion?
Can't you understand simple point that 3 players batting well on occasions didn't bring India any fruit? Did someone hit you on head during childhood? Or you are just like this? Totally incapable of understanding what someone else is saying and blabbering bullshit. Carry on, you have made my Sunday afternoon grand entertainment.
I'm confused. You asked me to name third rate players who couldn't play swing, and when I did, you seem to be laughing at their poor ability.
As for the rest of your post, I'll just quote crappy.
I am not to up to date on rest of this discussion going on in an Ashes thread. But you can't really consider that 2002/03 NZ trip. The condition was devastating there. Such was the nature of the pitch. Did either test match last more than 3 days.@KM Does name calling apply to everyone? This Mr. delusion and low on comprehension ability is clearly rattled and blabbering and name calling as he is incapable of anything else.
Rathore, Ajay Jadeja and Ratra
What happened to your 'best players of swing' in NZ my dear Mr. delusion?
Can't you understand simple point that 3 players batting well on occasions didn't bring India any fruit? Did someone hit you on head during childhood? Or you are just like this? Totally incapable of understanding what someone else is saying and blabbering bullshit. Carry on, you have made my Sunday afternoon grand entertainment.
It's not harsh, it's idiotic. First time India came up against good bowlers in swinging conditions they lost, nothing to do with the fact that our main batsmen were at the foot-end of their careers. All the previous times they were against garbage bowlers in Gough, Anderson, Caddick etc. zzzzz
Indian were horrific away from home for a long time. The fabled batting quartet may be overrated to an extent but they were a huge reason we finally started competing in away series and stopped being an embarrassment. If we had a bowling line up of same quality to go with them, we would have won many a more away series than we eventually did. That oz series we dominate, ended up being a draw because our bowling attack could not dismiss a few tailenders on a last day. It is not rocket science but an accepted notion that bowlers win you test matches
So bowling was good because we won the odd match but batting was not because we lost the odd match. Ok
The players you named, most of them, how many matches they played? I am talking about the main batting stay. Why put names like Rathore, Jadeja (ffs, how many tests did he play abroad??), Ratra (!) etc?? I will compare current 6 to previous 6, (Gambhir-Sehwag-Dravid-Sachin-Ganguly-Laxman) and say that, they had their individual moments and were geats, it didn't translate into dominance or wins abroad. Bowling has been an obvious issue for India but it doesn't mean batsmen posted big totals every time and bowlers didn't win it. We have lost test matches because our batsmen have crumbled against average bowlers in helpful conditions, something which Australia's great team from last decade didn't. That's why they are one of the greats.