Cricket
still be wrapped up inside 4 days batting again
Number of good cricketing reasons for the decision, only 4 bowlers so important to try to avoid too long a session in the field, pitch is so dry that it is very likely to deterioate over days 3 and 4, batting again gives the chance to grind Aus down and significantly reduces Aus chance of winning (Eng are 1-0 up) and finally history tends to laugh at teams who enforce and lose, so why risk it.
You can speculate all you like and come up with all sorts of potential scenarios , but as posy says , its a commercial decision . When commercial decisions override sporting considerations its a switch off . Sport becomes business driven as "entertainment" for which people are prepared to pay , nothing wrong with that . I just prefer my sport as a contest pure and simple , and may the better man win irrespective of how many are watching .
The fact that Englands batsmen contrived to get 3 dismissed before stumps this evening implies that Aussies might have suffered same fate , they being technically and statistically inferior to England in recent performances . In which case Aussies would have been 200 behind approx with only 7 wickets left . To me thats negatives a lot of posted comment .
I always played sport competetively , and when you got your opponent on the run you put him away as fast and as much as you could , saving energy and leaving something for the "rainy day " when you might face him again . Tiger is the best example of this I can think of in recent sporting terms , he had his foot on the neck of every other player in his era . And the Aussies were good at it when they had good teams . No harm winning half a furlong if its easy and there is no handicapper around .
if there had been 5 sessions left in the match of course you enforce it but with 9+ sessions, no chance
As I said before , if you get a team on the run , bury them .
they want a lead of 500 and two days to bowl them out
I personally don't agree with the plan but that is the thinking behind it
Can't see that not enforcing is taking the foot off the throat.
The batsmen are taking it out of Cooks hands!
Hypothetical.
The modern style is to take a rest and with 4 man attacks and back to back test's it makes strategic sense
Ordinarily England would be looking to humiliate Aus further here but poor batting and smarting Aussie bowlers will actually give Aussie a lift today. The result though is beyond question.
The reality is enforcing the follow on is much more likely to throw a result than not.
There is no point batting to a lead of 600 then bowling them out for 200, when you can just bowl them out for 250 then bat for long enough to win.
Given the conditions, England would bat long enough to put Australia out, enhancing the draw, as really if you bat for too long you need the other team to have a sniff to win the game. Here, they will get bowled out regardless, then Aus will have all the time in the world to chase the target. It will be too high still, but a ridiculous strategy.
Better option is to send them in again. Bowl them out under 300 and you need to chase SFA to win. Much more humiliating for a team to be beaten at the start of the 4th day than into the 5th day by plenty of runs.
If England get bowled out for under 200, what have they really done? The result would be the same, but they have made themselves look a bit silly in doing it.
draw the game. Nothing negative about that.
Enforce the follow on, they pretty much guarantee a win. Don't and you give up some of your hard work.
Should have gone to specsavers
Imagine if they had batted again and clocked up a perfectly feasible 450 on this still-good wicket against some tiring bowlers.
England would then be chasing a nasty 220 to win towards the end of the Test. Psychologically, the whole game would have changed from England batting as steadily as they want under no pressure, to England trying to get over the line under the most extreme pressure. Australia's bowlers would have also enjoyed a long, long rest prior to that England chase.
Furthermore, England's toss advantage would had been completely reversed, so they ludicrously end up batting last on a deteriorating pitch whilst trying to chase a target!
We are seeing less and less follow-ons nowadays and I can see why. With the game played at a quicker pace than before, your overwhelming advantage can easily be lost and you can end up with a high-pressure chase against rested bowlers on a dismal pitch. Unless you have bowled a team out for virtually nothing, or you are severely out of time, you simply HAVE to bat again.
There's no other decision to be made here.
the only way australia could win this game is to enforce the follow on
knacker their bowlers
rest england bowlers (after short turn around and Jimmy bowling a very long spell)
completely demoralise aussies
give England plenty of batting practice
ffs why would you enforce follow on
I notice on Sky the 2 advocates of the follow on are an Australian and a West Indian
Apart from the fact that Aus bowling is better than England. Australia only need to click with the bat and England do themselves in.
Enforce the follow on, they pretty much guarantee a win. Don't and you give up some of your hard work.
It seems you make a compelling case for not enforcing the follow on and then undo your logic by saying that enforcing the follow on guarantee's the win. If your logic is right that the Aus bowling is better than England's then they only needed to click with the bat to give themselves a real chance in the game had they been asked to follow on. If they are now capable of scoring 500 on a wearing pitch in the last innings it still won't be enough. Had they got 500 after having the follow on forced on them then the pressure would have all been on England and they could have come up short. Especially seeing as in your view Australia have the better bowling attack.
Jul 20, 2013 -- 3:06PM, judorick wrote:
AUS bowling is better than England? err, ok then
Before the start of this test:
Aus top 4:
Pattinson
Ave 24.55
SR 45.2
Harris
Ave 23.63
SR 49.1
Watson
Ave 30.35
SR 64.8
Siddle
Ave 28.23
SR 56.5
Eng top 4:
Anderson
Ave 29.69
SR 57.7
Broad
Ave 30.94
SR 60.5
Bresnan
Ave 32.54
SR 65.8
Swann
Ave 28.72
SR 59.2
Your best bowler Anderson, has gives away more runs than our top 3, and takes a wicket slower than our top 3. Our top 3 has better stats than your best bowler.
So yes. Australian bowling is better.
I guess unless you are measuring them through something other than how well they bowl..... 
Jul 21, 2013 -- 1:21AM, Eeternaloptimist wrote:
BJTApart from the fact that Aus bowling is better than England. Australia only need to click with the bat and England do themselves in.Enforce the follow on, they pretty much guarantee a win. Don't and you give up some of your hard work. It seems you make a compelling case for not enforcing the follow on and then undo your logic by saying that enforcing the follow on guarantee's the win. If your logic is right that the Aus bowling is better than England's then they only needed to click with the bat to give themselves a real chance in the game had they been asked to follow on. If they are now capable of scoring 500 on a wearing pitch in the last innings it still won't be enough. Had they got 500 after having the follow on forced on them then the pressure would have all been on England and they could have come up short. Especially seeing as in your view Australia have the better bowling attack.
There is a difference between an innings where you know what you have to do, and one where you are just trying to do enough and cover all scenarios.
That is what England are doing. Trying to bat Australia out of the game.
By doing that you create further scenarios. When do you declare? How much is enough? Are there enough overs left to bowl them out? Are there enough overs left for them to score the total?
By batting, and putting a decent score on the board, you then have to bat longer, as you are showing that scoring on the ground is still possible. I don't believe the score yesterday was a fair reflection of how the pitch played, as the field was defensive, and the bowling was questionable. Baffles me why Smith wasn't bowling all day in the foot marks around the wicket for example. That is the point of a leg spinner. But still, they are scoring easily, and at a pretty good rate now.
Yes, Australia is unlikely to put it together this innings. But you still have players capable of chasing a score. Clarke for example, averages over 50, with a top score of 329 not out. Right hander, who won't have to worry about the foot holes for Swann. Rogers has proved he is solid and can easily tie up an end for 50 overs, 100 overs if need be.
Australia were coming off the back of a demoralising 128 all out. Was questions of unity with individual players. Put them in, back yourself to bowl them out again. Then, you take out all scenarios, as you know how many you need, and how long you have to get them. You only need to score 1 more than required, rather than a potential 300 more than is required by not enforcing.
The state of Australian batting right now says England very likely to win either way, given the time left. But as is said by everybody on here, Cook is a very defensive captain, and will bat for as long as it takes to not allow Australia to win. That isn't a winning strategy, that is a not losing strategy.
Big difference between playing to win, and playing to not lose.
Look at Australia at their peak. They won around 75% of tests they played. Really unheard of. Sure they lost a few along the way, but that is a byproduct of playing to win. Sometimes you will lose. To play to win, means you are opening up the game for a result. You will win a lot more often doing that, than trying to make it so the other team doesn't win.
Take a look at the last test. It wasn't a case of declarations, but nobody gave Aus a hope, because of history with other 4th innings scores. Apparantly would have needed a record 4th innings to win, so everybody wrote them off. But nobody takes into account overs left.
History shows that the highest 4th innings chase to win a test match is around 417 runs?. Top 20 goes down into the 300s.
So is 500 enough based on that? 600? Just because it has never been done before?
Well I look at the fact that alot of those games ended with 3 wickets down. Puts a completely different spin on it. 3/417 to win in the 4th innings easily shows a capable chase of 650-700. WI 1/369 to win. Could they have chased 500 given the overs?
Right now there is about 180 overs left. No doubt England will declare around half way through the first session. The double century no doubt the target. Leaves around 170 overs left, to score 600. Very unlikely yes, but still possible. Also still possible to bat it out. See off the new ball, and what is the danger? Swann bowling to the left handers? Well, not so much if they aren't trying to score.
But then what happens if Root scores slowly? What happens if Bairstow takes the strike and scores the runs. If he is on 35, do they then wait for him to score his half century? What if he scores 78 before Root gets his double ton. Would they then need to wait for him to get his century? Root might be closing in on 250 by then, so what, still wait?
The nice guy defensive strategy may win you games, but it also opens up chances for it to bite you on the ass. Very unlikely this test, but hey, Swann to the left handers trying to score is the best chance for wickets. Take away the need to score, and England have shown you can bat this out.
Australia had 1 day in the field and were buggered. If Aus put up a wall, what will happen bowling into the second day?
Fcuk that. Bowled them out for 128? Go back in and try again you mugs is the attitude that will win you plenty more tests than doing it this way.
Spot on rob - Joe was one eyed in the extreme but he was good humoured and entertaining - BJT is a typical convict - devoid of charm.
20 Jul 13 14:34
Joined:
30 Oct 04
| Topic/replies: 7,735 | Blogger: BJT's blog
Apart from the fact that Aus bowling is better than England. Australia only need to click with the bat and England do themselves in.
Enforce the follow on, they pretty much guarantee a win. Don't and you give up some of your hard work.
BJT- you typing from Oz or are you up here standing on your head?
Either way your seeing the world upside down and ar se about face
But the figures tend to leave me feeling that the original view I expressed had more validity than some gave me credit for . Scenarios posted by some just dont have any validity in factual or statistical terms as evidenced by what happened on the field .
Enforcing the follow on or not , the public have been left with the inescapable impression that Australia are below par , and that England will beat them easily most times . What that does to the perception of the series as a contest is open to speculation , and unless the Aussies rediscover some vestige of ability to compete ( having lost 6 Tests in a row) this series is only going one way . Particuarly if Cook and Pieterson bat a bit better than they did this time .
there was never any chance they were going to enforce the follow on with 3 days play left and no amount of whining that you were right is gonna change that fact
everything they did they did for a reason, they knew how they wanted it to go and it went exactly as they planned it, no effort was wasted, they always planned to bowl on the 4th and possibly 5th day and had Aussie batted better first innings then they would have been batting tomorrow
this series is only going one way, England have not even played well yet and are 2-0
Winning is best when you do it in style , if England had enforced the follow on , bowled Australia out and had only to score 2 on the third day that would have been style . Cant believe any person could argue against that . You obviously have different criteria than I apply .
We are both posting post match and with hindsight, of course.
The reality is regardless of Cooks' decision the win was inevitable. I think you are alluding to dis-heartening the Aussies by enforcing the follow on and then taking the pish for an easy win.
I'd counter that with the fact that after two Tests England have been in the field for 320 overs and Australia for 579. Whilst an enforced follow on (and victory) may have mentally effected the opposition, by not following on they have achieved that and so much more physically.
Maybe if England had racked up 600 and bowled the Aussies out in 18 overs and there was a dodgy weather forecast they may have enforced the follow on but they won and won easily with a margin of victory probably greater than if they had enforced a follow on
Anyway at the end of the day it is a spectator sport and 30000 Day 4 ticket holders would much rather have enjoyed a full days play rather than getting their money back because the game was finished in 3 days
Jul 22, 2013 -- 10:55AM, toffee87 wrote:
BJT - they were always going to win but they took away the possibility (however small) of losing - they did it with a day to spare don't forgetMaybe if England had racked up 600 and bowled the Aussies out in 18 overs and there was a dodgy weather forecast they may have enforced the follow on but they won and won easily with a margin of victory probably greater than if they had enforced a follow onAnyway at the end of the day it is a spectator sport and 30000 Day 4 ticket holders would much rather have enjoyed a full days play rather than getting their money back because the game was finished in 3 days
Your first line sums it up really....
BJT - they were always going to win but they took away the possibility (however small) of losing - they did it with a day to spare don't forget
If they were always going to win, then they didn't at all take away the possibility of losing.
A day to spare? And? How does that confirm it was the best choice? If they used the follow on and bowled them out for sub 200, then they could have won by an innings, or 10 wickets, on the 3rd day. A little more impressive I would think than a 350 run win.
And really, the test will be remembered for Australia getting bent over hard by the umpires, not by England.
with the rubbish you are posting you would collapse with laughter - which is what we are doing.
...spot on Capt Wurzel. You would have thought the forum clown would have taken a few takes off after his comical efforts other the last few days.Shame his countries cricketers don't share his work ethic
Jul 22, 2013 -- 11:39AM, Captain Wurzel wrote:
This brings clutching at straws to a new level BJT. If England had been pulverized in this manner and an England supporter came on herewith the rubbish you are posting you would collapse with laughter - which is what we are doing.
What does who I support have to do with anything?
I stated an opinion on the follow on and when it should be used. You create a lot in your head about what you are laughing about, so maybe thank yourself. Nothing funny in stating that enforcing the follow on would have been a more impressive victory.
http://tinyurl.com/m8kfyth
He mentions the shock of the 2001 Calcutta Test - when Australia had India on the ropes before watching Laxman and Dravid literally bat all day (335-0) - as a turning point.
It was for Steve Waugh who was dead set against enforcing the follow-on subsequently, and even more so for his successor Ricky Ponting who always wanted to bat again. England's Andrew Strauss was of similar mind. It may be no coincidence that all three had the use of two quality 4th/5th day spinners in Warne and Swann.
In the modern game, the follow-on is becoming an anachronism - it's purely a lack of time and/or bad-weather play. It's hardly ever enforced. As for Lord's, no captain on Earth would have put Australia in to bat again.
Jul 21, 2013 -- 4:05AM, BJT wrote:
Jul 20, 2013 -- 3:06PM, judorick wrote:AUS bowling is better than England? err, ok thenBefore the start of this test:Aus top 4:PattinsonAve 24.55SR 45.2HarrisAve 23.63SR 49.1WatsonAve 30.35SR 64.8SiddleAve 28.23SR 56.5Eng top 4:AndersonAve 29.69 SR 57.7BroadAve 30.94SR 60.5BresnanAve 32.54SR 65.8SwannAve 28.72SR 59.2Your best bowler Anderson, has gives away more runs than our top 3, and takes a wicket slower than our top 3. Our top 3 has better stats than your best bowler.So yes. Australian bowling is better.I guess unless you are measuring them through something other than how well they bowl.....
But what about these statistics:
Pattinson, Harris, Siddle, Watson have 325 Test wickets in 111 matches which equals an average of 2.93 per bowler, per Test.
Anderson, Broad, Swann and Bresnan have 815 Test wickets in 216 matches which equals an average of 3.77 per bowler, per Test.
England clearly have the most penetrative attack. This was borne out at Lord's.
that's what Border or Waugh would have done in that situation-kick your opposition when they are down
the follow-on is outdated in the modern game where sides score at four an over you don't need to enforce it and there's always the possibility that it can lead to a unneccessary shock defeat if the side following on makes a decent fist of it second time around and set you 200 to win on the last day
better to let your bowlers put their feet up while your batsman make hay again
Plus , no matter how much you may choose to ignore it as poppycock , there are those in the background ( bean counters probably ) who want test matches to last as long as possible , revenue generators . Their advice will always be , bat again . Simple logic , and cannot be dismissed as a trivial comment . Some posters on here indicated their thoughts on being delighted the match was certain to go on until the 4th day . Nothing inherently wrong in elongating the match , satisfies spectators and the all encompassing TV audience plus advertisers , ice cream men , lunch sellers , bar staff etc etc . Watching ( or not watching as it happened due to the Open ) a team dying by slow strangulation may suit some , not my cup of tea , I like competitive sport . Prolonging a requiem is pretty boring .
Like someone else posted , commercial decision factors are relevant , and increasingly the bean counters pull the strings , not the sportsmen / players . No big plot here to rubbish England or their captain , just an observation regarding different modes of conduct in a changed world . England captains of the past (pre commercial interests) would probably have enforced the follow on and won in style , not slowly and fairly meaninglessly sportswise . Thank goodness it didn't go on until the 5th day , small mercies , but pretty close ( 3 balls only left I think ) .
Wouldn't have been my decision but Australian weakness gives Cook carte blanche...
It appears that you are not a true cricket aficionado.
If you seriously think that the England cricket captain would contemplate worrying about an ice cream seller's livelihood when he's busy bashing the Aussies in an Ashes test, then you need to think again.
Cook was correct in not enforcing the follow on. On that wicket, the Aussies may well have scored a decent second innings total. The wicket deteriorated to the extent that Swann had a significant impact on day 4, without doubt, a far more significant impact than he would have done if they had batted again after their first innings.
England stuffed them good and proper, with a day to spare. If that is not your "cup of tea", then stick to other sports.
I missed most of it, as I was at Muirfield, but a few of the barmy army/golf fans were dishing it out to Adam Scott, which was more than acceptable.
How you can question the strategy of a team who win by +300 runs with a day to spare is completely laughable.
Jul 22, 2013 -- 4:13PM, Busvaldo wrote:
An Australian Captain wouldn't have made that decision but with England so far in front of the game timewise they thought it was a luxury that could be afforded.Wouldn't have been my decision but Australian weakness gives Cook carte blanche...
No.
The last three Australian captains - Waugh, Ponting and Clarke - would have made exactly the same decision and have a history of doing just that (Clarke v India in 2011, v SA in 2012).
The follow-on is a non-starter in Test cricket nowadays. And that's why captains from ALL countries hardly ever use it.
Jul 22, 2013 -- 2:56PM, betlarge wrote:
Jul 21, 2013 -- 4:05AM, BJT wrote:Jul 20, 2013 -- 3:06PM, judorick wrote:AUS bowling is better than England? err, ok thenBefore the start of this test:Aus top 4:PattinsonAve 24.55SR 45.2HarrisAve 23.63SR 49.1WatsonAve 30.35SR 64.8SiddleAve 28.23SR 56.5Eng top 4:AndersonAve 29.69 SR 57.7BroadAve 30.94SR 60.5BresnanAve 32.54SR 65.8SwannAve 28.72SR 59.2Your best bowler Anderson, has gives away more runs than our top 3, and takes a wicket slower than our top 3. Our top 3 has better stats than your best bowler.So yes. Australian bowling is better.I guess unless you are measuring them through something other than how well they bowl..... But what about these statistics:Pattinson, Harris, Siddle, Watson have 325 Test wickets in 111 matches which equals an average of 2.93 per bowler, per Test.Anderson, Broad, Swann and Bresnan have 815 Test wickets in 216 matches which equals an average of 3.77 per bowler, per Test.England clearly have the most penetrative attack. This was borne out at Lord's.
What a ridiculous statistic. Hard to judge whether you are even serious or not.
111 matches?
Pattinson has played 12 matches. How does he get in an average in 111 matches? 4 bowlers, try looking at 48 matches.
Harris, 13 matches. How does he get in an average in 111 matches? 4 bowlers, try looking at 52 matches.
Watson and Siddle both have over 40 matches.
So basically, what you have done, is combine all played test matches, called them even, averaged them out, and come out with a statistic.
????
Seriously?
Please tell me you are actually old enough to post on this site?
Give you a hint. When 2 bowlers aren't even playing for more than half the tests, the average for the 4 of them will go down......
Here is a clue for you. If you take Harris and Pattinson, for their whole career, then compare with Anderson for the same number of innings, Anderson looks like he has been playing second rate cricket.
In his last 24 innings, Anderson has been averaging around 26 per wicket, whereas Harris is around 22.5 per wicket. Pattinson is around the same as Anderson.
The basic theme of your post, is that Anderson, Swann, Broad, and Bresnan, have taken more wickets than Siddle and Watson(5th bowler).... 4 players have taken more wickets than 2 bowlers?
WOW. A FCUKING MENSA MEMBER IF EVER I HAVE SEEN ONE...........
You fcuking git.
Go team England. Glad you have this assclown on your side... Although tbh, he probably makes more sense than most of you...
rotflmfao...
Yes, that's precisely what I have done. All I was trying to express was the inexperience of the Australian attack as opposed to England's by using the fours bowlers you named as a group. That's all.
I genuinely apologise if it's upset you, I was just trying to demonstrate a point about Test experience.
Again, apologies.
Sorry, I don't post on here much so I didn't realise that you hurled abuse randomly at everyone. I was worried I was driving someone to suicide...!
Anyway, if you think averages and strike-rates are what counts then fair enough. Personally I believe in wickets.
Sometimes averages and strike-rates paint a completely false picture (not least down to small sample sizes):
Pattinson
Ave 24.55
SR 45.2
Harris
Ave 23.63
SR 49.1
both clearly better than:
Brett Lee
Ave 30.81
SR 53.30
Jul 23, 2013 -- 5:53PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:
You're wasting your time betlarge - he's in a mega seethe and is not amenable to reasoned argument.
OK thanks for the heads up. It seems the guy hurls unpleasant insults and abuse to everyone he converses with, which is pretty indicative of some fairly severe mental health problems (hence my initial profuse apologies - I thought he was becoming completely unbalanced). It's classic depressive behaviour, I know that much.
I honestly hope he gets well soon, but I only come on here for the occasional polite debate and I don't want to read a lot of foul-mouthed invective from anyone so I've just blocked him, which is for the best. First person I've ever blocked on the internet!
Jul 23, 2013 -- 11:05PM, betlarge wrote:
Jul 23, 2013 -- 5:53PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:You're wasting your time betlarge - he's in a mega seethe and is not amenable to reasoned argument.OK thanks for the heads up. It seems the guy hurls unpleasant insults and abuse to everyone he converses with, which is pretty indicative of some fairly severe mental health problems (hence my initial profuse apologies - I thought he was becoming completely unbalanced). It's classic depressive behaviour, I know that much.I honestly hope he gets well soon, but I only come on here for the occasional polite debate and I don't want to read a lot of foul-mouthed invective from anyone so I've just blocked him, which is for the best. First person I've ever blocked on the internet!
lol. If that wasn't just a big random attempt at an insult, then I am not sure what is.
When you come on to join the mob and post absolutely ridiculous statements to try to show me up, then you get what is coming to you.
Brett Lee? Yes you are correct. Both bowlers have been much more effective than Brett Lee.
Ryan Harris for example, best figures of 6/47 for an innings in 13 test matches. Lee could only manage 5/30 in 76 matches. Lee best match total of 9/171, whereas Harris 9/106.
Harris goes for .8 runs per over less than Lee. Takes a wicket 1/9 overs quicker than Lee, has better innings bests, and better match bests.
His average is also now 22.48, compared with Brett Lee average of 30.81.
Quite obvious Harris is a much better bowler than Lee.
Fluke at Tests?
21 ODIs, Harris averages 18.9, getting a wicket every 23.4 deliveries.
Anderson? averages 29.11 getting a wicket every 35.1 deliveries.
T20?
Harris averages 21.93, getting a wicket every 17.7 balls.
Anderson averages 32.16 getting a wicket every 23.1 balls.
He also makes more runs than Anderson, and makes them quicker.
To give you the stats that you were meant to post:
Average wickets per test (2 innings):
Harris 4.5 in 35.8 overs for 101.17 runs.
Watson 1.97 in 21.7 overs for 61 runs.
Siddle 4.13 in 39.3 overs for 118 runs.
Pattinson 4.48 in 36.11 overs for 118.29 runs.
Lyon (to be used later) 3.62 in 38.41 overs for 120.1 runs.
They average 3.77 wickets and 33.23 overs per bowler.
England
Anderson 4.13 wickets in 39.78 overs for 122.5 runs.
Broad 3.75 wickets in 38.31 overs for 117.11 runs.
Bresnan 3.7 wickets in 39.18 overs for 115.94 runs.
Swann 4.85 wickets in 47.1 overs for 136.37 runs.
They average 4.11 wickets and 41.08 overs.
Per innings.
Based on averages, you would expect these 4 bowlers to take per innings
England
8.215 wickets for 245.96 runs, taking 82.16 overs to do so.
Australia
7.54 wickets for 199.23 runs, taking 66.46 overs to do so.
And Watson is an allrounder, not a bowler. He plays as our 5th bowler.
To compare your 1,2,3,4 bowler with our 1,2,3,5 bowler
England take .675 wickets more per innings, for the cost of 46.73 runs and 15.7 overs.
Can't really use Agar since only playing 2 tests.
So with Lyon, who should be playing next match.
First 3 bowlers with first spinner:
England
8.215 wickets for 245.96 runs, taking 82.16 overs to do so.
Australia
8.365 wickets for 228.78 runs, taking 74.81 overs to do so.
To suggest the English bowling is better, is simply ridiculous. And this with our 5th bowler with stats better than your 2nd and 3rd pace bowler to also chime in.
Jul 24, 2013 -- 3:58AM, BJT wrote:
Jul 23, 2013 -- 11:05PM, betlarge wrote:Jul 23, 2013 -- 5:53PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:You're wasting your time betlarge - he's in a mega seethe and is not amenable to reasoned argument.OK thanks for the heads up. It seems the guy hurls unpleasant insults and abuse to everyone he converses with, which is pretty indicative of some fairly severe mental health problems (hence my initial profuse apologies - I thought he was becoming completely unbalanced). It's classic depressive behaviour, I know that much.I honestly hope he gets well soon, but I only come on here for the occasional polite debate and I don't want to read a lot of foul-mouthed invective from anyone so I've just blocked him, which is for the best. First person I've ever blocked on the internet!lol. If that wasn't just a big random attempt at an insult, then I am not sure what is.When you come on to join the mob and post absolutely ridiculous statements to try to show me up, then you get what is coming to you.Brett Lee? Yes you are correct. Both bowlers have been much more effective than Brett Lee.Ryan Harris for example, best figures of 6/47 for an innings in 13 test matches. Lee could only manage 5/30 in 76 matches. Lee best match total of 9/171, whereas Harris 9/106.Harris goes for .8 runs per over less than Lee. Takes a wicket 1/9 overs quicker than Lee, has better innings bests, and better match bests.His average is also now 22.48, compared with Brett Lee average of 30.81.Quite obvious Harris is a much better bowler than Lee.Fluke at Tests?21 ODIs, Harris averages 18.9, getting a wicket every 23.4 deliveries.Anderson? averages 29.11 getting a wicket every 35.1 deliveries.T20?Harris averages 21.93, getting a wicket every 17.7 balls.Anderson averages 32.16 getting a wicket every 23.1 balls.He also makes more runs than Anderson, and makes them quicker.To give you the stats that you were meant to post:Average wickets per test (2 innings):Harris 4.5 in 35.8 overs for 101.17 runs.Watson 1.97 in 21.7 overs for 61 runs.Siddle 4.13 in 39.3 overs for 118 runs.Pattinson 4.48 in 36.11 overs for 118.29 runs.Lyon (to be used later) 3.62 in 38.41 overs for 120.1 runs.They average 3.77 wickets and 33.23 overs per bowler.EnglandAnderson 4.13 wickets in 39.78 overs for 122.5 runs.Broad 3.75 wickets in 38.31 overs for 117.11 runs.Bresnan 3.7 wickets in 39.18 overs for 115.94 runs.Swann 4.85 wickets in 47.1 overs for 136.37 runs.They average 4.11 wickets and 41.08 overs.Per innings.Based on averages, you would expect these 4 bowlers to take per inningsEngland8.215 wickets for 245.96 runs, taking 82.16 overs to do so.Australia7.54 wickets for 199.23 runs, taking 66.46 overs to do so.And Watson is an allrounder, not a bowler. He plays as our 5th bowler.To compare your 1,2,3,4 bowler with our 1,2,3,5 bowlerEngland take .675 wickets more per innings, for the cost of 46.73 runs and 15.7 overs.Can't really use Agar since only playing 2 tests. So with Lyon, who should be playing next match.First 3 bowlers with first spinner:England8.215 wickets for 245.96 runs, taking 82.16 overs to do so.Australia8.365 wickets for 228.78 runs, taking 74.81 overs to do so.To suggest the English bowling is better, is simply ridiculous. And this with our 5th bowler with stats better than your 2nd and 3rd pace bowler to also chime in.
Big mouth, tiny brain
Jul 24, 2013 -- 10:07PM, scliffor wrote:
Harris is undoubtedly a fine bowler but unfortunately his injury issues mean that he is unlikely to have a significant impact over a five match series (doubt he'll play both of the back to back games at OT and Durham, and that's probably why he didn't play at Trent Bridge). That has to be allowed for in any comparison with the England bowlers.
Of course. But this is in response to people that are saying England are far superior to Australia in every aspect. It is simply ridiculous. Aus have failed with the bat. England haven't done anything with the bat to suggest a far superior batting lineup. If they were much better batters and much better bowlers, then they would have taken our bowlers apart. They really didn't. They have scored 1300 runs for the loss of 37 wickets, and that is boosted by 1 days play. But still not much difference than what you would expect. 375 biggest innings in 4 innings. Certainly nothing to write home about.
The only real question is the spinner. Hesitant to use him in the stats as this is all he has played.
I am sure if you line up the stats for the current 2 test matches, there isn't much difference. England obviously will have the better of it, as their batsmen haven't failed as miserably as ours.
Starc/Harris combined averaging under 20 and under 47 balls per. Siddle, 25 at 49.55 balls per.
Pattinson failed with 44.3 ave but still outperforming Broad who is taking more than 15 overs just to take a wicket.
Our batsmen have been pathetic so far. But really, anybody who says England have it all over us in every area, really needs their head read. And let's not forget, Eng have won the toss for both tests so far and had the best of the conditions, and still only won the first test off the back of Broad not being given out.
Anderson very impressive series to date, Swann not too bad, but used plenty of overs. Still only averaging 22 per and taking 9 overs per wicket even though leading the wickets, that with being gifted wickets from the umps.
I understand it is too difficult for you Poms to understand that by saying our batsmen are siht, that getting them out doesn't make your bowlers good, but that is the reality.
You boys really need to front up with some money though. All these opinions of sure things, and the market really doesn't suggest any of you have even had a bet.
I cant help noticing that you have conveniently left out the all-rounder stats comparision
Watson batting average 27.25 bowling average 88
Root batting average 55.25 bowling average 5!
Jul 26, 2013 -- 11:08AM, aston wrote:
BJTI cant help noticing that you have conveniently left out the all-rounder stats comparisionWatson batting average 27.25 bowling average 88Root batting average 55.25 bowling average 5!
Yes very convenient of me leaving out a guy that took his first wicket last test match out as an allrounder....
