Pedro Delgado
International Debutant
Flounce rating: 3/10Turbinator said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
First West Indies, then Australia....who next?
- Thread starter Turbinator
- Start date
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Difficult to say who will dominate after Australia's current crop are done.
It seems, though, that there have really been 2 teams which have dominated since the late-60s/ early 70s, namely WI & Australia, subject to some other shorter term sies who wree very good like England 1970-72.
SA were very good late 60s but of course were rubbed out. Their side was a terrific one with the Pollocks, Ali Bacher, Barry Richards (for all of 4 tests), Eddie Barlow, etc.
In the same era, WI were very good then came the Chappell era, CLive Lloyd/ Viv Richards era, then Taylor/ S. Waugh.
England have the younger players capable of coming on, but much depends on how their record continues to progress away from home. The dominance of WI in the 70s & 80s away from home and that of Aust. in late 90s but especially in early 2000s is really what set them apart for mine.
To dominate away form home, you must have a truly fine attack. One which can adapt well enough to take 20 wickets in different conditions. That was what made Warne so important to Australia's current era - he provided the variation and could pretty well bowl on all surfaces. McGrath, of course, is useful as well to say the least.
If England are to reach these heights, Harmison must learn to overcome the problems he often (but not always) has away from home. He can be a devastating bowler but has been known to lose the plot in his action from time to time. On his day very hostile though.
Flintoff is a fine cricketer, but his biggest influence must be with the ball when away form home. It will be interesting to see how he and guys like Mahmood develop when conditions are more hostile to their type of bowling. Being able to adapt is the key to success away from home.
Pakistan at full strength also have the right to stake a claim to the next big things title. Unfortunately, we have said that several times before and it remainse to be seen whether the powers that be in Pakistani cricket can get ht emost out of these younger players so that their performances measure up. Based on what happened in England once they got a few of their bowlers back, the signs wree pretty good for them. India a little too uncertain int eh fast bowling ransk at the moment, though imo Pathan has the ability to be one of the best all round cricketers seen in decades. Can be very impressive.
The rest will have hteir ups and downs, but at the moment it seems they will not perhaps be consistent enough with their current crops of players to warrant being considered at this time.
It seems, though, that there have really been 2 teams which have dominated since the late-60s/ early 70s, namely WI & Australia, subject to some other shorter term sies who wree very good like England 1970-72.
SA were very good late 60s but of course were rubbed out. Their side was a terrific one with the Pollocks, Ali Bacher, Barry Richards (for all of 4 tests), Eddie Barlow, etc.
In the same era, WI were very good then came the Chappell era, CLive Lloyd/ Viv Richards era, then Taylor/ S. Waugh.
England have the younger players capable of coming on, but much depends on how their record continues to progress away from home. The dominance of WI in the 70s & 80s away from home and that of Aust. in late 90s but especially in early 2000s is really what set them apart for mine.
To dominate away form home, you must have a truly fine attack. One which can adapt well enough to take 20 wickets in different conditions. That was what made Warne so important to Australia's current era - he provided the variation and could pretty well bowl on all surfaces. McGrath, of course, is useful as well to say the least.
If England are to reach these heights, Harmison must learn to overcome the problems he often (but not always) has away from home. He can be a devastating bowler but has been known to lose the plot in his action from time to time. On his day very hostile though.
Flintoff is a fine cricketer, but his biggest influence must be with the ball when away form home. It will be interesting to see how he and guys like Mahmood develop when conditions are more hostile to their type of bowling. Being able to adapt is the key to success away from home.
Pakistan at full strength also have the right to stake a claim to the next big things title. Unfortunately, we have said that several times before and it remainse to be seen whether the powers that be in Pakistani cricket can get ht emost out of these younger players so that their performances measure up. Based on what happened in England once they got a few of their bowlers back, the signs wree pretty good for them. India a little too uncertain int eh fast bowling ransk at the moment, though imo Pathan has the ability to be one of the best all round cricketers seen in decades. Can be very impressive.
The rest will have hteir ups and downs, but at the moment it seems they will not perhaps be consistent enough with their current crops of players to warrant being considered at this time.
Flem274*
123/5
New Zealand of course!!
Geez Turbs is alot nicer now than he was back then. I think I would have felt an urge to shoot him if I'd been around back then.
Ya thread dig because A) I'm bored and B) a hell of alot of players are/have retired recently or are about to. The change of the guard for many teams will be quite exciting IMO.
Geez Turbs is alot nicer now than he was back then. I think I would have felt an urge to shoot him if I'd been around back then.
Ya thread dig because A) I'm bored and B) a hell of alot of players are/have retired recently or are about to. The change of the guard for many teams will be quite exciting IMO.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
First West Indies, then Australia.........who next?
Chennai Super Kings, of course...
Also, good call by Turb on India's tour to England...
Chennai Super Kings, of course...
Also, good call by Turb on India's tour to England...
whitedazzler
School Boy/Girl Captain
new zealand, the black caps . . . . **** who am i kidding, we suck. would have to say india then
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
The next side that has at least two world-class reverse swingers to call on will be the next force in cricket. With Murali on the over and out and Kumble unlikely to hold out till 2010, spin is in another funk. We're fast approaching a situation where the foremost attacking spinner in the world is Harris or Panesar. Who'll develop in time, sure. But what's been the elixir of victory in the here and now, and proven to be more than just the tactic du jour, is how consistently reverse swing is applied in all conditions. It's unique in the way that it bypasses the obstacle of flat decks - as witnessed on the otherwise-featherbeds of Ashes 2005 (the scoring rate speaks for itself).
Naturally, it's going to be next to impossible to do it in Australian conditions with sunny skies and Kookaburra cherries. Which is why they shouldn't lose at home, with the batting depth they have, in the foreseeable future for my money. The only causes for consternation for them on home soil since 1992/93 have been Kumble and sporadically Donald/Pollock, none who've been great swingers but have stood out as anomalies in their teams becasue of their all-time skill in their chosen discipline. What distinguishes them from the English side that bested Australia in 2005 is that their styles are propietary to them alone. Reverse swing, while a hard taskmaster, has proven to be the most thoroughly teachable weapon in world cricket, with Cooley being able to school an entire bowling unit in the nefarious art. Ergo, it's fairly possible to envisage reverse swingers emerging fairly regularly in world cricket, at least compared to the Kumbles, Donalds and Pollocks of this earthly plane. It's how early they're recognised as a matchwinning tool - and what other pace-bowling tools they tote as well - that will be the clincher to forging a matchwinning attack.
The only issue is how to work it in Australia - and Australia, record notwithstanding, will remain world champions till they're done over in their backyard. And only then.
Naturally, it's going to be next to impossible to do it in Australian conditions with sunny skies and Kookaburra cherries. Which is why they shouldn't lose at home, with the batting depth they have, in the foreseeable future for my money. The only causes for consternation for them on home soil since 1992/93 have been Kumble and sporadically Donald/Pollock, none who've been great swingers but have stood out as anomalies in their teams becasue of their all-time skill in their chosen discipline. What distinguishes them from the English side that bested Australia in 2005 is that their styles are propietary to them alone. Reverse swing, while a hard taskmaster, has proven to be the most thoroughly teachable weapon in world cricket, with Cooley being able to school an entire bowling unit in the nefarious art. Ergo, it's fairly possible to envisage reverse swingers emerging fairly regularly in world cricket, at least compared to the Kumbles, Donalds and Pollocks of this earthly plane. It's how early they're recognised as a matchwinning tool - and what other pace-bowling tools they tote as well - that will be the clincher to forging a matchwinning attack.
The only issue is how to work it in Australia - and Australia, record notwithstanding, will remain world champions till they're done over in their backyard. And only then.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
There's rather a lot of myth attached to that. It's known beyond doubt that Cooley, while a huge influence on Simon Jones, had no part whatsoever in his learning of the skills of reverse-swing. Cooley first worked with English players in 2003. Simon Jones acquired the skill in 2001/02, though it did not register with a wider audience until the famous spell to Brendon McCullum at Lord's in 2004.
Harmison obviously was never capable of bowling reverse-swing, and Hoggard has only ever done it very modestly - mostly after Cooley's departure. Of all the bowlers who he worked with, Cooley probably had least influence on Hoggard - Hoggard is a bowler who does not expressly need a coach.
Flintoff, too, first learnt to bowl the thing long before he met Cooley, despite the fact that Cooley helped him enormously. The first I noticed Flintoff bowling reverse-swing was in 2002 (again at Lord's, funnily enough). He may well have bowled it even before this, too.
I'm not, BTW, suggesting reverse-swing isn't a teachable art. But you need the right type of bowlers. Martin Crowe and Mark Greatbatch, notable seamers neither, can and did in 1990/91 bowl it in the nets in Pakistan. But it won't become a notable weapon for every bowler, even those who can ally to it speed and accuracy.
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
Hershey's or Wrigleys?Mints were the biggest influence in 2005.
You know it. I know it. They know it.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah. The skill of the bowlers is more important than what's used to get the ball into the right condition.Mints were the biggest influence in 2005.
You know it. I know it. They know it.
In any case, as I've said to you so many times TBH, the use of mints is good, not bad. If something helps the ball swing, it's only good for the game.
sudhindra9
School Boy/Girl Captain
ENGLAND will dominate they hav got some good [players live Adil rashid etc
Debris
International 12th Man
The one thing that all the truly great sides have in common is an absolutely dominant bowling attack. Batsmen do not win you matches, bowlers do.
I have not seen any evidence of a great bowling attack emerging as yet. Australia still seem closest to the mark at the moment (whatever happened to England's bowling anyway?).
I have not seen any evidence of a great bowling attack emerging as yet. Australia still seem closest to the mark at the moment (whatever happened to England's bowling anyway?).
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
If this post wasn't so long I'd sig it. I've always found the Aseem Sharma - Manan Shah relationship hilarious, along with the former's old horrific posting style. And this perfectly encapsulates both.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
They got injured, weren't that good ITFP and were just benefiting from the good bowling of others, or both. And the likes of Sajid Mahmood, one of the worst bowlers ever to play Test cricket, was picked to replace them instead of several much better candidates. Along with several others who were almost as bad - like Liam Plunkett and Ian Blackwell.
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
ADR, but that is majorly, majorly out of line. That's ball-tampering you're condoning. If you allow mints, where's the precedent to forbid bottle-tops and the like?
In any case, the fact you're mitigating the crime under the guise of giving the bowlers some redress seems like you really think mints were in play in 2005.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
They were. I challenge you to bring in a non-ridiculous law that stops mints from being sucked on the cricket field. Or anything else being consumed through the course of the day that might help. Something you eat is completely different to an implement which you use to deform a ball, such as a knife or bottle-top.
In any case, I've always (as most people on CW know) been wholly dubious about how ball-tampering is defined - there's no way IMO to differentiate between "shining" and "tampering". Personally I'm more than happy for pretty much anything to be used on the ball, if it helps the bowlers swing it - I myself find suncream mixed with sweat gets a far better shine than sweat alone, so I use that. And I challenge any sane lawmaker to be able to find a way to stop me. The same applies to mints - there's no way on Earth you can define mint-influenced saliva as being different to saliva without said influence. Saliva - and sweat too - are not substances that can be "un-tampered". What if someone finds eating lettuce before taking the field causes better saliva for shining - are you going to ban that too?
The whole "ball-tampering" thing is ridiculous. And if I bend or break a few silly rules, and it helps the ball swing more, frankly I don't give a &%$£. More swing = higher calibre cricket.
In any case, I've always (as most people on CW know) been wholly dubious about how ball-tampering is defined - there's no way IMO to differentiate between "shining" and "tampering". Personally I'm more than happy for pretty much anything to be used on the ball, if it helps the bowlers swing it - I myself find suncream mixed with sweat gets a far better shine than sweat alone, so I use that. And I challenge any sane lawmaker to be able to find a way to stop me. The same applies to mints - there's no way on Earth you can define mint-influenced saliva as being different to saliva without said influence. Saliva - and sweat too - are not substances that can be "un-tampered". What if someone finds eating lettuce before taking the field causes better saliva for shining - are you going to ban that too?
The whole "ball-tampering" thing is ridiculous. And if I bend or break a few silly rules, and it helps the ball swing more, frankly I don't give a &%$£. More swing = higher calibre cricket.
Flem274*
123/5
Love it when old timers come out and say they ball tampered. One time when the NZ team were in Pakistan they nicked off with the old ball when it was being replaced before the ball boys got it. They found it was all scratched and swung alot more so they tried it on their practice balls. It was Pringle IIRC that got the most swing and I think they scratched up the ball in the next test too then openly admitted it.