If anyone doesn't know the Ashes starts next week and I thought I'd make a thread about it (So I'd also put a bet on how long it takes some yank to post "Cricket is boring hurr durr" ). The ashes by the way for those who don't know is a bi-yearly cricket series between England and Australia. It has been going since before American football existed and is to any English Cricket fan what the world cup is to a football (soccer) fan. The Cricket World Cup < the Ashes. (And not just because England have never won the Cricket World Cup )
If you're one of those Cricket fans who comes out of the woodwork everytime the Ashes comes around and haven't been paying attention listen up. England have had one of their greatest ever years in Cricket. To start the year they kicked off with a more than competitive draw with South Africa (arguably the best test cricket side in the world at the time) then beat minnows Bangladesh in their own back yard but that was to be expected. The real business started when England won the world twenty20 cup in the West Indies. Whatsmore aside from the first few games when rain and some idiot named duckworth lewis mucked things up they hammered everyone they faced including (guess who) Australia in the final, who had before that game hammered every opponent they had met. Then after a comfortable series against bangladesh we played and beat (guess who) Australia in a one day series, one day being something suposedly the Australians are still the best in the world at (ICC ODI rankings you're having a laugh). Then a Pakistan test series which will be remembered for bet fixing scum bags but should be remembered for Ian Broad's ascendancy and Graeme Swan telling the world there is no better spinner out there. Oh yeah and we won that one too, plus the ODI series.
Now, as for Australia. They've had one of the worst years in their history. So much so that this Ashes series is probably the only thing Ricky Ponting has left if he doesn't want to be remembered as one of the worst Australian captains they have ever had, oh except when he had Shane Warne and Glenn Macgrath in the squad of course. Back then he was a good captain, right? Quite frankly they've been a disaster. Losing games they were supposed to have walked and leaving some series' without even a win. This year has seen Australia go from first in the world test rankings (shouldn't have been there in the first place imo) to 5th, which is behind (guess who) England.
Now compare the two sides declared for this Ashes series and you get an even better picture of how England are the better side this time around. England now possess in Graeme Swan undoubtedly the best spinner in the world, this is compared to Australia's spinners who are...not worth mentioning (no really, trust me on that one). Our bowling attack is surely the best on paper. The only worry left is in the batting department. Somewhere England need to pull together no doubt (especially pieterson who for my money shouldnt be in the squad) but on their game are more than capable. We have in Trott a consistent run maker who will be a reliable third man in tricky starts. One best defensive batsmen in Paul Collingwood, who can turn it up a notch when he needs to (also one of the best fielders in the world btw). And whatsmore, we have what I believe to be the best lower order batsmen in any test side right now. Broad and Swan in particular are people Australia are going to have to work to take down. It wont be a typical English topple down tail end once the Ausies get through the middle order.
Mark my words people, away series or not, England are the thinking man's favourites. England will win this series. So if you want to see an English victory this year after the mockery that was the football world cup, get the radio on one of these late nights once you get in from a night out and hear England knocking the Ausies round like clowns.
whatwhat wrote:If you do, put a fiver on England to win the ashes. The muppets who decide the odds supposedly have no idea about cricket and have put up Australia as ODDS ON FAVOURITES. They are having a laugh. I mean even if England aren't favourites putting Australia as odds on is one dumb judgement if ever I have heard one.
You know that odds aren't calculated according to the judgment of one person, right?
If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory.
I have a feeling that we're going to be the victims of our own overconfidence. It'll start well, but we'll start slipping up at the vital points where we shouldn't. After the kicking the Aussies took in Rugby t'other night, they'll be wanting to claw back at least some respect wherever they can.
They'll have the whole country behind them and they know they have to get this right; I don't think it's going to be an easy one against a determined Ozzie side.
whatwhat wrote:If you do, put a fiver on England to win the ashes. The muppets who decide the odds supposedly have no idea about cricket and have put up Australia as ODDS ON FAVOURITES. They are having a laugh. I mean even if England aren't favourites putting Australia as odds on is one dumb judgement if ever I have heard one.
You know that odds aren't calculated according to the judgment of one person, right?
If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory.
Odds making is a statistical process.
They are called bookmakers for a reason, they do have to make starting odds. No they make a book of odds hence the name. They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.
Avatar 720 wrote:I have a feeling that we're going to be the victims of our own overconfidence. It'll start well, but we'll start slipping up at the vital points where we shouldn't. After the kicking the Aussies took in Rugby t'other night, they'll be wanting to claw back at least some respect wherever they can.
They'll have the whole country behind them and they know they have to get this right; I don't think it's going to be an easy one against a determined Ozzie side.
With respect I don't think the rugby will effect the Ausies cricket team. Besides Australians don't really care much about Rugby Union.
No it will be their shortcomings in Cricket this year which will spur them on in the Ashes. So yeah England will have that to contend with. Difference is, England do it with a quality team this time, one which has proven it can cope with hype and overconfidence.
England have a strong team, with good balance and a lot of stability. Australia, on the other hand, are still entirely uncertain about their current test line up. We just announced a 17 man squad for the first test – in part a reflection of injuries to Bollinger and Clarke, but more a result of indecision over the same selection issues we’ve been facing for a couple of years now – the no 6 spot and the spinner. The players in the 17 man squad that might fit those spots could be any combination of North, Khawaja, Ferguson, Smith, Hauritz or Doherty. It’s a mess, quite frankly.
But there is undeniably talent in the Australian squad, and certainly weaknesses in the English camp. England is dependant on a few It should be remembered that despite losing the series, Australia dominated much more of the play through the last series in England than the English could manage – if Monty hadn’t survived as long as he did in Cardiff how might the series have gone?
Coming into this series, England should be recognised as the better team, if only because they are more settled and better structured, but that doesn’t make a team more likely to win. One of the great things about cricket is how different it is around the world, and in Australian conditions you need to have a method for prising out wickets once the ball stops swinging. England has a world class spinner in Swann, but he hasn't bowled down here before and while it is entirely likely he'll be able to continue taking wickets with the old ball, it remains an unknown. Given the thumpings England has consistantly received in Australia in the last couple of decades because they couldn't take old ball wickets, simply expecting Swann to solve that problem is a big assumption.
I’d probably put it as an even money bet right now, tipping slightly towards England if the Australians pick North and Hauritz for the first test, as I suspect they might. They could recognise that we simply don’t have test quality spinner, and pick Harris as the fourth quick, while relying on North as an all-rounder (as he was originally picked). The other option is to keep Hauritz as a specialist spinner, but then actually pick the sixth best batsmen in the country, Callum Ferguson, and leave out North. Either of these options would probably make Australia slight favourites, but given the history of our selectors and the noise they’ve been making, I think it’s more likely they’ll just keep on muddling along, and concede the advantage to England.
Just as a correction, Australia didn’t start this year as the number 1 test nation. They lost that in August of last year after our defeat by England, that caused us to drop to fourth. But none of that means anything anyway, the rankings system is very poor as it looks at whatever results you scored the last three years, ignoring the number of games you play at home, and the quality of your opposition. In the last three years Australia have played a greater proportion of away tests than any other country, and haven’t bolstered our results with series against any of the minnows. Meanwhile, India are currently ranked at number 1, but this is due largely to playing the highest proportion of home series, and playing series against minnows. What quality teams have India beaten away from home? How serious can a rankings systems be when it considers the number 1 test nation to be one that hardly ever wins outside of India?
Your claim that Ponting will be remembered as one of the worst Australian captains is disappointing, and reflects poorly on an otherwise interesting post. Off the top of my head I can think of about a half dozen captains who were objectively less successful, and more damaging to their teams. Your double standard here is quite obvious – willing to dismiss Ponting’s considerable successes when he had a stronger team, but unwilling to grant any allowance for what is now a much less successful team. Should Strauss be similarly discounted because he’s currently leading a much stronger team than many previous English captains?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:You know that odds aren't calculated according to the judgment of one person, right?
If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory.
Odds making is a statistical process.
True, although it does show systemic bias, though, as the majority of bet makers are not impartial judges. It's been interesting to note in the last couple of years as my AFL club, the West Coast Eagles, have been terrible and frequently very unlikely to win, but the oddsmakers will give them odds showing a somewhat competitive chance, simply because we're a very big club with lots of fans who have a gamble.
Although I should point out I don't know if that's actually having an effect here, as I just don't know what the ratio of betmakers are in England and Australia.
whatwhat wrote:
They are called bookmakers for a reason, they do have to make starting odds.No they make a book of odds hence the name.
Where did I say that they didn't make a book of odds? I said that odds aren't calculated according to the judgment of one person, and that they're based on statistics. Neither of those indicates that someone doesn't "make" odds.
whatwhat wrote:
They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.
Uh, yeah, that's basically what happens. And even if it weren't the assigned odds of victory aren't based on the talent of a given team, but on the number and size of anticipated wagers.
whatwhat wrote:They are called bookmakers for a reason, they do have to make starting odds. No they make a book of odds hence the name. They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.
Not really, no. They set an initial price and then look to balance that price to reduce their own exposure. If too much money comes in on one side they shift the odds, to draw in money on the other side. You'll often see big bets placed in the last minutes before the event, contrary to what the media reports these are rarely actual punters, generally they're bookies looking to reduce their exposure by betting with other bookies.
If you're not familiar with the process of arbitrage then I recommend looking it up. It'll explain how that process goes to set a general price (or set of odds) based on the above.
sebster wrote:
Although I should point out I don't know if that's actually having an effect here, as I just don't know what the ratio of betmakers are in England and Australia.
Odds are almost always localized, meaning that they're adjusted for regional differences.
For example, you might expect to see English teams receive more favorable odds in England because you're more likely to receive more bets hedging an English victory.
Of course, that might also be false, you'd have to keep long-term records to know the tendencies for your demographic. Usually it takes about 3-5 years for a bookie to develop good enough records to reliably turn a profit.
Don't usually get to watch too much Cricket, although I DO like it, when I manage to see a game. It's a sport I'd like to get more into, and to be frank, I'd support the England Tiddlywinks team so I'll probably be following the Ashes this time around.
dogma wrote:Hence the Western obsession with the wager.
But if the markets are localised, there wouldn't even be a wager needed to make some money. You could just place offsetting bets in each country, and make your money on the differential.
Well, up to the point where the price difference is smaller than the transaction cost, anyway.
Assuming those offsetting bets exist. Sure, you can alter the probability of payout, but ts unlikely that you'll stack the game in such a way that you a certain to win.
The numbers behind multiple bets in roulette are a good analogy.
whatwhat wrote:
They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.
Uh, yeah, that's basically what happens.
Do you know what even odds are? I thought you were smart Dogma. I mean I certainly didn't think you were the kind of person who made bets on even odds. Is there any other pointless activities you participate in? What is it that draws you to it dogma. Is it the shear adranaline rush of either losing your money or getting what you paid back which draws you to it?
Bookmakers rely on a lot to make their starting odds. Most of them will employ sports journalists and former sportsmen to help them with that. My opinion is they have it wrong here.
England have a strong team, with good balance and a lot of stability. Australia, on the other hand, are still entirely uncertain about their current test line up. We just announced a 17 man squad for the first test – in part a reflection of injuries to Bollinger and Clarke, but more a result of indecision over the same selection issues we’ve been facing for a couple of years now – the no 6 spot and the spinner. The players in the 17 man squad that might fit those spots could be any combination of North, Khawaja, Ferguson, Smith, Hauritz or Doherty. It’s a mess, quite frankly.
But there is undeniably talent in the Australian squad, and certainly weaknesses in the English camp. England is dependant on a few It should be remembered that despite losing the series, Australia dominated much more of the play through the last series in England than the English could manage – if Monty hadn’t survived as long as he did in Cardiff how might the series have gone?
Coming into this series, England should be recognised as the better team, if only because they are more settled and better structured, but that doesn’t make a team more likely to win. One of the great things about cricket is how different it is around the world, and in Australian conditions you need to have a method for prising out wickets once the ball stops swinging. England has a world class spinner in Swann, but he hasn't bowled down here before and while it is entirely likely he'll be able to continue taking wickets with the old ball, it remains an unknown. Given the thumpings England has consistantly received in Australia in the last couple of decades because they couldn't take old ball wickets, simply expecting Swann to solve that problem is a big assumption.
I’d probably put it as an even money bet right now, tipping slightly towards England if the Australians pick North and Hauritz for the first test, as I suspect they might. They could recognise that we simply don’t have test quality spinner, and pick Harris as the fourth quick, while relying on North as an all-rounder (as he was originally picked). The other option is to keep Hauritz as a specialist spinner, but then actually pick the sixth best batsmen in the country, Callum Ferguson, and leave out North. Either of these options would probably make Australia slight favourites, but given the history of our selectors and the noise they’ve been making, I think it’s more likely they’ll just keep on muddling along, and concede the advantage to England.
Just as a correction, Australia didn’t start this year as the number 1 test nation. They lost that in August of last year after our defeat by England, that caused us to drop to fourth. But none of that means anything anyway, the rankings system is very poor as it looks at whatever results you scored the last three years, ignoring the number of games you play at home, and the quality of your opposition. In the last three years Australia have played a greater proportion of away tests than any other country, and haven’t bolstered our results with series against any of the minnows. Meanwhile, India are currently ranked at number 1, but this is due largely to playing the highest proportion of home series, and playing series against minnows. What quality teams have India beaten away from home? How serious can a rankings systems be when it considers the number 1 test nation to be one that hardly ever wins outside of India?
Your claim that Ponting will be remembered as one of the worst Australian captains is disappointing, and reflects poorly on an otherwise interesting post. Off the top of my head I can think of about a half dozen captains who were objectively less successful, and more damaging to their teams. Your double standard here is quite obvious – willing to dismiss Ponting’s considerable successes when he had a stronger team, but unwilling to grant any allowance for what is now a much less successful team. Should Strauss be similarly discounted because he’s currently leading a much stronger team than many previous English captains?
First of all you're wrong to be comparing this to past Ashes series. Particularly the last one, where Australia were the better team going into it no doubt. This time is completely different. Unlike series where Australia dominated England you don't have your Shane Warne's and Glenn McGrath who lets be honest Australia pretty much relied on for the best part of your decade and a half at the number one spot.
Swann isn't our only class bowler either as you seem to think. Broad has improved much since the last ashes test series and you know what happened there. Anderson and Bresnan are also world class. If there is anything England can rely on it's the bowling attack.
I too have little faith in the rankings system. But then that was the case at many times when Australia were number one. Besides away wins or not India are the best test side at the moment, there are not many who doubt that. Yes they don't travel well, they never have, but their standard at home at the moment is enough to tell me they are the best.
Your claim that Ponting will be remembered as one of the worst Australian captains is disappointing, and reflects poorly on an otherwise interesting post. Off the top of my head I can think of about a half dozen captains who were objectively less successful, and more damaging to their teams. Your double standard here is quite obvious – willing to dismiss Ponting’s considerable successes when he had a stronger team, but unwilling to grant any allowance for what is now a much less successful team. Should Strauss be similarly discounted because he’s currently leading a much stronger team than many previous English captains?
You're forgetting Strauss lead England to an ashes victory last year with a lesser team. Shane Warne and Glenn Macgrath should be hailed higher than Ponting in remembrance of those victories, Ponting was lucky to captain a team with them in it. His batting ability by the way I don't doubt but that doesn't make him a captain. Strauss on the other hand doesn't have two of the best cricketers ever to walk the earth on his team but has summoned up so much confidence in this side now that they can now be cocky with the media while they prepare for the Ashes in tasmania.
I also think your far too easily dismissing the disadvantage have in not having a decent spinner. Your even proposing you drop one? This when there is debate in England about fielding two. I can't believe the Australian selectors are so at odds about how important spin will be. Neither do I think if they did so that would make them favourites, don't know where you got that from. A team can't become favourites because you swap a poor player for a quality one, not when your taking away from a certain aspect of your team, i.e. bowling attack. Which is already weak.
whatwhat wrote:
They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.
Uh, yeah, that's basically what happens.
Do you know what even odds are? I thought you were smart Dogma. I mean I certainly didn't think you were the kind of person who made bets on even odds. Is there any other pointless activities you participate in? What is it that draws you to it dogma. Is it the shear adranaline rush of either losing your money or getting what you paid back which draws you to it?
Bookmakers rely on a lot to make their starting odds. Most of them will employ sports journalists and former sportsmen to help them with that. My opinion is they have it wrong here.
I used to work at a bookmakers, and as such can vouch for what whatwhat () is saying. The starting odds are based upon a variety of different factors - form, potential frequency of betting, overall quality of the team/horse (which is of course, highly subjective), whether or not the conditions are favourable... etc.
No, the starting odds are not even until people start to bet, at least, not here in the UK. If the starting odds are even, it's a reflection of the factors listed above.
Correct and then the odds react to demand after that point.
Suggesting that all odds start even then form based on what bets are placed shows a lack of understanding. Bookmakers don't take even or odds on bets for obvious reasons. A. because only idiots would place a bet on something they can only lose and b. because bookies would just be taking advantage of such idiots.
And even then bookmakers can change odds after their books have been launched in reaction to new events. For example if Rooney got injured and ruled out for the champions league Man Utds odds would be changed by the bookmakers. If it depended entirely on the placement of bets then odds on and evens would never move for obvious reasons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Australian squad has been given:
Ricky Ponting (captain), Michael Clarke (vice-captain), Doug Bollinger, Xavier Doherty, Callum Ferguson, Brad Haddin, Ryan Harris, Nathan Hauritz, Mike Hussey, Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Johnson, Simon Katich, Usman Khawaja, Marcus North, Peter Siddle, Steven Smith, Shane Watson
From that I'd say obvious the biggest problems fro England are Ponting, Watson and Clarke (who may not play the first test if he doesn't recover fitness in time). Biggest weaknesses would be North (poor form), Mike Hussey (poor form) and Haruitz (mediocre cricketer).
Whereas I have no worries about the English bowlers but yeh obvious doubts are Cook (who scored a ton the other day but apart from that has been on poor form) and Pieterson who got in based on his hairstyle and celebrity girlfriend.
whatwhat wrote:Correct and then the odds react to demand after that point.
Suggesting that all odds start even then form based on what bets are placed shows a lack of understanding. Bookmakers don't take even or odds on bets for obvious reasons. A. because only idiots would place a bet on something they can only lose and b. because bookies would just be taking advantage of such idiots.
And even then bookmakers can change odds after their books have been launched in reaction to new events. For example if Rooney got injured and ruled out for the champions league Man Utds odds would be changed by the bookmakers. If it depended entirely on the placement of bets then odds on and evens would never move for obvious reasons.
Yeah, that's true although I would add to that by saying you can make money from 'odds on' bets, and bookies will take them. They're just crap returns, is all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've also been a croupier, and I can tell you that there are people who EXCLUSIVELY play the even money bets. We hate those people. What's the point in sitting putting £5 a spin on red for 5 hours?
Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo. On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.
At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.
Albatross wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post: I've also been a croupier, and I can tell you that there are people who EXCLUSIVELY play the even money bets. We hate those people. What's the point in sitting putting £5 a spin on red for 5 hours?
How is that exciting?
lol exactly you get nowhere. Anything you gain you stand the same odds to lose on your next bet. Waste of time.
whatwhat wrote:Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo.
Yes. Although, once again, I would go further and say that only muppets would wager money. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh - but my experiences in the gaming industry have led me to look very unfavourably on gambling.
On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.
At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.
Nah, it's not the case. It's because the people who set the odds for the bookmaking companies probably think that Australia are the inherently 'better' team, or that England will take an uzi to their size 9s - or possibly a combination of the two.
whatwhat wrote:Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo.
Yes. Although, once again, I would go further and say that only muppets would wager money. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh - but my experiences in the gaming industry have led me to look very unfavourably on gambling.
That is harsh. Try: "Only muppets would wager more than they can afford to lose" Then I would maybe agree. Everything is alright in moderation, a flutter every now and again never hurt anyone.
Albatross wrote:
On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.
At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.
Nah, it's not the case. It's because the people who set the odds for the bookmaking companies probably think that Australia are the inherently 'better' team, or that England will take an uzi to their size 9s - or possibly a combination of the two.
I wonder what the odds are on England taking an uzi to their size 9s? Evens?
whatwhat wrote:Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo.
Yes. Although, once again, I would go further and say that only muppets would wager money. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh - but my experiences in the gaming industry have led me to look very unfavourably on gambling.
That is harsh. Try: "Only muppets would wager more than they can afford to lose" Then I would maybe agree. Everything is alright in moderation, a flutter every now and again never hurt anyone.
I suppose. It's hard to work in a casino (especially) and NOT end up feeling extremely negative about gambling. Something about seeing people spend their kids' Christmas money the day before Christmas Eve. Yes, that actually happened to me. The guy went 'Oh, FFS I'm gonna have to go and sell my car now!' as if it was my fault!
He was back within the hour. Don't know where he got the money, don't want to know.
Albatross wrote:
On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.
At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.
Nah, it's not the case. It's because the people who set the odds for the bookmaking companies probably think that Australia are the inherently 'better' team, or that England will take an uzi to their size 9s - or possibly a combination of the two.
I wonder what the odds are on England taking an uzi to their size 9s? Evens?
whatwhat wrote:First of all you're wrong to be comparing this to past Ashes series. Particularly the last one, where Australia were the better team going into it no doubt. This time is completely different.
Every Ashes is completely different, but the home ground advantage is always there.
Unlike series where Australia dominated England you don't have your Shane Warne's and Glenn McGrath who lets be honest Australia pretty much relied on for the best part of your decade and a half at the number one spot.
English people keep saying that. It's wrong. Langer. Hayden. Ponting. Martyn. Clarke. Hussey. Gilchrist. Warne. Gillespie. Clark. McGrath.
It's a list of players of incredible talent, you could take any player from there and he'd be a star in any other team.
Swann isn't our only class bowler either as you seem to think. Broad has improved much since the last ashes test series and you know what happened there. Anderson and Bresnan are also world class. If there is anything England can rely on it's the bowling attack.
You need to read my post closer. I never mentioned the quality of the other bowlers - Anderson is certainly world class but a swing bowler will not take sides apart in Australia with the old ball. This has been England's problem in Australia, early in-roads but an inability to keep taking wickets. Swann is the guy who might change that this time around.
And Bresnan is not an elite bowler. It just doesn't make sense to talk about him in the same context as Khan or Steyn. He's a soilid part of the team, but that's it.
I think Broad will do quite well here, by the way.
I too have little faith in the rankings system. But then that was the case at many times when Australia were number one.
The only thing that allowed the system to gain legitimacy was the fact it kept putting Australia at number one, and everyone knew they were. Just look at the record from the mid-90s until the start of last year - no team can come close to our winning ratio - no team had a winning record against us. We were simply the best team, and that can't be seriously disputed.
Besides away wins or not India are the best test side at the moment, there are not many who doubt that. Yes they don't travel well, they never have, but their standard at home at the moment is enough to tell me they are the best.
So you don't think a team needs to be able to win away from home to be able to call themselves world champions?
You're forgetting Strauss lead England to an ashes victory last year with a lesser team. Shane Warne and Glenn Macgrath should be hailed higher than Ponting in remembrance of those victories, Ponting was lucky to captain a team with them in it. His batting ability by the way I don't doubt but that doesn't make him a captain. Strauss on the other hand doesn't have two of the best cricketers ever to walk the earth on his team but has summoned up so much confidence in this side now that they can now be cocky with the media while they prepare for the Ashes in tasmania.
I also think your far too easily dismissing the disadvantage have in not having a decent spinner. Your even proposing you drop one? This when there is debate in England about fielding two. I can't believe the Australian selectors are so at odds about how important spin will be. Neither do I think if they did so that would make them favourites, don't know where you got that from. A team can't become favourites because you swap a poor player for a quality one, not when your taking away from a certain aspect of your team, i.e. bowling attack. Which is already weak.
The Australians are very keen to play a spinner, we just don't have one. Hauritz is very poor. Now they're playing about with Doherty, who's performed well for Tasmania in limited forms of the game but could hardly get a regular game in the longer forms. Now they're trying to pretend he's a test standard spinner.
And if we went with my option we wouldn't be taking away from our bowling - that might not have been clear because you don't know the current make up of the team? North is currently in the team as a specialist batsman, despite having been picked originally as an all rounder to allow the team to take four specialist bowlers. They did this for a couple of tests, got cold feet and put Hauritz in, while North remained as a specialist batsman. Which makes no sense, because he isn't the sixth best batsmen in the country.
So the sensible options are to play North as an all rounder, and pick four specialist quicks, or to keep Hauritz and pick three specialist quicksr, then use the sixth batting slot to play the sixth best batsmen (likely Ferguson).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo. On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.
At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.
Dogma is likely assuming non-fixed betting odds (where a win pays according to the final odds, not the odds at the point of taking the bet). You seem to be assuming fixed odds gambling.
Either way, are you seriously claiming the demand for different options doesn't impact their prices? Maybe not with bits and pieces bookies at the track, but at major betting houses with deep betting fields, where it's all about controlling exposure...
Just remember that England are great at snatching a defeat from the jaws of victory! If you ever wanted to bet on a side where the outcome is totally open, then bet on England. When they take to the field you can honestly say that you have no way of predicting the outcome.
Do you know what even odds are? I thought you were smart Dogma. I mean I certainly didn't think you were the kind of person who made bets on even odds. Is there any other pointless activities you participate in? What is it that draws you to it dogma. Is it the shear adranaline rush of either losing your money or getting what you paid back which draws you to it?
Yeah, because bets are paid out according to the odds at wager.
Also, the phrase "even odds" implies a 2:1 payout, not a 1:1; ie. paying 1 dollar per dollar wagered, plus the wager itself.
whatwhat wrote:
Bookmakers rely on a lot to make their starting odds. Most of them will employ sports journalists and former sportsmen to help them with that. My opinion is they have it wrong here.
Bad bookmakers maybe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:No he isn't claiming that. He's claiming that not all starting prices are 'evens'. Which is correct.
Does "even odds" mean something else across the Atlantic? Because here its basically a reference to a color bet at the roulette table.
Do you know what even odds are? I thought you were smart Dogma. I mean I certainly didn't think you were the kind of person who made bets on even odds. Is there any other pointless activities you participate in? What is it that draws you to it dogma. Is it the shear adranaline rush of either losing your money or getting what you paid back which draws you to it?
Yeah, because bets are paid out according to the odds at wager.
Also, the phrase "even odds" implies a 2:1 payout, not a 1:1; ie. paying 1 dollar per dollar wagered, plus the wager itself.
Erm that is 1:1. i.e. you win at a ratio of 1:1 what you wager, plus what you wagered. So yeah effectively 2:1 but 2/1 odds are not even.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Bookmakers rely on a lot to make their starting odds. Most of them will employ sports journalists and former sportsmen to help them with that. My opinion is they have it wrong here.
Bad bookmakers maybe.
dogma wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:No he isn't claiming that. He's claiming that not all starting prices are 'evens'. Which is correct.
Does "even odds" mean something else across the Atlantic? Because here its basically a reference to a color bet at the roulette table.
I tell you what they have some dumb bookmakers on your side of the Atlantic if everything starts out at even odds then forms in response to the bets made. I can't beleive your digging a bigger hole on this one.
So lets say someone wants to place a bet on 310 runs exactly in the second innings, do you really think anyone is going to make that bet on even odds? considering how unlikely the chance of them getting it exactly right is? You have to be kidding me.
No bookmakers make odds to reflect how likely the outcome. Then, after that it fluctuates with demand and lack there of. But can still be changed by the bookmaker as has been explained.
This is coming from an ivy leaguer? ffs.
From wikipedia:
A bookmaker strives to accept bets on the outcome of an event in the right proportions so that he makes a profit regardless of which outcome prevails. See Dutch book and coherence (philosophical gambling strategy). This is achieved primarily by adjusting what are determined to be the true odds of the various outcomes of an event in a downward fashion.
This fits in with your: "everything starts at evens" theory how?
sebster wrote:Dogma is likely assuming non-fixed betting odds (where a win pays according to the final odds, not the odds at the point of taking the bet). You seem to be assuming fixed odds gambling.
I'm not assuming anything. Dogma was the one who made the original rebuttal to my statement, if anyone is assuming anything it is him. Quite how he could have come to the idea I was thinking of non-fixed odds in the context of sport betting I have no idea. Especially when he's talking about bookmakers, bookmakers are needed in non fixed betting why?
whatwhat wrote:
Erm that is 1:1. i.e. you win at a ratio of 1:1 what you wager, plus what you wagered. So yeah effectively 2:1 but 2/1 odds are not even.
The phrase "even odds" means 2:1 payout when we're talking about gaming, which is what we've been talking about. If you're talking about probability, which is different, then the phrase "even odds" means "50% chance of victory".
I'm sure you could look this up on Wikipedia, since you seem quite fond of it.
I'm also confused regarding your earlier comments pertaining to my betting habits. Why is making bets against even odds foolish if you stand to make money? Certainly you could make more money via different odds, but according to your argument winning those bets is inherently less likely. Honestly, it seems like you're looking at this from an emotive standpoint, rather than a fiscal one.
whatwhat wrote:
I tell you what they have some dumb bookmakers on your side of the Atlantic if everything starts out at even odds then forms in response to the bets made. I can't beleive your digging a bigger hole on this one.
Really? I believe that I'm right, and I'm arguing as though I'm right. How is that difficult to believe?
whatwhat wrote:
So lets say someone wants to place a bet on 310 runs exactly in the second innings, do you really think anyone is going to make that bet on even odds? considering how unlikely the chance of them getting it exactly right is? You have to be kidding me.
It doesn't matter if the person is going to make the bet. What matters is what the bookmaker can pay out given the bet that's been made, and other bets that have been made. The gambler can do whatever he wants, the bookmaker doesn't care at all insofar as he can control his exposure.
I guess you could argue that its in the bookmakers interest to offer favorable odds in order to attract business, but that only goes so far given the nature of a probability based income stream.
whatwhat wrote:
No bookmakers make odds to reflect how likely the outcome. Then, after that it fluctuates with demand and lack there of. But can still be changed by the bookmaker as has been explained.
This is coming from an ivy leaguer? ffs.
And? Simply because my argument disagrees with your understanding of bookmaking does not indicate that its wrong. I mean, if we're looking at this from a standpoint of unbiased probability, we both have an equal chance of being correct, which means we also have an equal chance of being incorrect.
Have you considered the possibility that you may be wrong?
whatwhat wrote:
From wikipedia:
A bookmaker strives to accept bets on the outcome of an event in the right proportions so that he makes a profit regardless of which outcome prevails. See Dutch book and coherence (philosophical gambling strategy). This is achieved primarily by adjusting what are determined to be the true odds of the various outcomes of an event in a downward fashion.
This fits in with your: "everything starts at evens" theory how?
Is British English really that different from American English? Because I'm not seeing anything in that quotation that substantiates your position. I see a reference to "right proportions", but no discussion of what that constitutes aside from that which leads to profit. I guess maybe you're hung up on "true odds", but that really isn't clear given that the "events" in question aren't really sporting events (among other things), but financial transactions that occur following them.
Are you under the impression that the quoted entry indicates that bookmakers don't begin at even odds?
More to the point, even if it does, why does that matter? Are arguments correct because they are substantiated by Wikipedia, or any source for that matter?
whatwhat wrote:
Especially when he's talking about bookmakers, bookmakers are needed in non fixed betting why?
Are you trying to argue that casino gaming isn't designed to turn a profit for the casino?
ugh forget it. Back to cricket if we can ey. If not I'm not bothering. I didn't start this thread to be brought up on a comment about how the bookmakers have placed the ashes odds.
edit: removed all references to betting from the original post in an effort to bring this thread back on topic.
whatwhat wrote:McGrath and Warne are ten leagues above all the others you listed. Also you include Gilchrist over Bret Lee?
They were great players, but it remains a complete nonsense to claim they alone made that team great. Without Warne and McGrath Australia was still convincingly the best team in the world.
It's a fact that Australias good for has a very suspect correlation with Macgrath and Warnes part in the team. In fact I think Australias record with Ponting as captain before they retired suffered the majority of blemishes when they were injured.
Yeah, they retired… so did Martyn, Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Gillespie….
I have confidence you will be proved wrong about that. Also with finn aswell. I think On paper England win the bowling match up hands down.
No-one can ‘win the bowling match up’ because the bowlers don’t compete directly against each other. Our batsmen face your bowlers, and your bowlers face our batsmen.
I think both teams have a good range of fast bowling options, with England taking the advantage narrowly, but that’s offset by our familiarity with the conditions. However, England is better suited to bowl with the old ball, because you have an elite spinner and we have no test standard spinner at all.
I said they were the best team in the world, not world champions. Who else deserves that title at the moment then? Australia? Give me a break.
England and South Africa are both better performing teams with far greater team balance. Right now India is struggling so badly for a second quick they’ve resorted to Sreesanth. Fortunately this is no big deal on the flat Indian pitches, but it will stop them winning series overseas and that should prevent them being considered the best team in the world.
Like you say the rankings were right through Australias dominant period. Now they are right to have you bellow England.
Well, duh. England’s performed better and has better team balance. I’ve said that constantly through this. If you’d care to read what I’ve said you’ll note
Well it looks like you have your wish as they have named both North and Ferguson....in a 17 man squad. That kind of shows the Ausie selectors have no idea how to deal with England to me.
It isn’t about not knowing about ‘how to deal with England’. Forming a team strategy for taking on a specific opponent is a particularly English disease, and something Australia has largely managed to avoid doing. The team remains unselected because the selectors have no idea how to balance a team when there’s no test standard spinner in the country – a problem that we’ve been struggling with since MacGill retired.
Since then we’ve been fluctuating between picking no spin option, picking a batting all rounder, and picking whoever took a couple of wickets in a shield match.
whatwhat wrote:McGrath and Warne are ten leagues above all the others you listed. Also you include Gilchrist over Bret Lee?
They were great players, but it remains a complete nonsense to claim they alone made that team great. Without Warne and McGrath Australia was still convincingly the best team in the world.
It's a fact that Australias good for has a very suspect correlation with Macgrath and Warnes part in the team. In fact I think Australias record with Ponting as captain before they retired suffered the majority of blemishes when they were injured.
Yeah, they retired… so did Martyn, Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Gillespie….
Sure, and you still had Lee, Haddin filled the Ghilchrist gap. Hussey, Katich and Ponting himself. I.e. a good team, with world class players, but without those two superstar players your form has plummeted. You tried to defend this earlier by saying a captain can't be judged on poor performances if there is no quality in his team and inaccurately gave the example of Strauss who has proven he can get the best out of a mediocre team. Well Ponting has had a good team, yet it performed badly. Either the ashes in 2009 where Australia had the better team and lost proves Ponting's poor captaincy or it proves Strauss is a better one. The idea that he suffers because of lack of quality in the team is flawed, especially noting some of the games you have lost this year which you should have walked.
Do you think if you had Mcgrath and Warne in the squad Panasar would have held on in Cardiff last year?
No-one can ‘win the bowling match up’ because the bowlers don’t compete directly against each other. Our batsmen face your bowlers, and your bowlers face our batsmen.
I think both teams have a good range of fast bowling options, with England taking the advantage narrowly, but that’s offset by our familiarity with the conditions. However, England is better suited to bowl with the old ball, because you have an elite spinner and we have no test standard spinner at all.
Well yeh "duh" as you would put it. I'm not talking literally. On paper, you compare the two sets of bowlers, England have the better players. And that's not just because of swann as you seem to think.
England and South Africa are both better performing teams with far greater team balance. Right now India is struggling so badly for a second quick they’ve resorted to Sreesanth. Fortunately this is no big deal on the flat Indian pitches, but it will stop them winning series overseas and that should prevent them being considered the best team in the world.
Well I wouldn't worry if i were you, If you're so confident India arent up to the away season then the rankings will reflect that by next spring.
It isn’t about not knowing about ‘how to deal with England’. Forming a team strategy for taking on a specific opponent is a particularly English disease, and something Australia has largely managed to avoid doing. The team remains unselected because the selectors have no idea how to balance a team when there’s no test standard spinner in the country – a problem that we’ve been struggling with since MacGill retired.
Since then we’ve been fluctuating between picking no spin option, picking a batting all rounder, and picking whoever took a couple of wickets in a shield match.
Whether it's about not knowing how to deal with England or not it's still evident there is uncertainty. England on the other hand just took four bowlers out of the training squad yesterday and sent them ahead to Hobart, an anouncement which came shortly after the Australian team news. lol good on you andy flower.
sebster wrote:
Like you say the rankings were right through Australias dominant period. Now they are right to have you bellow England.
Well, duh. England’s performed better and has better team balance. I’ve said that constantly through this. If you’d care to read what I’ve said you’ll note
lol I know what you have said. It doesn't make me enjoy saying England have the better team any less.
Whether it's about not knowing how to deal with England or not it's still evident there is uncertainty. England on the other hand just took four bowlers out of the training squad yesterday and sent them ahead to Hobart, an anouncement which came shortly after the Australian team news. lol good on you andy flower.
I would rather go into this last warm up match with some decent strike bowlers getting their arm in rather than risk ruining the hardwork by providing the Aussies with a chance of a pre ashes win against England. The batting line up won't change. And I doubt that bowlers who haven't bowled in 2 months will feature during the series unless injuries occur Broad, Anderson, Swann and Finn will bowl throughout, regardless of results.
Mr. Burning wrote:And I doubt that bowlers who haven't bowled in 2 months will feature during the series unless injuries occur Broad, Anderson, Swann and Finn will bowl throughout, regardless of results.
Erm? Don't think so. And Andy Flower stated differently yesterday when he made this announcement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If they play the same four bowlers for all five tests I will eat my hat.
The Ashes 2010/2011
Centuries for Captain Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cook in England's latest warm-up match gave England a timely boost with less than two weeks to go until the first Test in Brisbane. Their preperation for the series has been good whilst the Australians have been struggling recently. Can England get a first series win in Australia since 1987?
Series betting:
Australia 4/5
Drawn Series 5/1
England 7/4
Select score:
England 2-1 8/1
Draw 1-1 16/1
Australia 5-0 16/1
Automatically Appended Next Post: While on the question of odds do not expect a bookie to give good odds on a national home team in a major event, simply because people will be happy to put a fiver down on the homeside out of nationalism.
If they win and the odds are not short enough this could be a disaster.
Last Corld Cup had opneing odds of 9:1 on England in England and 12:1 from foreign bookies in Europe. The fact that England played like hobbled grannies isnt the issue, bookies gave low odds because it was an important fixture, the most important in fact, so punters would put on their dosh no matter the odsds given.
The Ashes is not quite World Cup, but again England have a more realistic chance of not playing like hobbled grannies.
Mr. Burning wrote:And I doubt that bowlers who haven't bowled in 2 months will feature during the series unless injuries occur Broad, Anderson, Swann and Finn will bowl throughout, regardless of results.
Erm? Don't think so. And Andy Flower stated differently yesterday when he made this announcement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If they play the same four bowlers for all five tests I will eat my hat.
Well, it's his perogative.
In my opinion something drastic would have gone wrong if anyone of Finn, Anderson, Broad and Swanny are replaced by Chris Tremlett, Tim Bresnan, Ajmal Shahzad or Monty Panesar. Aussie A will go to town on this attack or the bowlers will flatter only to deceive when picked for a proper match.
I can see Panesar being drafted into a 5 man attack or maybe tremlett.
Mr. Burning wrote:And I doubt that bowlers who haven't bowled in 2 months will feature during the series unless injuries occur Broad, Anderson, Swann and Finn will bowl throughout, regardless of results.
Erm? Don't think so. And Andy Flower stated differently yesterday when he made this announcement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If they play the same four bowlers for all five tests I will eat my hat.
Well, it's his perogative.
In my opinion something drastic would have gone wrong if anyone of Finn, Anderson, Broad and Swanny are replaced by Chris Tremlett, Tim Bresnan, Ajmal Shahzad or Monty Panesar. Aussie A will go to town on this attack or the bowlers will flatter only to deceive when picked for a proper match.
I can see Panesar being drafted into a 5 man attack or maybe tremlett.
Sorry dude but you have to be kidding me. Just because you have never heard of their name before doesn't mean they are gak. Chris Tremlett has earned his place in the ashes team over very good bowlers, same can be said of Shahzad. Bresnan has proven himself at odi level this year and Panesar will be wanting to assure the selectors he can be their additional spinner if required.
Besides if you've seen the Australia A team list it's not up to much.
I do agree when it comes to the Ashes itself Panesar wont really be scaring any Ausies but it's not it's Australia A. Tremlett is of that standard though, and so is Trott, who you didn't mention.
whatwhat wrote:Sure, and you still had Lee, Haddin filled the Ghilchrist gap.
Umm, Lee has played a handful of tests since, and none since 2008. He also never really made it as a top class test player, and his reputation ultimately stems from his limited overs record.
Haddin is a good keeper/batsman, but he just isn't at the level of Gilchrist and it's silly to argue otherwise. You don't just shrug when replacing the best keeper/batsmen the game has seen.
You tried to defend this earlier by saying a captain can't be judged on poor performances if there is no quality in his team and inaccurately gave the example of Strauss who has proven he can get the best out of a mediocre team.
No, I didn't. Are you trying to wind me up or are you just not really reading or thinking about this? I said you discounted Ponting's performance when he had an excellent team, but didn't grant him any credit now he has a lesser team. I then asked if you were to discount Strauss' performance because he has a quality team.
Well Ponting has had a good team, yet it performed badly. Either the ashes in 2009 where Australia had the better team and lost proves Ponting's poor captaincy or it proves Strauss is a better one.
First up, think about your logical statements before posting. It is possible to consider Strauss a better captain without considering Ponting a poor captain. I was pointing out your error in claiming Ponting was a poor captain, not in your claim that Strauss is better.
Second up, immediately assuming a poor performance is the fault of the captain is another English disease - one that's coming into Australian cricket increasingly, but as yet we don't swap captains everytime a series doesn't drop our way. We still manage to accept that an average team can play above themselves on the day, or get the advantage of the conditions, or just plain get the better of the luck (and cricket more than any game needs a whole lot of luck).
Do you think if you had Mcgrath and Warne in the squad Panasar would have held on in Cardiff last year?
They probably would have won, because closely out tests reliably generally requires a spinner of quality, but that doesn't mean it has to be a player of Warne's ability. They probably would have won if they had MacGill.
Honestly, how closely do you follow cricket? I've met Englishmen before who've just talked about Warne and McGrath, but they were self-confessed casual fans, who tuned in for the Ashes and nothing more. People who follow the game know how good that Australian team, how incredible the depth of talent was.
Well yeh "duh" as you would put it. I'm not talking literally. On paper, you compare the two sets of bowlers, England have the better players.
Thing is, you don't. You look at bowlers, and consider their ability to make in-roads into the opposition line up. You consider how likely the openers will see off the new ball, then you consider how safe the middle order will be against the older ball.
Because a team can have better bowlers, but if the opposition has quality openers, they will likely fair worse than a more modest attack, if they will be bowling at weaker top order batsmen.
Well I wouldn't worry if i were you, If you're so confident India arent up to the away season then the rankings will reflect that by next spring.
If they can take 20 wickets outside of India enough times, they deserve it. They shouldn't be considered the world's best until they do.
lol I know what you have said. It doesn't make me enjoy saying England have the better team any less.
Mr. Burning wrote:And I doubt that bowlers who haven't bowled in 2 months will feature during the series unless injuries occur Broad, Anderson, Swann and Finn will bowl throughout, regardless of results.
Erm? Don't think so. And Andy Flower stated differently yesterday when he made this announcement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If they play the same four bowlers for all five tests I will eat my hat.
Well, it's his perogative.
In my opinion something drastic would have gone wrong if anyone of Finn, Anderson, Broad and Swanny are replaced by Chris Tremlett, Tim Bresnan, Ajmal Shahzad or Monty Panesar. Aussie A will go to town on this attack or the bowlers will flatter only to deceive when picked for a proper match.
I can see Panesar being drafted into a 5 man attack or maybe tremlett.
Sorry dude but you have to be kidding me. Just because you have never heard of their name before doesn't mean they are gak. Chris Tremlett has earned his place in the ashes team over very good bowlers, same can be said of Shahzad. Bresnan has proven himself at odi level this year and Panesar will be wanting to assure the selectors he can be their additional spinner if required.
Not that it matters where personal opinion is concerned but I have been watching cricket for over 20 years.
I never stated they were gak ( to you sir). Tremlett, Bresnan and Panesar will be less feared than the main strike bowlers. Giving them a run out for the last match is a bad idea where a hungry Aussie batting line up with something to prove before going into a major series for them.
Shazad is relatively unknown and I hope he would do well, given the chance.
Panessar will probably get a chance on an obviously turning wicket, and will probably be mauled by Aussie batsmen eager to fill their boots, he cannot block up an end like Swanny .
Bresanan has nothing to offer in the test arena, ODI results aside, he will go for plenty of easy runs.
Tremlett I do like, he could come in a do a very good job in place of the 3 pace boys, typical of a winning English team the pace attack are not superstars they jut do what is asked and do it brilliantly.
If, by some fluke, these second line bowlers do cause a stir in the tour match and take plenty for little do you replace one of the main quartet? Do you risk these bowlers performing then have them sit out their confidence for 1 2 or 3 or 4 tests? Do you want a five fer' drinks waiter? (is that what you want? cause thats what'll happen!).
The ideal is for these bowlers to perform and be available as cover, even then.....
Regarding Trott, the batsmen are an entirely different kettle of conversation
whatwhat wrote:Sure, and you still had Lee, Haddin filled the Ghilchrist gap.
Umm, Lee has played a handful of tests since, and none since 2008. He also never really made it as a top class test player, and his reputation ultimately stems from his limited overs record.
Haddin is a good keeper/batsman, but he just isn't at the level of Gilchrist and it's silly to argue otherwise. You don't just shrug when replacing the best keeper/batsmen the game has seen.
Ghilchrist is the best keeper/Batsmen the game has ever seen? Erm...no. edit: do you mean he's the best batting keeper there has ever been? Or the best keeper and the best batter. Either way it's not clear by what you said before you make another snipe about me reading you wrong. And its very arguable.
sebster wrote:
You tried to defend this earlier by saying a captain can't be judged on poor performances if there is no quality in his team and inaccurately gave the example of Strauss who has proven he can get the best out of a mediocre team.
No, I didn't. Are you trying to wind me up or are you just not really reading or thinking about this? I said you discounted Ponting's performance when he had an excellent team, but didn't grant him any credit now he has a lesser team. I then asked if you were to discount Strauss' performance because he has a quality team.
Quit with the up your own ass jibes. You hardly speak in very explicit terms.
First up, think about your logical statements before posting.
Again, get over yourself.
It is possible to consider Strauss a better captain without considering Ponting a poor captain. I was pointing out your error in claiming Ponting was a poor captain, not in your claim that Strauss is better.
I didn't make a claim that Strauss was better until my last post. Now if I were you I'd post some little snide here like read properly or duh etc. etc.
Second up, immediately assuming a poor performance is the fault of the captain is another English disease - one that's coming into Australian cricket increasingly, but as yet we don't swap captains everytime a series doesn't drop our way. We still manage to accept that an average team can play above themselves on the day, or get the advantage of the conditions, or just plain get the better of the luck (and cricket more than any game needs a whole lot of luck).
The only picture I can get from what you have said so far is the only thing a captain does is make sure a good team performs and any shortcomings otherwise can be put down to the lack of quality in the team.
Do you think if you had Mcgrath and Warne in the squad Panasar would have held on in Cardiff last year?
They probably would have won, because closely out tests reliably generally requires a spinner of quality, but that doesn't mean it has to be a player of Warne's ability. They probably would have won if they had MacGill.
Honestly, how closely do you follow cricket? I've met Englishmen before who've just talked about Warne and McGrath, but they were self-confessed casual fans, who tuned in for the Ashes and nothing more. People who follow the game know how good that Australian team, how incredible the depth of talent was.
Give me a break. Every cricket pundit and their mother have made the same observation, whether right or not. Your accusing me of being a casual fan on the basis of making it myself? There goes the test match special commentary team.
Besides If you read back (or as you would say: Are you trying to wind me up READ) I'm not trying to say Australias dominance was won to those two players alone. I'm saying Ricky Ponting was lucky to captain such a good team. Those two happen to be the best two players in it by a stretch. I am in agreement that Australia were the best side in the world throughout that period.
Well yeh "duh" as you would put it. I'm not talking literally. On paper, you compare the two sets of bowlers, England have the better players.
Thing is, you don't. You look at bowlers, and consider their ability to make in-roads into the opposition line up. You consider how likely the openers will see off the new ball, then you consider how safe the middle order will be against the older ball.
Because a team can have better bowlers, but if the opposition has quality openers, they will likely fair worse than a more modest attack, if they will be bowling at weaker top order batsmen.
"well duh". Again you can make a comparison of the bowlers on a level bellow thinking about every aspect of the game, especially when comparing the two teams. Put it this way then if that's too hard to get your head around without thinking about the openers. Would you swap Australians bowlers for Englands?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote:Not that it matters where personal opinion is concerned but I have been watching cricket for over 20 years.
I never stated they were gak ( to you sir). Tremlett, Bresnan and Panesar will be less feared than the main strike bowlers. Giving them a run out for the last match is a bad idea where a hungry Aussie batting line up with something to prove before going into a major series for them.
Shazad is relatively unknown and I hope he would do well, given the chance.
Panessar will probably get a chance on an obviously turning wicket, and will probably be mauled by Aussie batsmen eager to fill their boots, he cannot block up an end like Swanny .
Bresanan has nothing to offer in the test arena, ODI results aside, he will go for plenty of easy runs.
Tremlett I do like, he could come in a do a very good job in place of the 3 pace boys, typical of a winning English team the pace attack are not superstars they jut do what is asked and do it brilliantly.
If, by some fluke, these second line bowlers do cause a stir in the tour match and take plenty for little do you replace one of the main quartet? Do you risk these bowlers performing then have them sit out their confidence for 1 2 or 3 or 4 tests? Do you want a five fer' drinks waiter? (is that what you want? cause thats what'll happen!).
The ideal is for these bowlers to perform and be available as cover, even then.....
You said they would be hit around the park by Australia A, which by the way does not equal Australias best team. It's a shadow of it in fact if you want to look at the team list.
You also reckon we'll be fielding the same four bowlers every test. So forgive me for thinking you were the casual fan type who wouldn't know who those bowlers are. But that's well off the mark.
Regarding Trott, the batsmen are an entirely different kettle of conversation
Batsmen who bowl are too? Trott will be Englands fifth bowler by default most of this series.
If Trott bowls a lot of overs, then, things will not be going our way. If he is up for it, great, if he can chip in with important wickets, its all good.
.
England ripped through the top order of the Australian batting, including Ferguson and Khawaja, neither of whom made double figures. Australia recovered somewhat once the ball got a bit older, with Steve Smith making 59. Tail is wagging a bit, thanks to bits and pieces cricketer O’Keefe, and it’s now 222/8.
Tremlett, who I’ve seen in ODIs for England and looked pretty good, and Shazhad, who I’ve not seen before, took three wickets each. Panesar didn’t take a wicket and was bowling when the innings started to drift and Australia put some respectability into their score.
In Shield matches it was pretty grim for the current Australian top batting order - Ponting, Hussey, North, Katich and Watson all failed, and Clarke isn't playing due to injury. Not good signs.
whatwhat wrote:Ghilchrist is the best keeper/Batsmen the game has ever seen? Erm...no. edit: do you mean he's the best batting keeper there has ever been? Or the best keeper and the best batter. Either way it's not clear by what you said before you make another snipe about me reading you wrong. And its very arguable.
Dude, keeper/batsman is a really common term. It refers to the quality of a keeper if you also take into account his batting. Gilchrist was a solid but not great keeper, but when you consider his batting was not only equal to a specialist batsman but a world class batsman – then it makes sense to talk of him in terms of being the greatest keeper/batsman the game has seen. Which is why so many people do it.
Quit with the up your own ass jibes. You hardly speak in very explicit terms.
No, I couldn’t have been clearer; “Your double standard here is quite obvious – willing to dismiss Ponting’s considerable successes when he had a stronger team, but unwilling to grant any allowance for what is now a much less successful team. Should Strauss be similarly discounted because he’s currently leading a much stronger team than many previous English captains?”
I didn't make a claim that Strauss was better until my last post. Now if I were you I'd post some little snide here like read properly or duh etc. etc.
You attempted to substantiate your claim that Ponting was a poor captain by stating Strauss was a better captain. Which made no sense, because it ignored the possibility that Ponting might be a decent captain, while Strauss is simply a better one.
The only picture I can get from what you have said so far is the only thing a captain does is make sure a good team performs and any shortcomings otherwise can be put down to the lack of quality in the team.
A poor captain might be responsible for poor on-field performances, or he might not. It depends on the team, the captain and what actually happened on the field. Simply looking at results and declaring someone must be a poor captain is superficial analysis at best.
I’ve watched a lot of Australian cricket under a lot of Australian captains, and I’ve heard a lot of what’s come out of the dressing room. The criticism of Ponting has been limited, and almost entirely from external parties. Compare this to Michael Clarke, where the criticism is constant and frequently from internal parties.
Give me a break. Every cricket pundit and their mother have made the same observation, whether right or not. Your accusing me of being a casual fan on the basis of making it myself? There goes the test match special commentary team.
No, because you were so hesitant to recognise the overwhelming quality in the rest of that team. I’m left to wonder if you were all that familiar with the rest of the team.
Besides If you read back (or as you would say: Are you trying to wind me up READ) I'm not trying to say Australias dominance was won to those two players alone. I'm saying Ricky Ponting was lucky to captain such a good team. Those two happen to be the best two players in it by a stretch. I am in agreement that Australia were the best side in the world throughout that period.
Except when you said; “I too have little faith in the rankings system. But then that was the case at many times when Australia were number one.”
"well duh". Again you can make a comparison of the bowlers on a level bellow thinking about every aspect of the game, especially when comparing the two teams. Put it this way then if that's too hard to get your head around without thinking about the openers. Would you swap Australians bowlers for Englands?
It isn’t hard to understand a straight comparison of the bowlers, it’s pointless. As an example, you can look at Australia touring India during our peak – the batting was equal between the sides and we straight up had a better bowling line up. By your metric we should go in as favourites… except the Indian bowlers matched up very well against the Australian batting, Harbajhan had Ponting’s number, for instance.
sebster wrote:Quit with the up your own ass jibes. You hardly speak in very explicit terms.
No, I couldn’t have been clearer; “Your double standard here is quite obvious – willing to dismiss Ponting’s considerable successes when he had a stronger team, but unwilling to grant any allowance for what is now a much less successful team. Should Strauss be similarly discounted because he’s currently leading a much stronger team than many previous English captains?”
I think you need to amend that part sebster. I couldn't stop laughing as the quote you ascribed to you (in reality whatwhat's) made the rest of your responses look like a two way argument with yourself.
WarOne wrote:I think you need to amend that part sebster. I couldn't stop laughing as the quote you ascribed to you (in reality whatwhat's) made the rest of your responses look like a two way argument with yourself.
WarOne wrote:I think you need to amend that part sebster. I couldn't stop laughing as the quote you ascribed to you (in reality whatwhat's) made the rest of your responses look like a two way argument with yourself.
Cheers for the spot, mate. Will amend.
Eh...it's the funny little things with quotation that are insanely time consuming. Especially in reference to responses between either you or dogma (who also likes to divide up text and answer each point), I have to spend a good half hour just going through my own texts with quotes to your quotes to my quotes to ensure that I don't muck up the quotation system here on Dakka.
Well whatwhat Tremlett performed well so did Shahzad, Collingwood picked a wicket too! very nice indeed.
Bresnan goes for far too many runs, he seems a bit of a 'breather' bowler, not tight enough to worry the batsmen. If Tremlett, Shahzad and even Finn start finding good line and length to tie up a batsman whilst taking wickets AND Broady and Anderson are amongst them then things look good in the bowling department.
I want Cook to make a good score. I would rather a controlled innings rather than a scratchy 50 odd. Trott needs some run too 50's all round!
So, get a good score then knock the wind out of the Australian hopefuls again. If Monty takes some wickets that will be that for this tour, he wont get any more.
Chris Tremlett took 4-54 as Australia A were bowled out for 230 in England's final warm-up match before the Ashes.
With England's four leading bowlers all rested, a shadow strike force made short work of Australia's young contenders for international honours.
Ajmal Shahzad took 3-57 and Tim Bresnan 2-65, though the hosts staged something of a recovery from 66-5 in Hobart.
Andrew Strauss fell for 10 as England replied with 22-1, Alastair Cook unbeaten on 10 with Monty Panesar (2).
England resisted the temptation to give Eoin Morgan and Steven Davies opportunities in the middle, naming an identical top seven to those who had appeared in Perth and Adelaide.
And, after winning the toss on a cloudy morning and with a greenish wicket at his disposal, Strauss was content to bowl first, with a fresh seam attack keen to make an impression.
Tremlett struck in the third over, Phillip Hughes fending uncertainly at a spicy delivery just back of a length which flicked his outside edge before being safely pouched by Strauss at slip.
Ed Cowan and Usman Khawaja, the latter named in the 17-man Ashes squad, weathered a searching examination from Tremlett and Shahzad before the latter picked up his first wicket.
Khawaja belatedly went to defend a fullish ball just outside off-stump and nicked off to Matt Prior, before Tim Bresnan picked up the highly-rated Callum Ferguson courtesy of another Prior catch.
With the seamers continuing to pose problems with lateral movement, it was nevertheless a Bresnan long-hop which produced the next wicket. Cowan, having worked hard to reach 31, pulled the ball towards Panesar at square-leg who threw himself to his right to claim a spectacular catch.
Skipper Cameron White was bowled by Tremlett, and lunch was taken at 75-5.
Australia A enjoyed their most fruitful period of the day immediately after the interval, Steve Smith (59) adding 62 with Tim Paine (27) and then a further 59 with Steve O'Keefe (66).
It was another reminder for England that wickets are always harder to come by in Australia when the Kookaburra ball goes soft - and the first breakthrough after lunch was a fortuitous one, Paine being caught down the leg-side off Tremlett.
Smith and O'Keefe, primarily in the side for their spin-bowling expertise, struck 11 boundaries and three sixes between them with England continuing to set attacking fields.
After some imaginative hitting on both sides of the wicket off Bresnan and a couple of close lbw escapes against Panesar the two right-handers took Australia A to 166-6 at tea before Smith was bowled off his inside edge by Shahzad.
The Yorkshire paceman also shifted Clint McKay swiftly, but O'Keefe continued to blaze away with the tail before presenting Tremlett with his final wicket.
England only had seven overs of batting before stumps, but despite playing without any great concerns, they were unable to go into the second day unscathed.
A thick edge from Strauss was picked up by O'Keefe, fielding in the gully, to give Mark Cameron a morale-boosting wicket.
Mr. Burning wrote:I want Cook to make a good score. I would rather a controlled innings rather than a scratchy 50 odd. Trott needs some run too 50's all round!
Cook made a hundred in game against South Australia, but that's typically a paddock that doesn't really threaten opening batsmen. He certainly needs a score and I think would be quite relieved that if a wicket had to fall before stumps it was Strauss and not Cook, because Strauss certainly doesn't look like he needs any more warm ups.
If Monty takes some wickets that will be that for this tour, he wont get any more.
Note that as I was saying, England struggled to capitalise on early breakthroughs once the ball got older. Here they had the whole top order gone and they still couldn't penetrate. But that was with Monty bowling - we can expect it to be very different with Swann.
"It was another reminder for England that wickets are always harder to come by in Australia when the Kookaburra ball goes soft - and the first breakthrough after lunch was a fortuitous one, Paine being caught down the leg-side off Tremlett."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:Eh...it's the funny little things with quotation that are insanely time consuming. Especially in reference to responses between either you or dogma (who also likes to divide up text and answer each point), I have to spend a good half hour just going through my own texts with quotes to your quotes to my quotes to ensure that I don't muck up the quotation system here on Dakka.
Often as not I have to go and edit a thread because a missed quotation has caused the whole thing to go funny.
I don't really like getting into the point by point argument argument thing, once a conversation gets past two or three posts it starts to make my eyes bleed, but I've still found it necessary because people here rarely bother to stick to their arguments. You need to take them point by point.
Besides If you read back (or as you would say: Are you trying to wind me up READ) I'm not trying to say Australias dominance was won to those two players alone. I'm saying Ricky Ponting was lucky to captain such a good team. Those two happen to be the best two players in it by a stretch. I am in agreement that Australia were the best side in the world throughout that period.
Except when you said; “I too have little faith in the rankings system. But then that was the case at many times when Australia were number one.”
No, that comment is not referring to the majority of that period. In fact it is mainly referring to the two years before Australia took the top spot. In fact I remember discussing this with you last year before the ashes when Australia were number one.
No I was arguing about Ponting's captaincy. Your effort to make it seem like I'm disputing Australia were a good side have been based on nothing.
Anyway It's not something I really care to argue about to the extent where your dismissing my arguments as you think I'm a casual cricket fan, even if that were the case it's a fialry snobbish attitude. Ftr I do watch a lot of cricket. Besides it was never started in all seriousness to begin with. I guess I chose the wrong guy to have a bit of ribbing with, and maybe shouldn't have bit the bullet by returning your argument on a serious level. Plus yeh this quote thing you started is making my eyes bleed.
Mr. Burning wrote:Well whatwhat Tremlett performed well so did Shahzad, Collingwood picked a wicket too! very nice indeed.
Bresnan goes for far too many runs, he seems a bit of a 'breather' bowler, not tight enough to worry the batsmen. If Tremlett, Shahzad and even Finn start finding good line and length to tie up a batsman whilst taking wickets AND Broady and Anderson are amongst them then things look good in the bowling department.
I want Cook to make a good score. I would rather a controlled innings rather than a scratchy 50 odd. Trott needs some run too 50's all round!
So, get a good score then knock the wind out of the Australian hopefuls again. If Monty takes some wickets that will be that for this tour, he wont get any more.
I think that's fair on the monty point, thankfully that's no concern when we have such a spinner in Swann and Australia have nothing threatening to throw at us in that area.
Looking at it now without knowing obviously what the conditions will be in those games I would say the most likely change would be Tremlett in for Anderson.
Meanwhile in Sydney australias top order (almost, minus clarke) have fallen for a combined 61 runs. The difference in confidence is getting bigger. My opinion skippy: Get rid of Hussey for one of your new boys.
whatwhat wrote:No, that comment is not referring to the majority of that period. In fact it is mainly referring to the two years before Australia took the top spot. In fact I remember discussing this with you last year before the ashes when Australia were number one.
No I was arguing about Ponting's captaincy. Your effort to make it seem like I'm disputing Australia were a good side have been based on nothing.
Anyway It's not something I really care to argue about to the extent where your dismissing my arguments as you think I'm a casual cricket fan, even if that were the case it's a fialry snobbish attitude. Ftr I do watch a lot of cricket. Besides it was never started in all seriousness to begin with. I guess I chose the wrong guy to have a bit of ribbing with, and maybe shouldn't have bit the bullet by returning your argument on a serious level. Plus yeh this quote thing you started is making my eyes bleed.
Fair enough. God, it's just cricket, isn't it? Sorry if this got a bit snippy.
whatwhat wrote:Meanwhile in Sydney australias top order (almost, minus clarke) have fallen for a combined 61 runs. The difference in confidence is getting bigger. My opinion skippy: Get rid of Hussey for one of your new boys.
The problem is none of the new boys made any runs either. Australian cricket is used to the luxury of people pushing for selection with excellent results, right now we're in a position where Hussey, and arguably North, could easily be dropped, but there is no-one making a case to replace them.
whatwhat wrote:Meanwhile in Sydney australias top order (almost, minus clarke) have fallen for a combined 61 runs. The difference in confidence is getting bigger. My opinion skippy: Get rid of Hussey for one of your new boys.
The problem is none of the new boys made any runs either. Australian cricket is used to the luxury of people pushing for selection with excellent results, right now we're in a position where Hussey, and arguably North, could easily be dropped, but there is no-one making a case to replace them.
Well you have already mentioned Callum Ferguson. What about Khawaja, how do you rate him?
whatwhat wrote:Well you have already mentioned Callum Ferguson. What about Khawaja, how do you rate him?
I think Ferguson is a very skilled batsman, but he's been out for a long time with a knee injury. They haven't handled him well, he's been following the national squad around and doing anything but spending time in the middle. He made a fantastic hundred in his one and only shield outing, and so with him failing in the Aus A game I'm not sure he's got the weight of runs behind him. They might go with him anyway.
Khawaja looks very gifted, but he's just not been around that long. He's got two full seasons of domestic cricket behind him at this point, and half of that's been played at the SCG, which is a very batsman friendly ground. To be honest, if he wasn't from New South Wales I don't think they'd be looking at him this early in his career. He certainly looks a future player, but another season of domestic cricket is really needed.
All that said, nothing matters like runs in the lead up to the first test. If either player had made a ton in the Aus A game they'd be picked, but both failed.
Khawaja and Ferguson both failed again, both falling to Bresnan.
Meanwhile Hussey has knocked up a hundred for WA, and North is batting now. It looks like easy conditions for runs as well, as WA has a huge first innings lead after Mitchell Johnson ripped through Victoria cheaply.
I think Australia will likely go into the first test with an unchanged batting line up. Hauritz failed to threaten, after Doherty took some wickets, so that might be a straight swap. Or they might still opt for 4 bowlers for the 'gabba.
Edit - Whoops, spoke too soon. North has declared WA's innings at 222, with a lead of 449, going after the win for WA instead of trying to make a score for himself. Pretty selfless, I guess, though I would have thought some time in the middle might have been useful.
A duck and ten, ouch. Yeh Bresnan played well according to the ABC commentary team. Which I'm pleased about considering I sung his praises early on in this thread and I was only doing that on the basis of ODI and his good form in 2020 this year.
Btw the Sheffield Shield games aren't very well reported here in the UK, how is Ponting performing? I mean I'm not doubting he's a great player but hasn't he had a season but a bit like Kevin Pietersons?
Not sure that I would ever include Bresnan or Monty in a test side if I had to choose but its nice to have a few bowling options that have been amongst the wickets.
England need to keep the pressure up by winning the first test.
whatwhat wrote:A duck and ten, ouch. Yeh Bresnan played well according to the ABC commentary team. Which I'm pleased about considering I sung his praises early on in this thread and I was only doing that on the basis of ODI and his good form in 2020 this year.
Yeah, Bresnan bowled by all reports. Note I didn't say he wasn't good, I just don't think he's in the top tier of world bowlers. I don't think you'd rank him as highly as Anderson or Broad, yeah?
Btw the Sheffield Shield games aren't very well reported here in the UK, how is Ponting performing? I mean I'm not doubting he's a great player but hasn't he had a season but a bit like Kevin Pietersons?
Ponting played for Tasmania on a green pitch that saw a lot of wickets and not many runs. He missed out in the first dig and got a start in the second but didn't capitalise. It's kind of hard to gauge his form, to be honest - he hasn't been at all dominant, but he did make a series of good scores in India (where he's not made a lot runs). Honestly, the worry out of that game was Bollinger, who made is name being utterly destructive on green pitches, who didn't look as threatening as most of the other bowlers. He's coming back from injury, so the hope now is that he'll be at full fitness for the first test.
The best news is Mitchell Johnson winning the game between WA and Victoria. Scored all the runs and took all the wickets - he is the kind of guy who can win series on his own, or be a complete passenger. Hopefully we'll see more of the former in this series...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote:England need to keep the pressure up by winning the first test.
It's interesting, the Gabba is probably the ground Australia will be most confident at - it's the ground best suited to pace bowling and it should have loads bounce. If we can't bowl England out there we'll be unlikely to do it in Sydney or Adelaide.
Basically, if we're to be an even chance of winning the series we'd have to be strong favourites at the Gabba, but if the first test favours England then heaven help us.
sebster wrote:It's interesting, the Gabba is probably the ground Australia will be most confident at - it's the ground best suited to pace bowling and it should have loads bounce. If we can't bowl England out there we'll be unlikely to do it in Sydney or Adelaide.
...oh dear. That was kind of like snatching a draw from the jaws of victory then doing your very best to put everyone in the worst state of mind and fitness for the next test.
Gloating aside. It's a draw, but I'm glad I'm not an Australian fan right now. I think if Johnson showed good form in the build up like you say Sebster and Bollinger did not, now might be a good time to bury any ideas that gave.
Was a good test. Looks like it will be a very good series.
Shaman wrote:What a surprise to see an Ashes thread now that Australia finally sucks.
I made an ashes thread last year, when Australia didn't "suck". If that makes you feel any better.
Australia are a complete mess. It's a shame because the series in South Africa is looking to be a much better contest right now. Hopefully they will pick it up a bit but they need to win at least two tests to regain the ashes, don't think so.
I've been thinking about getting into Cricket for a while, actually. Not just because England are good these days (although I won't lie, it certainly fething helps! ), more just generally being disillusioned with footy (not just because Boro are (even more) crap these days, though it certainly helps...).
Cricket just seems less awash with prima-donnas and egos - Pietersen aside, of course. Plus, it looks like a cracking day out.
I used to follow the counties cricket, mainly Lancashire around but the magistrate told me that lingering around their homes was illegal and I am to wear clothes at all times when outside of my own home.
I follow Rugby now. I am so much happier. Wigan, Leigh and St Helens. Always a fantstic match with lovely pitched battles shortly afterwards on the way to the pie shop.
Albatross wrote:I've been thinking about getting into Cricket for a while, actually. Not just because England are good these days (although I won't lie, it certainly fething helps! ), more just generally being disillusioned with footy (not just because Boro are (even more) crap these days, though it certainly helps...).
Cricket just seems less awash with prima-donnas and egos - Pietersen aside, of course. Plus, it looks like a cracking day out.
Who do you follow at county level, whatwhat?
I don't really bother travelling to see first class county cricket any more. You want to make your first game 2020 or 50 overs at least. Watching live first class cricket or test matches is really hit and miss and sometimes your enjoyment largely depends on who your watching the game with and how much you have had to drink rather than the actual cricket. Most people at my cricket club follow durham, those who are not neutral this is. Who are quite common, you will find, amongst cricket fans (at county level I mean).
In two months time the world cup is on then the IPL straight after. So you've picked a good time to get in to cricket I would say. If you don't have sky the world cup willl be on tms and the IPL was on ITV 4 last year, hopefully will be this year.
rodgers37 wrote:
Shaman wrote:What a surprise to see an Ashes thread now that Australia finally sucks.
Weren't you fairly average last time we were down in Oz?
North is out, and Smith is in. This is fair enough, North's form with the bat had not been great and he really needed to make a big score in the first innings in Adelaide. Smith has been okay with the bat this year, but has been taking a fair few wickets, and could be a very handy player if the selectors finally get sensible and pick a four man bowling attack.
Bollinger is out, and has every right to feel disappointed, bringing brought in after fighting your way back from injury and being given one test then getting dropped, you're right to feel disappointed. Given Mitchell Johnson has been put back in ahead of him, he could probably feel more than disappointed.
Phillip Hughes is back, which is just odd. His technique is considered as being somewhere between tragedy and a farce, but the argument was always that he's making runs so it doesn't matter. Except he isn't making runs, he's failing, a lot, and while his record overall is still strong his form in the last year has been dire. That doesn't matter though, you're annointed by the captain so in you go.
The last selection is the most ridiculous, though. Critics around the country thought Doherty's rapid rise from some time Tasmanian spinner to the Australian test squad was mysterious, but the selectors have gone them one better in picking Michael Beer, a guy who until about an hour a go was trying to develop his game and fight his way into a permanent spot in the Western Australian side. Now he's been picked as the best spinner in the country, despite having a grand total of 16 first class wickets to his name. Surely he's just 12th man, though, and they're just having a look at him while they play all four quicks. Surely?
I was amazed how quickly some of my mates are jumping on Ponting's captaining as the problem. I know that's not the problem, the lack of decent aussie spinners is definitely a bigger issue, and I feel kind of sorry for the guy. The newspapers seems quick to say he's past his prime (although he admits it). Oh well.
sebster wrote:
The last selection is the most ridiculous, though. Critics around the country thought Doherty's rapid rise from some time Tasmanian spinner to the Australian test squad was mysterious, but the selectors have gone them one better in picking Michael Beer, a guy who until about an hour a go was trying to develop his game and fight his way into a permanent spot in the Western Australian side. Now he's been picked as the best spinner in the country, despite having a grand total of 16 first class wickets to his name. Surely he's just 12th man, though, and they're just having a look at him while they play all four quicks. Surely?
TLDR? We're boned.
Spinners are winners, it's scientific and historical fact!
Maybe they are looking for the Ashley Giles factor, a mediocre spinner who may, occasionally ,defy all sporting odds and take some wickets and hit winning runs?
Truly though, he isn't a Warne is he or even a McGill? Do the batsmen need any more pressure on them with picks of even more mediocre bowlers?
Supposedly from what I have read Doherty was Ponting's insistence for selection in Adelaide.
All this switching and swapping in the middle of a series is just an embarrassment. Compare that to last year after the dismal performance at Leeds England only made one change and won the next test. The AUstralia need to decide on something and stick with it, the odd small change to suit conditions. Not run around like the transfer department at chelsea football club in mid January.
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the selectors have already give up on this series, and are thinking strategically about the future.
In other words, they may have selected these weak looking players because it will give them top level experience without damaging the team's chances.
You don't give up on a home Ashes series when you're one nil down. They really believe Beer is the best option for Australia. Which is interesting, because Hilditch has never seen him bowl. When explaining the decision he kept talking about what he's been told about the guy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote:Spinners are winners, it's scientific and historical fact!
Maybe they are looking for the Ashley Giles factor, a mediocre spinner who may, occasionally ,defy all sporting odds and take some wickets and hit winning runs?
Truly though, he isn't a Warne is he or even a McGill? Do the batsmen need any more pressure on them with picks of even more mediocre bowlers?
Well, he isn't a Warne or McGill. He may end up the greatest left arm orthodox spinner of all time, or he may end up a one test wonder... it's hard to know after he's played just five first class matches. This is the thing, the selectors are at the point where they're picking a guy on the fringes of a state side, entirely on the fact that they've decided left arm orthodox is the way to go, and when Doherty didn't work out, they've just picked whoever else in the country is left arm orthodox, without actually bothering to find out if he's actually talented.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:Supposedly from what I have read Doherty was Ponting's insistence for selection in Adelaide.
And now Phil Hughes is Ponting's next choice.
All this switching and swapping in the middle of a series is just an embarrassment. Compare that to last year after the dismal performance at Leeds England only made one change and won the next test. The AUstralia need to decide on something and stick with it, the odd small change to suit conditions. Not run around like the transfer department at chelsea football club in mid January.
I think it's alright to swap players, for the sake of form and to suit ground conditions. The problem is the changes made aren't for form, they're made because they keeping changing their minds on team structure. New players aren't included because they're in form, they're included to fit whatever team structure Hilditch has decided on for this week.
It's a bit like a football manager dropping a midfielder, and picking some kid from the u/17 development squad, because the coach has decided he wants a second striker, and he should be naturally left footed. When people ask about the selection, given the new kid has played five games at u/17s and only kicked one goal, the manager replies 'well we need a left footer and I've been told he's a good kid'.
Well our Australian chums can take some heart. Our reserve seamers are not taking wickets in the tour match but Colingwood has picked up a handful and Strauss has turned his arm over and winkled a wicket out.
Just read the cricket score on the BBC this morning, gotta be happy with that if your a Brit... Australia 98 all out, England 157/0 so far. Now being a 42 year old Brit I won't gloat too much at this stage as I know from past experience that England can grab a defeat from the jaws of victory... but it is a good sign
As an Australian, I'm very glad I don't follow cricket at all this year, especially as my wifes parents are both british....yet I still get ribbed about it.
I've been informed that there's been a stupidly high amount of Australian batsman gone for ducks, or may as well be ducks, this series, including Ponting.
Wolfstan wrote:Just read the cricket score on the BBC this morning, gotta be happy with that if your a Brit... Australia 98 all out, England 157/0 so far. Now being a 42 year old Brit I won't gloat too much at this stage as I know from past experience that England can grab a defeat from the jaws of victory... but it is a good sign
Aye, a pair of ducks... it started off with 1/18 and went downhill from there.
Albatross wrote:I've been thinking about getting into Cricket for a while, actually. Not just because England are good these days (although I won't lie, it certainly fething helps! ), more just generally being disillusioned with footy (not just because Boro are (even more) crap these days, though it certainly helps...).
Cricket just seems less awash with prima-donnas and egos - Pietersen aside, of course. Plus, it looks like a cracking day out.
Who do you follow at county level, whatwhat?
I don't really bother travelling to see first class county cricket any more. You want to make your first game 2020 or 50 overs at least.
Yeah, I've received advice along these lines from the cricket fans I know already. Seems like a good shout.
Watching live first class cricket or test matches is really hit and miss and sometimes your enjoyment largely depends on who your watching the game with and how much you have had to drink rather than the actual cricket.
I've heard this too! Is smoking permitted in the stands, by the way?
In two months time the world cup is on then the IPL straight after. So you've picked a good time to get in to cricket I would say. If you don't have sky the world cup willl be on tms and the IPL was on ITV 4 last year, hopefully will be this year.
I can honestly say that I followed English cricket when we were crap, so now I am doubly happy that I get to toot a horn about it.
I have to ask - What happened to Aussie bowling? With the likes of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Lee et al in the recent past, what the hell happened? Your best bowler wouldn't get anywhere near the England team. Christ, on the form the Aussie bowlers have shown this series, I'm not sure they'd get a bowl for Bangladesh...
The ever-so-*cough*-very-very-slight-*cough* drop of quality in our bowlers over the years has shown here. Frankly I don't hold any more hopes for this round, but I have been watching these new players make their debut with interest.
Emperors Faithful wrote:The ever-so-*cough*-very-very-slight-*cough* drop of quality in our bowlers over the years has shown here. Frankly I don't hold any more hopes for this round, but I have been watching these new players make their debut with interest.
Its a chicken and egg thing though isnt it?
If the batsmen put up decent totals then even the most mediocre bowlers could become a bit more dangerous.
Maybe Cricket Australia can reverse the current teams roles. The averages probably wouldn't change but at least the loses would be more 'heroic' for the plucky no hopers?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just had a thought
What the feth are Cricket Australia paying Justin Langer for exactly?
I would just like to say that Alistair Cook went to my school when he was younger, and there were BBC News crews interviewing the sports scholars here today
Mr. Burning is rgiht, not even Mcgrath, Warne, lee etc. could have worked with the batting performances Australia put in this series. You can have the best bowlers in the world but it doesn't mean ef all when your batsmen are getting bowled out for less than a hundred, that's why they are called bowlers instead of miracle workers.
Owned.
Bring on India.
Albatross wrote:
whatwhat wrote:It won't be ker-ching untill the win the series.
...literaly, I have twenty quid on it.
Woah. You'll be like, a millionaire or something!
Hmm not quite, was 9/4 when I placed the bet at the start of the series (the ausies were odds on to win at the time) so I will get fourty odd quid. So a few beer tokens to celebrate with.
I never 'got' cricket, even when I was back in England, even when it was part of my Secondary school's PE curriculum. It's weird it's one of two sports I find incredibly boring both to watch and to play (and I'm a sports junkie.) I'm happy to hear England is finally doing well against Australia, after all the post-Botham years were so dire thanks to Australia's unbelievably nasty bowling dominance.
Merv Hughes (I think) had the bes mustache in all sports for a while...
let us celebrate the genius that is Mitch Johnson.
Warning NSFW.
This Mitchell Johnson.
'He bowls to the left
He bowls to the right
That Mitchell Johnson
Is fething Sh*&e!'
The Mitchell Johnson who...
Asked if he was happy with the referral system on no-balls, Johnson replied: "Personally, I guess, being in that situation, probably not. It can be frustrating, I guess. If the umpires know it's a no-ball I think they should call it, instead of waiting to call it."
He added: "I think everyone's going to have different opinions on it. My opinion is, I suppose it's not a bad thing, but it can be frustrating if - I suppose you've just got to get your foot behind the line."
He supposes he should get his foot behind the line?
Australia's bowlers frequently no-ball at training.
"We're always trying to find ways to get behind the line," Johnson said after yesterday's play.
Calling the bowling coach
"Whether we feel enclosed with the nets being there, I don't know what it is, but I'll still bowl half a foot over in the nets. I don't know how we can fix that.
"Obviously it's coming into play out in the middle and we need to keep finding a way to fix these problems, whether it's doing more centre-wicket practice or being more strict at training.
No fething gak Sherlock!
"I don't know what the England side are like with their no-balls at training, but it's obviously a problem we have and we need to fix it as soon as we can."
heh, mickey taking aside though he is a class bowler. That's why he's so high in the world rankings. He just failed to turn up outisde of perth. Where, lets be fair, he was class.
whatwhat wrote:heh, mickey taking aside though he is a class bowler. That's why he's so high in the world rankings. He just failed to turn up outisde of perth. Where, lets be fair, he was class.
I dunno.
It appears that Johnson is only in the world top 10 (bowling) through his performances in 2009. every other member in that list has had a stellar 2010.
Cricket Australia should really ask what the feth their bowling coaches are doing...and keep the boy away from press conferences.
"Whether we feel enclosed with the nets being there, I don't know what it is, but I'll still bowl half a foot over in the nets. I don't know how we can fix that.
For some reason that quote above is still very amusing and baffling and scary at the same time.
Boycs was talking about that on TMS too - the nets issue, that was. As long as we keep David Saker from them - I bet he could fix that issue, but he's ours now, ours, you hear me you Aussie Cooley-thieves!
)
Quite frankly they've been a disaster. Losing games they were supposed to have walked and leaving some series' without even a win. This year has seen Australia go from first in the world test rankings (shouldn't have been there in the first place 
) is saying. The starting odds are based upon a variety of different factors - form, potential frequency of betting, overall quality of the team/horse (which is of course, highly subjective), whether or not the conditions are favourable... etc.
d.