Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Copy pasted from William Hill

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.

whatwhat wrote:

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:

whatwhat wrote:

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.

It's certainly a novelty.

whatwhat wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

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

sebster wrote:

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.

edit: double post by mistake.

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.
.

Yeah he'll be one brought in to try something new if we come up against a sticky partnership, agreed.

Results in today;

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:

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.

Cheers for the spot, mate. Will amend.

sebster wrote:

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/9196826.stm

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Here's hoping for a good series

sebster wrote:Here's hoping for a good series

Drink to that I shall.

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Well they will get one more innings to see if they can but it's not looking likely. Bell 146 from 200, loving it.

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?