Firstly before i continue sir. I think both should try to ease the nasty tone that this debate has now entered. Since even if i think you may be speaking utter crap currently, lets try to keep it as civil as possible. Since i'm quite sure you will agree that you dont want to have to resort to personal insult over a debate. Thanks.
First response to this is WTF?
So now you have to bowl well to deserve good field settings?
So if you're bowling rubbish, in the middle of a test match, instead of supporting you and trying to set fields to make your bowling look good or control the flow of runs, your captain is supposed to go 'Screw this' and put all the fielders in the deep and let the batsmen help themselves? Or leave open gaps in the field and let your bowling get picked off for easy runs?
What sort of logic is that? Surely if a bowler is struggling or not talented enough, it's the captain's duty to set fields and bowling plans in such a way that in compensates for the bowler's lack of ability.
Good captains set good fields. Good fields make good bowling look great. Cricket 101. Your point that a bowler earns a good field by bowling well makes absolutely no sense.
Not to mention the flaw in your argument about Ponting losing all confidence in Hauritz. If that was the case, why did Hauritz bowl.
And also another contradiction - Hauritz had aggressive fields all during the Test. That's basically helping my point. He's not an attacking spinner. He shouldn't have had attacking fields to begin with.
This is madness.
For the entire series 1st & second test up until that final innings. Ponting certainly did set a attacking fields as possible to try to aid Hauritz in taking wickets.
But every field Ponting set the Indian batsmen kept manipulating the field as Hauritz was totally incapable of keeping them quiet. Have you forgotten on the final day of 1st test, Haurtiz was so useless @ then end that Ponting ending up going to North to bowl?. So by the time the that final innings with India basically always going to win, Ponting had clearly lost faith in Haurtiz based on his struggles in the 3 previous innings in the series.
Thus he gave Haurtiz that ultra defensive field with the hope that at least he could stop the boundaries, since it quite obvious by that point of the series that setting in out field or any sort of attacking fields that Hauritz was still leaking singles & much runs. But yet Pujara & Vijay etc still kept finding the boundaries - it was hopeless situation for Ponting.
And finally, yes, I'm sure you know more about field settings than Shane Warne. Bravo.
I didn't say i know more about field setting than Warne - of course i dont. But i disagree with his assesment of the situation just like how Ponting did for reasons i said above, so i'm clearly on Ponting's side.
Oh, and Shane Warne did set his fields when it mattered to him. Normally he was good enough to bowl with basic fields and plans. But I remember quite a few occasions where he'd shuffle the field if he was working over a particular batsmen. I believe he did it a few times in the 2005 and 2007 Ashes too.
Explain what you mean by "set his own fields".
Do you mean that when Warne came on to bowl. That Ponting just turned his back & Warne was setting his fields when he was bowling almost as if he was captain?.
Or do you mean that Warne would suggest to Ponting what he wanted & you would see both of them in consultation over that. Then Warne would generally get the field he wanted?.
You've just contradicted yourself.
He was dangerous until he got figured out.
That is, until his action got figured out.
So surely that means his bowling action was a larger factor in his success than his actual bowling skill. Because if his bowling skill was the biggest reason he was successful, he would have continued to bowl well even after he had been figured out.
It's just like Sohail Tanvir or Ajantha Mendis. Both were successful early in their career. Both were figured out. Once the shock of their uniqueness was gone, they lost success. Which shows their uniqueness was the biggest factor in their success.
Compare these bowlers with bowlers like Warne, McGrath, Kumble, Murali. Actually, Murali is a brilliant example. Once his uniqueness was figured out, he remained successful. Because he was that good.
Paul Adams wasn't. You can't say that he had success on a turner because he was a good spinner, because his bowling action has shown to be a much much much bigger factor to his early success.
Adams was a good spinner. I dont disagree that he lost some uniqueness due to his action, as batsmen began to figure him out. But he always remained a threat on turners @ least even up until the last days of his career as shown by this 7 wicket haul in 2003, 7 years after he spun out IND in IND early in his career:
1st Test: Pakistan v South Africa at Lahore, Oct 17-21, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
What Adams lost was the hope the Saffies had in him that he could become a great spinner in all conditons. Plus with the emergence of Boje in the late 90s who could bat well down the order & bowl equallu well on turners as well, Adams test place became less secure.
And seriously. ANY cricket fan will tell you Giles was not a turner of the ball. He bowled simple, tight, outside legstump lines. Sachin was stumped out of frustration.
Clearly you never saw Giles bowl in the sub-continet during his early days on tours to:
- PAK & SRI 2000/01
- IND 2001/02
- SRI 03/04
If you did you wont be speaking such crap. As i said before on turning pitches Giles transformed from being a defensive tweaker into a bowler who good bowl big spinning deliveries.
This ball to Martyn @ OT trafford in 2005 was what he could regularly do on turners:
YouTube - Ashley Giles' "ball of the century"
In the 2001/02 series in IND. He had specific tactic to Tendy (which Paul Harris replicated in two tours to IND in 2008 & 2010 recently). In which he bowled outside leg-stump getting the ball to spin away from the right-handers & left-handers very big very accurately. The IND batsmen didn't adjust to it.
How could you critique such a plan just because its defensive bowling?. Are you crazy. He found a way to keep IND batsmen quiet & he did a job for ENG. AUS couldn't depend on Hauritz to even adapt such a line since he didn't turn the ball near as much on turners for the IND batsmen to play that line tentatively.
If you're going to argue that this is the way a spinner should bowl on turning tracks -which is bullshit to begin with- then you are directly contradicting yourself when you said:
Because, by your theory, spinners holding up an end should have extremely long careers for their success on spinning tracks.
No i'm not arguing that how spinners should bowl on turners. Since thats now how Giles always bowled on turners, he just adopted such a tactic for that specif series (specific Ahmedabad test). Otherwise on turners Giles bowled normal lines & depended on assistance from the pitch & more than 70% he was consistent threat on pitches world-wide throughout his career.
Thus quite clear. Giles was not a spinner who was defensive bowler on turners. He was wicket-taking threat that got the ball turn & tested the best of batsmen.
Thats not contradicting anything i said. Thats you showing a complete lack of understaning of how Giles's career went.
And I'm not cherry picking. I said Hauritz is average. You keep ignoring me/fail at explaining to me why Krejza is a better option, apart from the fact he took 8 wickets in one match in India. Surely the fact that he went at 4.3 runs per over and averaged over 40, and has been smashed consistently in Australia FC cricket is enough proof that he is nothing more than a bowler who tosses the ball up, bowls a few beauties, but a lot of rubbish in between.
I just explained to you why with a stronger attack pace attack that was seen in the 2010 series, to support him & erudite captaincy knowing how to use Krejza throughout a match. In a 5-man attack Krejza would been a far more wicket-taking option than Hauritz in India recently. Its is not my fault if you can't read & comprehend properly.
Secondly your lack of understanding of Krejza fails again. Krejza was not picked based on FC form. He was picked on raw talent, that the selectors had a gut feeling that he has skills to be a good test bowler & they where right. Since its painstakingly obvioust that he has is the most talented spinner in AUS right now - every AUS fan would tell you that.
He would never be force in FC cricket. Since his local team Tasmania doesn't have a strong pace attack like the one he would/could be effective with @ test level. Thats the reason why even Tasmania preferred to accurate Xavier Doherty over him @ FC level. Since if you depend on Krejza to be a typical holding spinner thats not his role - he would struggle.
Your argument that Krejza had a poor pace attack to support him, and thus did a better job than Hauritz, fails on two grounds as well:
a) Poor pace attack = him bowling a lot of overs, due to a lack of options.
b) Poor pace attack = him taking a majority of the wickets. He got smashed for tons of runs, but you ignore that by bringing up the fact that he took 8 wickets. It's very plausible he took 8 wickets because none of the other bowlers were capable of taking wickets, and NOT because he some brilliant spinner.
Admittedly a) and b) are intertwined, since more overs = more opportunities at wickets = more wickets.
If you interprit it this way it shows a lack of understanding again of Krejza strenghts & weaknesses.
As i've said before he is an attacking spinner. Like a leg-spinner such a MacGill he just bowls for wickets. He doesn't have the ability to bowl 6 balls on the same spot over after over, he will drop in a few loose ones like MacGill used to do all the time for Australia.
So given in that match he has no support - but coincidentally for the majority of the match was Ponting only source of wicket. His lose stuff was well punished by India's batsmen, but he produced enough beauties for one to be impressed by his output.
Hauritz, with a stronger pace attack at his disposal, would have neither of the two above luxuries.
What???
And about my stats.
I don't understand that, but I assume you're saying that even if if they are not great they have been a threat. A strike rate of 80 is not being a threat. Sorry, you're wrong.
What does SR have to do with being a threat of a captain being able to depend on spinner to a decent holding job in IND???
If by threat you want to see spinners spin out India in India similar to Murali's spell @ Chennai 05 or Saqlain bowling performance in 99/00. Then no thats not the yardstick i'm talking about.
I'm basing it on the simple yardstick of decent spinners since IND have been a force @ home since the 70s. Being able to become enough of a threat of turners in which they have either been able to :
- Keep IND batsmen quiet. Similar to what Vettori did recently, Giles in 2001/02 or Harris for periods in 2008 & 2010.
- Or when they got turning pitches they have been able to take 5 wicket hauls (or a 4 wicket haul spell like Udal in 2006). Whether their side won or not.
AUS couldn't depend on Hauritz to do either in IND recently.
Oh, and I haven't even STARTED on how your whole argument of spinners in India is based on a few isolated spells (namely Matthew/Border/Bright in 1 test match, Krejza in 1 match and Shaun Udal in 1 session) and not the clear, general, historic trend,
Well duhhhhh you woudln't have clear general historical trend since not IN EVERY SERIES SINCE INDIA BECAME A FORCE @ HOME IN THE 1970s. That every opposition has brought capable spinners to IND, other trash spinners like Haurtiz has toured IND in the past & they where smoked in the last 30 years.
The instances with those bowlers who did respectably in IND, where the few times solid spinners toured IND in the last 30 years & did well. Christtt....
and how you're a hypocrite considering you just said this:
a few moments ago.
Half a day of a test match is a knee-jerk reaction, but 1 match or 1 spell isn't. Nice.
.
Firstly how could 1 match or 1 spell etc by bowlers who consistently proved not only in India but on turning pitches throughout their careers all over the world that they have what it takes to be wicket-taking spinners. Be a knee-jerk reaction??
Giles, Matthews, Bright, Giles, Adams, Boje, John Bracewell ALLLL did the above. So its not as if what did in India was a one-off instance in their entire careers. They where proven spinners on turners worldwide.
While Udal throughout his domestic career was always a dangerous bowler on turners. If you watched followed county cricket this would be obvious. Although i would admit what he did @ Mumbai 06 surprised me since i never thought he could replicate his FC form to test level, since i always says him as just county spinner like Gary Keedy, M Patel (who played vs IND & PAK 1996), Ian Salisbury, James Tredwell.
While Krejza showed the raw abilties that all the above spinners showed when they took wickets in IND & on turners throughout their careers in his two test, which is why he did well on his debut in IND. It is why also as i said above why if he played in right attack he would always be a threat in tests on turners worldwide.
Doherty situation is totally different. I have seen him bowl since he was star spinner when AUS won the 2002 Under 19 WC in NZ & before this test i never saw him turn the ball. He was always bowling quick darts which has made him a more successful ODI & T20 spinner than a FC spinner. His average pretty much shows that.
So going into this test i wasn't too found of his selection because of his style of bowling. But the test is still in progress & he still has to bowl on the 2nd innings where the ball may turn more & thats when he will have to step up.
. There are STACKS of spinners who have 'held up an end'. You're implying that holding up the end is the only thing they are trying to do. NO! If I'm Marcus North and come on 5 overs before the new ball - then YES, I'm holding up an end. But to say that no one in history has held up an end is just rubbish. Yet, I can't think of any spinner who wasn't trying to get the batsman out - that's insane. How is that possible? Well you can do BOTH - nagging at a batsman with tight bowling might be your way of getting him out, just ask Dan Vettori.
