Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Yuk Tan » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:57:49




Quote:

>> Just look at the ways in which Gilchrist was dismissed in the
>> 2005 Ashes. As soon as Gilchrist came in, Fred was put on to
>> bowl, and it didn't usually last long.

> Well Mike, as I said Freddie is an incredible talent.

> I did not see the Ashes series - intend to. On those pitches he
> must have been very difficult to play. Plus not getting as
> enervated with the heat as in Pakistan, he probably gave it his
> all for longer spells.

> I will watch that series on DVD soon.

Or read the Guardian obos, particularly whenever Gilchrist comes in.  
There was _never_ a gap of more than one over, either someone
finishing or another chap bowling his from the less favoured end,
before Flintoff was brought on to bowl.  On one occasion Flintoff had
just bowled a reasonably long spell and Vaughan asked him to have a
rest.  Fred snapped at him and grabbed the ball back.  Gilchrist went
soon after.

http://SportToday.org/,15993,1476227,00.html

T1 I1
22nd over: WICKET Clarke lbw S Jones 11 (Australia 87-5)
23rd over: Australia 97-5 (Clarke 7, Gilchrist 8) Flintoff comes
round the wicket to Gilchrist, who can't resist having a nibble and
nearly goes for a duck.
I2
63rd over: WICKET! Martyn lbw Harmison 65 (Australia 255-5)
64th over: Australia 260-5 (Katich 4, Gilchrist 1) At least the
arrival of a new pair of batsmen at the crease has taken Australia
out of their stride for a brief moment, with Flintoff producing a
maiden.

T2 I1
50th over: WICKET! Katich c (sic) Flintoff 4 (Australia 208-5)
Flintoff strikes! He's been bowling round the wicket to Katich, but
comes back over.
52nd over: Australia 218-5 (Langer 71, Gilchrist 5) A snorter from
Flintoff, who gets a 90mph howitzer to move away from Gilchrist and
nearly takes the edge.
I2
31st over: WICKET! Australia 134-5 (Katich c Trescothick b Giles 16)
32nd over: Australia 134-5 (target 282; Clarke 20, Gilchrist 0) A
very lively maiden from Flintoff to Clarke.
33rd over: WICKET! England 136-6 (Gilchrist c Flintoff b Giles 1)
Gilo has done it again! Gilchrist couldn't resist having a pop, but
with the ball coming out of the rough he could only skew an attempted
drive to Freddie Flintoff at mid-on. What a day this has been!

T3 I1
36th over: WICKET! Martyn b Giles 20 (England 129-5)
37th over: Australia 132-5 (Gilchrist 14, Warne 1) Bell drops
Gilchrist. Flintoff is again causing the Australian a great deal of
trouble as he has done all series, Gilchrist here cutting one to
Bell's right at point for a catch that the Warwickshire batsman
really should have taken.
I2
50th over: WICKET Katich c Giles b Flintoff 12 (Australia 165-4)
52nd over: Australia 171-4 (Ponting 69, Gilchrist 1) More fast, fiery
bowling from Flintoff.

T4 I1
31st over: WICKET! Clarke lbw b Harmison 36 (Australia 99-5)
[end of day]
33rd over: Australia 109-5 (Katich 22, Gilchrist 6) No messing from
Vaughan, and rightly so: Flintoff comes on straight away around the
wicket to Gilchrist.
I2
94th over: WICKET! Australia 261-5 (Clarke c Jones b Hoggard 56)
96th over AKA Flintoff v Gilchrist: Australia 270-5 (trail by 259 on
first innings; Katich 41, Gilchrist 9)

T5 I1
95th over: WICKET! Australia 329-5 (Katich lbw b Flintoff 1)
97th over: Australia 343-5 (Clarke 21, Gilchrist 12) An inside edge
saves Clarke from what would have been a pretty adjacent lbw shout.
Then Flintoff, bowling his first ball to Gilchrist, cuts him in half
with a marvellous, ***olining off-cutter.

--
Cheers, ymt.

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by vdeolali.. » Mon, 02 Jan 2006 01:56:09

But why only Freddie? - were the other bowlers unable to sustain this
particular line of attack that Gilly is supposed to be weak against?

Vinay

Quote:




> >> Just look at the ways in which Gilchrist was dismissed in the
> >> 2005 Ashes. As soon as Gilchrist came in, Fred was put on to
> >> bowl, and it didn't usually last long.

> > Well Mike, as I said Freddie is an incredible talent.

> > I did not see the Ashes series - intend to. On those pitches he
> > must have been very difficult to play. Plus not getting as
> > enervated with the heat as in Pakistan, he probably gave it his
> > all for longer spells.

> > I will watch that series on DVD soon.

> Or read the Guardian obos, particularly whenever Gilchrist comes in.
> There was _never_ a gap of more than one over, either someone
> finishing or another chap bowling his from the less favoured end,
> before Flintoff was brought on to bowl.  On one occasion Flintoff had
> just bowled a reasonably long spell and Vaughan asked him to have a
> rest.  Fred snapped at him and grabbed the ball back.  Gilchrist went
> soon after.

> http://SportToday.org/,15993,1476227,00.html

> T1 I1
> 22nd over: WICKET Clarke lbw S Jones 11 (Australia 87-5)
> 23rd over: Australia 97-5 (Clarke 7, Gilchrist 8) Flintoff comes
> round the wicket to Gilchrist, who can't resist having a nibble and
> nearly goes for a duck.
> I2
> 63rd over: WICKET! Martyn lbw Harmison 65 (Australia 255-5)
> 64th over: Australia 260-5 (Katich 4, Gilchrist 1) At least the
> arrival of a new pair of batsmen at the crease has taken Australia
> out of their stride for a brief moment, with Flintoff producing a
> maiden.

> T2 I1
> 50th over: WICKET! Katich c (sic) Flintoff 4 (Australia 208-5)
> Flintoff strikes! He's been bowling round the wicket to Katich, but
> comes back over.
> 52nd over: Australia 218-5 (Langer 71, Gilchrist 5) A snorter from
> Flintoff, who gets a 90mph howitzer to move away from Gilchrist and
> nearly takes the edge.
> I2
> 31st over: WICKET! Australia 134-5 (Katich c Trescothick b Giles 16)
> 32nd over: Australia 134-5 (target 282; Clarke 20, Gilchrist 0) A
> very lively maiden from Flintoff to Clarke.
> 33rd over: WICKET! England 136-6 (Gilchrist c Flintoff b Giles 1)
> Gilo has done it again! Gilchrist couldn't resist having a pop, but
> with the ball coming out of the rough he could only skew an attempted
> drive to Freddie Flintoff at mid-on. What a day this has been!

> T3 I1
> 36th over: WICKET! Martyn b Giles 20 (England 129-5)
> 37th over: Australia 132-5 (Gilchrist 14, Warne 1) Bell drops
> Gilchrist. Flintoff is again causing the Australian a great deal of
> trouble as he has done all series, Gilchrist here cutting one to
> Bell's right at point for a catch that the Warwickshire batsman
> really should have taken.
> I2
> 50th over: WICKET Katich c Giles b Flintoff 12 (Australia 165-4)
> 52nd over: Australia 171-4 (Ponting 69, Gilchrist 1) More fast, fiery
> bowling from Flintoff.

> T4 I1
> 31st over: WICKET! Clarke lbw b Harmison 36 (Australia 99-5)
> [end of day]
> 33rd over: Australia 109-5 (Katich 22, Gilchrist 6) No messing from
> Vaughan, and rightly so: Flintoff comes on straight away around the
> wicket to Gilchrist.
> I2
> 94th over: WICKET! Australia 261-5 (Clarke c Jones b Hoggard 56)
> 96th over AKA Flintoff v Gilchrist: Australia 270-5 (trail by 259 on
> first innings; Katich 41, Gilchrist 9)

> T5 I1
> 95th over: WICKET! Australia 329-5 (Katich lbw b Flintoff 1)
> 97th over: Australia 343-5 (Clarke 21, Gilchrist 12) An inside edge
> saves Clarke from what would have been a pretty adjacent lbw shout.
> Then Flintoff, bowling his first ball to Gilchrist, cuts him in half
> with a marvellous, ***olining off-cutter.

> --
> Cheers, ymt.


 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Yuk Tan » Mon, 02 Jan 2006 02:30:01



Quote:

> But why only Freddie? - were the other bowlers unable to sustain
> this particular line of attack that Gilly is supposed to be weak
> against?

Hoggard was quite good at swinging it back into his pads later in the
series, but Flintoff was able to combine pace, bounce and accuracy.  
Harmison can do it in theory, but tends to drag it short when he's not
quite right.  Jones can bowl it in the right area with movement, but
tends to skid it rather than bounce it.

--
Cheers, ymt.

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by vdeolali.. » Mon, 02 Jan 2006 02:37:34

Quote:



> > But why only Freddie? - were the other bowlers unable to sustain
> > this particular line of attack that Gilly is supposed to be weak
> > against?

> Hoggard was quite good at swinging it back into his pads later in the
> series, but Flintoff was able to combine pace, bounce and accuracy.
> Harmison can do it in theory, but tends to drag it short when he's not
> quite right.  Jones can bowl it in the right area with movement, but
> tends to skid it rather than bounce it.

> --
> Cheers, ymt.

Harmison did not impress me that much in the Pak series either, mainly
because of this reason - he was too short most of the time. On tracks
where bounce is available, there might be some justification for
dragging it a little short, but on Pakistani wickets there is none.
Plus it totally precludes any movement one may get. Other other way
round is also true - bowlers who dont get any movement think that by
pitching it a little short they will at least get some more bounce. I
dont know if Harmison is that way.

Freddie was mighty impressive though. Lots of reverse, good pace,
bounce, and an ability to keep at it for long spells (he seems like a
very strong fellow). Hoggard could swing the new ball and was also
impressive in his first spells throughout the series.

I missed out on Jones, who they say was the most impressive of the
bunch in the Ashes.

Vinay

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Yuk Tan » Mon, 02 Jan 2006 04:11:18



Quote:



>> > But why only Freddie? - were the other bowlers unable to
>> > sustain this particular line of attack that Gilly is supposed
>> > to be weak against?

>> Hoggard was quite good at swinging it back into his pads later in
>> the series, but Flintoff was able to combine pace, bounce and
>> accuracy. Harmison can do it in theory, but tends to drag it
>> short when he's not quite right.  Jones can bowl it in the right
>> area with movement, but tends to skid it rather than bounce it.

> Harmison did not impress me that much in the Pak series either,
> mainly because of this reason - he was too short most of the time.
> On tracks where bounce is available, there might be some
> justification for dragging it a little short, but on Pakistani
> wickets there is none. Plus it totally precludes any movement one
> may get. Other other way round is also true - bowlers who dont get
> any movement think that by pitching it a little short they will at
> least get some more bounce. I dont know if Harmison is that way.

Dunno what his mind thinks, but during his golden year and during the
Lord's Test, he was getting considerable bounce whilst pitching it
up, and his accuracy and style was earning him comparisons with
Ambrose.  When he gets it right, he can be even more intimidating to
allcomers than Flintoff or Jones.

Quote:
> Freddie was mighty impressive though. Lots of reverse, good pace,
> bounce, and an ability to keep at it for long spells (he seems
> like a very strong fellow). Hoggard could swing the new ball and
> was also impressive in his first spells throughout the series.

If Anderson gets his form back and his place back, he could have a
higher upside than Hoggard.

Quote:
> I missed out on Jones, who they say was the most impressive of the
> bunch in the Ashes.

He was swinging new ball and old both ways at will, usually late.  He
wasn't quite as eye-catching as Flintoff, but he was bowling in a
different, arguably more effective style.

--
Cheers, ymt.

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Mad Hamis » Mon, 02 Jan 2006 13:00:26



Quote:

>> he has been exposed technically in a major way by Flintoff and the
>> technical weakness is so glaring that even others are now exploiting it
>> ?

>No, Alan Mullally first exposed his weaknes years ago, no-one exploited it
>consistrently after that.

Gough did from around the wicket and iirc Ambrose caused him real
problems in a similar area from over the wicket.

The real problem he had seemed to be that he was trying to hit balls
close to him either well wide of mid off or else he was coming across
them with too much bottom hand and trying to put them wide of mid-on.

For the last 4 or 5 years he's been hitting the ball from the same
area straight down the ground between mid-off and mid-on.

Currently  he seems to be trying to hit them square behind point
commonly and through the covers at best.

Quote:

>> or is it because, there is a remarkable decline in his batting ?

>Stress of his workload and age having a deteriorating effect.

--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Gafoo » Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:24:24


Quote:
>> I missed out on Jones, who they say was the most impressive of the
>> bunch in the Ashes.

> He was swinging new ball and old both ways at will, usually late.  He
> wasn't quite as eye-catching as Flintoff, but he was bowling in a
> different, arguably more effective style.

Jones is easily the best English bowler I have seen in a long time.
18 months before the Ashes, I wrote on RSC.

"As far as bowling goes, I think it depends on Simon Jones.
He is probably the best prospect to come out of England
for a long long time. How he shapes up & how injury free
he remains will determine how good English bowling shapes
up to be. "
[ I am da visionary]

Obviously, because of Harmison & Flintoff becoming
far better than I had imagined, he wasn't as crucial as
I had thought, but still the #1 bowling reason for England's
Ashes victory.

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by FRAN » Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:50:26

Quote:




> > > Andy Flower being the obvious exception, keeping wicket, scoring at
> > > above 50 and carrying the expectations of his (mediocre, cricketing
> > > wise) country on his shoulders

> > > Higgs

> > Sangakkara is doing an OK job so far, but it's very early days for him. And
> > SL isn't a team full of superstars by any stretch. In fact, it can already
> > be argued that he is the side's best batsman.

> Oh, I agree to some extent.

> Gilchrist got an awful lot of praise for what he did (and did very
> well), but all the talk about head and shoulders above any other
> keeper/batsman was to ignore what players like Flower achieved.
> I still believe Flower was vastly underrated as a batsman. 50+ in a
> ***side is quite an achievement

Flower gets points for performing in a weak side, but lets's not forget
his SR -- .45 V .80 for Gilchrist and the fact that Gilchrist was
closer to 60 than 50 most of the time
 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Ian Galbrait » Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:33:01

[snip]

Quote:
>>No, Alan Mullally first exposed his weaknes years ago, no-one exploited it
>>consistrently after that.
> Gough did from around the wicket and iirc Ambrose caused him real
> problems in a similar area from over the wicket.
> The real problem he had seemed to be that he was trying to hit balls
> close to him either well wide of mid off or else he was coming across
> them with too much bottom hand and trying to put them wide of mid-on.
> For the last 4 or 5 years he's been hitting the ball from the same
> area straight down the ground between mid-off and mid-on.
> Currently  he seems to be trying to hit them square behind point
> commonly and through the covers at best.

Interesting observation, and from what I remember of his last few innings
it sounds correct. So I wonder why haven't the Aust. coaches picked up the
problem.

[snip]

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

 
 
 

Gilchrist's fall - Is it because

Post by Mad Hamis » Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:43:52



Quote:



>[snip]

>>>No, Alan Mullally first exposed his weaknes years ago, no-one exploited it
>>>consistrently after that.

>> Gough did from around the wicket and iirc Ambrose caused him real
>> problems in a similar area from over the wicket.

>> The real problem he had seemed to be that he was trying to hit balls
>> close to him either well wide of mid off or else he was coming across
>> them with too much bottom hand and trying to put them wide of mid-on.

>> For the last 4 or 5 years he's been hitting the ball from the same
>> area straight down the ground between mid-off and mid-on.

>> Currently  he seems to be trying to hit them square behind point
>> commonly and through the covers at best.

>Interesting observation, and from what I remember of his last few innings
>it sounds correct. So I wonder why haven't the Aust. coaches picked up the
>problem.

Dunno, but I'm available for consultation to the team at quite
reasonable rates.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws