Graeme Swann = World Class?

You got to be kidding. All the positives that were built during the first para was shattered by this comment. What has he done to be called world class? I dont think he has bamboozled any opposition yet. He has just had a good series against Bangladesh[LOL] and Pakistan[God knows what!]. He was thrashed in India, had an average09 Ashes. He is just a good ENGLISH spinner compared to recent ones. Thats all!

[Mike: Look at the ICC Bowler's ranking table. If the number two bowler in world cricket isn't world-class, then you have a very funny definition of it.]

Are u the same guy I knew all those years ago

[Mike: If we had a mutual friend in Tom Dredge, yes. Check your email.]

Mike, if we go by the ICC rankings then Ricky Ponting shouldnt be mentioned as world class any more, right? I have no doubt that Graeme Swan is the best in form spinner as of date, but I am not sure that Ponting is the best in form batsman between the two sides. I guess that would go to Ian Bell! As for the series in itself I expect it to be a tough fight between two weak sides. England more so as they are playing in Australia, and the Aussies due to their lack of form and selection issues - why they wouldnt persist with Krezja a couple of years ago is baffling.

Mike Holmans- I can choose to pick holes in your World Class Player theory for 2010 class of Ashes but I would let others work on it while I move back to 2005 series.

Kindly explain to the readers the all but three world class players of 2005 Ashes

Australia 2005 team
Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Clarke, Martyn, Katich, Gilchrist, Warne, Gillespie, Lee, Mcgrath, Kasperowicz (12 players mostly world class )

Lets turn to England and here is where I disagree with you

Trescothick, Kevin P, Vaughan, Flintoff - 4 World Class Players
but No one would rate the below bunch as world class
Strauss is good (not great), Bell??? Really World Class??

Giles???? The one who can't take wickets?
Hoggard- Great Bowler only in English Conditions
Harmison- Only the 2005 Ashes on his resume does not make him world class.
The Jones: Bowler and WK were not world class.

So Mike please polish up on your knowledge and stick to facts.
As for Averages and stats Trott is averaging 55 is he better than KP?

I prefer to have a funny definition of it, if it has to be based on the rankings.

Swann started his career in 08. So he should by all means be ranked below Mitchell Johnson after his first test in 2008[ I would think so]. Now if you take a look at the records of Johnson and Swann after 2008, Johnson has performed close enough if not better[Wickets + Strike Rate and Average]. So how does Swann go past Johnson in the rankings and that too by a whopping 120 rating points? I cant understand. I know that Swann has a positive review in the media while Johnson the opposite. But if you check the records, Swann has 113 wickets at 26.55 and struck every 54 balls. Johnson has 104 wickets at 28.86 and struck every 50 balls. Does this justify the 120 point jump?

I agree that Swann is a good bowler[infact the best spinner at the moment just because others are very ordinary[form / class]].
But I would keep him out of {Ponting,KP} set if world class definition means inclusion in that group.

And to add to that I think Balaji rightly says that Ponting does not qualify to be called world class if we go by the 'HOLY' rankings. ;) Not that Ponting is not actually world class.

Now please post my these 2 comments as both the sides of the coin would be visible. I promise - no further arguments. Its just that my view points differ.

@Mike: I couldn't agree more. I'd have chosen that fifth option as well. Being one of those Englishmen who has taken more joy from great series not involving my team in recent years (e.g. the SA v Aus double-header in 08/09), I can feel a bit out of place when confronted with Sky adverts featuring Botham and current players in gladiator outfits. I am still looking forward to it, of course, as I missed the whole of 06/07 due to being in hospital. But you're right, there's just no way it can match 2005. Even 1981 and 1960/61, the only series regularly cited as rivals to 2005 for "the greatest series", boasted more world class players than will be seen in the 2010/11 Ashes.

What made 2005 a great series wasn't because both sides were world class but because they were competing evenly at a high standard, and both sides had players capable of outplaying the situation. The contest made the series, not player records or what was written down on paper before hand or afterwards.

A good piece. The only point I think worth adding is about the nature of England's form leading into the Ashes. It does seem based on success against either very weak (Bangladesh) or weak and divided (Pakistan) teams. Commentators seem to have forgotten that England were very lucky to come out of South Africa with a one-all draw last winter - they were palpably inferior to the South Africans for 3 of the 4 tests. But the essential point of the posting is right, that England and Australia are mediocre teams.

I don't really understand why people are picking up every sentence as if its the last word. Mike is just expressing a view that it is very hard to expect a series like 2005, which, frankly is 99.9% true. (Me & every fan of good cricket would want that 0.1% ti happen) Such brilliant exhibition of skills is rare in history of cricket; not for nothing there are a few series as good. So just leave it & wait & watch for action at Gabba from Nov 25. I would say it would be a very close series, can't really say who would win. And that's good!

i ave followed pakistan vs england and aussies recently and using pak as 'lab control' i feel england will win as they have a better team in terms of fitness and skill

The England line up of 2010/11 is arguably stronger than that of 2005, if they are weaker it is because the series is in Aus rather than Eng.

The batting lineup is probably stronger if one factors in that Bell is a much better player now than in 2005, Prior is significantly better than Jones and the tail is considerably stronger. The pace attack is obviously a bit weaker, if only because there are only three of them now, but Swann is a much better bowler than Giles. And it is arguably currently the world's best attack.

Australia were off their peak in 2005 - the bowling attack was basically a 2.5 attack with McGrath's injury and Gillespie's woeful form and Brett Lee, whilst dangerous can hardly be considered "world class" as a test bowler. The difference with now is obviously Warne.

So in summary: the major difference between 2005/2010 is probably the Australian batting. Will the series being in Australia compensate? Or will England run away with it?

I failed to mention that this is a very good article except for the point I mentioned above. You were spot on with most of the first 2-3 paragraphs.

I too feel its going to be a closely fought one but undistinguished as well. Only difference being I tip Aussies to win it.

Thanks!

Simon Jones- as long as he was fit- was truly class- and a terror in english conditions. Thats another difference- 2005 was in England, with a few English Bowlers (Jones and Flintoff) capable of bowling swing and reverse (which in those days came as a surprise element for the Aussies). This time round, its just tall men on bouncy tracks- something that the Aussies are quite familiar with. Right now, there is no one of the calibre of Vaughan - either in batting or captaincy either. I would pick the Aussies to win with a thin margin.

I would consider certainly consider Strauss, Prior and possibly Broad to be world-class too. If England win these ashes Swann, Strauss, Broad and Prior will play a major part. If KP comes good then that's a bonus!

actually m amazed u ppl are having such a serious debate on who world class is and who isnt... jst like every1 has a favourite player every1 has his own definition of who is world class and who isnt...

On the contrary, I think it will be a very competitive series, with wickets falling, unlike the batting yawn fests that passes for Test Cricket these days, Strauss is good, but Cook is unpredictable, and Watson and Katich are very reliable openers, and Watson will be an asset as an extra bowler, Ponting is a better No. 3 that anyone that England has, Pieterson can be a terrific No. 4, the English middle order is formidable, with Collingwood, Prior, Broad, and the Aussie middle order is not bad at all, very little to separate between the two, Swann is a fine bowler with a lot of confidence, Anderson, Broad and the tall Finn will be banging them in, and swinging, so, nice balance there, it's down to the toss, IMO, and whether Cook and Strauss can put on 100 partnership, Watson , North and the new spinner will be good backups for Johnson, Bollinger and Hilfenhaus, all in all, a lot of interesting bowlers, good fielding from both sides and experienced batsmen right down the order.

England had ended thier game with team support. KP who took the wicket of Clarke is the major turning point & second turning point is hussey's dismissal. I am very sure about the england will take ASHES home atleast 2-0. Cook is the masterpiece & Anderson the second.