Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Eng v Aus

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Golaxi
    Sorry and how many aggressive 177 innings have you witnessed without any chances going down?
    Quite a few. Not neccessarily 177s, but scores of that sort of size.
    Even if there weren't any - it still doesn't change the fact that only poor third-Umpiring allowed it.
    Also how did Warne, McGrath and Gillespie get shorn of Australias attack?
    Err - in case you missed it Warne didn't play the last 2 Tests after dislocating his shoulder in part-one of the VB Series; McGrath picked-up a side-strain on day-four of the MCG Test; and Gillespie was injured throughout the SCG game.
    Even the greats have admitted he doesn't look a shade of the player he was before and don't even bother to be so petty to ask me who, you know its true.

    I will though if you wanna be so sad

    If you came out and said that then even in Australia you'd get laughed at and pelted with rotten fruit and assisinated by the cricket greats.
    I backed at the time that Vaughan the opener would go rapidly downhill. I was indeed laughed at (as I was when continuing to talk down Harmison in July 2004) but... funny thing... I actually ended-up being right.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #17
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Dravid the following year?
    At least McGrath and Warne played *some* games against Vaughan.

  3. #18
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Dravid the following year?
    Not to mention that Vaughan only truly performed once Australia's attack was shorn of first Warne, then McGrath, then Gillespie.
    Yes, he got 177 at Adelaide, but as we all know it owed everything to that catch-that-wasn't from Langer.
    Didn't Australia's attack the following year consist of basically no-one?
    "What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)

    R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

    R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

    Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

    "How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

  4. #19
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
    Didn't Australia's attack the following year consist of basically no-one?
    It's a bit unfair to say that. Australia did have Gillespie and Brett Lee for much of the series - they just underperformed. They also had MacGill for the whole series (the same MacGill who would 'walk into' any other side). A comparatively weak attack, but certainly not that bad compared to some other teams.


  5. #20
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    It's a bit unfair to say that. Australia did have Gillespie and Brett Lee for much of the series - they just underperformed. They also had MacGill for the whole series (the same MacGill who would 'walk into' any other side). A comparatively weak attack, but certainly not that bad compared to some other teams.
    Lee played the last two games after coming back prematurely from injury, and Gillespie didn't play all of the games. I think the main point was that if you were to write off Vaughan's efforts because the attack wasn't at its best, then you can't in turn suggest that Dravid's was any better an effort.

  6. #21
    BARNES OUT dontcloseyoureyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    WILDCARD, BITCHES
    Posts
    28,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Golaxi
    Also how did Warne, McGrath and Gillespie get shorn of Australias attack?
    Um, they weren't playing.
    The one, the only CW Black
    Code:
    47.3 W Coppinger to Heads 
        Smacked the ball straight into the groin of Iwuajoku who has fallen over, 
        miraculously with the ball still caught in his scrotal area! Out!

  7. #22
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    It's a bit unfair to say that. Australia did have Gillespie and Brett Lee for much of the series - they just underperformed. They also had MacGill for the whole series (the same MacGill who would 'walk into' any other side). A comparatively weak attack, but certainly not that bad compared to some other teams.
    Well, in comparison to what Vaughan was supposedly facing I was trying to make the point that Dravid wasn't exactly challenged either if Richard's criteria was held up to both. I was under the impression either one or both of Gillespie and Lee were coming back from injury as well...not that this is Dravid's fault if they were of course. It just seems unusual for Richard to rate Dravid's performance yet downplay Vaughan's...it's not unusual based on what he normally says of course.

  8. #23
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox
    Lee played the last two games after coming back prematurely from injury, and Gillespie didn't play all of the games. I think the main point was that if you were to write off Vaughan's efforts because the attack wasn't at its best, then you can't in turn suggest that Dravid's was any better an effort.
    Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to make.

  9. #24
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Fair point. I didn't see what Richard's criteria were (not that they make sense to anyone other than Richard).

  10. #25
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    It's a bit unfair to say that. Australia did have Gillespie and Brett Lee for much of the series - they just underperformed. They also had MacGill for the whole series (the same MacGill who would 'walk into' any other side). A comparatively weak attack, but certainly not that bad compared to some other teams.
    To be fair Gillespie was injured for about half the series, Lee was utter crap back then and MacGill without some control from the other bowlers in the side is far far less effective.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  11. #26
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    To be fair Gillespie was injured for about half the series, Lee was utter crap back then and MacGill without some control from the other bowlers in the side is far far less effective.
    It was about as good an attack as India had that series (bar Kumble).







    ...and AA.

  12. #27
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox
    At least McGrath and Warne played *some* games against Vaughan.
    Is it coincidence that Vaughan's 2 good innings came when Warne was gone completely and McGrath was bowling with an injury?

  13. #28
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
    Didn't Australia's attack the following year consist of basically no-one?
    Well it still had Gillespie - who was in something close to the best form of his career. Couldn't get a bucketload of wickets - might've got a few more but for dropped catches - but still managed to keep them quiet, unlike anyone else.
    It also had MacGill, who if you believe some people is actually quite good. IMO he's nothing of the sort.
    It also had Bichel, Lee, Williams and Bracken, who are (\were) extremely poor by any yardstick.

  14. #29
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
    Well, in comparison to what Vaughan was supposedly facing I was trying to make the point that Dravid wasn't exactly challenged either if Richard's criteria was held up to both. I was under the impression either one or both of Gillespie and Lee were coming back from injury as well...not that this is Dravid's fault if they were of course. It just seems unusual for Richard to rate Dravid's performance yet downplay Vaughan's...it's not unusual based on what he normally says of course.
    I don't think Dravid was particularly challenged, either. I do, however, think he batted better than Vaughan did. Not by a terribly large amount, but enough.

  15. #30
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    It was about as good an attack as India had that series (bar Kumble).







    ...and AA.
    That's why the series was so high scoring. Both attacks were weak or understrength, the pitches were terribly flat and both batting lineups were strong. It was one of the most batting dominated series you'll ever see actually, the only reason two games had results is because the scoring rate was so high. Dravid is obviously a great batsman, but his performances in that series weren't as remarkable as Vaughan's the year before.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •