Eng v Aus

[Richard]

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.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Richard

Dravid the following year?

At least McGrath and Warne played *some* games against Vaughan.

[Son Of Coco]

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?

[Dasa]

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.

[vic_orthdox]

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.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Originally Posted by Golaxi

Also how did Warne, McGrath and Gillespie get shorn of Australias attack?

Um, they weren't playing.

[Son Of Coco]

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.

[Son Of Coco]

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.

[Dasa]

Fair point. I didn't see what Richard's criteria were (not that they make sense to anyone other than Richard).

[marc71178]

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.

[Dasa]

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.

[Richard]

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?

[Richard]

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.

[Richard]

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.

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.