Eng v Aus

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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

Um, they weren't playing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Richard]

And why not?
Both scored the runs they scored against pretty average bowling.

 

[marc71178]

It was about as good an attack as India had that series (bar Kumble).







...and AA.

You nearly forgot the almighty one!

Sure it was just an oversight