• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Eng v Aus

adz_pietersen

Cricket Spectator
Who will win, n what do u think englands best side is mine is;

M Trescothick
A Strauss
I Bell
K Pietersen
A Flintoff
P Collingwood
G Jones
A Giles
M Hoggard
S Harmisson
J Anderson
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
dontcloseyoureyes said:
Oi. When you finish OD run chases rather than leaving them to the tail then I may have more sympathy for your cheek. I'm more concerned about Ashley getting his prosthetic hip through customs.

And also that anyone can rate Bell over Vaughan for a spot in the Test side.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Vaughan's barely been less useless than Bell in the last year.
Vaughan
Bell
And in both cases, on the rare occasions they've scored they've required let-offs.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Vaughan's leadership and the fact that he was quite dominant in Australia last time should clearly see him selected if he is fit. He played quite poorly in the Ashes, but he still made a century, and despite the odd repeating problem against Lee and Warne you couldn't really say he was worked out comprehensively. He certainly outperformed Bell.
 

howardj

International Coach
Vaughan in Australia in 2002/03 was the best display of batsmanship Ive seen from of any overseas player on these shores. Three centuries; over 500 runs.
 

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
Neil Pickup said:
Oi. When you finish OD run chases rather than leaving them to the tail then I may have more sympathy for your cheek. I'm more concerned about Ashley getting his prosthetic hip through customs.

And also that anyone can rate Bell over Vaughan for a spot in the Test side.
But skip, I was just showing faith in you! :unsure:

Big Ash would be a big loss, if not so much on the field, but a psycological one to the team. I think the side would want to land in Australia with the same 11-12 guys that did it last year, it'd be a big morale booster..
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
I'd like to see:

Atherton
Brearley
Broad
Ramprakash
Butcher
Stewart
Tufnell
Edmonds
Ealham
Kirtley
Malcolm

vs.

Morris
Barnes
Bradman
Hassett
Harvey
Miller
Tallon
McCool
Lindwall
Johnson
Johnston
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Vaughan's leadership and the fact that he was quite dominant in Australia last time should clearly see him selected if he is fit. He played quite poorly in the Ashes, but he still made a century, and despite the odd repeating problem against Lee and Warne you couldn't really say he was worked out comprehensively. He certainly outperformed Bell.
He did? Both of them were rubbish, especially by their standards.
Clearly Vaughan's captaincy is a reason why he'd be selected ahead of Bell, and rightly so, but if anyone seriously reckons his play on his last Ashes tour will make any difference whatsoever they're delusional.
Vaughan pretty much was worked-out, with the easiest strategy possible - just bowling at the stumps. He's been bowled far too often of late, though not as often as Gibbs.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
howardj said:
Vaughan in Australia in 2002/03 was the best display of batsmanship Ive seen from of any overseas player on these shores. Three centuries; over 500 runs.
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
LongHopCassidy said:
I'd like to see:

Atherton
Brearley
Broad
Ramprakash
Butcher
Stewart
Tufnell
Edmonds
Ealham
Kirtley
Malcolm

vs.

Morris
Barnes
Bradman
Hassett
Harvey
Miller
Tallon
McCool
Lindwall
Johnson
Johnston
Several deaths might get in the way of your dream... :)
 

Golaxi

School Boy/Girl Captain
...

Richard said:
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.
Sorry and how many aggressive 177 innings have you witnessed without any chances going down?

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

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.
 
Last edited:

Hazza

U19 Cricketer
I'd love to see Bell take part in the Ashes next year but I think that, if Vaughan is avaliable for selection, we should pick the captain over him. Bell is a good batsman and I'm sure he has a bright future ahead of him, but, however inconsistent they both are, surely the more experienced player should be selected, even without the advantage of being a test-standard captain.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Golaxi said:
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.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard said:
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

International Vice-Captain
Son Of Coco said:
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

Global Moderator
Dasa said:
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.
 

Top