Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."
If Australia played a similar level of cricket, they would have beaten any team in the world 5-0, and in fact would probably have hammered a number of them even worse. South Africa toured last year and Australia didn't play half as well and still won 5 of the 6 tests, so I don't see why they'd have managed to win one.
Obviously it depends a bit on individual performances, but realistically I don't think there's any way you could predict a score other than 5-0.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
West Indies, India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and South Africa would undoubtedly have been thrashed IMO. Pakistan may have competed a bit better, but would still have gone down 5-0.
5-0 against any team. England are the second best side but weren't allowed to play as well as they can. The pressure Australia applied with their bowling was unbelievable and always someone came through with the bat. Everyone contributed at some stage. I can't remember such a complete team performance.
Only two states to be in - Queensland and drunk.
They might not have made 550 declared batting first, though. Pakistan could have, but I don't think any of the others would have.
New Zealand don't play Test cricket anymore (well it is more rare then a Geriant Jones 50 these days) and their middle order is more MIA then Marcus Trescothick. Plus they haven't played a five Test series in 35 years (Tony Cozier said the last time they played a five Test series was in the West Indies in 1971).
I am amazed how this thread has fared so well... was expecting it to go off topic...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)