How would the other teams have done?

[roseboy64]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Two sparkling analogies there.

Very true. Well done to him.

[roseboy64]

Originally Posted by Turbinator

I am amazed how this thread has fared so well... was expecting it to go off topic...

Give it another day or two.

[Dover 1]

On a good day the West Indies might have done a fair job.

[Slow Love™]

New Zealand???

[pasag]

Yep it's pretty obvious that if we beat the second best team 5-0, we would have beaten any other team further down the list 5-0 as well. Although in this series the intesity for dead rubbers has been equal to that of the live games I reckon, so as others have said may not have existed for other teams (in the dead rubbers). Although with this list I doubt we'd have lost anything and definitly not to NZ.

[McKanga]

No-one can know.
On paper Australia weren't a 5-0 better side than England and that's the only way to judge the other teams - on paper.
Having said that I'd have tipped South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka to win or at least draw at 550 declared in the 1st innings.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

What evidence is there to suggest that New Zealand or South Africa would have beaten Australia in a Test match?

A bowling attack of Ntini, Nel, Steyn, Pollock, Kallis and Harris?
Thats arguably one of the best pace attacks going around, certainly assuming all of them are fully fit. Even with half of that attack they caused enough problems in that series down under. The only problem is their batting which consists of Kallis, Prince and very little else.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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..

Maybe they didnt play half as well because they arent very good? Theres no point talking about the quality of Australian batting in the Ashes, because the fact is even a chimpanzee would have made batting look easy when batting against Hoggard, Harmison, Giles, an injured Flintoff and Anderson for most of this series.
Point emphasized when symonds scored runs.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Dover 1

On a good day the West Indies might have done a fair job.

Only if by a good day you mean lara scores 400*

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

A bowling attack of Ntini, Nel, Steyn, Pollock, Kallis and Harris?
Thats arguably one of the best pace attacks going around, certainly assuming all of them are fully fit. Even with half of that attack they caused enough problems in that series down under. The only problem is their batting which consists of Kallis, Prince and very little else.

To be fair, 4 of that 6 played in the home and away series' 12 months ago and didn't do a lot better.

[McKanga]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

......Point emphasized when symonds scored runs.

Harsh. Symonds is there and thereabouts and developing well as a One Dayer. His taste for the dramatic shot is his problem.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by The Sean

To be fair, 4 of that 6 played in the home and away series' 12 months ago and didn't do a lot better.

All of them missed out at least one test in the series. Kallis missed the first test at the WACA, Ntini didnt play in Sydney, Nel was injured in the last inning of the last test at the wanderers, and Pollock missed the first test at Newlands. Add that to the fact that Dale Steyn would have been an incredibly useful addition to that side.
Given that the Ashes series was down under, i thought SA competed quite valiantly against SA, the 3rd test at Sydney was a farce as it stands given that SA were probably the better side, 1-0 in Australia would suggest that it was a pretty tight series.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by McKanga

Harsh. Symonds is there and thereabouts and developing well as a One Dayer. His taste for the dramatic shot is his problem.

Symonds can do whatever he wants in ODIs. In tests his technique and temperament wont let him succeed for a consistent period against any side.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

All of them missed out at least one test in the series. Kallis missed the first test at the WACA, Ntini didnt play in Sydney, Nel was injured in the last inning of the last test at the wanderers, and Pollock missed the first test at Newlands. Add that to the fact that Dale Steyn would have been an incredibly useful addition to that side.
Given that the Ashes series was down under, i thought SA competed quite valiantly against SA, the 3rd test at Sydney was a farce as it stands given that SA were probably the better side, 1-0 in Australia would suggest that it was a pretty tight series.

Fair enough mate - the attack wasn't 100% so I take your point, though SA have arrived in Australia with fully fit attacks that looked good and still been owned. SA did look the better side for most of Sydney, just as England did for most of Adelaide, so I think it says something that when it mattered Australia won both of them. And it could be said that Australia were in the driving seat in Perth but for Rudolph's fantastic last day salvage operation.

1-0 *would* have suggested a tight series mate, you're right. But it finished 2-0. And then we went to SA and won 3-0. Credit where it's due.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Turbinator

How would the other teams have done in this series against the Aussies?

1) West Indies
2) New Zealand
3) India
4) Pakistan
5) Sri Lanka
6) South Africa

My opinion...

1) 5-0 Aus
2) 3-1 Aus
3) 2-0 Aus
4) 2-0 Aus
5) 3-0 Aus
6) 3-1 Aus

1 - 5-0
2 - 5-0
3 - 5-0
4 - 5-0
5 - 5-0
6 - 5-0