How would the other teams have done?

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I really hate it when people do that to prove a point. Without anyone's highest score, their average will be lower - especially if you are talking about averages over a short period. His 203 was against a quality attack and deserves to be recognised. The fact that he was poor without it is fairly irrelevant because he scored it - hence he had a good series.

If he had a good series, he wouldnt not have been dropped in favor of Symonds.
I think when someone scores 203, and then in 5 other innings cant even manage 1/4 of that it suggests that its merely a deviation from the norm.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Jacques played one Test. If we're doing that, Bracken played one Test too and he averaged 24. Lee also averaged 24 over the 3 Tests.

So basically three of our batsmen (Ponting, Hussey, Hayden) had excellent series, Hodge scored a double century (which does count, incidentally) and averaged 77, and even our 8th and 9th best batsmen averaged 24. And we won the series 2-0.

If that's "wrapped around the fingers" I'm ok with it.

My point was that 4 Australian batsmen- Langer, Gilchrist, Symonds and Hodge spent most of the series in the pavillion. Theres not much to disagree about it because that was the case as the Aussies were continually bailed out by Ponting, Hussey and Hayden. At the end of the day Lee averaging 24 and Bracken averaging 24 arent really match winning contributions. Incidentally your 8th best batsman is shane warne and he averaged single figures.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

My point was that 4 Australian batsmen- Langer, Gilchrist, Symonds and Hodge spent most of the series in the pavillion. Theres not much to disagree about it because that was the case as the Aussies were continually bailed out by Ponting, Hussey and Hayden. At the end of the day Lee averaging 24 and Bracken averaging 24 arent really match winning contributions. Incidentally your 8th best batsman is shane warne and he averaged single figures.

8th best in that series mate. You knew what I meant.

Either way, you can have your opinion. Check out the SA bowling averages for that series too though - it's on statspider, cricinfo, howstat, or in the dictionary under "mediocrity".

Anyway, that's about enough from me on this topic, time to move on - as I've said, if that series is really what you consider to be our batsman being wrapped around the fingers of opposition bowlers, then I look forward to more finger-wrappin'!

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

That's a massive overstatement as far as I'm concerned. Nel and Ntini certainly bowled well in that series, but they certainly didn't have Australia's batting wrapped around their fingers. Ponting scored three centuries, Hayden and Hussey had good, consistent series, Hodge scored a double century, and Australia made good scores in every match. Given that two of the wickets did a bit off the seam, I don't think two bowlers that averaged 29 had dominant series at all, they merely did reasonably well in the face of some good batting. Gilchrist and Symonds were obviously pretty poor throughout the series, but Gilchrist also struggled against the West Indies, which says a lot about the sort of form he was in at the time..

Really? I find it ironic that you think that those 2 bowlers didnt have dominant series yet day in and day out at that time you were hyping up how much more mature B.lee had become as a bowler for averaging 32 and leading the attack. Incidentally no other pace bowler on either side managed to average in the 20s in that series, Mcgrath and Bracken averaged 40 odd. Certainly seems strange then that on what were apparently seam friendly bowling attacks, no seam bowler managed to have a dominant series, and the best bowler in terms of averages was actually a spinner in Shane Warne.....
As far as Gilchrist is concerned, it aint poor form when you you struggle and get out in similar fashion every innings, its called being worked out.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Regarding the Australian batting in this series, it's obvious that Ponting and Hussey were the standout batsmen, but that doesn't mean that everyone else was rubbish. It says a lot about the performance of the Australian top order that all 7 batsmen made centuries, two of them made more than one, and Hayden, Hussey and Gilchrist all got close to another one as well. It was a very even contribution really, with only Langer actually having a poor series with the bat, after the first test. Gilchrist was probably Australia's 5th best batsman, and he played significant innings in three different tests. I certainly don't think the bowling was bad enough or the pitches flat enough to allow this sort of consistent batting effort from a team that weren't playing extremely good cricket.

Simply put, I think it was the best Australian team performance since the tour of India in '04, and quite comfortably as well. That was the last time that every player (bar Lehmann, in that series) contributed so well to a team victory.

I've already explained why the bowling was bad enough. Like i said the bowling was spearheaded by Hoggard, which in these conditions was always going to cause problems for England given that hes not the sort of bowler who can run through batting lineups on flat wickets. At the end of the day theres not one England bowler than can stand up and say i did a great job, because no one did, certainly Harmison and Anderson are more likely to be dropped if anything and Flintoff was injured for most of this series. Just because a bunch of players had good averages it doesnt mean that the standard of cricket was spectacular. Otherwise you can include series against Bangladesh and zimbabwe and do the exact same thing.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by The Sean

8th best in that series mate. You knew what I meant.

Either way, you can have your opinion. Check out the SA bowling averages for that series too though - it's on statspider, cricinfo, howstat, or in the dictionary under "mediocrity".

Mediocrity? If the SA bowlers were mediocre in that series, id hate to think what the Australian bowlers were given that the SA fast bowlers not only outperformed but outaveraged the Australian bowlers.

[Poker Boy]

Let's take them one by one. NZ have never beaten a full strength Australia. They would get a draw in Adelaide - as we should have done - and lost the rest. In the case of WI and SA we have last season's evidence. 3-0 v WI and 5-0 H and A v SA. Don't think those two have improved in a year. Pakistan away from home have three batsmen - see the summer of 2006 for evidence - and would need their full-strength bowling attack to have a chance. SL have Murali - but his record in Australia is poor. The only team that might have done better than scrape the odd draw is India - with an expericened batting line-up, good spinners and the fact McGrath is a bit below his best (and they always coped well with Warne). There is evidence to back me up. The only team to win a "live" Test in Australia since the Boxing Day Test of 1996? India (Adelaide 2003).

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

If he had a good series, he wouldnt not have been dropped in favor of Symonds.
I think when someone scores 203, and then in 5 other innings cant even manage 1/4 of that it suggests that its merely a deviation from the norm.

But that is how batting typically works though. Batsmen that average 40 don't usually score around that mark on every occassion - out of ten innings, they'll usually get about one ton, three four half centuries and the rest average scores. Usually a not out or two in there somewhere as well. The ton is going to look out of place so you'd want to remove it, but then their average is going to look ordinary.

As far as your argument is concerned, there was no difference between Hodge going out there and scoring 26 and Hodge going out there and scoring 500*. When you get that situation, you know your agument is flawed.

As as far as his dropping is concerned, he wasn't dropped in favour of Symonds any more than he was dropped in favour of Brett Lee. Symonds was in the team as an allrounder - Hodge was dropped for Damien Martyn in favour of Hayden, Langer, Ponting and Hussey. He was dropped because it was obvious there were flaws in his technique that opposition teams were being to discover and work on - he wasn't dropped because he had a bad series.

Originally Posted by tooextracool

At the end of the day Lee averaging 24 and Bracken averaging 24 arent really match winning contributions.

Whenever someone does make a match-winning contribution though, you write it off as an anomoly anyway, so it wouldn't matter.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

If he had a good series, he wouldnt not have been dropped in favor of Symonds.
I think when someone scores 203, and then in 5 other innings cant even manage 1/4 of that it suggests that its merely a deviation from the norm.

Just on Brad Hodge, he was dropped because of a technical flaw. As such it was exposed by SA, pollock i believe exposed his weakness in Melbourne against full deliveries outside the off stump.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

But that is how batting typically works though. Batsmen that average 40 don't usually score around that mark on every occassion - out of ten innings, they'll usually get about one ton, three four half centuries and the rest average scores. Usually a not out or two in there somewhere as well. The ton is going to look out of place so you'd want to remove it, but then their average is going to look ordinary.

As far as your argument is concerned, there was no difference between Hodge going out there and scoring 26 and Hodge going out there and scoring 500*. When you get that situation, you know your agument is flawed.

I think the difference in your example is that the player also scored 3-4 half centuries in the same series. I think its completely different from 203*, 41,7,24,6 and 27* which suggests that he was a complete failure for the rest of the series. Another example is Brian Lara against England in 2004: 23,0,0,8 , 36,33, 400* and averaged 83. Its not any different from Hodge's innings because Hodge too scored his 200 on a very flat wicket. At the end of the day neither batsmen can come out saying that they had a successful series when they've failed for all bar inning of the series.

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

As as far as his dropping is concerned, he wasn't dropped in favour of Symonds any more than he was dropped in favour of Brett Lee. Symonds was in the team as an allrounder - Hodge was dropped for Damien Martyn in favour of Hayden, Langer, Ponting and Hussey. He was dropped because it was obvious there were flaws in his technique that opposition teams were being to discover and work on - he wasn't dropped because he had a bad series.

Yes he was dropped for his technical flaw, which i mentioned in my last post. Again how on earth can you say that he had a succesful series when he had his technique exposed?

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Whenever someone does make a match-winning contribution though, you write it off as an anomoly anyway, so it wouldn't matter.

No i dont. A match winning contribution is exactly that, it wins one match. It doesnt however mean that because a player made one match winning contribution and is non existent for the rest we can say that he had a good series.A good series involves playing well for most of the series, not just in one innings.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

The only problem is their batting which consists of Kallis, Prince and very little else.

And you have to score more runs than the opposition to win a Test match.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

And you have to score more runs than the opposition to win a Test match.

Yes or conversely you're bowlers have to take 20 wickets cheaper than the opposition. I have no doubt that a fully fit Nel,Ntini, Steyn, Pollock, Kallis and Harris could win at least one test match down under, especially if they had the benefit of the toss.
At the end of the day its not like the Australian batting is all that brilliant either.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Burgey

The West Indies sides of the 80s would have given them a decent run.

You greatly over-rate this Australian side if you think that the West Indies side of the 80s would not have beaten this side comfortably.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Yes or conversely you're bowlers have to take 20 wickets cheaper than the opposition. I have no doubt that a fully fit Nel,Ntini, Steyn, Pollock, Kallis and Harris could win at least one test match down under, especially if they had the benefit of the toss.
At the end of the day its not like the Australian batting is all that brilliant either.

Since when is Harris part of a world-beating attack? For that matter, since when is Steyn part of that attack? And Kallis?

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Since when is Harris part of a world-beating attack? For that matter, since when is Steyn part of that attack? And Kallis?

Im pointing out all the bowlers that constitute their best attack. Im not saying that the likes of Pollock, Kallis and Harris are world beating, but they form part of a very good attack. Steyn has been consistently part of the SA bowling attack since the tour of NZ, and he has some serious potential bowling outswingers at hostile pace.
Harris already looks a class above Petersen, Boje, Adams and everyone other spinner that has played for SA since their return in 92.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by TEC

Harris already looks a class above Petersen, Boje, Adams and everyone other spinner that has played for SA since their return in 92.

Did you actually watch him bowl or did you just read the scorecard? He's better than Petersen, yes, but hell even I'm better than Petersen. I'd still take Boje or Botha over him any day of the week if I had the choice. The pitch suited him perfectly and he was ineffective for the most part.