How would the other teams have done?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.

That's really unlike you TEC. Very rarely do you ever jump on a player after only one test. I really don't think Harris has been that good, and if he bowled in Australia without those delicious footmarks he'd received this test, I dare say he would have been smashed to all parts.

That's not necessarily a slight against him, but I can't believe you'd judge him over one test where he's had very favourable conditions and has not been outstanding.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.

Harris hasn't even finished his first Test! What has he done to state that he belongs, let along play against Australia? An attack is as good as the sum of its parts.

[marc71178]

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?

Or that India or Pakistan could get 3 draws?!

[Dover 1]

Even if I did not have any other evidence, simple physics + the law of probability would suggest that on any given day and at any given time even a moderate team can outplay the most favored one. If its test all it takes is for the underdog to have really good sessions totaling 1/3 of all sessions. If its a 1 day game, to follw the basics and make fewer mistakes than the opposition.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Burgey

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

would have been a fascinating battle....in my opinion, the windies would have won...

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.....

What exactly are you arguing here? I said that Lee had matured as the leader of the attack over the whole summer, in which he averaged 23. He did bowl quite well at times in the home series against South Africa, mainly on the first day in Melbourne, but I never suggested that he had a "dominant" series, and it would have been foolish to do so. I wouldn't even say he had a dominant series in the away leg against South Africa where he averaged 19, though Stuart Clark did have one. Ntini and Nel were nothing like dominant against Australia. They had solid series with the ball against a good batting lineup but nothing spectacular. Similar to, say, Matthew Hoggard this time around, but in more helpful conditions in general.

And regarding the conditions, I'm pretty sure I rememeber you acknowledging that the pitches in Australia were more lively than usual. In the series against the West Indies the ball swung a bit in Brisbane while Hobart and Adelaide were roads, so the seam friendly conditions generally came against South Africa. Not that any of the wickets were minefields by any stretch, but after the road in Perth, both Melbourne and Sydney moved around on the first couple of days for all the bowlers. Ntini missed the Sydney test of course and was replaced by Langeveldt, who was rubbish.

You seem to be firing shots all over the place in an attempt to make the Australian batting lineup look average. The fact is that it's absolutely absurd to suggest that two bowlers who averaged close to 30 without having to play on roads in a series that was lost 2-0 "dominated" the opposition, or had them "wrapped around their fingers".

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.

Of course not, but again, you're massively overstating how badly England bowled. Obviously you can't concretely measure how much of a batting side's success was down to planning and application and how much of it came from poor bowling performance, but I think England bowled quite well at times throughout the series and generally struggled to make an impact at key moments, while poor bowling was dominated when it came. England's bowling for an innings and a half in Perth was excellent for instance, and I'd say only Brisbane and Melbourne saw genuinely poor bowling performances from the team as a whole. Every one of the England bowlers was played far better this year by the Australian batsmen. There were plans for every bowler, and every batsman except Langer showed real discipline and a determination that simply hasn't been there against any opposition other than India in recent times. It was a phenomenal batting display, simple as that, and if you think throwing Nel, Pollock or Harris in against the same performance would mean success, you're really deluding yourself.

[Dover 1]

Nobody is disputing that pitches have a direct affect on batting and bowling performances but the really good players are able to adapt to any and all conditions.

[Dover 1]

The Windies side of the 80's would have destroyed them

[aussie]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.

You might be in for shocker, but the jury is out on him still no doubt..

[aussie]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Despite what? Langer had one good test match, easily the game in which England bowled worst in the entire series and even in that game he had an incredible amount of luck that it beggered belief. At the end his average was quite obviously boosted by being 100 not out. Arguably Langer was the worst batsman on both sides this series, unless you count Geraint Jones.

He probably didn't cash a lot after the 1st test, but its not as if he looked out of place in the remainder of series. He got starts and didn't cash in, getting out to a mixture of good deliveries & bad shots. Unlike Cook who but for his 100 in adelaide really was worked out by England. You seem to be judging langer based on stats alone here.

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Hayden similarly had 2 good innings, hardly chanceless as most people observed and by and large most people were considering dropping him after the way he was batting at the start of this series.

I honestly cant see how either of these 2 batted well. Their averages look good because they played against a mediocre attack on mostly flat batting wickets and they both still needed plenty of luck to score runs.

Obviously the calls for Hayden to dropped after the intial stages of the series were crazy wherever they came from. Unlike 2005 where he looked totally at sea for the 1st 4 test he looked good intially but didn't get big scores. He may have only had two big scores, England's bowling may not have been as consistent as 2005, the pitches were flat (but not as flat as you are making it out), MCG, SCG & Perth all offered something for the bowlers looked how welll Australia bowled but you still got to score runs againts whats in front of you, if you are going to ridicule batsmen on petty things like that we might have to start questioning if Lara & Tendulkar are truly great batsmen then..

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Dover 1

The Windies side of the 80's would have destroyed them

Overall it would be close contest i think, although i expect windies to win. If you pick the best windies team between the glory years of 76-95 vs AUS 95- to date:

WINDIES:

Greenidge
Fredericks/Haynes
Lara
Richardson
Richards
Llyod*
Dujon+
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Ambrose

AUSTRALIA:

Hayden
Taylor
Ponting
M Waugh
S Waugh
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
McDermott
McGrath

I'd expect some very good cricket..

[grecian]

The thing about this Australian team and the Windies 80s team, is the key point is over-rates.

The West Indies team of back then were allowed to get away with paltry overs per day, which kept the four bowler pace armoury fresh, and gave the opposing batsmen no time to feel "in".

This isn't actually a criticism of them, they played within the rules at the time, and had a ridiculously good amount of genuinely threatening quicks, the fact that the likes of Sylvester Clarke and Wayne Daniel played so few matches, show their strength in that department.

Its just with the more stringent rules it would be hard for them to perform as they did.

Mind you I'd still back them to win, Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts, Walsh, Ambrose,,,, nowhere to run baby.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by grecian

The thing about this Australian team and the Windies 80s team, is the key point is over-rates.

The West Indies team of back then were allowed to get away with paltry overs per day, which kept the four bowler pace armoury fresh, and gave the opposing batsmen no time to feel "in".

This isn't actually a criticism of them, they played within the rules at the time, and had a ridiculously good amount of genuinely threatening quicks, the fact that the likes of Sylvester Clarke and Wayne Daniel played so few matches, show their strength in that department.

Its just with the more stringent rules it would be hard for them to perform as they did.

Mind you I'd still back them to win, Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts, Walsh, Ambrose,,,, nowhere to run baby.

....and you haven't even mentioned some of the lesser lights like winston davis, patrick patterson, winston benjamin etc who were really good fast bowlers themselves and only suffered in comparison...

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think we can all agree it'd be a fantastic series to watch.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

I think we can all agree it'd be a fantastic series to watch.

The best TBH, Viv Richards against Shane Warne, Gordon Greenidge against Glenn McGrath, Matt Hayden against Joel Garner, Ricky Ponting against Malcolm Marshall.....

I think I might have watched it.