Please Ricky Ponting! Stop with this crap!

[Black Thunder]

And how do you know this?

With hardly any experience of International, how do you know they'd all have been great successes?

Because they are good cricketers. They've proven themselves in the best domestic competition in Australia and I'm pretty confident in my own ability to judge a cricketer and their ability to take it to the next level - and all of those guys i believe could do it no problems.

Elliott, Katich, Love and Hodge are better batsmen than all, barring a couple (Vaughan when he was batting well, Strauss currently), of the guys England have had batting for them while they've been taking attacks apart in FC cricket.

We'll never be proven wrong or right, but lets put it this way - if i were putting my last dollar on whether or not they'd have been good/solid test cricketers i'd be far more confident backing them to be succesful.

 

[garage flower]

I'd back an Australia 2nd XI to beat all other test teams in the world, with only England in their current form to be competitive with them - England probably just in front.

(Based on the test team of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Lehmann, Gilchrist, Gillespie, Warne, Kasprowicz, McGrath). It would be something along the lines of Chris Rogers, Matt Elliott, Simon Katich, Martin Love, Brad Hodge, Shane Watson, Wade Seccombe, Brett Lee, Andy Bichel, Stuart MacGill, Shaun Tait.

Except for Tait, Watson and Rogers (who are still up and comers) the rest would have all played at least 30 tests (most of them even more) if born in another country by now while the other three would now be regulars in the early stages of their test career.

Admittedly I don't know much about the likes of Rogers, Hodge and Tait, but this seems to be exceedingly arrogant. Only England to be competitive!

The bowling attack in that 2nd XI looks pretty ordinary to me, so I'd guess you'd be looking at a fairly mediocre test side.

I'd expect England to beat them comfortably and any other side (with the exception of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) to be competitive.

 

[eastley]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Thunder
I'd back an Australia 2nd XI to beat all other test teams in the world, with only England in their current form to be competitive with them - England probably just in front.

(Based on the test team of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Lehmann, Gilchrist, Gillespie, Warne, Kasprowicz, McGrath). It would be something along the lines of Chris Rogers, Matt Elliott, Simon Katich, Martin Love, Brad Hodge, Shane Watson, Wade Seccombe, Brett Lee, Andy Bichel, Stuart MacGill, Shaun Tait.

Except for Tait, Watson and Rogers (who are still up and comers) the rest would have all played at least 30 tests (most of them even more) if born in another country by now while the other three would now be regulars in the early stages of their test career. End of Quote.

Quote
Admittedly I don't know much about the likes of Rogers, Hodge and Tait, but this seems to be exceedingly arrogant. Only England to be competitive!

The bowling attack in that 2nd XI looks pretty ordinary to me, so I'd guess you'd be looking at a fairly mediocre test side.

I'd expect England to beat them comfortably and any other side (with the exception of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) to be competitive. End of Quote


LMAO, rotflmao.

You gotta be kidding me? Tait, Lee, Bichel, Watson have all played alot more international matches than you know of. Brett lee is a one day specialist, tait tore apart pakistan in there practice matches, watson plays good solid cricket and bichel has played alot of matches for Australia in both one day and test cricket.

 

[Black Thunder]

Admittedly I don't know much about the likes of Rogers, Hodge and Tait, but this seems to be exceedingly arrogant. Only England to be competitive!

The bowling attack in that 2nd XI looks pretty ordinary to me, so I'd guess you'd be looking at a fairly mediocre test side.

I'd expect England to beat them comfortably and any other side (with the exception of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) to be competitive.

The bowling is definetaly the weakness in the line-up, but even that lineup is pretty solid. MacGill has proven he's pretty much as good (or not far behind at all) any spinner in the world outside of SKW and MM.

Bichel and Lee have shown they can play test cricket, although somewhat inconsistently, but i reckon their big problem (particularly AB) was being seen as the weakness of the Australian bowlers.

Whenever Bichel played the opposition always used to go after him more. With Gillespie, McGrath and Warne playing alongside I think batsmen used to see Bichel as their chance for runs, and he may bowl a ball similar to something McGrath would dish up and get a wicket with but the batsmen would be able to push the ball away for one or two when Bichel was sending it down.

A lot of batting is mental. When your batting, if your facing a guy who has a reputation (McGrath) amongst your peers your straight away put on the back foot and the bowler already has an advantage. But Bichel didn't have that reputation, and as such the batsmen would feel they had more control.

 

[garage flower]

The bowling is definetaly the weakness in the line-up, but even that lineup is pretty solid.

"Pretty solid" sounds a lot more accurate than the previous, heady claim.

Whenever Bichel played the opposition always used to go after him more. With Gillespie, McGrath and Warne playing alongside I think batsmen used to see Bichel as their chance for runs

Don't you think this often benefitted Bichel by earning him wickets from rash shots or an over-aggressive approach on the part of the batsmen? This certainly seemed to be the case when he was bowling to Lara on the last Aussie tour to the Caribbean.

 

[garage flower]

Quote:

LMAO, rotflmao.

You gotta be kidding me? Tait, Lee, Bichel, Watson have all played alot more international matches than you know of. Brett lee is a one day specialist, tait tore apart pakistan in there practice matches, watson plays good solid cricket and bichel has played alot of matches for Australia in both one day and test cricket.

I've got no idea whether you're trying to make a point here or simply practising daft acronyms.

If you're trying to make a (valid) point, you need to try much harder.

 

[Black Thunder]

"Pretty solid" sounds a lot more accurate than the previous, heady claim.

there was a previous claim??

Don't you think this often benefitted Bichel by earning him wickets from rash shots or an over-aggressive approach on the part of the batsmen? This certainly seemed to be the case when he was bowling to Lara on the last Aussie tour to the Caribbean.

Not neccesarilly. At time yes, but more often no. Batting is 95% in the brains. If your facing Glen McGrath, a batsman is straight away in a negative frame of mind. If your facing Andy Bichel, the batsmen is going to be more positive and believe he can play an aggressive stroke.

McGrath is a better bowler than Bichel no doubt, but Bich is an extremely solid bowler in his own right, who only got to play about 15 tests. But I'd take him in my team long before a lot of other guys who have gotten to 50-60 or even more tests for other countries.

Because Bichel never got a chance to cement himself at test level (with the likes of McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Kasprowicz, Fleming, Miller in the way) he doesn't have any reputation in terms of test cricket. I'd have no reversations in saying he could've done every bit as well as any of those bowlers (except GM) at test level if given a chance but it wasn't the way the cookie crumbled for him.

 

[garage flower]

there was a previous claim??

Yes: "I'd back an Australia 2nd XI to beat all other test teams in the world, with only England in their current form to be competitive with them....."

 

[Black Thunder]

Black Thunder: The bowling is definetaly the weakness in the line-up, but even that lineup is pretty solid.

Garage Flower: "Pretty solid" sounds a lot more accurate than the previous, heady claim.

Black Thunder: there was a previous claim??

Garage Flower: Yes: "I'd back an Australia 2nd XI to beat all other test teams in the world, with only England in their current form to be competitive with them....."

you've completely changed what my "previous claim" was.......

you originally said my original claim was the bowling line-up, but then you've changed it to say it's me backing an Aus 2nd XI to beat any other team bar England.

 

[Dizzy #4]

OK, After seeing that performance, I can shove my comment up my a**!


I'm an A**, ok, you all see that now, (I still think he shouldn't get MOTM!)

 

[garage flower]

Black Thunder: The bowling is definetaly the weakness in the line-up, but even that lineup is pretty solid.

Garage Flower: "Pretty solid" sounds a lot more accurate than the previous, heady claim.

Black Thunder: there was a previous claim??

Garage Flower: Yes: "I'd back an Australia 2nd XI to beat all other test teams in the world, with only England in their current form to be competitive with them....."

you've completely changed what my "previous claim" was.......

you originally said my original claim was the bowling line-up, but then you've changed it to say it's me backing an Aus 2nd XI to beat any other team bar England.

No, I haven't changed what your previous claim was and I didn't originally say that your original claim was the bowling line-up.

What I've done is make the logical leap that, based on your assessment of the bowling attack as being nothing more than pretty solid, you've realised that your original claim of an Aussie 2nd XI riding roughshod over the cricketing world (with the possible exception of England) was a trifle OTT.

In other words, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies would surely be "competitive" against a team with nothing more than a "pretty solid" bowling attack.

 

[Black Thunder]

No, I haven't changed what your previous claim was and I didn't originally say that your original claim was the bowling line-up.

What I've done is make the logical leap that, based on your assessment of the bowling attack as being nothing more than pretty solid, you've realised that your original claim of an Aussie 2nd XI riding roughshod over the cricketing world (with the possible exception of England) was a trifle OTT.

In other words, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies would surely be "competitive" against a team with nothing more than a "pretty solid" bowling attack.

India: good batting line-up, but is at see on anything that see the balls get above the waist consistently. Bowlers are ok, especially spinners, but need conditions to be suited.

In the right conditions would probably beat Aus A, but over 20 tests on a range of pitches and conditions i'd back Aus A to be in front.

Pakistan: would battle. At their best they could even beat the Aus team but that happens 1 every 20 times they come out on the field.

Sri Lanka: same as Pakistan. A good performance from Murali would be required as is the case every time they play.

New Zealand: Aus A pretty comfortably.

South Africa: Should be able to beat them, but on current form would battle.

West Indies: Not even close.

England would be the only team on current form i'd back to win more games than lose over an extended series in varying conditions against an Australian A team.

And remember, a "pretty solid" bowling line-up is better than what can be said for every other bowling attack in the world except Aus and Eng. India's is rubbish if it's not a turner, Pak's is rubbish if Shoaib doesn't turn up which is far too often (but they're improving lots), SrL's rely's completely on Murali, NZL's is very average, South Africa have the bowlers but are totally out of form and the Windies has one of the worst in international history.

 

[Mr Casson]

And remember, a "pretty solid" bowling line-up is better than what can be said for every other bowling attack in the world except Aus and Eng. India's is rubbish if it's not a turner, Pak's is rubbish if Shoaib doesn't turn up which is far too often (but they're improving lots), SrL's rely's completely on Murali, NZL's is very average, South Africa have the bowlers but are totally out of form and the Windies has one of the worst in international history.

Pakistan are doing much better without Shoaib. They have his alter-ego in Naved-ul-Hasan Rana; someone who gives everything he has to the team and is reliable. Even without Mohammad Sami and Umar Gul they're managing to hold their own. Forgotten about Danish Kaneria so soon?

Sri Lanka don't rely completely on Murali. Have you forgotten Chaminda Vaas?

 

[Black Thunder]

Pakistan are doing much better without Shoaib. They have his alter-ego in Naved-ul-Hasan Rana; someone who gives everything he has to the team and is reliable. Even without Mohammad Sami and Umar Gul they're managing to hold their own. Forgotten about Danish Kaneria so soon?

Definetaly not forgotten Kaneria but he's not yet a match winner. There is plenty of potential within Pakistan, but no the performances yet...

Sri Lanka don't rely completely on Murali. Have you forgotten Chaminda Vaas?

Still only a two-prong bowling attack. Very dodgy when you consider Jayasuriya is their equal third leading wicket taker in tests for the past 2 years....

 

[garage flower]

India: good batting line-up, but is at see on anything that see the balls get above the waist consistently. Bowlers are ok, especially spinners, but need conditions to be suited.

In the right conditions would probably beat Aus A, but over 20 tests on a range of pitches and conditions i'd back Aus A to be in front.

Pakistan: would battle. At their best they could even beat the Aus team but that happens 1 every 20 times they come out on the field.

Sri Lanka: same as Pakistan. A good performance from Murali would be required as is the case every time they play.

New Zealand: Aus A pretty comfortably.

South Africa: Should be able to beat them, but on current form would battle.

West Indies: Not even close.

England would be the only team on current form i'd back to win more games than lose over an extended series in varying conditions against an Australian A team.

And remember, a "pretty solid" bowling line-up is better than what can be said for every other bowling attack in the world except Aus and Eng. India's is rubbish if it's not a turner, Pak's is rubbish if Shoaib doesn't turn up which is far too often (but they're improving lots), SrL's rely's completely on Murali, NZL's is very average, South Africa have the bowlers but are totally out of form and the Windies has one of the worst in international history.

Glad to see you're continuing to temper your original optimism about the Aussie 2nd XI's chances. Now we've at least got SL doing ok as long as Murali plays well and South Africa having the edge when they're back on form.

Indian fans might be a little surprised to hear that their batsmen can't cope when "balls get above the waist consistently". They didn't seem to have too many problems in Australia against an attack which presumably would be similar (though it was boosted by Gillespie's presence) to the one the 2nd XI would field.

In my view, the major factor in the ongoing dominance of this Aussie (1st) XI is the presence of 2 great bowlers and 1 very good bowler in the side. The incredible percentage of games won owes a lot to the deep, aggressive batting line-up.

Take away McGrath, Warne and Gillespie (please!), lose Gilchrist's immense presence at 7 and, of course, a fantastic top 6 and you're left with - based on the fringe players I've seen - a middle-ranking test team at best. The younger players I haven't seen are untried at the highest level and so their impact can obviously only be guessed at.

 

[Black Thunder]

Glad to see you're continuing to temper your original optimism about the Aussie 2nd XI's chances. Now we've at least got SL doing ok as long as Murali plays well and South Africa having the edge when they're back on form.

Sri Lanka wouldn't beat them often. A good performance from Murali is required just to give them even half a chance.

And how do we know if South Africa will ever get back on form?? If we're going to use that argument i'd say that England aren't near Australia A, because they are an above average test team playing as good as they can and are in superb form.... form has to be taken into it.

Indian fans might be a little surprised to hear that their batsmen can't cope when "balls get above the waist consistently". They didn't seem to have too many problems in Australia against an attack which presumably would be similar (though it was boosted by Gillespie's presence) to the one the 2nd XI would field.

similar attack, but a current Aus A bowling line-up would be better than last seasons Aus line-up. MacGill bowled like a deadset donkey that series and has bowled the best he ever has this year in both tests and FC arena.

Lee is just Lee - who know's what he'll dish up.

Bichel has just had the best calendar year of his career.

Tait is an up and coming speedster who can send them down very quickly, and get good results.

As I said, not a spectucular bowling line up, but a pretty solid line-up that'd do the job more often than not. Throw in Watson and Katich, and you've at least got some options when the chips are down.

Take away McGrath, Warne and Gillespie (please!), lose Gilchrist's immense presence at 7 and, of course, a fantastic top 6 and you're left with

only Michael Kasprowicz...........

There is a lot of batting depth in Australian cricket. Not as much bowling depth, but there is some talent there. There is a lot of talent in the under 23 age bracket but they're just not ready enough yet......

 

[garage flower]

Sri Lanka wouldn't beat them often. A good performance from Murali is required just to give them even half a chance.

I'd expect Sri Lanka to be big favourites at home.

And how do we know if South Africa will ever get back on form??

Form, by it's very nature, is transient. Your implication was that South Africa have the ability to beat the Aussie 2nds, whereas previously you'd lumped them in with the "uncompetitive" pack.

similar attack, but a current Aus A bowling line-up would be better than last seasons Aus line-up.

Without Gillespie?

 

[Black Thunder]

Without Gillespie?

Gillespie had an ordinary season. Perhaps he struggled without support, but he was definetaly bowling with an injury at one point.

That was a very one-off summer where the bowling was absolutely atrocious from all involved. I'd expect someone like Bichel to bowl far better currently than what Gillespie was bowling last season.

 

[Mr Casson]

Definetaly not forgotten Kaneria but he's not yet a match winner. There is plenty of potential within Pakistan, but no the performances yet...



Still only a two-prong bowling attack. Very dodgy when you consider Jayasuriya is their equal third leading wicket taker in tests for the past 2 years....

I think Kaneria is a born matchwinner - but that's just my opinion.

With regards to Sri Lanka having just a two-pronged attack, two is still more than one, isn't it?

 

[Black Thunder]

I think Kaneria is a born matchwinner - but that's just my opinion.

i think he is too. i've rated him from the time i saw him bout 3 years ago - but he isn't there yet.