I'd say that had a fair bit to do with it, with the selectors maybe viewing taking an underprepared Tendulkar, and Flintoff - who on batting alone doesn't deserve to be in the World XI - as opening themselves up a bit with the batting if Australia are on song with the ball.age_master said:not to mention thats hes a very handy batsman
I hate selective stats.thierry henry said:
exactly his record againts the aussies is good, i agree with his selection.Toecrusher said:No, but I guess six 5 wicket and one 10 wicket bag in 13 matches against Australia does....
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
How about nine 5-fers, two RECENT 10-fers and four 4-fers at home and away against Australia in only one more Test?No, but I guess six 5 wicket and one 10 wicket bag in 13 matches against Australia does....
Then why arent Vaughan and Laxman and Kumble in the team if performance against Australia matters so much ?Somerset said:Thierry you obviously haven't seen Daniel Vettori bowl against Australia. During the series in New Zealand he was literally the only Kiwi bowler to gain any sort of respect from the Australians - he conceeding around 30 runs per ten overs and also picked up a number of wickets. His recent form against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (the only other teams he has faced for months) was superb. His batting has come along brilliantly and with that extra batting down the order I think his selection was justified.
I'm talking only tests for the three. Vaughan has done well this series too.shaka said:For Vaughan I am guessing you were only thinking about his 150 he made in the last test. What did he do for the other part of the ODI and test series?
To be fair, if he'd received any support from any of the other NZ bowlers the Australians wouldn't have been so incredibly defensive against Vettori and I think he'd have been much more successful than he was.Deja moo said:Then why arent Vaughan and Laxman and Kumble in the team if performance against Australia matters so much ?