Hindsight's wonderful, but you've gotta laugh at Thommo's comment about Hoggard being a net bowler compared to McGrath & Kasprowicz. I have a lot of time for Kasper & I'm sure not being certain of his place didn't help him, but I think we all know who performed the better.
- As featured in The Independent.
"Predictably, the ending of his international career did not end the argument about Pietersen's merits, as an army of informed commentators and Piers Morgan weighed in to defend or attack him."
- The Guardian's Andrew Anthony
Thommo is notoriously biased towards Queenslanders generally, so it's not a great shock that he'd choose Kasprowicz for the comparison and not (as might have seemed more fitting) Gillespie.Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
Didn't Hoggard also say that Warne wasn't as good as he used to be and was a much more defensive bowler these days? Didn't look it to me.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
Some of the things that are included there are really odd too.
What's so "weird and wacky" about Ponting saying the ODI series didn't mean much because tests are a different game and "we'll see how it goes"? That seems fairly reasonable to me. And including Hoggard's ridiculous comments about the age of the Australian bowlers as "right" is a bit silly, given that Australia's best bowlers in the series were 35 year olds, one of whom had a man of the match performance before he trod on a ball (which I doubt was what Hoggard was suggesting might happen) and the other of whom became the 7th guy in test history to take 40 wickets in a series.
Yeah, fair enough. Although Hoggy wasn't alone in suggesting Warney was on the slide a bit. I think both the Waughs said something similar too.
I'll hold my hands up, I didn't call it at all. To be fair, it would've been a pretty one-eyed Englishman who did!
On an entirely unrelated topic, what were SP's predictions beforehand?!
I think the point is the context in which he said it - just written there it looks bland, but when he said it we all know it meant "so what if we've struggled in the one-dayers and had all sorts of weaknesses exposed, that doesn't mean we'll struggle in the tests... etc"Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
When with the benefit of hindsight we can identify many of the reasons why England won the test series as being present in the ODIs. In fact it is hardly surprising that Australia ultimately squeaked the ODIs but lost the tests considering England strengthened after the onedayers, and australia (arguably) weakened.
Last edited by greg; 14-09-2005 at 11:17 AM.
The boy did good, apart from overrating Harmy.Originally Posted by The Baconator
Is it physically possible to be more wrong?Originally Posted by Terry Alderman
RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990 - 15/4/2006
England lost Collingwood and Gough, and got Bell and Hoggard... not a particularly huge improvement, really. Hoggard was a good bowler in the series but didn't set the world alight, and Bell was very poor. Australia lost Hussey, Symonds and Hogg, and got Langer, Katich and Warne, including their best batsman and best bowler in the series. If you ask me, Australia got the bigger boost.Originally Posted by greg
It's also worth remembering that the pitches were very different. The ODIs, at least in the NatWest Series, were played on some pretty lively wickets. Sophia Gardens against Bangladesh seamed around early, Old Trafford both seamed and turned, Durham was pretty lively, Headingley was absolutely menacing in the first session with the cloud cover, and the final at Lords was a very green wicket as well.
I don't think you can necessarily find that much of a connection between the two, aside from Australia, particularly Gilchrist, struggling against Flintoff and Gillespie and Kasprowicz both being woeful with the ball. It told us that the teams were fairly evenly matched, but it didn't necessarily have a huge bearing on the results in the test series, especially when you consider that Australia got all the momentum from winning the final two games. What Ponting said was pretty much spot on, I think.
I think one of the funniest comments was, I think by Alderman, "If any of the Australian batsmen get out to Giles, they should hang themselves".
They'd have worn out the noose by now - Gilo dismisse each of the top 8 at least once.
Alderman and Jeff Thompson are the biggest ****s alive.Originally Posted by Barney Rubble
Why make such a stupid comment?
I hope they are still crying in a corner over what could have been.
If Hoggard is a net bowler... then what the hell is Kaspa?!?!?!
I think the stupidest comment of the century was from McGrath. He is the biggest idiot really, to say that they were gonna win 5-0, when they never managed it in the recent past, when they were so much better and England were so much worse than them. He is a legend of the game, but his words deserve to be in the trash bin.
We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)