-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
"What they said"...A brilliant read.
- Thread starter Zinzan
- Start date
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
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.BoyBrumby said: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.
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.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
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.
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.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
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'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"FaaipDeOiad said:
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:
The Baconator
International Vice-Captain
This?BoyBrumby said: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?!
Is it physically possible to be more wrong?
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
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.greg said:
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.
Barney Rubble
International Coach
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.
They'd have worn out the noose by now - Gilo dismisse each of the top 8 at least once.
simmy
International Regular
Alderman and Jeff Thompson are the biggest ****s alive.Barney Rubble said: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.
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?!?!?!
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
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.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Alderman had a point, I think. Obviously the "anyone who gets out to Giles should hang themselves" thing was over the top, but he was quite right in saying that Giles is an extremely defensive bowler, refuses to go around the wicket and gets most of his wickets through the batsman doing something dumb or pitching it in the rough over and over until something unusual happens, which is why he has such a ridiculous test average. He had a pretty poor series really and Australia played him okay, but he still picked up the odd wicket to a silly shot.simmy said:
Thomson is an idiot, and should never be let near a newspaper columb or commentary box ever again.
Pedro Delgado
International Debutant
To be honest all this doesn't bother me. I mean, with England sides of the past I as an England fan sometimes expected us to go down 5-0. Whilst I never subscribed to the view that we weren't fighters, I recognised that in the Aus side were two of the greatest ever bowlers of all time, and very good batting line-up and that if things went against us it was possible. If Hussain wasn't captain (forget Brisbane) on the last tour, with us losing Gough, Fred, Jonah, Thorpe not touring et al, it may have happened. Luckily by then we'd become harder to beat under The Great Indian/Dunc, and Mick was incredible, but it wouldn't have surprised me if we'd gone down 5-0.
Hayden and McGrath have seen (and heard about) England improving every succesive time they've played us. McGrath said he thought he'd be letting his team mates down if he didn't predict an Aus win every time they took the field, Hayden reckoned that if they played at their best every game they'd be hard to live with. The mistakes both made were -
a) It's very rare that everything goes perfectly on tour
b) It's always possible that an opposition player will play out of his skin eg Vaughan '02/'03 Flintoff '05
c) They, some of their team mates and possibly their coach relaxed after Lord's, asked us to bat having just lost McGrath to injury and with Warne in the side, and in doing so handed the initiative to England who never looked back.
Hayden and McGrath have seen (and heard about) England improving every succesive time they've played us. McGrath said he thought he'd be letting his team mates down if he didn't predict an Aus win every time they took the field, Hayden reckoned that if they played at their best every game they'd be hard to live with. The mistakes both made were -
a) It's very rare that everything goes perfectly on tour
b) It's always possible that an opposition player will play out of his skin eg Vaughan '02/'03 Flintoff '05
c) They, some of their team mates and possibly their coach relaxed after Lord's, asked us to bat having just lost McGrath to injury and with Warne in the side, and in doing so handed the initiative to England who never looked back.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
There was basically no way it would have been 5-0, which is what he said and which is what makes him the idiot he is.Deja moo said: