Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
Hollioake, Russell, Caddick, Headley, Fraser, Tuffers.GeraintIsMyHero said:
That's some tail.
-
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.
5 Greatest Test matches of the Decade
- Thread starter RoyForPM
- Start date
That's some tail.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Decade!J.Coney said:
alternative
Cricket Web Content Updater
Eden gardens Aus vs IND
and the most recently completed Ashes Series.. I loved each and everyone of the game.. BUT Edgebaston was the best tho..
and the most recently completed Ashes Series.. I loved each and everyone of the game.. BUT Edgebaston was the best tho..
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
If you don't know what words mean, please don't use them.aussie said:From what i've seen:
Kolkatta 2001 - what a travesty
Edgbaston 2005
Chennai 99
Barbados 99
Hobart 99
worthy mentions Chennai 2001, Antigua 2003 - another travesty
trav·es·ty (trăv'ĭ-stē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.
1. An exaggerated or grotesque imitation, such as a parody of a literary work.
2. A debased or grotesque likeness: a travesty of justice.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
I just typed something that took hours and now it's lost *cry*
It went something like this
The 2001 NZ vs Aus Perth test was one of my favourite tests of the decade. NZ were write offs before they came here. I was in NZ in September and Fleming was interviewed on a Sports program about the upcoming tour and I remember this distinctly because it was Free to Air and the general public was ringing up and asking Fleming questions. I really liked that.
I also think Tony Greig was going on about the South Africans playing Australia after the Kiwi's. I got the feeling to him the Kiwi's were just a practice series for the Australians and it didn't matter because South Africa was next and it was going to be the greatest test series for a long time. Also, Ian Smith annoyed me no end.
NZ vs Aus at Brisbane and Hobart were interesing because of the declarations. Not so much Hobart but Brisbane anyway. NZ were out of it really after Cairns's LBW was turned down (plum btw) and Hayden and Langer went on to make yet another 200 run stand (I have to remind you, all of this is from memory).
The declarations made it interesting and gave NZ a chance that they shouldn'tve got. Hobart was just rain marred and "much of the same".
Perth was different somehow. We batted first and finally stood up to our potential. We had four centurions but at the same time the other batsmen out were all out in single figures.
It was probably the strongest line up we had fielded since the days of Crowe.
We had new players in with the old. Bond was just starting. He didn't set the world on fire in the tests but I must stress all of his wickets (I think he only got like 1 per innings) were key batsmen getting out for ducks.
I think Astle was very underrated. He doesn't have a great record vs Australia and I think it may be his only century vs Australia in any form but his 156 was superb. Remember, this was vs McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee and Australia's world class batting line up in the form of their lives.
Vettori's bowling, Flemings more or less "breakthough century", Parore's century from number 7 (or 8?) and Vincent on debut. I thought it was a true turning point in NZ cricket. The new (Bond, Vincent) with the old (Fleming, Astle, Cairns, Parore. Nash not in this test though) to a better performing side. NZ always fields a side with a player to make up for injury or a player thats hilariously out of form. It didn't seem so in this test. Probably the only players in the series that shouldn'tve been there were Martin and Bell. Even in retrospect, knowing how Matthew Horne is, he should've been on that tour instead of Bell.
Warne's batting to save them from following on (and NZ didn't get completely bowled out in the entire series) and then being out for 99. Gillespies "flying arms" as he came into bowl then McMillan copying him in a last ditch to win the match. Waugh and Gilchrist turning the match around to give Australia a hint of winning then the freak run out.
Astle got the most runs in the series (but only 2 ahead of Langer) and just Lee in general.
(None of that was in any particular order)
The Perth test was the only test I watched every minute of, start to finish. In the Ashes last year I went to bed because of the time difference or did other things when it was on, checking up on it from time to time.
It made me look foward to the next time NZ toured Australia, which turned out to be a big dissappointment. I still don't like the fact that we seem to have a preoccupation with all of our batsmen bowling and our bowlers batting. In the '01 series Astle and McMillan did a great job of breaking partnerships. At the same time, that's what they should be used as, and not some frontline bowling option. Styris (or Oram) has taken McMillans place but we need to get away from expecting most of our XI to bat as well as they bowl (and vice versa). Astle and Styris do a good enough job being part timers. I think Bracewell was talking about How (or Taylor?) being able to bowl offspin. I hope it never comes to that. We need to concentrate on having two specialist opening batsmen, then four specialist middle order batsmen, with a wicket keeper (if he can bat it's a bonus) and four bowlers.
Whenever we've had a "stable" XI the lineups been shuffled. It doesn't feel like we give the batsmen enough chances in their respective positions. But saying that, we always seem to give a few batsman more than enough chances in different roles (Marshall and McMillan).
Perhaps How, Tayor & Fulton will be a new era. A proper one. But not if they're screwed around in the batting order. I think the major concern is a proper strike bowler to partner Bond.
That's pretty much my feelings on my favourite test of the last decade and NZ cricket. And this is after a lot of drinks. I hope it makes sense and I'll probably read it when sober and groan at all the mistakes I've made and all the times I've repeated myself.
It went something like this
The 2001 NZ vs Aus Perth test was one of my favourite tests of the decade. NZ were write offs before they came here. I was in NZ in September and Fleming was interviewed on a Sports program about the upcoming tour and I remember this distinctly because it was Free to Air and the general public was ringing up and asking Fleming questions. I really liked that.
I also think Tony Greig was going on about the South Africans playing Australia after the Kiwi's. I got the feeling to him the Kiwi's were just a practice series for the Australians and it didn't matter because South Africa was next and it was going to be the greatest test series for a long time. Also, Ian Smith annoyed me no end.
NZ vs Aus at Brisbane and Hobart were interesing because of the declarations. Not so much Hobart but Brisbane anyway. NZ were out of it really after Cairns's LBW was turned down (plum btw) and Hayden and Langer went on to make yet another 200 run stand (I have to remind you, all of this is from memory).
The declarations made it interesting and gave NZ a chance that they shouldn'tve got. Hobart was just rain marred and "much of the same".
Perth was different somehow. We batted first and finally stood up to our potential. We had four centurions but at the same time the other batsmen out were all out in single figures.
It was probably the strongest line up we had fielded since the days of Crowe.
We had new players in with the old. Bond was just starting. He didn't set the world on fire in the tests but I must stress all of his wickets (I think he only got like 1 per innings) were key batsmen getting out for ducks.
I think Astle was very underrated. He doesn't have a great record vs Australia and I think it may be his only century vs Australia in any form but his 156 was superb. Remember, this was vs McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee and Australia's world class batting line up in the form of their lives.
Vettori's bowling, Flemings more or less "breakthough century", Parore's century from number 7 (or 8?) and Vincent on debut. I thought it was a true turning point in NZ cricket. The new (Bond, Vincent) with the old (Fleming, Astle, Cairns, Parore. Nash not in this test though) to a better performing side. NZ always fields a side with a player to make up for injury or a player thats hilariously out of form. It didn't seem so in this test. Probably the only players in the series that shouldn'tve been there were Martin and Bell. Even in retrospect, knowing how Matthew Horne is, he should've been on that tour instead of Bell.
Warne's batting to save them from following on (and NZ didn't get completely bowled out in the entire series) and then being out for 99. Gillespies "flying arms" as he came into bowl then McMillan copying him in a last ditch to win the match. Waugh and Gilchrist turning the match around to give Australia a hint of winning then the freak run out.
Astle got the most runs in the series (but only 2 ahead of Langer) and just Lee in general.
(None of that was in any particular order)
The Perth test was the only test I watched every minute of, start to finish. In the Ashes last year I went to bed because of the time difference or did other things when it was on, checking up on it from time to time.
It made me look foward to the next time NZ toured Australia, which turned out to be a big dissappointment. I still don't like the fact that we seem to have a preoccupation with all of our batsmen bowling and our bowlers batting. In the '01 series Astle and McMillan did a great job of breaking partnerships. At the same time, that's what they should be used as, and not some frontline bowling option. Styris (or Oram) has taken McMillans place but we need to get away from expecting most of our XI to bat as well as they bowl (and vice versa). Astle and Styris do a good enough job being part timers. I think Bracewell was talking about How (or Taylor?) being able to bowl offspin. I hope it never comes to that. We need to concentrate on having two specialist opening batsmen, then four specialist middle order batsmen, with a wicket keeper (if he can bat it's a bonus) and four bowlers.
Whenever we've had a "stable" XI the lineups been shuffled. It doesn't feel like we give the batsmen enough chances in their respective positions. But saying that, we always seem to give a few batsman more than enough chances in different roles (Marshall and McMillan).
Perhaps How, Tayor & Fulton will be a new era. A proper one. But not if they're screwed around in the batting order. I think the major concern is a proper strike bowler to partner Bond.
That's pretty much my feelings on my favourite test of the last decade and NZ cricket. And this is after a lot of drinks. I hope it makes sense and I'll probably read it when sober and groan at all the mistakes I've made and all the times I've repeated myself.
Last edited:
TIF
U19 Debutant
Some classic India-Australia matches -
Kolkata 2001
Chennai 2001
Adelaide 2003
Mumbai 2004 - Was special as Tendulkar and Laxman hit 50s on an unplayable track and then Indian spinners defended out 107 to win. If the Aussie-SA ODI can be so special with only the bat dominating, then why cant Mumbai 2001 be.
Also from matches which India didnt play in or lost -
Chennai 1999 - Ind v Pak
Laras 153* Aus v Windies match
Ashes 2005 match which England won by 2 runs
Barbados 1997 - Windies defending 120 against India.
And from Drawn matches -
1st test match from the 2004 India-Pakistan series - Akmal-Razzaq heroics.
Kolkata 2001
Chennai 2001
Adelaide 2003
Mumbai 2004 - Was special as Tendulkar and Laxman hit 50s on an unplayable track and then Indian spinners defended out 107 to win. If the Aussie-SA ODI can be so special with only the bat dominating, then why cant Mumbai 2001 be.
Also from matches which India didnt play in or lost -
Chennai 1999 - Ind v Pak
Laras 153* Aus v Windies match
Ashes 2005 match which England won by 2 runs
Barbados 1997 - Windies defending 120 against India.
And from Drawn matches -
1st test match from the 2004 India-Pakistan series - Akmal-Razzaq heroics.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Devil Ducky's Christmas Carol a travesty?Neil Pickup said:
Oh yes - I see it now.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Onamatopoeia's a good one.aussie said:haha, sorry there, will consult the dictionary next time i use my big words
Chubb
International Regular
Five Best Zimbabwean Tests of the Decade:
v. West Indies, Harare 2003
v. South Africa, Harare 2001
v. India, Harare, 2001
v. Pakistan, Peshawar, 1998
v. India, Harare, 1998
v. West Indies, Harare 2003
v. South Africa, Harare 2001
v. India, Harare, 2001
v. Pakistan, Peshawar, 1998
v. India, Harare, 1998
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
Was that the match where Pakistan messed up two easy run outs?Neil Pickup said:
Pedro Delgado
International Debutant
Well it should be Thommo.luckyeddie said:
But it isn't.