Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: australia since Ashes 2005 in test cricket

  1. #16
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,950
    I'm still baffled at the suggestion that South Africa were ever anywhere close to winning the first or second tests in that series. The third certainly, South Africa were in a great position until the rain, and could possibly have won the match, and would almost certainly have drawn it had Smith not pushed for an unlikely win.

    South Africa were in the game for a few days in Perth certainly, but they had to chase almost 500 in the 4th innings and the only possible positive outcome they could have managed was a draw. Sure Hodge was dropped early on in his double century, but he was hardly the only contributer in Australia's second innings total of 528. And to blame a dropped catch for a guy making 200 is simply absurd, it's not like they didn't have another 300+ balls with which to get him out.

    And Australia were very clearly the better team in the second test, and were never behind at any stage after Hussey's ridiculously good innings.

    Also, the first two tests of the South African home series were absolute hammerings. Australia weren't far from winning the first test by an innings, and the best South Africa ever could have managed in the second was a draw, if they hadn't fallen apart to Warne. And, incidentally, your arguments about the rain in Sydney would surely apply there as well. If all 450 overs had been bowled, Australia would have won the second test without breaking a sweat, rather than cutting it close on the 5th evening.
    Last edited by FaaipDeOiad; 31-12-2007 at 07:55 AM.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  2. #17
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    And the final analysis is that if you can't afford to have a single dropped catch or you'll lose, the reality is that you're a much weaker team than your opponents. Its not like Australia never drops catches, but usually it doesn't matter as they'll create another opportunity very soon anyway. All this argument is is a different version of saying "On their day, if everything goes right, they could theoretically beat Australia". That's such a broad statement that its almost certainly true, but the number of big "ifs" in there explain why its very rarely actually happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  3. #18
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,154
    To beat Australia you're going to have to play well obviously, but even if they play at their best if you're playing to your potential then you're still in it. For example Ponting, Hussey, Clarke etc can be at theirbest but if Bond and Vettori are at their best and Franklin and Mills and Oram are bowling well without being amazing you still have a very big chance of success as they are class players.

    The big difference is, IMO, Australia more often than not play to their full potential whereas other teams do not play to their potential as often. How often do you hear that an Aussie is underachieving with his talent? You hear all the time about how the Sinclairs and the Taylors and the McMillans of this world aren't achieving what they, for whatever reason, could achieve. This is the crucial difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  4. #19
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    What about one wicket not being taken? Since a catch is a wicket, they would be the same, no?
    Taking a catch is a simple thing. Bowling a wicket-taking delivery is not. People fail to do that most deliveries they bowl. People should never, ever fail to take an easy catch.

    Even though the impact of "not bowling a 93mph inswinging Yorker to Hussey" might be the same as "dropping Hussey", you don't expect the former; you most certainly do expect a catch to be taken.
    No. You have to judge the ball at the right angle, get your body in position, and then catch the ball.
    None of which are really remotely difficult most of the time.
    What's that got to do with anything? We are talking about the impact on a game. Either catching is just as important and impactful as everything else or it isn't. Its a very important cricketing skill and saying he didn't take a catch is the same as sayinf he didn't get this guy out in another manner.

    You're using it as an excuse, such as 'Well, it would have been close except that one catch'. This is the same as saying, "It would have been close except no one got Hussey out." Or "It would have been close, if Australia didn't bowl so well."
    Taking a catch is a far, far easier thing to do than bowling a delivery that will get Batsman X out. It really is that simple. A small mistake can impact 20 times (figuratively speaking) more upon a game than can "not getting X out" (speaking in terms of bowlers).
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006


  5. #20
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    Dire that we've come full circle with this 'but for dropped catches' thing Rich - I think this was the first issue I ever replied to you on. As SS points out its a fundamental skill, and if you aren't good enough to do it consistently and do it when it matters, then you are in no way a good enough team to win matches. SA were smashed by a thoroughly better team during that tour, apart from the one draw they earnt.
    SA were smashed because they couldn't catch. That was the only respect they were inferior in. The fact that they weren't good enough to do it did indeed mean they weren't a good enough team to win the matches.

    But dropping catches made it look like they were inferior in every department, something they most certainly weren't.

  6. #21
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    24,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    That was the only respect they were inferior in.
    At the very least, you'd add spin bowling.

  7. #22
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    South Africa were in the game for a few days in Perth certainly, but they had to chase almost 500 in the 4th innings and the only possible positive outcome they could have managed was a draw. Sure Hodge was dropped early on in his double century, but he was hardly the only contributer in Australia's second innings total of 528. And to blame a dropped catch for a guy making 200 is simply absurd, it's not like they didn't have another 300+ balls with which to get him out.
    He'd not have got that 200 if the catch had been taken, there's no two ways about that. And I seem to recall other dropped catches in the second-innings, too - wouldn't be surprised if every batsman was dropped, in fact.
    And Australia were very clearly the better team in the second test, and were never behind at any stage after Hussey's ridiculously good innings.
    A "ridiculously good" innings which... yes, wouldn't have been played had Kallis taken that catch. And Australia would have been behind the eight-ball. And there's no reason to suspect things would have panned-out differently to how they did later on.
    Also, the first two tests of the South African home series were absolute hammerings. Australia weren't far from winning the first test by an innings, and the best South Africa ever could have managed in the second was a draw, if they hadn't fallen apart to Warne. And, incidentally, your arguments about the rain in Sydney would surely apply there as well. If all 450 overs had been bowled, Australia would have won the second test without breaking a sweat, rather than cutting it close on the 5th evening.
    Yes, obviously.

  8. #23
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    At the very least, you'd add spin bowling.
    Spin-bowling, yes, but bowling overall - no. And if South Africa's seamers are as good as Australia's seamers+spinners, what does it matter that South Africa's spinners are inferior?

  9. #24
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Taking a catch is a simple thing. Bowling a wicket-taking delivery is not. People fail to do that most deliveries they bowl. People should never, ever fail to take an easy catch.

    Even though the impact of "not bowling a 93mph inswinging Yorker to Hussey" might be the same as "dropping Hussey", you don't expect the former; you most certainly do expect a catch to be taken.

    None of which are really remotely difficult most of the time.

    Taking a catch is a far, far easier thing to do than bowling a delivery that will get Batsman X out. It really is that simple. A small mistake can impact 20 times (figuratively speaking) more upon a game than can "not getting X out" (speaking in terms of bowlers).
    But the point is not taking A catch but many of them. Usually you will drop very few easy ones and catch the others. The fact is it DOES happen and if it was as easy as you suggest to catch them all then one must wonder why you're not a test standard fielder.
    I think there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. - Gidgeon Haigh

    [Warne is] the greatest bowler ever produced in this entire world - Muttiah Muralidaran

    [Warne is] the greatest bowler of all time - Glenn McGrath


    In my opinion Shane Warne is the greatest cricketer who's ever lived - Ian Botham

    Warne is the greatest cricketer to pick up a ball ever.
    And is the greatest bowler I have ever laid eyes on. - Brian Lara

  10. #25
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    24,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    And there's no reason to suspect things would have panned-out differently to how they did later on.
    Except for the fact that it was a damp wicket, and Australia had the worst of the conditions. If they had've been bowled out earlier, then they would have also had the chance to bowl on it whilst it was giving heaps of assistance. As it was, they didn't get to till much of the moisture was out of the wicket.

  11. #26
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Good - so South Africa would probably have struggled early on, and it's likely it'd have been first-innings parity.

    What's not up for dispute, though, is that South Africa would have been in a hell of a better position by taking the catch than they would having dropped it.

  12. #27
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    But the point is not taking A catch but many of them. Usually you will drop very few easy ones and catch the others. The fact is it DOES happen and if it was as easy as you suggest to catch them all then one must wonder why you're not a test standard fielder.
    More worrying is how such simple things are not done at the international level. Simple catches are floored, more than ever of late, and it's unacceptible.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 23-12-2007, 04:19 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-01-2007, 12:40 PM
  3. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 16-07-2006, 07:13 AM
  4. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 13-09-2005, 04:51 AM
  5. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 21-04-2005, 08:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •