Australian team(s) from 1989 to 2006?

[dontcloseyoureyes]

ME Waugh?

Not cemented for mine. Mark was an amazing batsman and was probably the most talented batsman in Australia for 10 years, but he never capitalised properly on it and it should be held against his case for selection imo. Others may disagree but that's the beauty of opinion.

 

[Hoggy31]

nick says:
Junior, why didnt ya make bigger tons??
Mark Waugh says:
cbf

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

nick says:
Junior, why didnt ya make bigger tons??
Mark Waugh says:
cbf

nick says:
give me dan marsh's mobile number
Mark Waugh says:
**** off

 

[andyc]

I didn't forget him, he crossed my mind a good few times - in that he wasn't remotely worth a place. I just see absolutely no reason to consider him anywhere near as good as McGrath, Warne, McDermott, Hughes, Alderman, Reiffel, Clark, Gillespie, Fleming or Kasprowicz. Or even Reid, who hardly played after '89.

Lee's claim to fame before 2007/08 was 9 superlative Tests in 1999/2000 and 2000/01. Aside from that, he was exceptionally poor. In 2007/08 and 2008 he was exceptional, but since then he's been diabolical again.

Do you see anyone else clamouring for his inclusion? Why do I get singled-out?

Nah, my bad, actually thought you were listing all the players in that time period that played more than one or two tests, cause I'm silly. My mistake.

 

[aussie]

I didn't forget him, he crossed my mind a good few times - in that he wasn't remotely worth a place. I just see absolutely no reason to consider him anywhere near as good as McGrath, Warne, McDermott, Hughes, Alderman, Reiffel, Clark, Gillespie, Fleming or Kasprowicz. Or even Reid, who hardly played after '89.

Lee's claim to fame before 2007/08 was 9 superlative Tests in 1999/2000 and 2000/01. Aside from that, he was exceptionally poor. In 2007/08 and 2008 he was exceptional, but since then he's been diabolical again.

Do you see anyone else clamouring for his inclusion? Why do I get singled-out?

Overall you are right but this point is wrong.

Lee was second peak period was from Brisbane 05 to Bridgetown 08.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, some of Lee's best ever spells came in that 05/06 home summer and the tour of South Africa that followed. He showed glimpses in the '05 Ashes and was consistently excellent for a few years after that, leading up to the tour of India. Since India he's had two bad series out of three, albeit with an injury this time around.

 

[Richard]

From the start of 2008/09 he's actually had 7 bad Tests out of 8, but you can make it look less bad by viewing it on a series-by-series basis.

In 2005/06, Lee bowled decently, no doubts about. However, the excellence of his figures flattered him (WI were obviously diabolical, he was no more than moderate at home to SA and the pitches in SA were very friendly, much more so than almost anything he'd ever bowled on in his career to date, meaning decent bowling returned excellent figures) and he then bowled utter crap again in 2006/07, and thanks to the stars aligning for him in the Fourth and Fifth Tests came out of that Ashes with less-than-diabolical figures. He also bowled utter crap in most of the 2005 Ashes, with a very occasional decent spell thrown in (like the opening morning at Old Trafford).

It was only in 2007/08 that he actually started bowling with genuine excellence. And that appears not to have lasted for long, same way his excellence of 1999/2000 and 2000/01 didn't.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lee was very good at home against South Africa, he just didn't have much luck. Boxing Day against SA was one of his finest moments as a bowler IMO, but he only ended up with three wickets or something. Still had a huge hand in winning that test. If you don't class that series as a "poor" one he was consistently good in that period, as he was all the time from the '05 Ashes until recently. Says a lot about your attitude to the guy that when he returns a series average of 30 or whatever when he has a fairly unlucky series it's a "moderate" performance, but when he gets good figures it's the "stars aligning".

 

[Richard]

He wasn't really, because he was poor in the 2005 Ashes and poor in the 2006/07 one, even though his figures in 2006/07 flattered him enormously.

Lee bowled decently in 2005/06 and very well indeed in 2007/08 AFAIC. And that's it. I don't have a problem with someone claiming he had some ill-luck in a home Test against SA or two, but I do have a problem with them claiming that if they don't then admit that his 2006/07 figures flattered him considerably.

 

[aussie]

Richard how was Lee's only good spell in the Ashes only the opening morning of the OT test??. What about Lord's, TB second innings??

To say Lee was just decent vs SA in 2005/06 (especially in SA) either you didn't watch that series or look, i'll just have to add this to one of your dull ideologies..

 

[Jamee999]

Taylor*
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
S Waugh
Border
Gilchrist+
Warne
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath

Slater
Langer
Boon
M Waugh
Martyn
Clarke*
Healy+
Lee
Hughes
McDermott
MacGill

 

[Richard]

Richard how was Lee's only good spell in the Ashes only the opening morning of the OT test??. What about Lord's, TB second innings??

Trent Bridge second-innings he was gifted wickets by over-hasty England batting - only good bit of bowling was the Flintoff wicket. Lord's he bowled terribly. On such a helpful pitch, to concede 95 in 21 overs, which he conceded (his first 9 went for 10), was terribly poor bowling. That Lord's deck was easily the most seam-friendly Lee has EVER had the chance to bowl on in his career, and all he could manage was 9-10-0 and 21-95-5.

Everyone in that Lord's 2005 Test, BTW, bowled poorly, except for McGrath on the first afternoon - he was devastating (13-21-5 in his opening spell, all 5 wickets with near-unplayable deliveries). If the batting from both sides had been good, we could've seen some fairly high scores, apart from England's first-innings. And given that pitch couldn't have been a great deal more seam-friendly if Mick Hunt had tried, that = diabolical bowling from all concerned (including McGrath after his opening spell), with the exception of Warne who bowled well whenever he got the ball that game.

To say Lee was just decent vs SA in 2005/06 (especially in SA) either you didn't watch that series or look, i'll just have to add this to one of your dull ideologies..

I watched the series and don't have dull anything (ideologies or otherwise). There is absolutely no way he bowled brilliantly in that series. Either of those series'.

 

[pskov]

My 89-06 Aussie team

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
S. Waugh*
Border
Gilchrist+
Warne
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath

12th man: Hussey
13th man: Reiffel

Yes perhaps a few of the old guard get the short shrift, but the team post-2000 was simply incredible. Martyn gets in ahead of Hussey slightly on sentimentality as he was such a lovely player to watch.

 

[Simon]

Struggle to see how Stuart Clark makes these sides when he only played 8 career tests up to the end of 2006.

 

[aussie]

Trent Bridge second-innings he was gifted wickets by over-hasty England batting - only good bit of bowling was the Flintoff wicket.

Haha, talk about criminally under-rating a bowling performance.

Lord's he bowled terribly. On such a helpful pitch, to concede 95 in 21 overs, which he conceded (his first 9 went for 10), was terribly poor bowling. That Lord's deck was easily the most seam-friendly Lee has EVER had the chance to bowl on in his career, and all he could manage was 9-10-0 and 21-95-5.

GTFOH maynnnnnn, how the heck did Lee bowl TERRIBLY at lord's. WTF where you looking for yo. Try telling Strauss, Vaughan, Giles he bowled TERRIBLY in that game..

Secondly, the pitches Lee bowled vs SA in Capetown & Durban in 06 where just as seamer-friendly to Lord's.

Everyone in that Lord's 2005 Test, BTW, bowled poorly, except for McGrath on the first afternoon - he was devastating (13-21-5 in his opening spell, all 5 wickets with near-unplayable deliveries). If the batting from both sides had been good, we could've seen some fairly high scores, apart from England's first-innings. And given that pitch couldn't have been a great deal more seam-friendly if Mick Hunt had tried, that = diabolical bowling from all concerned (including McGrath after his opening spell), with the exception of Warne who bowled well whenever he got the ball that game.

No doubt McGrath mastered the Lord's in that test match for the seamers & the batsmen (especially Australia in the first innings where as Mark Nicholas said on commentary ATT, the whole intensity of the test series exploded then) we could have saw better scores.

But outside Gillespie, you are definately over-exaggerating by saying all the seamers where "Generally Poor" at lord's.

I watched the series and don't have dull anything (ideologies or otherwise). .

Ok you asked for it:

- Your First Chance Average theory

- Your weird tendancy to get irritated when as you claim, when selecting batting-lineups X or Y opener has to face the first delivery.

- Your views on Hayden & Lee

- The Vaas is better than McGrath notion from back in the day

- Your position on Ealham, Collingwood & Shah when talking about the England ODI team.

Other than that, you aite son & your knowledge of the game is one of the best on this forum.

There is absolutely no way he bowled brilliantly in that series. Either of those series'.

The fact that you have maintained this point since way back. Makes me believe that there is "no way" you could have watched those 6 tests.

 

[Richard]

My 89-06 Aussie team

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
S. Waugh*
Border
Gilchrist+
Warne
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath

12th man: Hussey
13th man: Reiffel

Yes perhaps a few of the old guard get the short shrift, but the team post-2000 was simply incredible. Martyn gets in ahead of Hussey slightly on sentimentality as he was such a lovely player to watch.

Lovely though he was to watch bat, on sentimentality I'd actually lean towards excluding him as he was so volatile, and precisely the opposite of the temperament I look for in a cricketer.

 

[Richard]

Haha, talk about criminally under-rating a bowling performance.

So go on then - what were the other wickets? Yes - a recklessly careless hook from Bell and Pietersen somehow nicking one of the worst deliveries you're ever going to see. Better batting would've seen England win that game by 9 or 10 wickets.

GTFOH maynnnnnn, how the heck did Lee bowl TERRIBLY at lord's. WTF where you looking for yo. Try telling Strauss, Vaughan, Giles he bowled TERRIBLY in that game..

You can bowl terribly and still offer some threat, depending on the pitch. Lee's bowling wasn't useless in that game, in fact it was useful, but a really good bowler would've been constantly unplayable on such a surface. Lee wasn't, nor did he look like being.

Secondly, the pitches Lee bowled vs SA in Capetown & Durban in 06 where just as seamer-friendly to Lord's.

Arguable, yes. I'd not agree though. They were both green and not-that-uneven. Lord's was green and very uneven.

No doubt McGrath mastered the Lord's in that test match for the seamers & the batsmen (especially Australia in the first innings where as Mark Nicholas said on commentary ATT, the whole intensity of the test series exploded then) we could have saw better scores.

But outside Gillespie, you are definately over-exaggerating by saying all the seamers where "Generally Poor" at lord's.

On a pitch like that, a good seam-bowler should be taking something like 6\7-80 or so. And conceding about 2.5-an-over, if not less. The only reason any seamer took good figures at any time in that match (McGrath on the first afternoon aside) was because of bad batting. As I say, that pitch was unbelievably helpful. Normally 5-105 would be good figures, but not on that surface. And the only England bowler who got good figures (Harmison) did it because he bowled at the tail at the right time.

Ok you asked for it:

- Your First Chance Average theory

- Your weird tendancy to get irritated when as you claim, when selecting batting-lineups X or Y opener has to face the first delivery.

- Your views on Hayden & Lee

- The Vaas is better than McGrath notion from back in the day

- Your position on Ealham, Collingwood & Shah when talking about the England ODI team.

Other than that, you aite son & your knowledge of the game is one of the best on this forum.

All of those make perfect sense for the reasons I've given. BTW, never have I said Vaas was better than McGrath, just that Vaas was capable of bowling better than McGrath was, and did many times. He was also capable of bowling utterly hopelessly, and did, many times.

The fact that you have maintained this point since way back. Makes me believe that there is "no way" you could have watched those 6 tests.

I did. I just don't have a love of Brett Lee because he smiles nicely and gives 110%. That in itself doesn't mean you have to add 50% onto what he deserved, the way some seem to.

 

[Evilhoopler]

Well my team is

M.Taylor*
M.Hayden
R.Ponting
A.Border
M.Waugh
S.Waugh
A.Gilchrist+
S.Warne
J.Gillespie
P.Reiffel
G.McGrath

12th man M.Hussey

 

[Evilhoopler]

Your comment on that 05 Ashes test. I think that that unfortunate injury lost the serious becuase McGrath on that wicket would have been deadly.

 

[Evilhoopler]

My 89-06 Aussie team

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
S. Waugh*
Border
Gilchrist+
Warne
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath

12th man: Hussey
13th man: Reiffel

Yes perhaps a few of the old guard get the short shrift, but the team post-2000 was simply incredible. Martyn gets in ahead of Hussey slightly on sentimentality as he was such a lovely player to watch.

I'm Surprised you picked Langer ahead of Taylor or Slater.