Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 159

Thread: Australians have alot to say now that they're winning ? - Tony Cozier

  1. #31
    International Debutant Beamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,423
    Quote Originally Posted by four_or_six View Post
    There was a pretty harsh reaction after England got bowled out for 51, but I don't read the WI media so I don't know what their reaction was.

    I don't see why someone from England can't comment negatively on the performance of the West Indies just because England lost a test match to them this year.
    Our media chose to focus on the outstanding bowling of Taylor and Benn rather than belittle the English.

    It's ok to want to thrash us as a result of what happened in the 80's and if we ever get strong again I will want us to humiliate England and Australia mercilessly for what they have put us through in the last 15 years. But the questioning of our test status, the 2 division test cricket, the constant talking about attendance figures that are no worse than last year etc is just crassness of the highest order.

    We did not question Australia's test status when they were at their lowest. In fact as Garner points out, they used us to boost revenues. Some people have really short memories....

  2. #32
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    Um, no. SA are just ahead of them based on recent form in test cricket.

    Before SA lost to Australia, they were undefeated for 12 series.
    That recent form is potentially over since the bowling attack that gave SA such strenght between (SRI 2006 to AUS 2009 over 12 series) is in decline. Steyn is their only quality bowler, Nitni is finished & Morkel has gone backwards or rather has kicked on. Everything else is unproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    Though they each won a series against each other in the winter, Australia in the last year lost to both England and India whereas SA did far better in their tours there.

    AUS losing in IND wasn't a surpirse though. Without McWarne the sub-continent would become AUS achillies heal again. AUS would clearly beat IND in AUS as they did in 07/08.
    SA winning in ENG is the past right now things have changed. SA did better in IND because they had a better pace attack (which is always the key to winning in IND) ATT & got some bowler friendly conditions.

    AUS played on roads & their pace attack was weakened by injury.

    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    You could also make the case that SA are a better ODI side than Australia given that they trounced them 4-1 both home and away in the winter as well.
    That was an understrenght AUS team full of injury woes. AUS second XI (bowling attack) just won in IND. At full strenght also AUS have a better ODI team than SA ruight now.

    AUS: Watson, Haddin, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, White, Hopes, Johnson, Lee, Hauritz, Siddle.


    SA: Smith, Amla, Kallis, AB D, A Pietersen, Boucher, A Morkel/McLaren, VDM/Botha, Parnell, M Morkel, Steyn.

  3. #33
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,408
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    That recent form is potentially over since the bowling attack that gave SA such strenght between (SRI 2006 to AUS 2009 over 12 series) is in decline. Steyn is their only quality bowler, Nitni is finished & Morkel has gone backwards or rather has kicked on. Everything else is unproven.
    Potentially, but even your supposed rise of Australia after a poor year is potentially. Let's wait until SA's series against England before we say that their form is over. Until then, they have the record to claim the No.1 spot.

    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    SA winning in ENG is the past right now things have changed. SA did better in IND because they had a better pace attack (which is always the key to winning in IND) ATT & got some bowler friendly conditions.
    SA just won last year against a similar England side that just defeated Australia. So what if it was in the past, a year is not that far away, it was pretty much the same SA side. I view that as a point in SA's corner.

    And SA did well in India primarily because of Steyn, and he's still going strong. Australia's pace attack just fell flat. Point again in SA's favor.
    Last edited by subshakerz; 02-12-2009 at 10:04 AM.

  4. #34
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    Johnson was supposed to be the next big deal but was completely average in England.
    Its isn't as straightforward as that. Johnson problems in ENG IMO where two things:

    - After finding swinging the destroyed the SA @ Home, in which he lowered his action. He came to ENG for the first time having not played with the duke ball before & struggled to adjust to ball. When he eventually returned to usual back of the lenght style bowling in 4th test he took a 5 wicket haul.

    - Secondly as he himself admitted "Mitchell Johnson reveals Ashes demons | Cricket News | Australia v West Indies 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com". He had some personal issues around the first two test.

    Cause lets be frank here the SA batting that Johnson destroyed in SA was far superior to England.

    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    Siddle is lively but hardly seems the type to run through any side and lacks penetration when the pitch doesn't offer something.
    I personally think Siddle potentially can be penetrative on flat decks. He is one of those bowlers who would run in hard on flat decks & would constantly make batsmen play.

    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    Both of these guys are inconsistent and none of Aussie's bowlers are on Steyn's level. . Not so Steyn.
    Steyn is better than both yes. But overall AUS attack Hilfy/Johnson/Siddle is better than SA since Ntini & co are not the same bowlers from 1 year ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    They also looked toothless when they last played in the subcontinent.
    Yes because of injuries to Lee & Clark & the fact that Siddle & Johnson didn't peak as bowler until the AUS summer.



    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    No, Australia lost that series primarily because of their bowlers' inability to dismiss SA.
    Yes that inability was because the selection picked the wrong bowlers & wrong balance in the bowling attack. Since AUS batting stood up to the SA bowler very well, they weren't exposed technically or anything.

    AUS won in SA because they got that balance 90% correct. (McDonald should have never played)

    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    And shouldn't SA who didn't lose their last 12 series before they lost recently to Australia be rated higher for their consistency?
    Up to when SA won in AUS yes. But AUS ended SA's streak by beating them at home & as aforementioned SA attack in is decline from the team that won 12 series in a row.
    Last edited by aussie; 02-12-2009 at 10:06 AM.


  5. #35
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Beamer View Post
    Our media chose to focus on the outstanding bowling of Taylor and Benn rather than belittle the English.
    Rightly so, too, because England were nowhere near as bad in that match - and more specifically that second-innings - as our own media portrayed (and as UK media prefer to portray in general - the UK is a place where negative publicity is much more preferred-reading than positive). WI were outstanding, England weren't great, not a case of WI being OK and England being abysmal.
    It's ok to want to thrash us as a result of what happened in the 80's and if we ever get strong again I will want us to humiliate England and Australia mercilessly for what they have put us through in the last 15 years. But the questioning of our test status, the 2 division test cricket, the constant talking about attendance figures that are no worse than last year etc is just crassness of the highest order.

    We did not question Australia's test status when they were at their lowest. In fact as Garner points out, they used us to boost revenues. Some people have really short memories....
    Or rather, some things change and people doing reporting change. WI journos of the mid-1980s have precisely no relevance to Australians of the late-2000s. True, perhaps they should take a few more leaves from a few more books, but you'll notice that the types of journalists who have been doing what you complain about are those who are routinely trashed on CW - no-one on here thinks very much of them. They're employed because they appeal to the masses, not because they're recognised by the creme de la creme as... well, the creme de la creme.

    Bad journalism is a result of bad journalists, not short-term memory.
    Last edited by Richard; 02-12-2009 at 10:17 AM.
    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

  6. #36
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    AUS won in SA because they got that balance 90% correct. (McDonald should have never played)
    And because SA were well below their best.

  7. #37
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    And because SA were well below their best.
    I'm pretty sure that's what you say every single time Australia ever beat South Africa.
    Member of the Twenty20 is Boring Society

    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    C'mon Man U.
    RIP Craigos

  8. #38
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,408
    Aussie, I get your points but again nothing is set in stone and you will have to see how Australia's pace attack performs in the next year (as WI and Pakistan's batting isn't really a big challenge) and how SA's attack fairs before you declaratively say that Australia's attack is better than SA's. Because as it stands now the SA's attack (Steyn, Ntini, Morkel) recent record is a draw in India, win in England, win in Australia and lost at home to Australia, and Australia's attack (Johnson, Siddle, etc) record is a loss in India, loss at home to SA, win in SA and loss in England. Results speak more than anything.

    Again, let's see how SA's attack does against England. If they struggle overall, I will lean towards agreeing with you.
    Last edited by subshakerz; 02-12-2009 at 10:29 AM.

  9. #39
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    I'm pretty sure that's what you say every single time Australia ever beat South Africa.
    Can't say I've ever said it about any series pre-isolation, mostly because I've never studied any of them in-depth. Wouldn't say I said it about 1993/94, but then, Australia didn't win those series so it wouldn't be of any relevance.

    I've said South Africa were below their best in every series between 1996/97 and 2008/09, regardless of whether Australia or South Africa won, and regardless of whether Australia or South Africa would have won had South Africa been closer to their best. South Africa have an extreme tendency to underperform, sometimes substantially, when Australia are the opponents (best demonstrated by the epidemic of dropped catches in 2001/02 and 2005/06, which is such an un-South African trait and which was conspicuous by its absence in the Australia leg of 2008/09), though that doesn't necessarily mean they were always a better side than Australia IMO (it is a possibility and no more than that).
    Last edited by Richard; 02-12-2009 at 10:31 AM.

  10. #40
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    Aussie, I get your points but again nothing is set in stone and you will have to see how Australia's pace attack performs in the next year (as WI and Pakistan's batting isn't really a big challenge) and how SA's attack fairs before you declaratively say that Australia's attack is better than SA's. Because as it stands now the SA's attack (Steyn, Ntini, Morkel) recent record is a draw in India, win in England, win in Australia and lost at home to Australia, and Australia's attack (Johnson, Siddle, etc) record is a loss in India, loss at home to SA, win in SA and loss in England. Results speak more than anything.

    Again, let's see how SA's attack does against England. If they struggle overall, I will lean towards agreeing with you.
    Bullet. Fair enough uncle..

  11. #41
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    I've said South Africa were below their best in every series between 1996/97 and 2008/09, regardless of whether Australia or South Africa won, and regardless of whether Australia or South Africa would have won had South Africa been closer to their best. South Africa have an extreme tendency to underperform, sometimes substantially, when Australia are the opponents (best demonstrated by the epidemic of dropped catches in 2001/02 and 2005/06, which is such an un-South African trait and which was conspicuous by its absence in the Australia leg of 2008/09), though that doesn't necessarily mean they were always a better side than Australia IMO (it is a possibility and no more than that).
    Ha ha yeah, I was referring to the ones you'd seen and studied close at hand.

    Personally I can't believe that South Africa "just happened" to be below their best every single time they came up against Australia, and TBH if they did always just happen to fail to perform against the best there was then that IMO shows even more clearly that Australia were the better side, especially as it was over an extended period of time rather than a single isolated series.

    As to the discussion at hand, I am surprised that even a particularly one-eyed Australian fan could say that we are clearly better than South Africa at this point in time, so wrong is that statement.
    Last edited by The Sean; 02-12-2009 at 10:35 AM.

  12. #42
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    And because SA were well below their best.
    Ha no. The MAIN reason why AUS won in SA was because Johnson was able to swing the ball. That shocked everybody, since Johnson didn't do that in AUS. SA planning all-round for AUS was very precise & meticulous.

  13. #43
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    Ha ha yeah, I was referring to the ones you'd seen and studied close at hand.

    Personally I can't believe that South Africa "just happened" to be below their best every single time they came up against Australia, and TBH if they did always just happen to fail to perform against the best there was then that IMO shows even more clearly that Australia were the better side, especially as it was over an extended period of time rather than a single isolated series.
    I can quite happily believe it. I've seen it with my own eyes. South Africa's fielders caught poorly, sometimes woefully, against Australia in the time in question, despite being mostly excellent against all others; no opposition side can make the slightest impact on how well a team catches, dropped catches (where normally safe) proves only that one side underperformed. South Africa's bowlers and even batsmen bowled and batted differently to how they did at other times (often the batsmen crumbled because the bowlers had done so badly and let Australia score intimidating totals); now you can make the claim in the latter (in fact some even would in the former though I don't believe it for a strong-willed bowler, which is the vast majority) that this had to do with Australia's cajoling them into it, but I'm far from convinced.

    In my book South Africa were often intimidated by Australia 1996/97-2001/02 and in 2005/06 and 2008/09, despite obviously not being, were at their worst at the most important time - which can happen and has done at other times with other teams.

    I'd say with both sides in tip-top condition there'd not have been all that much to choose between the sides in any of 1996/97/98, 2001/02 or 2005/06. And we all saw that in 2008/09 there wasn't, despite there being plenty of evidence that both sides could at various points have done better.

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Ha no. The MAIN reason why AUS won in SA was because Johnson was able to swing the ball. That shocked everybody, since Johnson didn't do that in AUS. SA planning all-round for AUS was very precise & meticulous.
    Johnson's excellence was certainly a big factor but South Africa - especially the bowlers - were well below the levels you'd expect for a lot of the time. Let's remind ourselves that though Johnson bowled nowhere near so well in the Australian leg he was still hugely effective, but South Africa won despite his effectiveness.
    Last edited by Richard; 02-12-2009 at 10:58 AM.

  15. #45
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    I'd say with both sides in tip-top condition there'd not have been all that much to choose between the sides in any of 1996/97/98, 2001/02 or 2005/06. And we all saw that in 2008/09 there wasn't, despite there being plenty of evidence that both sides could at various points have done better.
    Fair enough, well as I say I don't for a moment believe a decade's worth of (sometimes crushing) superiority can simply be handwaved like that, but I know you're set on this one so I'll happily leave it at that.
    Last edited by The Sean; 02-12-2009 at 10:51 AM.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 21-01-2011, 07:39 AM
  2. ICC 3 - Has anyone got a winning England one day team?
    By hallmitchell in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 01:15 AM
  3. Whose winning?
    By Xuhaib in forum ICC Champions Trophy 2009
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28-09-2009, 04:42 AM
  4. Winning sessions
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 08:03 PM
  5. Tony Cozier slams Lara
    By silentstriker in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 10-07-2006, 02:40 AM

Posting Permissions

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