• 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.

Smith blasts ex-players/selectors via Twitter

Shifter

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Fact is, regardless of how close they came, they didn't win either Test because they weren't good enough to take 20 wickets.
I think hes getting at that they played the better cricket than England in 3/4 games but the 1-1 scoreline doesn't show that.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think hes getting at that they played the better cricket than England in 3/4 games but the 1-1 scoreline doesn't show that.
The problem here is that a similar rationale could be applied to the last Ashes series because Australia had most of the top run-scorers and wicket-takers. Fact is they still lost and as a team they were worse.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I think hes getting at that they played the better cricket than England in 3/4 games but the 1-1 scoreline doesn't show that.
They played better cricket, they didn't play winning cricket. The series scoreline reflects that.
 

Shifter

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
The problem here is that a similar rationale could be applied to the last Ashes series because Australia had most of the top run-scorers and wicket-takers. Fact is they still lost and as a team they were worse.
I disagree. A 2-2 scoreline would accurately represent how well the teams played over the series. Maybe others are happy to take the scoreline at face value but I'm not.

They played better cricket, they didn't play winning cricket. The series scoreline reflects that.
It doesn't reflect how well the teams played, which is important as far as I'm concerned. The scoreline suggests England were just as good as SA when they weren't.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I disagree. A 2-2 scoreline would accurately represent how well the teams played over the series. Maybe others are happy to take the scoreline at face value but I'm not.
I see it differently. In my view, England were the better side and their contributions mattered more. The Aussie batting fell in a heap when it really mattered and the bowling mainly stopped England at 400 when they were threatening 600. I don't believe for a second they were evenly matched. On paper you could make the case but when a team effort was needed, OZ looked worse than England.
 

Shifter

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I see it differently. In my view, England were the better side and their contributions mattered more. The Aussie batting fell in a heap when it really mattered and the bowling mainly stopped England at 400 when they were threatening 600. I don't believe for a second they were evenly matched. On paper you could make the case but when a team effort was needed, OZ looked worse than England.
Aus dominated in two games, and England dominated in two games with one game that could of gone either way (England slightly in front) that was rained out. I'd say that's pretty evenly matched.
 

Top