Pommies could rattle Aussies: Waugh

[Sudeep]

Let's give these two to England, it is still 8-3 in favor of Australia.

Lee isn't over-rated. Don't under-estimate him. He's still got IT in him.

 

[Craig]

This is most definatly England's best chance to win.

I think if they forget about the past, and concentrate on this Ashes, it should help with their confidence, They need to start (every single one of them) geniunely believe they can win, and not say stuff like "We hope to compete" because your virtually conceding the Ashes before a pad is strapped on. To hell with 3-2, why not aim for 5-0?

Team selection, confidence, a desire to win, good fielding (ie catching and ground fielding), and persistence when setting a plan (not a negative plan ala Giles), and I guess Vaughan can grab a book out Stephen Fleming's book to captaincy in making a bunch of underdogs competitive against Australia and the top teams, and when you have Australia on the ropes, you keep them there and not take your foot on.

They can do it, they just dont believe they can.

Very high standards set? Well you only get somewhere setting high standards

 

[Neil Pickup]

Lee isn't over-rated. Don't under-estimate him. He's still got IT in him.

OK, tell me the last three times Lee bowled well in a Test..

 

[Eclipse]

England wont win they can forget about winning untill McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Ponting, Hayden etc.. retire.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Should McGrath and Warne be either broken or half-fit, then I think we're favourites.

 

[Eclipse]

Should McGrath and Warne be either broken or half-fit, then I think we're favourites.

why?

You still wont be changing the Australian bating line up witch is far better than England's.

 

[tooextracool]

No, But this Australian team is too consistent to have an India-like performance against England. And it's not some people, it's just one guy who posts for the heck of it and that guy is you.

if they are "too consistent" then why did they struggle against india, its just about as likely against england in england as it was against india?and you certainly have proved you're point there.

 

[tooextracool]

Okay take that as well. still 7-4. ?

if you're going to use stupid comparisons like those and if you're so sure that this is going these sides are going to remain exactly the same till 2005. your genius has no limits.

 

[tooextracool]

I think that the Aussies will get up but hope that it will be at least competitive. Teh England side is in its best position in years with the fast bowlers coming through. The batting is still a problem. An earlier post said that greentops should be prepared to expose the techniques of some of teh Aussie batsmen. I don't think that that would work as the techniques of some of the English batsmen are no better (maybe worse). Trescothick wouldn't get a run.

we had just about as good a chance in 2001 when we had gough and caddick bowling at their best and quite a formidable batting lineup.

Also don't write off Warne. He looks very fit and even if he bowled badly he would still be better than Giles or Batty. I reserve my judgment on McGrath until I see how he goes after his lay off..

who is writing off warne?if england write off warne then surely they will be whitewashed this time.

Vaughan is the real deal. He is the best englisg batsman at the moment and presents Australia's biggest hurdle. By next year I would expect Hussain to be out of the picture. Thorpe is handy but I wouldn't rate any of the rest.

thorpe is the best english batsman at the moment....vaughan has the potential to become englands best batsman but hasnt done so yet.

Bowling could be England's edge if their current crop of fast bowlers keep improving. Harmison, Hoggard and Jones could be a real handful. They were just too green on their last tour of Australia. Add Anderson to this mix and you've got a good group. Australia will probably have McGrath (if his return is good), Gillespie, Kaspar and Warne. Back up will be Lee (not a good test bowler)

right anderson's performances in tests have been amazing to say the least. give it up the guy has had enough chances and should be dropped until he manages to improve his pace.
jones from what i saw in the WI was pathetic and hes going to have to come on leaps and bounds in this series to prove that he is good enough to play at the test match level.

 

[Craig]

England wont win they can forget about winning untill McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Ponting, Hayden etc.. retire.

England has shown they can beat Australia, however it is a case of not peaking until the series is down, instead from game one.

It is one thing having people like Hayden and co, but they arent much use if they get out early to a good ball or the like.

 

[tooextracool]

I've personally seen all this before i.e. where an English team was alost as strong as an Aussie team (1997 Ashes tour comes to mind).

1997 Ashes teams

Aus

M Elliott
M Taylor
G Blewett
M Waugh
S Waugh
M Bevan (R Ponting for Tests 4, 5 and 6)
I Healy
S Warne
P Reiffel (Kasprowicz)
J Gillespie
G McGrath

Eng

M Butcher
M Atherton
A Stewart
M Hussain
G Thorpe
J Crawley
M Ealham
R Croft
D Gough
A Caddick
D Malcolm

those sides arent even at all....mcgrath,warne,reiffel and gillespie are anyday better than gough,caddick,malcolm and croft(what was he doing here anyways?). butcher was disgraceful then,atherton continued to have problems against glenn mcgrath and the selector who came up with the idea of picking ealham in the side should have been shot.

 

[tooextracool]

good fielding (ie catching and ground fielding).

interesting because this is what IMO has cost us big time in many of the past ashes series. australia have always fielded brilliantly while england have dropped sitters. for me the reason why australia are as good as they are is because they take all their catches and pull off a few stunners, so if someone can please inform butcher to start working on his slip catching??

 

[Neil Pickup]

why?

You still wont be changing the Australian bating line up witch is far better than England's.

England's bowling has the ability if fit and firing and the conditions suit to dismiss Australia. It's been done before as often if not more often than anyone else - and the batting wasn't exactly special v India, was it?

Should Warne & McGrath be missing, the Australian support bowling is inferior to most other nations' front line seamers, so I won't be losing any sleep over the threat of Brad Williams ripping us apart.

 

[Sudeep]

It is absolutely ridiculous to compare player vs. player individually.

If one says McGrath vs. Harmison or McGrath vs. Hoggard or others come in favor of McGrath, it also is to be noted that McGrath vs. Harmison, Hoggard, Jones etc. together would still be won by McGrath.

And as far as Australia's performance against India is concerned, let's just say that it was a one-off miss, and that too against a side, which is probably better than English.

Didn't Australia comeback strong from that? Beating Sri Lanka 3-0 in their backyard isn't that easy a task.

 

[Top_Cat]

mcgrath,warne,reiffel and gillespie are anyday better than gough,caddick,malcolm and croft(what was he doing here anyways?).

At that point in their careers, McGrath and Gough were on par. Similar levels of accomplishment, similar abilities. Gillespie was still establishing himself in the side and Caddick was the more accomplished bowler at that point (and I say this as an unabashed Gillespie fanboy), Reiffel and Malcolm were about on par with both of them being in and out of the side (Reiffel wasn't picked in the original 1997 squad but came over for the 2nd Test when Fleming turned up injured) and indeed, Warnie was and always has been a vastly superior bowler to Croft.

So in summary, that makes McGrath vs Gough about even, Caddick vs Gillespie in favour of Caddick, Malcolm vs Reiffel a ever so slight win to Reiffel (just my opinion but they may have been on par) and Warnie a big win over Croft. England also had an extra bowling option (Ealham). And, as I said, when Headley came in for Malcolm, the English bowling stock went up by quite a bit because he bowled VERY well.

butcher was disgraceful then

Butcher was playing his first Ashes series, as was Elliott with Elliott having a much better series. Before the series they were both virtual unknowns who'd both done well in domestic series'. Again, virtually on par before the series.

atherton continued to have problems against glenn mcgrath

Yeah but there wasn't much between Taylor and Atherton at that point at all. Taylor was finally at the end of a miserable trot and Atherton was coming into the series on quite a high. If you were going on form, Atherton was in front of Taylor by quite a margin.

and the selector who came up with the idea of picking ealham in the side should have been shot.

I watched most of the series and thought that if anything, Ealham was under-utilised. He bowled quite well (better than his figures suggested) and didn't get much of an opportunity with the bat. He wasn't anywhere near as bad as you make him out to be.

 

[Sanz]

if you're going to use stupid comparisons like those and if you're so sure that this is going these sides are going to remain exactly the same till 2005. your genius has no limits.

First of you need to learn some manners. I have been tolerating your abusive and insulting posts for a while and have tried to ignore it but it think you are taking me for granted now.

If you dont agree with my opinion and can't respond properly then ignore my posts nobody is forcing you to respond to my 'stupid' posts and keep your geniusness to yourself. If you think England is going to win the test series then good for you, you wont see me calling you stupid or fool or dyslexic.

EDIT - My apologies to TEC and others for making a stupid remark, I guess I proved that I am one. I am really sorry If anyone has been offended.

 

[PY]

First of you need to learn some manners and realize that I am not living under imperialist England that any white ass SOB can come and start calling me names.

Care to elaborate on that comment please?

You have a point but not sure that is quite the way to express it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

First of you need to learn some manners and realize that I am not living under imperialist England that any white ass SOB can come and start calling me names. I have been tolerating your abusive and insulting posts for a while and have tried to ignore it but it think you are taking me for granted now.

If you dont agree with my opinion and can't respond properly then ignore my posts nobody is forcing you to respond to my 'stupid' posts and keep your geniusness to yourself. If you think England is going to win the test series then good for you, you wont see me calling you stupid or fool or dyslexic.

I wasn't aware that responding in kind ever helped reduce problems.

Whether TEC's comments were justified (or, obviously, not) - there's no call for comments like those.

They could quite easily be interpreted as racially motivated.

There is a report function here for a reason - alert the Moderators and we will deal with it.

Cheers

 

[tooextracool]

First of you need to learn some manners and realize that I am not living under imperialist England that any white ass SOB can come and start calling me names. I have been tolerating your abusive and insulting posts for a while and have tried to ignore it but it think you are taking me for granted now.

i have absolutely no clue what you're talking about,this is quite uncalled for and if you have some dirty laundry against other englishmen(which from you're posts certainly appears to be the case) then dont take it out on me.
and as far as the name calling is concerned i havent called you anything,unless you happen to be a "comparison",because thats the only thing i have said anything mean about.

 

[Sanz]

I am sorry If I have offended anyone. I am not a racist person and dont like reading what I wrote. I will edit my post.