Strauss was absolutely atrocious against Warne. And by absolutely atrocious I am not exaggerating, he just couldnt buy a run. Which is why his performance at the Oval came out of the blue. I guess had he actually batted longer during the Ashes series down under, it might not have made much of a difference. As i said earlier, to put Strauss down as being England's number 2 batter is fair, but only if you put him as 2nd from the bottom.
Pietersen had 4 meaningful contributions in the series. Strauss had 1 and if you really want to be generous you could count his 100 at OT which as i said earlier, you only have to look at the fact that Bell scored a 50 in the same innings to realize how significant that was.
I dont really count him as a batsman. Bell and Vaughan were easily worse, but Flintoff, Pietersen and Trescothick were infinitely better. Being in the middle of a very poor bunch is hardly much of an accomplishment IMO. My estimate of his abilities dropped a notch after watching him play during the Ashes, and it only got worse when I watched him in Pakistan.
Aye i agree, i wasn't saying if Huss had played they'd have won the series. Was just making the general point that the series was damn close and the slightest change in circumstances could have made Australia (undeserved) victors.
LOL you know the first time I read you saying this I got a bit wound up. Know now to take with a pinch of saltMints.
You know it, they know it, everyone knows....
It was the mints that got them bowling so well.
In the most recent test v SA, I noticed Vaughan on the field chewing on the remnants of a mandarin after the lunch break. Ban them!! Plainly being used for an unfair advantage by the conniving England Hierarchy.
Oh look, is that the time?
Sigh. If that's genuinely your view of KP's performance at the Oval, I honestly and in all seriousness feel sorry for you. While you were ruing his good luck (and doubtless totting up his first chance average!), the rest of us were enjoying one of the most exhilarating counter-attacking innings of all time.
Are you able to explain his fondness for Graham Smith? My Learned Friend and I both struggle with that one
The same reason i like him, perhaps. Because nobody else does.
Let's be fair, Richard is a fan of Pietersen and has never said otherwise
That might be funny, if it wasn't such utter claptrap.
Oh, I wasn't ruing it, and I certainly wasn't failing to enjoy the fact that the missed chance from Warne (and later Katich's failure to run in quickly enough to get something at mid-off that he should have taken) finally sealed the series for us.
He's not really able to explain anything when the subject is me - he doesn't have a clue there.
Oh come on. Seriously?
That's exaggerating it, a lot. There was good batting involved in the innings, but to call it an innings of genius is, well, as I say, exaggerating. But it's as simple as this: had Warne taken that catch, Australia would probably have won that Test.
Wrong... again.Fortunately you're not a subject, just an object of ridicule which doesn't require explanation as even the newest members spot it straight away.
The fact that you can't, or won't, see it just makes it funnier.