*Official* Australia Tour of West Indies 2025

[Qlder]

So we're all set for Mitchell Starc to play his 100th Test. Hope he gets 5 wkts as well to make it 400

Fantastic career of fitness, especially given every other Aussie pace bowler seems plagued by constant unjuries during his career

 

[the big bambino]

In order McGrath Warne Cummins Haze Starc Gillespie MacGill Lee Lyon.

Maybe Lyon over Lee.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In order McGrath Warne Cummins Haze Starc Gillespie MacGill Lee Lyon.

Maybe Lyon over Lee.

Starc over Gillespie is an ABSURD call. More or less agree with the rest though

 

[Gob]

They were close to winning in 23 ashes but in india? They were smashed in first two matches then won on lottery pitch then dravid tampered pitch at abad. When the hell were they close in india?

Second game. Made 270 odd and had India 130 for 7 before letting them back in. Then basically 80 for 2 in the second innings before deciding to sweep good length balls. Two good sessions from each of those points and they win that game

 

[centurymaker]

Second game. Made 270 odd and had India 130 for 7 before letting them back in. Then basically 80 for 2 in the second innings before deciding to sweep good length balls. Two good sessions from each of those points and they win that game

Yes but that would have made it 1-1.
How does it mean Australia would have won the series?

Subsequent events would have turned out quite differently.

 

[Gob]

Yes but that would have made it 1-1.
How does it mean Australia would have won the series?

Subsequent events would have turned out quite differently.

Or wouldn't have.

Without getting in to the butterfly effect, I'd say the chances of winning the series would have been significantly higher from that point had that game was won instead of going 2 zip down

 

[centurymaker]

Right now there is a lot of talk about how if India had caught better in the 1st test vs England, India would have been 2-0 up. BUT thats not how things really work.

In the 1st test, if India had not collapsed so terribly and/or taken their catches, England would have suffered a big defeat. And thus England would have done several things differently in the 2nd test. Toss/selections/pitch/ decisions/intensity. So it is absolutely irrational to assume all subsequent events remain completely the same, if you change some previous event.

_______________
So in my personal opinion, if India had won 1st test, England would likely have batted first in the 2nd test and probably beaten India and made it 1-1 anyway.

 

[centurymaker]

Or wouldn't have.

Without getting in to the butterfly effect, I'd say the chances of winning the series would have been significantly higher from that point had that game was won instead of going 2 zip down

Yes, Australia would have had roughly as much chance of winning the series as India or heck the series could have ended 2-2 as well. Ahmedabad would certainly not have been a road.

 

[the big bambino]

Starc over Gillespie is an ABSURD call. More or less agree with the rest though

I don't rate longevity so much but use it here to prefer Starc over Gillespie. Personally think Gillespie is over rated on CW. He was injury prone and was more reliant on McWarne for extending his career than the support he may have offered them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Or wouldn't have.

Without getting in to the butterfly effect, I'd say the chances of winning the series would have been significantly higher from that point had that game was won instead of going 2 zip down

Bro Aus were outclassed in that series. They were lucky to win the 1 game they did. We still have a long way to go to be competitive against India away

 

[Justo]

I don't rate longevity so much but use it here to prefer Starc over Gillespie. Personally think Gillespie is over rated on CW. He was injury prone and was more reliant on McWarne for extending his career than the support he may have offered them.

Nah Gillespie is underrated and was overshadowed by McWarne IMO. Early 2000s he was up there as one of the best pacers in the world (after the retirements of Ambrose, Donald, Akram etc. and probably only behind McGrath and Pollock for a large part of that time). Played on absolute roads most of the time, typically against ATG batting line ups. Averages 21 in both India and the West Indies.

I'd personally rate Gillespie equal to Hazlewood at this stage (Hazlewood might be able to surpass him if he keeps things up for a few more years). Hazlewood has the better average but it has come down from 26-27 in the last few bowling friendly years and Gillespie's mostly sat at 25 and only went above 26 after his poor 2005.

I'd take Hazlewood in England, New Zealand, South Africa etc. and Gillespie in the subcontinent. At home both are great.

 

[the big bambino]

Ha the WI were on the deep slide by the time Gillespie faced them. His record is pretty sketchy too. Both against opponents and at times of his career. Adjusted for BD and Zim his average is up to 27, which is good especially for that flat wicket era, but around Fleming's. I just don't think he matches the hype. We could've got by without him then and now. In fact the durability of McGrath and Warne prolonged his career. Without them he would have been a reduced bowler. Given his injury problems he isn't comparable to any of the current 3. Granted he's better away than Boland but the latter hasn't had the opportunities. In Australia I'd prefer Boland.

EDIT - Fleming's ave was 25.89 which surprised me.

 

[centurymaker]

Mcgrath > Warne > Cummins > Hazlewood > Gillespie > Starc > Lee > Lyon

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Right now there is a lot of talk about how if India had caught better in the 1st test vs England, India would have been 2-0 up. BUT thats not how things really work.

In the 1st test, if India had not collapsed so terribly and/or taken their catches, England would have suffered a big defeat. And thus England would have done several things differently in the 2nd test. Toss/selections/pitch/ decisions/intensity. So it is absolutely irrational to assume all subsequent events remain completely the same, if you change some previous event.

So IMO if India had won 1st test, England would likely have batted first in the 2nd test and probably beaten India and made it 1-1 anyway.

It is all conjecture. If NZ had caught better in the 1st test vs England last December (dropped 7 catches off Brook) we would have beaten them 3-0 and beaten SA in the WTC final.

 

[centurymaker]

It is all conjecture. If NZ had caught better in the 1st test vs England last December (dropped 7 catches off Brook) we would have beaten them 3-0 and beaten SA in the WTC final.

Thats not the point. It's about how pundits & fans often reflect on an earlier match and say 'if so and so had happened, the other side would have won'. And then they wrongly assume all subsequent results would have stayed exactly the same.

 

[centurymaker]

For eg, the English fans keep saying to this day that if it hadn't rained in Manchester (4th test), they would have won the Ashes 3-2. Well, they may well have won, but it's not for certain.

The draw in the 4th test ensured Australia retained the Ashes, so the Aussies were relieved/happy. They were going to take the Ashes back to Australia no matter what happened in the last test.

However, if England had won that 4th test, the Ashes series would have been alive, and Aussies would have been hurting from back to back defeats. With 2-2 : the pressure on both sides going into the final test would have been something else. Players would have reacted differently and done things differently. The 3-2 result in favour of England certainly not a forgone conclusion.

 

[Gob]

Bro Aus were outclassed in that series. They were lucky to win the 1 game they did. We still have a long way to go to be competitive against India away

That does not stop the fact that they throw away a perfectly good opportunity to win a test at Delhi which would have gone a long way towards winning the series

Not to mention the 2017 series that they really should have won. Until NZ did the unthinkable, Aust was clearly the most competitive team in India for a decade

 

[Gob]

Yes, Australia would have had roughly as much chance of winning the series as India or heck the series could have ended 2-2 as well. Ahmedabad would certainly not have been a road.

Would you not think India would have won the Border Gavaskar trophy had they won the infamous Sydney test all those years ago?

 

[Gob]

For eg, the English fans keep saying to this day that if it hadn't rained in Manchester (4th test), they would have won the Ashes 3-2. Well, they may well have won, but it's not for certain.

The draw in the 4th test ensured Australia retained the Ashes, so the Aussies were relieved/happy. They were going to take the Ashes back to Australia no matter what happened in the last test.

However, if England had won that 4th test, the Ashes series would have been alive, and Aussies would have been hurting from back to back defeats. With 2-2 : the pressure on both sides going into the final test would have been something else. Players would have reacted differently and done things differently. The 3-2 result in favour of England certainly not a forgone conclusion.

Australia were certainly losing that final test as they were mentally shot after Manchester. Cummins in particular was gone at that point and I don't blame them because they played like 6 games in what? 4 weeks?

Australia's had their chance at Headingley. 130 ahead with only 3 wickets to get in the first dig when they started bowling short **** to wood. 2nd dig, they were going well before marnus slogged moeen to deep. They had one final chance when England needed around 70 to win with 4 wickets in hand but Boland blew it

 

[govinda indian fan]

Bro Aus were outclassed in that series. They were lucky to win the 1 game they did. We still have a long way to go to be competitive against India away

are you trolling