"You can quote me on this........"

[age_master]

But the fact of the matter is Australia are still light years ahead of SA. I cant really see SA troubling the Aussies that much, and if the Australian bowling attack fires on all cylinders (which it didnt this summer of course) SA will struggle. It is perectly reasonable to suggest Australia could win all three tests...its not a laughable suggestion.

no, last time we were over there we won 2-1 and won the home series before that 3-0.

this match is some sort of a Aus-RSA record i think
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/AUS_IN_RSA/SCORECARDS/AUS_RSA_T1_22-26FEB2002.html

 

[age_master]

Adam Gilchrist only averages 94 against South Africa...

 

[marc71178]

apart from the Udal bit, I think he has good reason to make those predictions

But Swervy, you forget that SA are actually far and away the best side in the world, they just keep underperforming and having sides mysteriously overperform against them!

 

[marc71178]

So Australia will whitewash South Africa? That'll take some spectacularly poor performance from a number of South Africans.

So just their usual then, since they're nowhere near as good as you like to think they are.

 

[marc71178]

However much practise they might get, they're now a poor enough Test team to have to work pretty hard to beat South Africa.

If they're poor enough to have to do that, how come England could play at about 75% and win in SA?

 

[Richard]

But the fact of the matter is Australia are still light years ahead of SA. I cant really see SA troubling the Aussies that much, and if the Australian bowling attack fires on all cylinders (which it didnt this summer of course) SA will struggle. It is perectly reasonable to suggest Australia could win all three tests...its not a laughable suggestion.

Not just 3 Tests, though, is it? It's 6.
IF Gillespie returns they might. If he doesn't (and, sadly, that looks a possibility), obviously Australia's attack is no stronger than it was this summer. I'd say it's probably realistic to suggest that Warne can't possibly have such a good series again for a little while, and while McGrath is likely to be injured less, if Lee and Tait play (which ATM looks pretty on-the-cards) Australia will have to perform miracles to win even the home series, never mind the away one, 3-0.
Australia are not light-years ahead of SA because they've regressed seriously last summer.

and regarding Trescothick, I dont think you can really rule out someone who was pretty much Englands most CONSISTANT scorer this summer, who scored nigh on 450 runs in 5 tests vs the Worlds top team...again its not a laughable idea that he could be Englands top scorer this winter...it may well not happen, but its probably more likely than maybe Vaughan or Bell being the top performer. Remember Trescothick is pretty good at going on to make big big scores, it only takes a couple of those scores and he could be on for a 600 run winter..and for me Pakistan could suit him, and he has succeeded vs India previously

And he succeeded vs India in India...? Guess why? Exactly the same reason he succeeded this summer. LUCK. 2 shocking lbw decisions in his favour in India, and any number of drops and no-balls in England this summer.
Whether or not Australia are The World's top team, their bowling wasn't especially magnificent this summer (and when McGrath was missing it was downright poor) and any team that catches better and bowls less no-balls will get Trescothick for not many if he plays as poorly as he played this summer.

 

[Richard]

so its pretty likely they will whitewash SA while it being very very far fetched an idea to suggest it could happen???????

No, it's pretty likely they'll beat them, it's pretty unlikely that they'll whitewash them.

 

[Richard]

The fact you think he is not test standard is a lot more laughable. He impressed me imensly agsinst the Australians even if he dint go on to get a hundred. He is also far more consistant than Vaughan in the last couple of years and he is certainly more cosistant than Pieterson.

If he really impressed you by getting out for less than 50 EVERY SINGLE INNINGS (even if the copious amounts of dropped catches and no-ball dismissals let him off) then I dread to think how easy it must be to impress you.
Vaughan was perfectly consistent last summer and would almost certainly have scored a lot more in South Africa had he not got so many good deliveries.

 

[Richard]

no harmison may have bowled more accurate during the summer of 2004 than he did in the winter but hes certainly bowled just as accurately in the ashes as he has ever managed to bowl, whether his ER represents that or not is irrelevant.

Rubbish, he was nowhere near as accurate in The Ashes as he was in the 2nd half of the SA series, in WI and at home to NZ.
Did you not see the countless graphs comparing him to Flintoff? His line, especially, was all over the place. No surprise, of course - aside from that short spell he's never been very accurate and I don't really expect that to change.

you see it in bowlers who get the conditions in their favor for one series and then get talked up as being something brilliant, much like anderson was after the World cup or like harmison was after the series in the WI. fact is if harmison went to the WI and bowled in the exact same conditions hed in all likelyhood get a similar number of wickets, as would anderson if he bowled in the WC in the exact same conditions.
obviously Jones may bowl less well in his next few series but im sure that he will bowl just as well in several other series unless as i said his injury hampers him.

Which, sadly, is looking possible ATM...
If Harmison went back to WI in the same conditions he'd get far less wickets if they batted better. Same true of NZ at home. If Anderson did indeed bowl superbly in a couple of games early on in ODIs (10-12-1, 10-29-4) he also benefited from countless poor strokes to rubbish deliveries and if he faced the same sides again in the same conditions I'd hope they'd do better 2nd time around.

 

[Richard]

so its not possible for them to get whitewashed despite the fact that thats exactly what happened to them last time around? i cant see pollock being effective in australia(unless we miraculously see a change in conditions), it would take a brave man to suggest that ntini wouldnt be rubbish away from home when hes been like that all his career, and therefore you're really only counting on andre nel to take 20 wickets every game.

That's as maybe, I don't expect much from either.
I do, however, expect South Africa to massacre Lee, Tait and MacGill if he plays. And I also expect Warne to bowl less well than he did in The Ashes.

 

[Richard]

Adam Gilchrist only averages 94 against South Africa...

That needs to go down a bit, then.

 

[Richard]

no, last time we were over there we won 2-1 and won the home series before that 3-0.

this match is some sort of a Aus-RSA record i think
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/AUS_IN_RSA/SCORECARDS/AUS_RSA_T1_22-26FEB2002.html

Yep, comfortably the worst game of Test-cricket EVER.
Never seen a team - even Bangladesh - play so poorly.

 

[Richard]

But Swervy, you forget that SA are actually far and away the best side in the world, they just keep underperforming and having sides mysteriously overperform against them!

Nope, sometimes certain players underperform, and sometimes players overperform against them (Strauss for England, for instance).

 

[Richard]

So just their usual then, since they're nowhere near as good as you like to think they are.

No, they're actually nowhere near as poor as you and plenty of other Englishmen like to think they are.

 

[Richard]

If they're poor enough to have to do that, how come England could play at about 75% and win in SA?

They couldn't - the only England player to definitively underperform was Butcher.
Trescothick, Flintoff (with the ball and to a small extent with the bat), Hoggard and spectacularly Strauss overperformed, so England did better than they could really have been expected to do.
Except, of course, for those who were expecting Flintoff to score loads, Harmison to get loads of poor strokes like he had in West Indies, Jones to not bat brainlessly and, stupidly, expected Key and Giles to make much difference.

 

[Swervy]

Not just 3 Tests, though, is it? It's 6.
IF Gillespie returns they might. If he doesn't (and, sadly, that looks a possibility), obviously Australia's attack is no stronger than it was this summer. I'd say it's probably realistic to suggest that Warne can't possibly have such a good series again for a little while, and while McGrath is likely to be injured less, if Lee and Tait play (which ATM looks pretty on-the-cards) Australia will have to perform miracles to win even the home series, never mind the away one, 3-0.
Australia are not light-years ahead of SA because they've regressed seriously last summer.

Well I was talking about the series in Australia. Australia only have to raise their game a touch and SA to play at the usual level of mediocrity they play at and a 3-0 whitewash is well on the cards...whether Australia do raise their game is going to be the interesting aspect over the coming months.

Well, sorry but I think at the moment the Aussies are still a long way ahead of South Africa in tests. South Africa are merely average to good. Australia are very good still and probably on any given day have the ability to destroy any team.

Did Australia really regress that much??? What i saw wasa very fine England team generally playing better than Australia, who, as most people could see, werent playing as well as they could (whether that be due to form, or in the case of the batsmen, because they simply werent able to get into stride vs a very very good England pace attack).

SA have done very little in recent months/or last couple of years to suggest they are on the climb back to where they were a few years ago, and if England can outplay SA in SA, then Australia can quite easily outplay SA for massive chunks of play in Australia

 

[Swervy]

If he really impressed you by getting out for less than 50 EVERY SINGLE INNINGS (even if the copious amounts of dropped catches and no-ball dismissals let him off) then I dread to think how easy it must be to impress you.
Vaughan was perfectly consistent last summer and would almost certainly have scored a lot more in South Africa had he not got so many good deliveries.

look at the scorebook!!!!!

Vaughan??? Perfectly consistant...watching the same game as the rest of us are you Richard???

 

[Richard]

look at the scorebook!!!!!

No, have a look at the actual cricket that's been played.
Believe it or not, that's rather more important than just looking at one single set of numbers.

Vaughan??? Perfectly consistant...watching the same game as the rest of us are you Richard???

Vaughan averaged 46 last summer - perfectly good enough in my book.

 

[Swervy]

No, they're actually nowhere near as poor as you and plenty of other Englishmen like to think they are.

have a look at the results Richard...they are almost the definition of average over the last few years...one of those good teams on paper that you love, but as a team dont quite cut it.

 

[Swervy]

No, have a look at the actual cricket that's been played.
Believe it or not, that's rather more important than just looking at one single set of numbers.

Vaughan averaged 46 last summer - perfectly good enough in my book.

erm...are we talking about the same last summer..for me last summer is the one just gone..ie the last summer.

I seem to think with even the B'desh games included he only averaged 40...mainly due to his 160 odd vs Australia (and I wont mention the dropped catch and bowled off a no-ball thing, because I recognise thats part of the game and Vaughan did brilliantly to take advantage of those chances given to him in that innings)....but he was far from consistant