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

[marc71178]

No, it's not, they've a decent chance of scoring enough runs off what is just shaping-up to be a pretty ordinary Australia attack to force at least 1 if not maybe even 2 draws.

So they've got some new batsmen in then?

 

[tooextracool]

I do, however, rate Pollock, Smith, de Villiers, Nel, Kallis, de Bruyn, Langeveldt and Boucher and all of them bar Pollock (with the ball only) and Kallis (with the bat only) either underperformed in the series, were missing through injury or were messed around by the selectors.

Smith got worked out, hence its not underperforming, but just not being capable enough.
langeveldt if anything overperformed and was thankfully exposed thereafter as not being good enough.

 

[tooextracool]

From the West Indies series, no, they're exactly the same. That's when Harmison started bowling utter rubbish again.
In the New Zealand series he was clearly far, far, far more accurate than he was against West Indies..

perhaps, but he wasnt any more accurate than he was this summer.

Fact is Warne batted like a tailender at Lord's, and fact is any batsmen playing such incredibly out-of-character shots like Katich played to be dismissed in both innings was quite blatantly to everyone who watched because he was batting with the tail.

warne batted no differently at Lords than he did elsewhere.

Because Gayle was out to seaming and swinging deliveries so often? No, he just played lots of poor strokes.

and gayle getting out to poor strokes is a hallmark of his career. and im sure there were at least a few seaming deliveries that got him out such as the one from the 2nd innings of the first test as well as the one from the first inning of the 2nd test.

Really, like when he played at a ball he should have left (First Test first-innings), played an extremely poor drive (First Test second-innings), got out to a short-ball (Second Test first-innings), and played round a straight ball having already dropped down the order because his finger was affecting him (Second Test second-innings)?
Far as I'm concerned all Lara's dismissals in the first 2 Tests were due to him being out of touch, as he sometimes is early on in series'.

oh what rubbish, you can come up with an excuse for the dismissal of every player. fact is england bowled the right lines and lengths to lara for a sustained period of time and eventually that got him out. and jones ball in the first test was quite a delivery considering that its the sort of delivery that lara has got out to many many times in his career. and im not sure why you removed the 3rd test, unless you now agree that england actually bowled well at him in the 3rd test?

 

[tooextracool]

Because of course Warne is likely to have another series where he bowls as well as he did in The Ashes so soon?
Fact is, Warne can't be an attack in himself, nor can even Warne and McGrath.

and of course an all time great is incapable of having 2 good series back to back isnt it?
he doesnt even have to bowl as well as he did in the ashes to get kallis and gibbs, he just needs to bowl well.
and mcgrath and warne in tandem are more than enough for SA and its not like macgills record against SA is especially poor either.

 

[tooextracool]

Presuming you mean South Africa, they didn't lose in NZ, and only failed to win because of Chris Martin's unexpected star-turn in the Second Test.
And I hardly see that they toured Pakistan without a quality bowler when Paul Adams took a 7-for in one of the Tests.

haha paul adams? a quality bowler? come now you'd be better off telling me that dale steyn is a quality bowler. they couldnt beat pakistan in pakistan despite pakistan being without shoaib akhtar.
as far as NZ is concerned, the fact that they couldnt handle 1 quality bowler in the conditions says a fair bit about how good they actually are.

 

[tooextracool]

No, they didn't, both hardly bowled any wicket-taking deliveries and yet took plenty of wickets.

Simon jones bowled at least a few wicket taking deliveries in the first test, and flintoff bowled several throughout the series.

 

[Richard]

So they've got some new batsmen in then?

No - in Smith, de Villiers, Gibbs, Kallis, Boucher and Pollock they've got some players already ensconced who are good enough.

 

[Richard]

Smith got worked out, hence its not underperforming, but just not being capable enough.

Really, Smith got worked-out when he edged 3 to slip, got caught off a Pull-stroke, managed to get out to a nothing ball from Giles, and had to throw away his wicket going for quick runs?
The only way he could have been worked-out was if he was dismissed lbw at least 5 times, because that's his only weakness. And he wasn't. He was dismissed lbw just 3 times, in the middle of the series.

langeveldt if anything overperformed and was thankfully exposed thereafter as not being good enough.

He was?
Whether or not he's good enough remains to be seen but there's absolutely no denying he bowled well at Newlands.

 

[Richard]

perhaps, but he wasnt any more accurate than he was this summer.

Of course he was, it's not possible for someone to go for 2.74-an-over and then bowl with the same accuracy and go for 3.69-an-over, nearly a whole 1-an-over more, no matter how much more aggressive the batsmen (and it ain't like Fleming, Styris, Astle, McMillan, Oram, Cairns and McCullum are defensive players anyway).

warne batted no differently at Lords than he did elsewhere.

No, of course not, that's why he looked completely all-at-sea most of the time and managed the odd shot off the middle of the bat, whereas at other times in the series he actually - amazingly - batted with a decent head on his shoulders (except of course Edgbaston first-innings).

and gayle getting out to poor strokes is a hallmark of his career. and im sure there were at least a few seaming deliveries that got him out such as the one from the 2nd innings of the first test as well as the one from the first inning of the 2nd test.

Even if they were, and I'm not totally sure (can't exactly say I remember the second-innings of the First Test moving much), most of Gayle's dismissals were poor strokes and not good deliveries.

oh what rubbish, you can come up with an excuse for the dismissal of every player. fact is england bowled the right lines and lengths to lara for a sustained period of time and eventually that got him out. and jones ball in the first test was quite a delivery considering that its the sort of delivery that lara has got out to many many times in his career. and im not sure why you removed the 3rd test, unless you now agree that england actually bowled well at him in the 3rd test?

It was fairly obvious to anyone watching that Lara was back in touch in the Third Test, even if I wouldn't quite have expected what followed.
In the First and Second Tests he was clearly out-of-touch and that as far as I'm concerned is why he failed in those, not because of any magnificence in the bowling.

 

[Richard]

and of course an all time great is incapable of having 2 good series back to back isnt it?

Of course he's capable of having 2 good series - I somehow doubt he's capable of having 2 series as sensational as the England one - indeed it's just possible that he might have an average series and take maybe just 13 wickets at 28 or something.

he doesnt even have to bowl as well as he did in the ashes to get kallis and gibbs, he just needs to bowl well.

Because of course we know that for certain, don't we? Kallis is certainly a far better player than he was last time he faced Warne and he might well play him better than he has before.

and mcgrath and warne in tandem are more than enough for SA and its not like macgills record against SA is especially poor either.

No, it's not, because MacGill has had 2 one-off Tests against SA and they have never had the chance to get a clean go at him. If anyone seriously expects MacGill to bowl well in Tests any more they're holding-out for quite a lot in my estimation, especially given that he performed well in his most recent Test.

 

[Richard]

haha paul adams? a quality bowler? come now you'd be better off telling me that dale steyn is a quality bowler.

Paul Adams may be inconsistent in the extreme but on his day he is more than capable of bowling exceptionally well, such as in that Test where he got that seven-for.

they couldnt beat pakistan in pakistan despite pakistan being without shoaib akhtar.

Of course everyone is expected to win every Test against Pakistan-minus-Shoaib. They came pretty close, of course, just couldn't quite pull it off.

as far as NZ is concerned, the fact that they couldnt handle 1 quality bowler in the conditions says a fair bit about how good they actually are.

No, it doesn't, any 1 bowler can have a single match where he almost single-handedly changes it's course. That was Martin's, and it'll probably be his only 1 too. They immidiately repaired the damage.

 

[Richard]

Simon jones bowled at least a few wicket taking deliveries in the first test, and flintoff bowled several throughout the series.

Jones bowled 1 in The First Test, maybe 2 if you say the Tsolekile-wicket one, though I reckon Boucher might well have played the ball in question. Having Pollock caught off his pad was not a wicket-taking delivery.
I'd like to see how many of Flintoff's good spells (First, Third and Fifth Tests - he bowled pretty poorly in the Second and Fourth) contained wicket-taking deliveries. I certainly hardly think there were any in the First.
In the Third he managed to mop-up the last 4 wickets having bowled pretty poorly for most of the innings and then got Dippenaar with a poor ball in the second-innings. Maybe I'd give you that the Gibbs ball was a good one.
I don't really remember too much of the first-innings at Centurion but certainly neither of the second-innings balls were that good.

 

[tooextracool]

Really, Smith got worked-out when he edged 3 to slip, got caught off a Pull-stroke, managed to get out to a nothing ball from Giles, and had to throw away his wicket going for quick runs?
The only way he could have been worked-out was if he was dismissed lbw at least 5 times, because that's his only weakness. And he wasn't. He was dismissed lbw just 3 times, in the middle of the series.

because of course matthew hayden got out lbw at least 5 times in the recent ashes series?
and maybe just maybe the edges to slip were a direct result of a whole bunch of inswingers followed by an outswinger

He was?
Whether or not he's good enough remains to be seen but there's absolutely no denying he bowled well at Newlands.

he bowled accurately in conditions that helped him in 1 inning. give him a medal.
he then took 1 wicket in his next 2 innings. not surprisingly he got dropped after that.

 

[tooextracool]

Of course he was, it's not possible for someone to go for 2.74-an-over and then bowl with the same accuracy and go for 3.69-an-over, nearly a whole 1-an-over more, no matter how much more aggressive the batsmen (and it ain't like Fleming, Styris, Astle, McMillan, Oram, Cairns and McCullum are defensive players anyway).

no a team like australia is always going to score faster, especially when you consider that the wickets were flatter during this summer and the australian players are significantly better. and it was 3.41 in the ashes not 3.69.
and as i've said a billion times, accuracy doesnt always have a direct relation to ERs.

No, of course not, that's why he looked completely all-at-sea most of the time and managed the odd shot off the middle of the bat, whereas at other times in the series he actually - amazingly - batted with a decent head on his shoulders (except of course Edgbaston first-innings

what rubbish, he batted in the exact same manner throughout the series, the fact that he survived for longer made it looked like he batted better.

Even if they were, and I'm not totally sure (can't exactly say I remember the second-innings of the First Test moving much), most of Gayle's dismissals were poor strokes and not good deliveries.

so now its 'most' then, especially considering that with gayle that is what you expect anyways? fact is that he took wickets of good deliveries too.

It was fairly obvious to anyone watching that Lara was back in touch in the Third Test, even if I wouldn't quite have expected what followed.

so you admit that england bowled well at him in the 3rd test then?

In the First and Second Tests he was clearly out-of-touch and that as far as I'm concerned is why he failed in those, not because of any magnificence in the bowling.

no its not fairly obvious. he got a very good ball from Jones in the first test. and there were other good balls that followed. his failure was because of good bowling, rather than poor batting and its not surprising that laras record wasnt very good in either of the 2 series against england last year.

 

[tooextracool]

Of course he's capable of having 2 good series - I somehow doubt he's capable of having 2 series as sensational as the England one - indeed it's just possible that he might have an average series and take maybe just 13 wickets at 28 or something.

against SA given the number of poor players of spin i expect him to average in the low 20s, even if its not as good as the series against england.

Because of course we know that for certain, don't we? Kallis is certainly a far better player than he was last time he faced Warne and he might well play him better than he has before.

and we know this for certain dont we? if something has happened in the past its more likely to happen again than the contrary, especially when you consider how ordinary kallis looked against warne in the current Super series test match.

No, it's not, because MacGill has had 2 one-off Tests against SA and they have never had the chance to get a clean go at him.

because playing him in an entire series would make them play him better wouldnt it?

If anyone seriously expects MacGill to bowl well in Tests any more they're holding-out for quite a lot in my estimation, especially given that he performed well in his most recent Test.

and he isnt that poor especially when there are poor players of spin in a side like SA.

 

[tooextracool]

Paul Adams may be inconsistent in the extreme but on his day he is more than capable of bowling exceptionally well, such as in that Test where he got that seven-for..

paul adams is rubbish period. on his day hes marginally better than nathan hauritz.

Of course everyone is expected to win every Test against Pakistan-minus-Shoaib. They came pretty close, of course, just couldn't quite pull it off..

which says something......SA arent very good.

No, it doesn't, any 1 bowler can have a single match where he almost single-handedly changes it's course. That was Martin's, and it'll probably be his only 1 too. They immidiately repaired the damage.

and you can argue that boje taking 8 wickets in a game is a freak of nature, and is clearly a result of NZ underperforming

 

[tooextracool]

Jones bowled 1 in The First Test, maybe 2 if you say the Tsolekile-wicket one, though I reckon Boucher might well have played the ball in question. Having Pollock caught off his pad was not a wicket-taking delivery..

and obviously bowling 2 wicket taking deliveries in 1 innings is not good enough for you anymore is it?

I'd like to see how many of Flintoff's good spells (First, Third and Fifth Tests - he bowled pretty poorly in the Second and Fourth) contained wicket-taking deliveries. I certainly hardly think there were any in the First.
In the Third he managed to mop-up the last 4 wickets having bowled pretty poorly for most of the innings and then got Dippenaar with a poor ball in the second-innings. Maybe I'd give you that the Gibbs ball was a good one.
I don't really remember too much of the first-innings at Centurion but certainly neither of the second-innings balls were that good.

oh come of it, do you expect bowlers to bowl 100s of wicket taking deliveries? he bowled several, which is good enough.

 

[Maison]

No, you're more stupid if you think the Australian bowling-attack minus a firing Gillespie and Kasprowicz is especially strong.
Lee is poor and we've known that for ages, Tait so far has demonstrated only that he too is very poor. We also know that MacGill hasn't been much good for a number of years.

Err, what the blazes are you on about? Where "in the blue hell" did I say Warne won't bowl well again? I said I doubt Warne will bowl as well as he bowled in the Tests in England for quite a while, and I do.

I don't really understand what the hell you're on about here.

No, nor do I. There were far, far too many in The Ashes, though.

No, perform miracles to whitewash a reasonable team.

So... where exactly did I say any of that utter bullshiiyt?

seriously mate, go away.

i never said that you said 'warne wouldnt bowl again' ( ). i merely commented on your unjustifiable comment that 'warne wont bowl as well as he did in the ashes'


erno!

(hows about this for a copy and paste you prat)

"The combination bowled Australia to victory with 13 wickets against Pakistan in January and today seven wickets were harvested, MacGill capturing 4 for 39 and Warne 3 for 23 as they sparked a stunning collapse"

damn, thats poor. 3/23! WHAT, whats going on thats like a sh*thouse bowling performance, good prediction....

predictions? Hows about MacGill? He's 'no good (for years)?' apparently?



when has he been no good? have you checked his average/s.rate? the only reason he's never in the australian team is because -

1) we have Shane "Won't-bowl-well-anytime-soon" Warne
2) the selectors are idiots..
3) ...who pick random pace bowlers.



nah richard stop this ****, i swear to god.


[edited - because some people like to cry]

 

[howardj]

seriously mate, fk off.

i never said that you said 'warne wouldnt bowl again' (you fkn loser ffs). i merely commented on your unjustifiable comment that 'warne wont bowl as well as he did in the ashes'


BULLSH*T!

(hows about this for a copy and paste you prat)

"The combination bowled Australia to victory with 13 wickets against Pakistan in January and today seven wickets were harvested, MacGill capturing 4 for 39 and Warne 3 for 23 as they sparked a stunning collapse"

damn, thats poor. 3/23! WHAT, whats going on thats like a sh*thouse bowling performance, good prediction....

predictions? Hows about MacGill? He's 'no good (for years)?' apparently?

YOU IDIOT!..

when has he been no good? have you checked his average/s.rate? the only reason he's never in the australian team is because -

1) we have Shane "Won't-bowl-well-anytime-soon" Warne
2) the selectors are idiots..
3) ...who pick random pace bowlers.



nah richard stop this ****, i swear to god.

If there's a moderator out there, this circle-jerker ought to be banned. Have a look at his posts. Nothing but abusive.

 

[Maison]

I'm allowed a valid opinion and allowed to quote people, look at richard and his posts amonst some other dude here..........


im sick of thoughtless comments.