-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Group A - India, England, Australia, West Indies
- Thread starter James
- Start date
They use to say Australia's future looked bleak when the likes of McDermot were on the way out. A fast bowling lineup of Tait, Johnson and Lee could well be the most destructive fast bowling group we've ever had if they all stay fit. Watson was impressive last night and ive never said that before. Our batting stocks will always be as deep as the pacific and will always be one step ahead in coaching and use of new technology, so i'm pretty confident that this "decline" that people have been screaming about for the last year or two may never actually eventuate. BTW - why wasn't England battling it out with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to qualify for the CT? Surely they aren't as good as BD in these conidtions?
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Tait especially still has a whole lot to prove.valvolux said:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Simmy's saying the same thing in there too.Jono said:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
If you read the thread Linda you'll see that the basic points made throughout the thread were that "At full strength England are better than SL and NZ" (who were apparently on the decline, ironically look at SL since then) and that when England don't "muck around" they are the 2nd best in the world.Linda said:
I remember everyone laughing at Boycott's statement that Dhoni had to prove himself in ODI cricket against "the world champions", that being England, when England haven't done anything in ODI cricket for as long as I remember.
I think a 2-1 victory over a Sachinless India in 2004 is their last series victory against an non-Minnow team.
Last edited:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
True. Laughable really.FaaipDeOiad said:
Evidently if you beat Australia a couple of times, and manage a tie as well, you're immediately better than the rest. Forget the fact that they couldn't beat SL, NZ, India, Pak etc. if their lives depended on it. When a 2-2 drawn series with Pakistan at home, with Pakistan clearly sick of that tour (and the controversy that came with it) is an achievement, I don't think you're the second best ODI team in the world, and they weren't that in 2005 either.simmy said:
sideshowtim
Banned
Anyone who thinks England are a good one day side is pretty delusional. People say Australia are on the decline, but if anything it's been England who have declined since the Ashes. Think about it, since the Ashes we've not lost a test and played 12, We've won the VB series, we've won the DLF cup. Australia are showing the right signs at the right time, England on the other hand...
PhoenixFire
International Coach
England have the players to be right up there contending for all the one day trophies that there are, it's just they can never seem to get everyone performing at the same time. A batting line up of Strauss, Flintoff, Pietersen, Trescothick, Bell, Read and Collingwood, should be one that's feared, not laughed at, and there bowling is as awful as everyone make it out to be. Mahmood, Lewis, Harmison, Anderson, Flintoff, Collingwood and Dalrymple can all be good bowlers on there day. so I can't see why they're not performing.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Jones was having a pretty torrid time of it with the bat, and hadn't made any major scores with the bat for a while. Read had had a good with the bat, and would be seen to be the better gloves man. Jones had kept well over the summer, but he just wasn't making the scores.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Does for mine. It's no secret that we're pretty ordinary in the shorter form, but anyone who thinks Oz won't be celebrating it as an early shot across the old enemy's bows before the real hostilities begin is being naive.Jono said:
Our preformance wasn't entirely devoid of positives, it was nice to see Saj & Anderson bowl with verve and to bowl wicket taking deliveries too. Harmy's form continues to horrify tho; how much longer can we continue to pick a player on past (if fleeting) glories?
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Think about this...sideshowtim said:
Australia has played one quality team since the Ashes. Other than that, they've played Bangladesh and the West Indies. The West Indies never win out of the Caribbean these days, and Bangladesh are a gulf away from the class of Australia. Yet both teams gave Australia a considerable scare in a match. Australia have played 7 Tests at home, 3 in SA and 2 in Bangladesh.
England, on the other hand, have played Pakistan and India on the subcontinent for a total of 6 Tests away, then faced Sri Lanka and Pakistan at home. In general I'd say England have had the far tougher schedule over the past 12 or so months. Don't you think?
Last edited:
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Very well put.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
If England didn't have injuries to key players such as Vaughan & Jones they would have a settled side and one with few changes from the sides that beat Australia in the last Ashes series and would be ,IMO, strong favourites going into the Ashes series. Especially considering Australia are yet to settle on their number 6 batsman and fourth bowler.
sideshowtim
Banned
If if if if if
If my aunty had bollocks she'd by my uncle
If McGrath wasn't injured we would've won the Ashes
England had to deal with their losses, and they couldn't, they still had their best player and a decent bowling line up that should've been capable to beat both India and England. You can't honestly say that England are going to the Ashes in top form.
If my aunty had bollocks she'd by my uncle
If McGrath wasn't injured we would've won the Ashes
England had to deal with their losses, and they couldn't, they still had their best player and a decent bowling line up that should've been capable to beat both India and England. You can't honestly say that England are going to the Ashes in top form.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
In tests they are. Good tour of the subcontinent and beating Pakistan 3-0 at home.sideshowtim said:
They haven't been a good one day side for a while.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What? Australia of all teams should know hard it is to beat India in India, especially with half your team out injured. Oh, and England isn't good enough to beat themselves yet... unless it's ODI cricket.sideshowtim said:
You're grabbing at straws here now. Australia has had a breeze of a schedule compared to England over the past year, and the only reason Australia is in better shape heading into the Ashes is that they haven't had to totally restructure their team.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Haha, glossing over things a bit there aren't you? They had an alright time of it in India and 1-1 is a respectable result, but they lost 2-0 in Pakistan and then drew 1-1 with Sri Lanka (who aren't the most fearsome test side away from home) in England. England have had a pretty rough time of it in test cricket in the last year, and there's no way they are in "top form". Australia's had some problems, but 11 wins and a draw in 12 tests is a pretty damn good record nonetheless, and half of those tests were against South Africa who are a solid side.Mister Wright said:
England on the other hand have won 4 tests since the Ashes (excluding the forfeit), drawn 4 and lost 4. They've had harder opposition, but Australia have certainly had a much better run in both forms of the game in the last 12 months.