Beaten at full strength?

[Manee]

In the light of the Australia loss to India and massive outrage about selection, I'd say I would be finding myself doing this too if India had lost the Test. But I raise the bigger question, when has your team and I'm talking especially about Australia, South Africa, India and England been beaten in a series, be it Test or ODI, where you thought the selection was perfect and there were no crucial injuries.

Or is selection always something which can be improved?

 

[social]

Injuries come into it as well - a fully fit McGrath would've won the Ashes in 2005 with backing from the Rooty Hill 2nd X1

 

[Faisal1985]

Well i don't know about a series. But sure in hell Pak had a more then full strength team in 2003 WC. They got owned....with some of the best names in the world in there side.

 

[silentstriker]

That team was 'full strength' in name only. The players were nowhere near their peak.

 

[kingkallis]

Cronje's men beating us in 1999/2000. I think we had Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly, Azhar, Kumble and Srinath all playing at that time.

Ashes 2005, Australia were @ their full strength except McGrath injury.

South Africans getting beaten by England in 1998 series where SAF had an in-form list of players like Kirsten, Kallis, Pollock, Donald yet failed to win despite getting pretty close to a series win.

 

[Faisal1985]

That team was 'full strength' in name only. The players were nowhere near their peak.

True....but i don't see anyone getting selected on top of those names. I for one didn't think we could have selected anyone but them while they were available.

 

[sifter132]

2001 in India I thought Australia was at full power but got taken down. Took an amazing turnaround and some arrogant batting from the Aussies, but it was still an impressive series win given the XI Australia had. Contrast that with 2003/04 when India won again in Australia, but Australia had neither McGrath or Warne available. Nathan Bracken and Brad Williams were much easier pickings.

 

[Burgey]

2001 in India I thought Australia was at full power but got taken down. Took an amazing turnaround and some arrogant batting from the Aussies, but it was still an impressive series win given the XI Australia had. Contrast that with 2003/04 when India won again in Australia, but Australia had neither McGrath or Warne available. Nathan Bracken and Brad Williams were much easier pickings.

Yeah I think that's about the only time that side, at full strength, lost a series.

Actually, on reflection, did Lee play that series, or had he suffered that injury which kept him out a long time to his elbow? Can't recall tbh.

 

[Jono]

Lee was injured in 2001, so Australia weren't exactly full strength.

 

[Shri]

Lee wasn't a test regular back in 2001 either. Gillespie and others were preferred over him back then.

 

[Jono]

Lee probably would have played in front of Fleming and Kasprowicz that tour.

Nonetheless, it just goes to show that in almost every series, even on paper, a team is rarely if ever at full strength. Someone is always injured, or someone has always been selected when someone else should have been.

Can you believe India against Australia in 2001 didn't have Kumble? Hard to believe.

Makes Harbhajan's performances THAT much more amazing.

 

[Shri]

Lee probably would have played in front of Fleming and Kasprowicz that tour.

Nonetheless, it just goes to show that in almost every series, even on paper, a team is rarely if ever at full strength. Someone is always injured, or someone has always been selected when someone else should have been.

Can you believe India against Australia in 2001 didn't have Kumble? Hard to believe.

Makes Harbhajan's performances THAT much more amazing.

Also shows how damn good the reserve pace bowlers for Australia were tbf. Kasprowicz, Lee, Fleming etc were test standard bowlers on stand by while Mcgrath, Gillespie, etc played as first choice seamers.

 

[vcs]

Australia's backup bowling after McGrath/Warne has been terrific. No doubt having those two alongside also helped them greatly, but still they were superb bowlers in their own right.

 

[Burgey]

Australia's backup bowling after McGrath/Warne has been terrific. No doubt having those two alongside also helped them greatly, but still they were superb bowlers in their own right.

Alas no more.

 

[Kylez]

Cronje's men beating us in 1999/2000. I think we had Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly, Azhar, Kumble and Srinath all playing at that time.

Ashes 2005, Australia were @ their full strength despite McGrath injury.

South Africans getting beaten by England in 1998 series where SAF had an in-form list of players like Kirsten, Kallis, Pollock, Donald yet failed to win despite getting pretty close to a series win.

 

[Flem274*]

2004 England. Richardson, Fleming, Astle, Styris, Cairns, Tuffey, Martin all at or near their best and we got thumped. We were a decent team then too. Better than the 1999 one.

Thought tbf Bond got injured but he can hardly count since he's always injured.

 

[aussie]

2004 England. Richardson, Fleming, Astle, Styris, Cairns, Tuffey, Martin all at or near their best and we got thumped. We were a decent team then too. Better than the 1999 one.

Thought tbf Bond got injured but he can hardly count since he's always injured.

Yea. That 2004 side was just Bond short of the best NZ time ive seen.

But damn circa 98-2004. If certain key players where fit, i've always said NZ under Fleming could have been close to the second best team in the world behind AUS & definately better the very good late 80s team. At some point between 98-2004 with once all players fit & hit top form/peaked, i reckon this NZ test XI could have played:

Richardson
Fleming
Astle
Styris
McMillan
Cairns
Oram
Parore/McCullum
Vettori
Bond
Allot/O'Connor

Horne, Nash, Wiseman

 

[Spark]

Cronje's men beating us in 1999/2000. I think we had Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly, Azhar, Kumble and Srinath all playing at that time.

Ashes 2005, Australia were @ their full strength despite McGrath injury.

South Africans getting beaten by England in 1998 series where SAF had an in-form list of players like Kirsten, Kallis, Pollock, Donald yet failed to win despite getting pretty close to a series win.

That's nonsense.

 

[Zinzan]

Yea. That 2004 side was just Bond short of the best NZ time ive seen.

But damn circa 98-2004. If certain key players where fit, i've always said NZ under Fleming could have been close to the second best team in the world behind AUS & definately better the very good late 80s team. At some point between 98-2004 with once all players fit & hit top form/peaked, i reckon this NZ test XI could have played:

Richardson
Fleming
Astle
Styris
McMillan
Cairns
Oram
Parore/McCullum
Vettori
Bond
Allot/O'Connor

Horne, Nash, Wiseman

If we're looking at 98-2004, would definitely have Nash or Doull ahead of either Allott or O'Connor in tests. Also probably open with Horne & have Flem at 3 (3 is too high for Astle in Tests) and drop McMillan to 12th man - Handy side.

 

[marc71178]

That's nonsense.

Suspect he meant except for rather than in spite of.