From what I can garner, Steve Waugh's problem in his youth was a lack of temperament, and it was only after he was dropped for his brother Mark that he says himself that he cut a lot of shots out of his armoury and became a much more restricted player stroke-wise, which also asks a lot more of your temperament. He was prone to rash shots and getting himself out, and the turning point was when he was dropped for his brother.tooextracool said:
tooextracool said:
Quality entertainment here.
Errr. Who cares if they scored 400+ or not. I remember Azhar, Sachin, Kambli, and Even Dasgupta sending the English bowlers on a major leather hunt in India, India has won 4 out of 6 tests in which SRT has played. It was only after the beating they got Hussain and Giles resorted to negative bowling. He still ended up scoring a century and 90 in remaning 3 innings. So take your crap somewhere else where people believe your kind of BS.tooextracool said:
And if you are watching this series then you will notice that Mcgrath bowled one of the best spell of his career. He also bowled equally well in the 2nd innings. On the other hand Freddie was bowling like Lee in the Lords test. And English were bowling so well that they couldn't get australia out despite getting 100+ overs to bowl. If cMgrath/Warnie/Lee were in their place, they would have finished in under 90.tooextracool said:
but notice how cleverly he has worded it...Sanz said:
Ironically Tendulkar averages 87 runs @ home against England, with 2 100s and 4 50s and almost 72 in England with 4 100s and 4 50s. I am sure it is a clear indication that he can't bat against England, or may be English bowlers were not bowling at their best every time he scored.
This is carrying it too far,mate... I don't think Jones and Flintoff can get Tendulkar out EVER if he bats the way he can.. All this talk is stupid. Tendulkar has handled Wasim and Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh, McGrath and Warne pretty well over the course of his career and there is no reason why he shouldn't be back to good form before March, so saying he CANNOT SCORE A RUN is way way way off the mark.tooextracool said:
I'm sure that if Vaughan can, then they could standing on their heads.honestbharani said:
He's silly, we're not (much)Anil said:
always thought that the reason for his failures early on in his career was his inability to play the short ball. i think the fact that he cut the pull and hook shot from his armoury helped a fair bit.vic_orthdox said:
oh wow, well done in completely missing the point. not once did i say that tendulkar couldnt play an england side from 10 years ago, i said that he would struggle to play flintoff and jones if they get the ball to reverse considering how much hes struggled against swing and seam.Sanz said:
Ironically Tendulkar averages 87 runs @ home against England, with 2 100s and 4 50s and almost 72 in England with 4 100s and 4 50s. I am sure it is a clear indication that he can't bat against England, or may be English bowlers were not bowling at their best every time he scored.
the fact that the indian players have hit paul jarvis, defreitas, chris lewis, james ormond, matthew hoggard and flintoff when he was rubbish doesnt prove a thing.Sanz said:
yes, and if you had taken the effort to notice, you might have actually realised that mcgrath bowled far worse at Old trafford than flintoff did at Lords. Mcgrath bowled well in 2 innings of this series, Flintoff has bowled well in 4.Sanz said:
yep, they would have probably lost the game in 90 overs, given the caning they got in both innings at Old trafford.Sanz said:
he never actually got to face wasim or waqar in their prime, and he very very rarely got to face walsh,ambrose and mcgrath on seaming wickets.honestbharani said:
