The Ashes won't be close

[Swervy]

Due to my team allegiances, I cant possibly be both..

Bad situation...

you are English..cant escape that fact though...call yourself Langeveldt,go live out there,..even go adopt a saffie accent and slip a few Rand in your pocket, it dont matter..YOU ARE ENGLISH..bad luck mate ..why you would choose to support SA is beyond me

(only joshin' witchu )

 

[Link]

stop saying its unlucky to be english. im not patriotic, but im not ashamed to be english. There is nothing wrong with it, nothing bad comes from and it, and our teams are alright, we are the rugby world champs, and we play host to sporting kings like beckham, kelly holmes (queen) and michael vaughan (i would have to include that)

 

[age_master]

we are the rugby world champs

lol, maybe cup holders but thats about it, haven't won much since the WC have you?

 

[Link]

lol, maybe cup holders but thats about it, haven't won much since the WC have you?

of cousre not, but by being english when do you think the next time i will be able to say world champions again

 

[Craig]

You seriously expect Harmison, Anderson, Giles (on a non-turner), Simon Jones and Flintoff to be able to keep Australia down?

I expect Harmison.

Anybody who watched the 02/03 Ashes would see Harmison was bowling a lot better towards the end of the series then when he was at the beginning.

The change in action brought him a lot more confidence and out went this 'homesickness' he has suffered from.

With all due respect, I did watch a lot of the Ashes last time around.

 

[Craig]

I agree with your Flintoff comment. Because of all the talking up of Flintoff, I can see the Aussie's doing a lot of planning and targeting him. Just ask Stephen Fleming what its like when Aussie target you as the dangerman.

I think if you are being targetted by the Aussies means that you are good player which is a nice compliment.

 

[Mr Casson]

I think if you are being targetted by the Aussies means that you are good player which is a nice compliment.

No, it means you WERE a good player - it's a virtual death warrant.

 

[Craig]

Not for Brian Lara.

 

[luckyeddie]

I find most of english fans to be idiots, not all but a lot.
Even ones ive met. They are the worst winners and the worst losers. only the matches they win matters, and they dont do it in a funny/humourous way, they are just dry.

I'm not the only one, most people dont like english teams becasue of their fans.

The most ridiculous statement here is the "Even ones ive (sic) met." - as though you are in a position to make a (highly generalised) judgment about those you HAVEN'T.

If you were to restrict your comments to the press as opposed to the supporters (who I find tend to be immensely loyal) then I might be inclined to agree with you - at least a little.

And another thing. What is it with those ridiculous poxy beige shirts that the New Zealand cricket supporters now wear? They must be 20 years old. Can't you afford new ones?

 

[Link]

And another thing. What is it with those ridiculous poxy beige shirts that the New Zealand cricket supporters now wear? They must be 20 years old. Can't you afford new ones?

here here

 

[marc71178]

of cousre not, but by being english when do you think the next time i will be able to say world champions again

2006?

 

[Hit4Six]

Aussies will murder england, 3-0 or 3-1

 

[Richard]

Jones, Thorpe, Giles, Flintoff (with bat), Harmison and the number 3 all underperformed in SA.

Thorpe certainly didn't underperform, he managed 3 significant innings. Giles did better than he should have done, while still very poorly, Jones lost his head and with it most of his runs, Harmison was exposed as poor, Flintoff was exposed as not perhaps as good as the summer made him look, Key was exposed as substandard.
Butcher and Vaughan were the only ones who underperformed; with the ball Jones and Flintoff were flattered by their figures.

 

[Richard]

There are far far worse teams than that England side.

Speaking about the proper international sides in the last 5 or 6 years - my living memory of the World game.
There have been very few sides worse than that.

 

[Richard]

Well, let's see...

Vaughan v McGrath: 132 runs @ 59.19
Vaughan v Gillespie: 136 runs @ 60.71
Vaughan v Bichel: 86 runs @ 56.95
Vaughan v Warne: 53 runs @ 42.40 (two innings, 45 off 69, 8 off 56)
Vaughan v Waugh: 11 runs @ 28.95
Vaughan v Lee: 38 runs @ 55.80
Vaughan v MacGill: 123 runs @ 70.29
Vaughan v Martyn: 13 runs @ 76.47

Not entirely true, eh Rich?

Surprised, certainly, that the McGrath one is that high.
The Gillespie one is obviously inflated by the final innings of the series where Gillespie had a horrible hamstring and bowled very poorly.
The only surprising thing is McGrath.

 

[Richard]

Warne will trouble english batsmen no matter what the conditions

Giles shouldn't really trouble anyone, hes got nothing on the spinners the Australian batsmen have been facing in the last 12 months in Vettori, Kumble etc

Giles is every bit as special as Vettori given a turning pitch, while not quite as good as Kumble.
Especially against a team like Australia with so many players weak against the turning ball, Giles will cause all sorts of problems on a turning pitch.
But like Kumble and Vettori, he'll not cause any on a non-turner.

 

[Richard]

in his last 30 test matches Giles has averages 24 with the bat and 38 with the ball, career 20 with the bat, 37 with the ball

Vettori in his last 30 has averaged 28 with the bat and 38 with the ball, career 22 with the bat and 35 with the ball.

its also worth noting that during his last 20 tests Vettori has been averaging 36 with the bat, apparently he has been working on that alot.

Vettori's main advantage over Giles for mine, is that he is a far smarter cricketwe and he puts alot of thought into what he bowls.

Which suggests that you haven't watched Giles very closely, he's incredibly thoughtful with his bowling.
Vettori in his last 5 Tests has bowled OK (still only taken 18 wickets at 41, though he was certainly unlucky in the first 2); in his 19 before that he was exceedingly poor (though often affected by injury).
Giles, meanwhile, has played 13 Tests on turning pitches in his career, and come out with good figures in 10 of them.
Which suggests that he's extremely likely to get good figures on a turner.

 

[sledger]

Giles is every bit as special as Vettori given a turning pitch, while not quite as good as Kumble.
Especially against a team like Australia with so many players weak against the turning ball, Giles will cause all sorts of problems on a turning pitch.
But like Kumble and Vettori, he'll not cause any on a non-turner.

yes agreed with the statment about giles, but the fact still remains that warne will be a threat on whatever the pitch is like.

 

[Richard]

I assume that was a tongue and cheek comment, because that NZ side that drew with Aust in 2001-02 was a much stronger side than the current NZ side.

Mark Richardson
Adam Parore
Chris Cairns
Shane Bond
Dion Nash

None of the above play in the current test team

Bond hardly made a positive impact on that series - 3 wickets at 96.33.
Nash, sadly, was long past his best by then, totally ruined by injury, and played just 1 game.
Richardson did poorly, too, averaging 30.40.
More than the presence of Parore and Cairns, the real difference was that Astle, Fleming and to a lesser extent McMillan were in decent nick; plus, of course, Vincent had that miraculous single game.
And, of course, the rain at The 'Gabba and Bellerive helped. Well as you played, I'd still reckon you'd have lost the series, maybe 2-1, all things being equal (rain and Umpiring decisions).

 

[Richard]

yes agreed with the statment about giles, but the fact still remains that warne will be a threat on whatever the pitch is like.

Everyone seems to be speaking as if I've said otherwise.
That's just the point - Warne will be a threat come what may. So, maybe, the best chance might be to prepare turners and allow us to respond in kind.