I cant remembe r no hype surrounding Lee coming back intot the MCG test at all
You must have a short memory then. For Steve Waugh and the entire aussie press ( led by SMH) predicted 'shock and awe' in store for the Indians when Lee returns.
plus Lee has never bowled that well in test cricket but the fact is when he came back during that test series he was bowling no where near to full potential
So if you say that he's never bowled well in test cricket, how are you determining that his insepid display was 'not performing to full potential' ?
When has Lee ever demonstrated the ability to carve out a good batting lineup, save for one instance in his debut series where he was an unknown ?
And its irrelevant how well Lee has bowled in ODIs, mate. ODI is not Test cricket and Agarkar, who is a decent ODI bowler is hopeless in Tests...pretty much the Indian version of Lee.
I never said Akhtar was bowling Slow all i'm saying is that he was bowling wasn't bowling has well in 2004 has he did in the Kolkatta test...
He was bowling very well in 2004...he had just finished re-arranging Gary Kirstien's face if you recall not too long before the IND series.
In kolkata he bowled two exceptional yorkers and was a superlative performance.
Its like saying McGrath hasnt bowled as well as his 8-25 spell most of his career...well..duh ! thats one of his superlative performances, not his average performance!
but that doesn't mean you can say that he is no where near the class of Sehwag againts either spin or pace, because to date i dont think Katich has a weakness againts either type of bowling & presently for me (not looking at career stats) he is Australia's best all-round batsman.
Ofcourse it means that you can say he is nowhere near the class of Sehwag.
Class is established not only by performance but also by experience. Which is why Sehwag is a potential great and not in the same bracket as Lara-Tendulkar YET.
And which is why Katich is not comparable to Sehwag in any shape or form in Test cricket...thats like comparing Brian Lara and Mark Waugh in 1995.
And like mark waugh, Katich doesnt look disturbed too often but again, like Mark Waugh and Lara case, it is pretty categoric that Katich hasnt performed anywhere in Sehwag's class.
i'm not so sure if Barbados in 97 was of the same pace of the the 70s, 80s & early 90s
Make up your mind.
Here you say that Bimshire wasnt as bouncy in 97 as in the 70s/80s/90s etc. Before you said that bimshire was pretty bouncy in 97 ( where you erroneously concluded that Dravid didnt do too well in that series).Now that you see Dravid has done well in that series, me thinks yer trying to change yer mind on the hostility of the bimshire pitch.
barbados pitch wasnt relaid till 2002 and till then, it was fast and hostile as hell. Check out the scores in barbados and see how Ambrose-Walsh and various other 'bouncy/pacy' bowlers have dominated in bimshire.
Having watched many a match played in bimshire, i can safely say that there wasnt much difference in bimshire pitch from 97 all the way back to maybe early 60s.
weren't that quick even the one for the 1st test in Jamaica.
Jamaica wasnt fast ????? Sabina Park has jostled with barbados and Perth for the 'fastest pitch' title for almost all its history before being relaid in 2003.
Infact, it was so brutal in the 90s that teams struggled to score 300 on that pitch and a match was actually abandoned in Sabina Park ( England vs WI in 97 i think) because it was TOO dangerous!
So has i said before when Langer & Martyn faced Amborse/Walsh/Bishop in 92 they were definately more difficult to face than in 97....
No. Ambrose was pretty much a mean customer to face for all his career, except maybe the last year or so. Its like saying McGrath is less meaner today than in 1999...no he isnt !
And while Bishop had declined by 97, Walsh had improved by leaps and bounds since 92.
In short, the pitches in OZ in 92 were no faster than 97 WI and like i said, WI was tougher to bat in because it had three of the four toughest pitches to bat on if you look at pitches from OZ and WI during that period ( Barbados, Perth, Sabina Park and QPO).
And given that Ambrose was pretty much just as good, Walsh had improved and Bishop had declined, there is no basis to say that the 92 attack was stronger than 97 attack.
