Australia's performance in the World Cup

[frey]

Clearly they are the best batting, bowling, fielding side by quite a distance.

Absolutely correct! ...the problem for the opposition is that players such as Gilchrist and Symonds will only get better in the semi and final.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Wow, I missed an "e", so crucify me...

Yes, I do know what impenetrable means - it's not exactly the hardest word on Earth, is it?

Nothing to do with your spelling, old son. The word means (literally) hard to penetrate & figuratively obscure or difficult to understand.

So either reading of it renders your original sentence meaningless, unless, of course, you're suggesting that Australia haven't been hard as hard to penetrate this year as in 2003, which isn't really fit discussion for a family forum & is potentially libellous too...

 

[PhoenixFire]

Nothing to do with your spelling, old son. The word means (literally) hard to penetrate & figuratively obscure or difficult to understand.

So either reading of it renders your original sentence meaningless, unless, of course, you're suggesting that Australia haven't been hard as hard to penetrate this year as in 2003, which isn't really fit discussion for a family forum & is potentially libellous too...

 

[Pratters]

It is very easy to slip up a bit and lose or have a close game. To be as dominating as Australia has been is very creditable. To scrap a bit below the surface, take into consideration the game versus South Africa. Australia batted brilliantly even thuogh the match conditions suited big scoring. South Africa tried competing but fell apart and couldn't really recover. Kallis is a talking point from that game but leaving various views regarding him aside, it just shows that you have to keep at it and if you give Australia even a peak at an opportunity, they might just strangle you.

 

[Swervy]

I think Richard has missed the pont of this thread completely.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Australia's victories in this World Cup have been far more dominant than those of the previous World Cup...its nothing really to do with which was the better team or what ever, the facts are that there probably hasnt been a run of games that ANY team at ANY time in ODI history has dominated its opponents as much as this current Australian team has done....its starting to become the case that a +300 score is the norm now for this team, which just raises the bar yet again for the other teams.

Right at the moment, I have to say that the Aussie top 6 looks as strong as any I have ever seen.

What is so impressive about the Australian team is that they have been head and shoulders above the next 3 best teams, who are actually really good teams in their own right...unlike say in the last World Cup where only India provided a consistant performance other than Australia throughout that tournament

 

[Laurrz]

two more matches please!!!

 

[pup11]

In the previous WC (03) the standard of other teams (barring SL) was much higher compared with this WC, and all the criticism Aussie had to face after their recent sub-standard performances just before the WC made them a more determined and focussed side coming into the WC.


P.S: Still 2 games to go for the Aussies so still a lot of hard-work needs to be done and as Ricky said "this is where the real WC beguns for us" .

 

[Richard]

Actually there's a difference in what you said and what you're now arguing. Saying the 2003 Australian team is stronger than the 2007 version (and I'm not necessarily accepting that this is true) is not the same thing as saying that it looked more inpenetrable during the respective tournaments. Whether or not the 2007 team is better or worse than the 2003, it has not been as closely run in any of its matches thus far as happened to the 2003 team. They've looked less like losing a match at any stage during this WC than the 2003 team did at a couple of points during their WC.

Really there have been two dodgy spots for the Australians so far this tournament. 1 - When Smith and de Villiers were firing in pursuit of the 377, before Watto ran out de Villiers and Smith's fitness let him down, and 2 - when Bell and Pietersen were cruising along and it wasn't clear where a breakthrough would come, before Bell played a weak shot and Pietersen's fitness let him down. Both of those were concerning moments, but neither lasted long enough for the outcome of the match to be seriously in doubt, although the potential was there. But the Aussies have back their swagger that, even in situations like that, you're confident they'll manufacture a wicket from somewhere and turn things around.

I was meaning at the start of the tournament, TBH.

Maybe some people were thinking a slightly different thing to me.

But I do maintain that the only time Aus were seriously pushed in 2003 was the England game, as well.

 

[Richard]

Didn't think you'd take what I said to heart Richard.

What you said where?

Can't remember you addressing me in this thread so I'm presuming you mean something else?

 

[Richard]

Smith's sarcasm-radar not working too well today either...

 

[Richard]

I think Richard has missed the pont of this thread completely.

I evidently have missed the point, at least that which most others were getting at.

 

[Richard]

Nothing to do with your spelling, old son. The word means (literally) hard to penetrate & figuratively obscure or difficult to understand.

So either reading of it renders your original sentence meaningless, unless, of course, you're suggesting that Australia haven't been hard as hard to penetrate this year as in 2003, which isn't really fit discussion for a family forum & is potentially libellous too...

I wasn't using it in the 100& exactly-literal sense of the word, TBH.

You on a mission to pick holes in every aspect of my word-usage you can at the mo?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Smith's sarcasm-radar not working too well today either...

...like I didn't know you were being sarcastic. You're not exactly good at hiding it.

 

[Richard]

I'm good at not conveying it, chap. Simple as.

You also seemed to miss my sarcasm in the post I made about sarcasm, too...

 

[Matt79]

I was meaning at the start of the tournament, TBH.

Maybe some people were thinking a slightly different thing to me.

Well, I think they were thinking along the lines of what your post actually said, not what it might possibly have meant but didn't say!

 

[Richard]

BTW, it occurred to me as I was dancing last night away - you being flag-bearer need a flag. So design one, email it me at my address and I'll post in on *The Thread*.

 

[Matt79]

Kinda flattered, and yet disturbed, that you were thinking of me while dancing the night away tbh...

 

[Richard]

Oh, I wasn't thinking of you, I was thinking of the flags of obscure Societies, when I had one of said things draped around my neck in ' club...