Is Anyone Else Happy

[ANTiLAG]

Well Australia pumped them 5 -1 in 75/6, so it wasn't much before 80.

And you didn't beat them again till what year?

And you didn't beat them in the caribbean till what year?

Even when they collapsed and fell from the mantle they had more fight at home than what your team #2 team is showing.

 

[hineyrulz]

And you didn't beat them again till what year?

And you didn't beat them in the caribbean till what year?

Even when they collapsed and fell from the mantle they had more fight at home than what your team #2 team is showing.

95, they were unbeaten for 15 yrs. Not knocking them they were the greatest team i have even seen and proably ever will. But hardly no 1 for 30 years.

 

[ANTiLAG]

95, they were unbeaten for 15 yrs. Not knocking them they were the greatest team i have even seen and proably ever will. But hardly no 1 for 30 years.

Never said no 1 for 30 years. I am just saying to compare Steve Waugh's brief flirtation of Windies type Domination is an insult to Lloyd and Richards.

What year did you finally beat the Windies in the Carribean?

 

[hineyrulz]

Never said no 1 for 30 years. I am just saying to compare Steve Waugh's brief flirtation of Windies type Domination is an insult to Lloyd and Richards.

What year did you finally beat the Windies in the Carribean?

95 for the second time, we were as dominant as the windies for about 5 or 6 yrs but nothing like 15 yr unbeaten run they had.

 

[yappy]

Swann is the best English spinner in decades. DECADES.

Agree with this bit. You'd have to go back to Underwood to find a better Pommy spinner.

 

[TheParraboy]

95 for the second time, we were as dominant as the windies for about 5 or 6 yrs but nothing like 15 yr unbeaten run they had.

They couldnt beat NZ in NZ in this period

Lost a series and drew one, so not sure they went unbeaten for 15 years

NZ were pretty good in the 80s, gone backwards ever since though

 

[ANTiLAG]

They couldnt beat NZ in NZ in this period

Lost a series and drew one, so not sure they went unbeaten for 15 years

NZ were pretty good in the 80s, gone backwards ever since though

Because they lost that series to NZ in 1980.... and drew the 86/87 series.

NZ were "pretty good" in the 1980's. In fact they were ranked clear second for the decade by Wisden. NZ did not lose a series at home in the 80's. But players like RJ Hadlee are hard to come by...as you're discovering endeavouring to replace Warne and McGrath.

 

[lockyno1]

Morkel is a mile or three from any "elite" bracket. Tsotobe is average. And Harris is no Murali. He's not even near Shakib.

Also, AB has had a great year - but most would have Amla ahead of him in the pecking order overall for now despite playing fewer tests. Neither are elite just yet - but I would not be surprised if Amla does become 'elite' in the comming decade.

Peterson has shown stuff all, and Prince is solid at best.

So they are far from being great. Potential is there for sure. If AB and Amla continue their recent form. Morkel improves. They find a 3rd seamer, a spinner, a replacement for Boucher (age) who can preferably bat longer, and sort out their opening partner to Smith....

But for now....

Potentially great. But not great.

Fine take out Morkel..however he is 10 times better than any bowler in both the England/Australian side imo. They have 4 absolute elite players, or 3.5 if you want to have a bob each way on De Villers. Either way 3 elite players is 3 times what England have in this series (Pieterson is England's only elite player). Amla is close to being elite as well, the rest know how to contribute well with Prince, etc doing that regularly. That side has more "great" qualities than this English side.

Lets remember Paul Harris bowled Australia out...needless to say this current batting lineup can make any spinner look good!

 

[TheParraboy]

Because they lost that series to NZ in 1980.... and drew the 86/87 series.

NZ were "pretty good" in the 1980's. In fact they were ranked clear second for the decade by Wisden. NZ did not lose a series at home in the 80's. But players like RJ Hadlee are hard to come by...as you're discovering endeavouring to replace Warne and McGrath.

1980?

Was that the series Holding kicked down the stumps like a little brat, and Colin Croft charged into the back of a defenseless umpire?

 

[lockyno1]

:lol::lol:

You know something, Locky has it all over this bloke a lot of the time

Plus Locky is an Eels Boy now

Yep, go the mighty Eels..

PS..can I borrow your banner, lol:lol:

 

[TheParraboy]

Yep, go the mighty Eels..

PS..can I borrow your banner, lol:lol:

ok

 

[JJ]

1980?

Was that the series Holding kicked down the stumps like a little brat, and Colin Croft charged into the back of a defenseless umpire?

yup, they had a bit of Ricky Ponting in them too - Lloyd lost a lot of people's respect in that series for the way he led them...

 

[ANTiLAG]

Fine take out Morkel..however he is 10 times better than any bowler in both the England/Australian side imo. They have 4 absolute elite players, or 3.5 if you want to have a bob each way on De Villers. Either way 3 elite players is 3 times what England have in this series (Pieterson is England's only elite player). Amla is close to being elite as well, the rest know how to contribute well with Prince, etc doing that regularly. That side has more "great" qualities than this English side.

Lets remember Paul Harris bowled Australia out...needless to say this current batting lineup can make any spinner look good!

Wow - that absolutely amazes me. Because I could swear Swann is the best spinner in test cricket at the moment (seeing Bhaji bar this present test serves up pies). I could also swear Pieterson was just dropped. Incredible move to drop your only elite player. Nigh unheard of even. And I'd bet that right now Trott averages over 60, though, to be fair, a lot of those runs are against Australians.

So you'd call De Villiers elite and not Trott thus far? Amazing...

And you'd have Harris making Swann not look as good? Amazing...

I certainly agree that the Ashes has been a let down and I am too excited by a SA ENG series so that this ENG team may be truly tested. But lets not go picking the victor just yet.

Morne is still inconsistent and Tsotobe is a joke. I'd take Tremlett over either right now and Swann is a class act. Not to mention Anderson...

And if we're just going by 1 year's form - as you are with AB - why is Cook excluded?

The difference between the two sides could be Steyn. I agree on that point. Could also be Swann. SA batting on paper looks better JUST - but if Collingwood were to find gritty form again..... And I don't know what to make of Cook, Whether this series is a fluke or a start of something long to come. I mean he has looked technically comfortable. TECHNICALLY COMFORTABLE.

 

[lockyno1]

The spin stocks are very low at the moment, none of the current spinners are much chop. Swann being the best of a bad bunch doesn't mean he is elite. I liken that situation to the NSW 5/8th position or halfback...sure they are the best NSW have but they are still just above average.

Trott is a bit raw still to be calling elite, I want a player showing form for a number of years across a range of conditions. Trott looks the goods. I would call De Villers potentially elite, but needs 1 more season like this season.

SA will flog England in South Africa, they are just better with the ball swinging/seaming BUT if the pitches are flat, then England comes into it.

Tremlett is not in England's first side- Broad is. I'd take Morkel as a bowler over Broad and I am one of Broad's biggest fans on here.

Cook has been poor this year with the exception of the Ashes.

 

[yappy]

Between when Chappell's side smashed them 5-1 in 75-76 and Taylor's side beat them in 95 the Windies only lost two away series (India 78 and NZ 80) so for pretty much 20 years they were clearly No.1.

Between the 1 run loss to the Windies in 92/93 and the loss in the 05 Ashes we were undefeated at home, in Africa and Caribbean and England, but we did lose in Asia in 94 (Pakistan), 96 (India - single test), 98 (India), 99 (Sri Lanka), 01 (India). We were the No.1 for about 12-15 years, but not as dominant away as the great Windies sides.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Between when Chappell's side smashed them 5-1 in 75-76 and Taylor's side beat them in 95 the Windies only lost two away series (India 78 and NZ 80) so for pretty much 20 years they were clearly No.1.

Between the 1 run loss to the Windies in 92/93 and the loss in the 05 Ashes we were undefeated at home, in Africa and Caribbean and England, but we did lose in Asia in 94 (Pakistan), 96 (India - single test), 98 (India), 99 (Sri Lanka), 01 (India). We were the No.1 for about 12-15 years, but not as dominant away as the great Windies sides.

And as Imran Khan would say - the Windies achieved this in the bastion of home town umpiring at its peak making their feat even more incredible when compared to a single or both neutral umps.

You also ingore series wins by just stating "undefeated". But even from the stats you presented it is clear to me that WI #1 then daylight then Australia's Waugh team. The longest run Aus had undefeated was, what 4 years? Compared to 15 years? No contest.

Like comparing Headley to Bradman if you excuse the pun.

 

[ANTiLAG]

The spin stocks are very low at the moment, none of the current spinners are much chop. Swann being the best of a bad bunch doesn't mean he is elite. I liken that situation to the NSW 5/8th position or halfback...sure they are the best NSW have but they are still just above average.

Trott is a bit raw still to be calling elite, I want a player showing form for a number of years across a range of conditions. Trott looks the goods. I would call De Villers potentially elite, but needs 1 more season like this season.

SA will flog England in South Africa, they are just better with the ball swinging/seaming BUT if the pitches are flat, then England comes into it.

Tremlett is not in England's first side- Broad is. I'd take Morkel as a bowler over Broad and I am one of Broad's biggest fans on here.

Cook has been poor this year with the exception of the Ashes.

Swann averages 27 bowling on roads and home pitches conducive to seam. As Yappy, a very harsh critic and apparently quite a knowledgable cricket fan (I've seen him in the trivia section) concedes as an Australian with doubt at the start of the series

"Swann is the real deal". As does Michael Holding. As do many media personnel. Personally - I think Swann is the best around - he is no Warne or Murali - but he is thus far in that elite tier below those 2 freaks.

Make your mind up on AB

How do you know after this series Tremlett is not ahead of Broad now? Seriously? And even then, how do you know Tremlett is not ahead of Finn or Onions for 3rd seamer? See this is the advantage England have - depth in seam. SA play Tsotobe ffs. If Morkel or Steyn gets injured god knows what they'd bring in.

England are not as bad as you think....

 

[lockyno1]

Warne had one of his best averages in England- those pitches actually help spinners as much as seamers. As he says- if it seams, it spins. England never produce roads, spinenrs do well in England, they always do.

Personally I'd call AB elite, BUT I would like him to stamp his class for 6 more months or so.

Broad is their 2nd best quick, he just is, and he is a genuine all rounder to boot. He will be there. Then it is up to the options for the 4th quick, Finn, Onions (injured from memory), Tremlett, Bresnan. Sure they have depth, but I would not call any of them much chop really, although I like Tremlett if he bowls like he did today (fuller).

England are not as good as you think either. I would rate them a 6.5/10 side, India a 7.5 and SA a 8.5.

 

[TheParraboy]

And as Imran Khan would say - the Windies achieved this in the bastion of home town umpiring at its peak making their feat even more incredible when compared to a single or both neutral umps.

You also ingore series wins by just stating "undefeated". But even from the stats you presented it is clear to me that WI #1 then daylight then Australia's Waugh team. The longest run Aus had undefeated was, what 4 years? Compared to 15 years? No contest.

Like comparing Headley to Bradman if you excuse the pun.

There has been more and more tests played in Waughes era (plus a lot more ODIs), plus more and more new rules which would have dented the WIs pace battery a bit (bouncer rule, min overs per day etc...), plus more road decks than in the 80s. All of which contributed to their decline.

Its a bit awkward comparing eras as there were so many changes to the game. Both Australia and WI were daylights ahead of others in their respective years

 

[ANTiLAG]

There has been more and more tests played in Waughes era (plus a lot more ODIs), plus more and more new rules which would have dented the WIs pace battery a bit (bouncer rule, min overs per day etc...), plus more road decks than in the 80s. All of which contributed to their decline.

Its a bit awkward comparing eras as there were so many changes to the game. Both Australia and WI were daylights ahead of others in their respective years

Lol - why do you think those rules came in? it was to stop the windies dominance. It didn't work. One bouncer per over/batsmen was all they needed and the overs per day just meant the game was over in 2 days instead of 3 days. Learn your history son!

But as for respective eras - the Windies in their era went 15 years without defeat and regular overseas wins. Australia went 4 years without defeat and a lot of draws. Waugh was a flirt at Windies dominance as his was such a short time compared to Lloyd and Richards.

Talk about pitches all you like - as Imran Khan says "Fast bowlers were wayyyyyy better in the 80's". McGrath the notable exception.