Ponting's streak of 16 vs Waugh's streak of 16

[Johnners]

*waits for Richard to tell Jono about Bangladesh not being...yeah you know the rest*

 

[vic_orthdox]

Lol, yep bit of a major problem.

Other than Sydney, Ponting's streak is far superior.

I do find it funny (and by funny I mean sad) that the first test of the streak was literally handed to Australia on a platter by Graeme Smith's sporting declaration, and the last test was handed on a platter by Bucknor and Benson.

Everything else in between though was brilliant.

That was the second, wasn't it? The first of the streak being in Melbourne, when Hussey and McGrath put on all those runs for the 10th wicket. Second Test, after the first one was drawn in Perth.

 

[Jono]

That was the second, wasn't it? The first of the streak being in Melbourne, when Hussey and McGrath put on all those runs for the 10th wicket. Second Test, after the first one was drawn in Perth.

Damn it, you ruined my post Vic. You are correct.

*waits for Richard to tell Jono about Bangladesh not being...yeah you know the rest*

If he does, I'll just inform him that the Bangladesh that showed up in the first test vs. Australia in 2006 would have beaten the WI that showed up against Australia back in 2000. And they would have done it convincingly.

 

[sideshowtim]

We were lucky in Sydney against the Saffers, but remember, chasing 290 on a last day Sydney wicket isn't exactly easy...

 

[Jono]

No offence sideshowtim, because I don't intend on taking away from that chase by Australia, but that was one of the flattest and most disgraceful day 5 Sydney wickets ever.

And chasing on day 5 in Sydney against India in 2003/04 was pretty easy as well.

Sydney's been flat on day 5 for a few years now. It was good seeing it do a bit in the recent farce (test).

 

[sideshowtim]

No offence sideshowtim, because I don't intend on taking away from that chase by Australia, but that was one of the flattest and most disgraceful day 5 Sydney wickets ever.

And chasing on day 5 in Sydney against India in 2003/04 was pretty easy as well.

Sydney's been flat on day 5 for a few years now. It was good seeing it do a bit in the recent farce (test).

I don't think it was too different to the Day 5 wicket yesterday. There was enough for the bowlers/spinners if you bowled well. Bit of a shame the Saffers didn't have a decent spinner.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But that pitch vs South Africa was a bit different, because of the rain on it the pitch was protected a bit more and didn't wear as much. It was also very green early, more so than most Sydney decks.

Obviously 03/04 vs India was flat, but the year before that against England, it was certainly very... sporting by the end of the Test.

 

[Jono]

I don't think it was too different to the Day 5 wicket yesterday. There was enough for the bowlers/spinners if you bowled well. Bit of a shame the Saffers didn't have a decent spinner.

Excuse me?

 

[Johnners]

Honestly said he chucked it the first ball I'd ever seem him bowl. Just so you all know

 

[Richard]

Haha what, there is simply no way that any of England 06/07, SA 06/07, SL 07, or India 07/08 are anywhere near as bad as the West Indies, and NZ teams faced in Waughs streak. Pontings streak has also included a number of convincing Victories, which should be held in higher regard considering they were generally made against a higher standard of opposition.

They weren't, though. England in 2006\07 weren't that much better than West Indies in 2000\01, and nor were South Africa, Sri Lanka or India that much better than Pakistan of 1999\2000. New Zealand of 1999\2000 were probably somewhere in between.

Too many people it seems are blinded by the fact that England were ranked 2nd in The World \ had beaten Australia 18 months previously. The team in Australia in 2006\07 bore no resemblence and was nothing short of woeful. Only Adelaide really made it any different to West Indies of 2000\01.

 

[Richard]

If he does, I'll just inform him that the Bangladesh that showed up in the first test vs. Australia in 2006 would have beaten the WI that showed up against Australia back in 2000. And they would have done it convincingly.

I don't really care who showed-up, though: Bangladesh have never deserved Test-status, West Indies always have.

Either way, it may hopefully become immaterial if Australia win the next 2 Tests.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I agree with Richard.

Colin Stuart & Marlon Black > Stephen Harmison

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

They weren't, though. England in 2006\07 weren't that much better than West Indies in 2000\01, and nor were South Africa, Sri Lanka or India that much better than Pakistan of 1999\2000. New Zealand of 1999\2000 were probably somewhere in between.

Hahaha, that first one is pure gold. There's a grand total of two players from that West Indies side who would have made the England team in 06/07, and one of those (Chanderpaul) missed 4 of the 5 tests in the 00/01 series. Okay, maybe Ridley Jacobs, but he wouldn't exactly have been a huge boost.

Comparing the bowling attacks from those Adelaide tests, it's Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff, Anderson and Giles vs Walsh (horribly past his best), Black, Dillon and McLean. The first might not be one of the greatest ever fielded, but the second would struggle to take 20 wickets against Bangladesh. But then, that West Indies team was blessed by the mighty batting of Jimmy Adams, Darren Ganga (early career at that!), Wavell Hinds and Sherwin Campbell, so I can see why you'd rate it so highly. Seriously though, definitely the worst "test standard" team I have ever seen tour Australia, and by a distance at that. That whole summer was a farce.

Waugh's test streak was a great feat, but the only match in Ponting's streak that compares to those 5 in terms of competition is the second test against Bangladesh.

 

[Johnners]

They weren't, though. England in 2006\07 weren't that much better than West Indies in 2000\01, and nor were South Africa, Sri Lanka or India that much better than Pakistan of 1999\2000. New Zealand of 1999\2000 were probably somewhere in between.

Too many people it seems are blinded by the fact that England were ranked 2nd in The World \ had beaten Australia 18 months previously. The team in Australia in 2006\07 bore no resemblence and was nothing short of woeful. Only Adelaide really made it any different to West Indies of 2000\01.

The fact that you seriously think NZ or WI of 99/00 were anything close to the quality of the 4 major teams Australia beat in Pontings streak shows how misguided you are on the issue.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd compare NZ to the English side, especially the England side after Adelaide which was pretty much demoralised.

 

[Johnners]

You really think so? Even if they were shot mentally, imo they still had a superior team personel wise fairly comfortably.

 

[vic_orthdox]

MJ Horne
CM Spearman
MS Sinclair
*SP Fleming
NJ Astle
CD McMillan
CL Cairns
+AC Parore
DL Vettori
SB Doull
SB O'Connor

Bowling attack about even. Englands top 3 has a big advantage, while the middle order is probably New Zealand's way.

 

[Swervy]

The very first of the streak might well have been different had Kallis caught Hussey; the second would probably have been drawn but for being the final one in the series and maybe lost but for rain; the fourth would have been drawn had the rules been applied properly, though obviously but for lost time wouldn't have needed to be; the fifth was a one-wicket win; the eighth obviously should have been drawn and possibly lost; and of course the fourteenth should have been drawn or maybe lost but for bad Umpiring.

haha...and here was me hoping you might have changed a bit in the last couple of months I have been 'away'. Nope you speak the same old tosh. You seem to put more weighting on what might have happened than on what actually happened. You live in a dream world

 

[Richard]

haha...and here was me hoping you might have changed a bit in the last couple of months I have been 'away'.

That's something like the 23rd time you've said that.

Nope you speak the same old tosh.

I'll be reporting stupid comments like that from now on. (Yes, deliberate irony)

You seem to put more weighting on what might have happened than on what actually happened. You live in a dream world

Nah, everything I said there happened.

 

[Swervy]

That's something like the 23rd time you've said that.

It better be something like 23 times, or I will report you

Nah, everything I said there happened.

The very first of the streak might well have been different had Kallis caught Hussey; the second would probably have been drawn but for being the final one in the series and maybe lost but for rain; the fourth would have been drawn had the rules been applied properly, though obviously but for lost time wouldn't have needed to be; the fifth was a one-wicket win; the eighth obviously should have been drawn and possibly lost; and of course the fourteenth should have been drawn or maybe lost but for bad Umpiring.

Have a look at the bold text in the above passage, straight from the tips of your very own fingers. Now tell me with a straight face that everything you typed actually happened