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

[Richard]

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.

Harmison and Anderson were\are every bit as bad as the Blacks, McLeans etc. Flintoff was horribly off (not past) his best, just like Walsh... though at least Walsh managed to keep up his lines and lengths. Hoggard bowled well once in the series, as did Dillon. There was 1 decent performance from an English spinner all series, granted more than there was by a West Indian one.

Campbell and Strauss had in common being decent players totally out of form and luck and having just 1 decent game all series; Cook's far better than Ganga granted; Bell's far better than Hinds granted; Pietersen and Lara are little different; Samuels was rather more consistent than Collingwood and far better if Adelaide were to be excluded (which is what I said all along); and Adams and Sarwan were both decent players totally out of form, not dissimilar to Flintoff (though obviously the West Indians are better). Jacobs > either of the English wicketkeepers comfortably.

So basically, it amounts to roughly what I said, really, West Indies were worse than England but not that much worse. The only difference is people's woefully incorrect expectations going into the latter series.

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.

Exactly, thus making the earlier streak a far, far more convincing one.

 

[Richard]

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

Nah, incorrect estimates of things like that don't break forum rules. I do get completely sick of you coming back from breaks and saying "I wondered if things might have changed". You should know full well that that won't happen.

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

Yes, Kallis did drop Hussey; yes, rain did impact upon the SCG Test; yes, there was a 1-wicket win against South Africa; yes, it obviously was only a dropped catch and a once-in-a-lifetime collapse that cost the Adelaide 2006\07 game; yes, bad Umpiring did completely alter the most recent game.

So, yes, really, everything I said did happen.

 

[Anil]

Nah, incorrect estimates of things like that don't break forum rules. I do get completely sick of you coming back from breaks and saying "I wondered if things might have changed". You should know full well that that won't happen.

so swervy is an optimistic person, do you want to take that away from him?

 

[Richard]

Nah, he's not (at least, not in this case), he's just being patronising.

 

[Evermind]

Harmison and Anderson were\are every bit as bad as the Blacks, McLeans etc. Flintoff was horribly off (not past) his best, just like Walsh... though at least Walsh managed to keep up his lines and lengths. Hoggard bowled well once in the series, as did Dillon. There was 1 decent performance from an English spinner all series, granted more than there was by a West Indian one.

Campbell and Strauss had in common being decent players totally out of form and luck and having just 1 decent game all series; Cook's far better than Ganga granted; Bell's far better than Hinds granted; Pietersen and Lara are little different; Samuels was rather more consistent than Collingwood and far better if Adelaide were to be excluded (which is what I said all along); and Adams and Sarwan were both decent players totally out of form, not dissimilar to Flintoff (though obviously the West Indians are better). Jacobs > either of the English wicketkeepers comfortably.

So basically, it amounts to roughly what I said, really, West Indies were worse than England but not that much worse. The only difference is people's woefully incorrect expectations going into the latter series.

Exactly, thus making the earlier streak a far, far more convincing one.

If posting on this forum is like umpiring, this one's the equivalent of that Bucknor howler to keep Symonds. Not dishonest - just so deeply deluded.

It's truly scary to think that Richard actually believes in the things he posts.

 

[Richard]

Nah, everything I said there was correct.

 

[Evermind]

Nah, everything I said there was correct.

Nah, everything you said is poop.

 

[Richard]

It isn't. I wouldn't have said it if it was.

Incidentally, you've done nothing to show why it's "poop", merely posted things like this which is the worst sort of post imaginable. There's absolutely nothing worse than "ah, this is wrong" with no actual counter.

 

[Evermind]

It isn't. I wouldn't have said it if it was.

But you talk poop all the time. Shouldn't you ask yourself why you talk poop all the time?

 

[Richard]

I don't, though, that's the thing. Those who make such attempted ascertations (with no supporting evidence, other than "I say you do") are amongst the worst posters imaginable.

 

[Evermind]

I don't, though, that's the thing. Those who make such ascertations (with no supporting evidence, other than "I say you do") are amongst the worst posters imaginable.

Don't you mean assertions?

Here is my evidence.

 

[Swervy]

Nah, he's not (at least, not in this case), he's just being patronising.

indeed

 

[Swervy]

I love the fact that the word 'poop' was mentioned 4 times in three consecutive posts in 4 minutes....hurrah

 

[Richard]

Don't you mean assertions?

Well most accurately I mean attempted ascertations.

Here is my evidence.

Nah, that's no evidence. You can't just say "that's wrong because I say it is", you actually have to, you know, say why it's wrong.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Incidentally, you've done nothing to show why it's "poop", merely posted things like this which is the worst sort of post imaginable. There's absolutely nothing worse than "ah, this is wrong" with no actual counter.

You really do wear people down though, so I don't think you can complain. I used to try a lot in discussions with you to argue the various points you made, but there's really no point because you don't listen to reason. The only comparison I can think if on this forum was C_C, who again wore people down because no matter what points or evidence you threw at him, he would simply ignore it and make the same wildly inaccurate claims over and over.

I'm about as big a critic of Harmison as you could find, but if you seriously think he's no better than Marlon Black, you're on another planet.

 

[The Baconator]

I love the fact that the word 'poop' was mentioned 4 times in three consecutive posts in 4 minutes....hurrah

Highbrow conversation of Cricket Chat that we all know and love.

 

[howardj]

I'd rather a team containing the Waugh boys, McGrath, Warne etc have the record than this mob....Hogg, Jaques, Johnson, Symonds?

 

[The Baconator]

Fair point that. But some of those guys are at a relatively young stage in their career, we'll probably remember them more fondly than we think we will do now.

 

[Richard]

I'm about as big a critic of Harmison as you could find, but if you seriously think he's no better than Marlon Black, you're on another planet.

There have been times when he's bowled better than Marlon Black ever has. I didn't say "Black is no better than Harmison".

I suggested there was nothing between the routine Black and the stuff Harmison bowled in the 2006\07 Ashes, or indeed in most matches since July 2004. A perfectly reasonable suggestion. I fail to see how anyone could reckon Harmison bowled any better in 2006\07 than Black did in 2000\01.

Note the performances, not the names and the (of times false) reputations.

 

[James90]

I'd rather a team containing the Waugh boys, McGrath, Warne etc have the record than this mob....Hogg, Jaques, Johnson, Symonds?

Miller, Slater, Langer, Kasprowicz, Muller. Is it really any different?