*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[91Jmay]

I don't see how this is much different from "Stuart Broad just needs move the ball more and believe in himself" - gaining consistency is nor easy nor a mitigating circumstance for losing. Consistency is just as relevant to the overall quality of a team or a player as raw potential.

Frankly, I don't think there's much doubt that Australia have a better team than England at the moment. However, the team is no soooo much better that it is not possible for England to outplay them for periods (even lengthy ones) in England. That it has happened does not automatically mean that Australia's approach was wrong, that the wrong team was picked or that the management was poor - some of the reactions whenever Australia happen to be outplayed are the height of arrogance here at times. England do not have as good a team as Australia but, in English conditions, the gap is certainly close enough for England to outplay Australia at times. No amount of over-rating Australia's bowlers and talking down England is going to change that.

A fair assessment.

 

[Ikki]

I don't see how this is much different from "Stuart Broad just needs move the ball more and believe in himself" - gaining consistency is nor easy, nor are consistency issues a mitigating circumstance for losing. Consistency is just as relevant to the overall quality of a team or a player as raw potential.

Because Stuart Broad needs to become a bowler first to then raise the question of becoming a consistent bowler. Someone like Johnson has already come up trumps against the best possible opposition and has only started faltering really now. Broad is a "what if". "What if he actually becomes a decent bowler, his batting is handy and we have a good all-roudner ready for years". He really has not shown the wherewithal IMO to match his hype. He's played almost 20 tests and he's been pretty poor for most of it. IMO it's mostly his age, rather than anything he has actually shown where people let him off for being so downright bad at times. Whereas the likes of Siddle aren't really bad, they're just inconsistent.

Frankly, I don't think there's much doubt that Australia have a better team than England at the moment. However, the team is no soooomuch better that it is not possible for England to outplay them for periods (even lengthy ones) in England. That it has happened does not automatically mean that Australia's approach was wrong, that the wrong team was picked or that the management was poor - some of the reactions whenever Australia happen to be outplayed are the height of arrogance here at times. England do not have as good a team as Australia but, in English conditions, the gap is certainly close enough for England to outplay Australia at times. No amount of over-rating Australia's bowlers and talking down England is going to change that.

I disagree. I think there is enough difference in quality that if Australia's players play to their potential then the English players can't keep up. Maybe they'll win a test here or there, but they will be inferior.

This might sound extremely arrogant, but that's what I and many Australians come to expect from this team.

 

[Prince EWS]

Because Stuart Broad needs to become a bowler first to then raise the question of becoming a consistent bowler. Someone like Johnson has already come up trumps against the best possible opposition and has only started faltering really now.

Consistency is all part of 'becoming a bowler' though. If you're not consistent then you're not good.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't see how this is much different from "Stuart Broad just needs move the ball more and believe in himself" - gaining consistency is nor easy nor a mitigating circumstance for losing. Consistency is just as relevant to the overall quality of a team or a player as raw potential.

Frankly, I don't think there's much doubt that Australia have a better team than England at the moment. However, the team is not soooo much better that it is not possible for England to outplay them for periods (even lengthy ones) in England. That it has happened does not automatically mean that Australia's approach was wrong, that the wrong team was picked or that the management was poor - some of the reactions whenever Australia happen to be outplayed are the height of arrogance here at times. England do not have as good a team as Australia but, in English conditions, the gap is certainly close enough for England to outplay Australia at times. No amount of over-rating Australia's bowlers and talking down England is going to change that.

Agree with pretty much all of this, but do reckon the balance of the touring party was wrong. A batsman light & maybe an injured and ageing seamer heavy.

 

[Ikki]

Consistency is all part of 'becoming a bowler' though. If you're not consistent then you're not good.

I think we're widening the definition here too much. By that account, anyone England picks with the hope that they'd be good is equal to our hopefuls simply because they are both hopefuls. Not so IMO. The Aussie team is much harder to get into and any player getting a go is very special.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree with pretty much all of this, but do reckon the balance of the touring party was wrong. A batsman light & maybe an injured and ageing seamer heavy.

I don't think the right team was picked either (I made my thoughts about Clark quite well-known early), but my point was that England outplaying Australia does not automatically make it the case. It's possible to pick your best team and still be outplayed by the opposition.

I've seen some posts that basically say "Well England are beating us, so where exactly did we go wrong with our selection?" which is, as I said, the height of arrogance. The gap between Australia and England is close enough for England to win in England against Australia's best team. It's not tremendously likely but it's significantly possible for it to happen without a national inquiry into where it went wrong.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I think we're widening the definition here too much. By that account, anyone England picks with the hope that they'd be good is equal to our hopefuls simply because they are both hopefuls. Not so IMO. The Aussie team is much harder to get into and any player getting a go is very special.

Depends on what sort of player you are tho. I mean, if you are an all-rounder or spinner, it's harder to get into the English team IMO, with Flintoff and Swann both boing better than Watson and Hauritz respectively IMO. Obviously Australia's top order is going to be harder to get into.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I disagree. I think there is enough difference in quality that if Australia's players play to their potential then the English players can't keep up. Maybe they'll win a test here or there, but they will be inferior.

This might sound extremely arrogant, but that's what I and many Australians come to expect from this team.

This is almost on a par with Richard's definition of a selectorial error for sheer unadulterated cobblers. We win and it's Australia underperforming; Australia wins and it's their natural superiority coming through.

We're at best an above average side, but hey, you aren't so very much better, either.

 

[Ikki]

Depends on what sort of player you are tho. I mean, if you are an all-rounder or spinner, it's harder to get into the English team IMO, with Flintoff and Swann both boing better than Watson and Hauritz respectively IMO. Obviously Australia's top order is going to be harder to get into.

That's exaggerated to be honest. I actually would pick Watson over Flintoff if he were to stay fit. And it's not like Watson is being picked as an all-rounder. The closest all-rounder we have is Johnson, and IIRC people we already had a poll on this and Johnson came ahead. And I would actually pick Hauritz over Swann even now. Look at the figures, Hauritz has done better than Swann this series.

And those are the most contentious positions. Yes, teams will have 1-2 players here or there that can get into other sides but the Australian side is by far tougher to get into. As decent as Strauss is doing at the moment, looking at his career he would not play for Australia even long enough to accumulate those runs. Not good enough. Yet this is besides the point, because we are talking about the prospects. Neither Broad, Cook, Bopara or Bell would be near contention for the Aussie side and that's the truth.

 

[four_or_six]

I think it's fair to say we have a more solid opening partnership. So add that to a better all-rounder and spinner, keepers who are a fairly similar standard (Haddin I mean here), and Anderson being currently at least as good as Hilfenhaus... I don't see how the Aussies are streets ahead of us after all.

 

[Ikki]

This is almost on a par with Richard's definition of a selectorial error for sheer unadulterated cobblers. We win and it's Australia underperforming; Australia wins and it's their natural superiority coming through.

We're at best an above average side, but hey, you aren't so very much better, either.

Even at our best, you guys won Test matches against us. But for Australia to get outclassed Test after Test, then it really is a blunder on our side. And, again, I know that is arrogant, but we're simply that good, and you guys are not our level.

Year after year we churn out better players, our domestic competition is tougher and we have been the leading team in Test Cricket for over a decade. It's nothing natural nor innate. It's been worked, so in my view it is always more likely we make an error in judgment than you guys coming out of the blue and becoming the top side. That's a fairy tale, that's not reality.

 

[BoyBrumby]

At least 4 and maybe more of our team would make the current Australian side. Strauss, Pietersen, Flintoff & Prior are shoo-ins and you can make a case for Swann (if you're playing a spinner he's better than the incumbent) & Anderson too.

 

[Ikki]

I think it's fair to say we have a more solid opening partnership. So add that to a better all-rounder and spinner, keepers who are a fairly similar standard (Haddin I mean here), and Anderson being currently at least as good as Hilfenhaus... I don't see how the Aussies are streets ahead of us after all.

Hilfenhaus is on par, if not outperforming Anderson this Test series. Yet his spot in the team is nowhere near certain. Think about that. That's the difference in standards.

 

[PhoenixFire]

That's exaggerated to be honest. I actually would pick Watson over Flintoff if he were to stay fit. And it's not like Watson is being picked as an all-rounder. The closest all-rounder we have is Johnson, and IIRC people we already had a poll on this and Johnson came ahead. And I would actually pick Hauritz over Swann even now..

Well of course you would pick all of the Aussies over the English players, I wouldn't expect anything otherwise. Doesn't make it right TBH. And the poll IIRC was about whether Broad or Johnson was better at batting, so I'm not sure what that has to do about it.

And those are the most contentious positions. Yes, teams will have 1-2 players here or there that can get into other sides but the Australian side is by far tougher to get into. As decent as Strauss is doing at the moment, looking at his career he would not play for Australia even long enough to accumulate those runs. Not good enough.

What? Strauss scored 1202 @ 60 in his first 11 Tests. Are you telling me he would have got dropped after that?

 

[four_or_six]

Hilfenhaus is on par, if not outperforming Anderson this Test series. Yet his spot in the team is nowhere near certain. Think about that. That's the difference in standards.

You think Hilfenhaus's spot isn't certain? There's not a chance in hell he'll be dropped, for at least the next 8-10 tests. Who do you have that's pushing him right now?

 

[Prince EWS]

Even at our best, you guys won Test matches against us. But for Australia to get outclassed Test after Test, then it really is a blunder on our side. And, again, I know that is arrogant, but we're simply that good, and you guys are not our level.

Year after year we churn out better players, our domestic competition is tougher and we have been the leading team in Test Cricket for over a decade. It's nothing natural nor innate. It's been worked, so in my view it is always more likely we make an error in judgment than you guys coming out of the blue and becoming the top side. That's a fairy tale, that's not reality.

I still don't think you've grasped the "inferior teams can outperform superior teams" point here.

No-one is saying England are better; merely that the gap is pretty close on English soil and hence cyclical factors such as form could be enough to tip them over the line pretty consistently in the short term. That Australia have the better team at the moment is without question; that it's impossible for England to win the Ashes in England without Australia ****ing it up is just plain arrogant (not to mention untrue).

Oh, and arguing that Watson and Hauritz are better than Flintoff and Swann is just plained biased; forget arrogant. And this is coming from a Australian "Watto Fan Club" member.

 

[Ikki]

At least 4 and maybe more of our team would make the current Australian side. Strauss, Pietersen, Flintoff & Prior are shoo-ins and you can make a case for Swann (if you're playing a spinner he's better than the incumbent) & Anderson too.

Even in terms of current form (meaning more than just this series)

Katich > Strauss, Clarke > Pietersen, Johnson > Flintoff and definitely Haddin > Prior.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Even at our best, you guys won Test matches against us. But for Australia to get outclassed Test after Test, then it really is a blunder on our side. And, again, I know that is arrogant, but we're simply that good, and you guys are not our level.

Year after year we churn out better players, our domestic competition is tougher and we have been the leading team in Test Cricket for over a decade. It's nothing natural nor innate. It's been worked, so in my view it is always more likely we make an error in judgment than you guys coming out of the blue and becoming the top side. That's a fairy tale, that's not reality.

It's not the arrogance that's the problem, it's because the argument, as you make it, can't be proved or disproved by actual events. You presuppose your own correctness.

 

[chalky]

Even at our best, you guys won Test matches against us. But for Australia to get outclassed Test after Test, then it really is a blunder on our side. And, again, I know that is arrogant, but we're simply that good, and you guys are not our level.

Year after year we churn out better players, our domestic competition is tougher and we have been the leading team in Test Cricket for over a decade. It's nothing natural nor innate. It's been worked, so in my view it is always more likely we make an error in judgment than you guys coming out of the blue and becoming the top side. That's a fairy tale, that's not reality.

Again think you are really overreating your team for me based on one 3 match series where South Africa didn't turn up. England are an average side which we (England fans) accept Australia ain't much better. I know it must be difficult after 15 years of domination but I think you need a touch of realism.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Clarke > Pietersen??

Are you out of your mind??