*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[BoyBrumby]

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

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

Oh, please. Clarke better than Pietersen? Even Clarke's mother wouldn't have the front.

 

[Ikki]

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

I have already said they can. But not consistently.

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).

England can take their conditions to their advantage, but not so much as to make them our equals IMO. Australia should win this Test series. If it does not, then something was very wrong on our side.

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.

I said if Watson were to stay fit, I would pick him over Flintoff because I know (or believe to a very large degree) that he will be better than Freddy. Yet, as I mentioned, you picked the wrong player Watson is not vying for the all-rounder spot. Currently, if anyone is our all-rounder it is Midge. And despite his problems I would pick him over Flintoff, and as I alluded to the Poll, I am not the only one.

And frankly, saying Hauritz hasn't outbowled Swann is biased IMO. Not only has Hauritz better figures, and has also made great partnership breaking spells, but he has taken a hefty amount of upper-order batsmen. Check into it before you reply.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

I think it's amusing that you focus in purely on this series when it suits you (Hauritz, Hilfenhaus, Flintoff) and then go to career analysis when it comes to Strauss, Johnson and Siddle.

More matters that what has happened in the last two and a half games. As you pointed out, no cricketer is 100% consistent. Form is a cyclical factor that will alter output beyond that of ability.. this series proves that Hauritz and Hilfenhaus are better than Swann and Anderson no more than it proves Strauss is better than Ponting.

No-one's saying it's as easy to get into Australia's team as it is to get into England's, but that doesn't mean it's not impossible for slightly inferior teams to topple slightly inferior ones.

 

[PhoenixFire]

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

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

I'd go with Katich = Strauss, maybe Strauss slightly edging it.

Pietersen >> Clarke, nothing against Clarke, I reckon he is a class player, but KP is just a very special talent.

Johnson and Flintoff? Can't really compare. At their respective bests, I'd say Flintoff is a better bowler and probably more consisten as well, obviously a better batsman as well at the moment.

Been impressed by Haddin's batting, I'd say that him and Prior are probably equal. Not too clued up on Haddin's keeping so I won't comment on that.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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

And frankly, saying Hauritz hasn't outbowled Swann is biased IMO. Not only has Hauritz better figures, and has also made great partnership breaking spells, but he has taken a hefty amount of upper-order batsmen. Check into it before you reply.

Having your cake and eating it, then?

 

[Ikki]

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.

Wrong Poll, I was talking about Flintoff vs Johnson. Broad being better would be a joke.

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

Deary me, why do you point to his first 11 tests as if that means something. Strauss is a low-to-mid-40s opener. Do you seriously think Australia would settle for that?

 

[Prince EWS]

And frankly, saying Hauritz hasn't outbowled Swann is biased IMO. Not only has Hauritz better figures, and has also made great partnership breaking spells, but he has taken a hefty amount of upper-order batsmen. Check into it before you reply.

There's a vast difference between someone outbowling someone over two and half games and actually being better than them. Hauritz has been better than Swann this series in the same way England have been better than Australia - inferiority trumping superiority through favourable circumstances and cyclical form.

Hauritz has indeed outbowled Swann, but much as the current scoreline doesn't make England better than Australia, the series stats don't make Hauritz better than Swann either because, shock horror, there has been a lot of cricket played in history prior to Cardiff.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have already said they can. But not consistently.

Well, it depends what you mean by "consistently". If you mean over the course of 50 Tests then you're spot on, but three Tests in their own backyard is more than doable, and that's all it takes to win the Ashes.

 

[Ikki]

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?

It is not certain at all. In fact, none of our fast bowlers have a certain spot. It took 2 tests for Midge to be seriously questioned, and he actually has some performances banked. Hilf doesn't even compare to Midge (yet) and you think he will last 10 tests? I wouldn't be so sure.

 

[fredfertang]

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.

... and this sort of complacency leads to what we are now seeing

 

[Ikki]

Oh, please. Clarke better than Pietersen? Even Clarke's mother wouldn't have the front.

Clarke > Pietersen??

Are you out of your mind??

On recent form, how would you argue otherwise?

Last 3 years:

Clarke: 58.25

Pietersen: 51.30

Thank you, and come again.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think someone is either drunk or on a wind up. This is no superstar Australian team. It's a very ordinary team full of unproven and inconsistent performers.

 

[Ikki]

Well, it depends what you mean by "consistently". If you mean over the course of 50 Tests then you're spot on, but three Tests in their own backyard is more than doable, and that's all it takes to win the Ashes.

Yes, consistently. I consider winning 3 tests out of 5 pretty consistent. I do not mean that suggests England > Australia if it were to happen, but the fact that Australia would have to really under-perform for that to happen.

 

[UncleTheOne]

Deary me, why do you point to his first 11 tests as if that means something. Strauss is a low-to-mid-40s opener. Do you seriously think Australia would settle for that?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Wrong Poll, I was talking about Flintoff vs Johnson. Broad being better would be a joke.

Not really a joke. Broad is quite obviously (from how he batted today and from how he batted before) a proper batsman. Straight driving Johnson at 92mph with a swinging ball is no mean feat and he has he batting well for a while now. Has Johnson scored runs on pitches that aren't hard and flat like the ones in SA, rather like Hughes? Calling it a joke suggests that there is a large margin of difference, which I don't think there is.

 

[PhoenixFire]

On recent form, how would you argue otherwise?

Last 3 years:

Clarke: 58.25

Pietersen: 51.30

Thank you, and come again.

Yawn, again you prove that you only choose different time frames to suit your arguments. Pietersen averages more over his career than Clarke and has scored more 100s.

 

[BoyBrumby]

On recent form, how would you argue otherwise?

Last 3 years:

Clarke: 58.25

Pietersen: 51.30

Thank you, and come again.

On that basis then clearly Prior is better than Haddin, Onions better than Siddle, Anderson better than Hilfenhaus, Swann better than Hauritz...

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[Ikki]

There's a vast difference between someone outbowling someone over two and half games and actually being better than them. Hauritz has been better than Swann this series in the same way England have been better than Australia - inferiority trumping superiority through favourable circumstances and cyclical form.

This is Swann's home, and whatever superiority he has over Hauritz he better show it.

Hauritz has indeed outbowled Swann, but much as the current scoreline doesn't make England better than Australia, the series stats don't make Hauritz better than Swann either because, shock horror, there has been a lot of cricket played in history prior to Cardiff.

Sorry, disagree. Whilst we compare Hauritz to Warne and are disappointed, England compare Swann to Giles and Panesar and are somewhat pleased. In reality, they are about as good as each other with Hauritz outperforming him in this series. Even Warne said before the series that he thought Hauritz as good, if not better than Swann. So there you go.

And neither of these players are strong points. The difference is, if Swann were to perform this way England would be ecstatic, yet Hauritz is just a few beltings away from being replaced. I keep trying to infer this to you.

That even if, now, some of our players are not as good as our other players, WE expect MORE from our players and even the English player in comparison to our player will not do (other than I suspect Pietersen) and would not actually get into our side if they were Aussie. Whilst they may start for England, they'd be replaced for Australia if they continued at that level.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes, consistently. I consider winning 3 tests out of 5 pretty consistent. I do not mean that suggests England > Australia if it were to happen, but the fact that Australia would have to really under-perform for that to happen.

Nope, it isn't close to a fact. It's an opinion.

Your argument is a nonsense, you've set it up in such a way as there's no empirical proof either way to test it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, consistently. I consider winning 3 tests out of 5 pretty consistent. I do not mean that suggests England > Australia if it were to happen, but the fact that Australia would have to really under-perform for that to happen.

Nah, it's also possible to England to over-perform to achieve this, or for a mixture of the two to occur. And if it does, it doesn't mean everyone should be looking to blame selection/management/complacency/mindset. Under-performing is an occupational hazard of performing - every player's best will always be different to his worst and sometimes there's not much you can do about it.

The gap between Australia and England - in England - is close enough for England to come out on top over a five match series there if things go their way without Australia ****ing it up. To not recognise this over-rates Australia, under-rates England, is just plain arrogant or - most likely - a mixture of all three.