Are tons really that impressive in this era?

[cnerd123]

yeah wtf.

I'd say they are roughly even based on quality. MacGill > Lyon and Bichel > Starc.

 

[Jono]

Everyone realises that Dravid's previous record of most runs by an Indian vs. Australia in 2003/04 came on extremely flat pitches too right? Right?

Difference being Lee, Gillespie, MacGill and Bichel all being a **** show better than the bowling attack we're seeing here.

Left out Brad Williams and Nathan Bracken, as well as that Lee and Gillespie missed tests due to injury and were underdone in matches.

People discard that series because of that bowling attack all the time, now its being defended. So odd.

 

[Blocky]

So? Are you penalising Kohli for not having a decade of cricket behind him?

Again, most of the points I've made are against Smith - I bring up Kohli by the sheer fact that I don't think this performance has been "an all time great" one - A: His side hasn't been competitive at all, B: The bowling averages are the worst in a series for Australia in a long time and C: The sheer weight of runs from other players.

At the time Dravid set that record, he was already firmly established as a 50+ player.

Smith nor Kohli were even close to 50+ players before this series.

 

[Blocky]

Left out Brad Williams and Nathan Bracken, as well as that Lee and Gillespie missed tests due to injury and were underdone in matches.

See Mitchell Marsh, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc - left those out too.

 

[Jono]

See Mitchell Marsh, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc - left those out too.

The same Siddle that destroyed India in 2011 and averages better than Lee did despite dropping off a bit lately?

This is a weird argument Blocky. This Australian attack is not poor.

 

[cnerd123]

It's pretty apparent I think Smith is **** and will go back to being **** post this match. (**** is unfair, he's an above average batsman probably capable of a 40-45 average)
It's also pretty apparent I rate Kohli and expect he'll average 45-50 over the course of his career, but not achieve what Dravid did.

I took RossTaylorsBox to be responding to me about my critique of Smith, not WW's critique of Kohli - which hasn't been done in over 12 hours because he hasn't been in the thread.

Keep up.

Okay so WW doesn't rate Kohli, and Blocky rates Kohli but thinks he won't be as good as Dravid.
WW's views on Smith unclear, Blocky doesn't rate Smith.

Blocky also thinks all records broken in the last year or so are undeserved.

Get to work lads.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'd say yes. World class spinner, world class pacer (Gillespie) and two very good pacers in Bichel and Lee. vs Lyon - average, Johnson - world class but not here today, Harris - world class but didn't play all matches and Hazelwood, Siddle, Starc, et all.

This is exactly why you and WW get stick. Anyone who watched that series knows that Australia's attack, regardless of the names involved was tripe. I love Dravid and I think his efforts in that series were legendary. That doesn't mean he faced anything in that series close to the quality Kohli has this series. You just didn't watch 03/04 and you haven't watched the current series. There's no other reason why anyone would have the opinion you do.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'd say they are roughly even based on quality. MacGill > Lyon and Bichel > Starc.

Haha you too? Quality overall maybe. They were tripe that series though.. For one reason or the other.

 

[Blocky]

The same Siddle that destroyed India in 2011 and averages better than Lee did despite dropping off a bit lately?

This is a weird argument Blocky. This Australian attack is not poor.

Siddle in 2011 is a different story to Siddle in 2014 - who I'd actually have ahead of Hazelwood and Starc in this test even so. The Australian attack is poor, the same attack just got slaughtered for fun in the UAE by Pakistan. The batsman couldn't score in those conditions against a bowling attack that was missing experience in Ajmal.

I wouldn't rate the 2003/2004 attack from Australia the best they'd had, but compared to the one they're trotting out at the moment it was far superior.

 

[Blocky]

This is exactly why you and WW get stick. Anyone who watched that series knows that Australia's attack, regardless of the names involved was tripe. I love Dravid and I think his efforts in that series were legendary. That doesn't mean he faced anything in that series close to the quality Kohli has this series. You just didn't watch 03/04 and you haven't watched the current series. There's no other reason why anyone would have the opinion you do.

"Haven't watched the current series" - Oh please, I was posting all of yesterday and today while watching Kohli face the short wide **** that Starc offered up. I would've also watched the 2003/2004 series but don't have photographic memory so can't recall what/how they bowled, but they were obviously a lot better than the current attack

Gillespie was pretty much the best bowler in world cricket from around 1997 to 2005.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Again, most of the points I've made are against Smith - I bring up Kohli by the sheer fact that I don't think this performance has been "an all time great" one - A: His side hasn't been competitive at all, B: The bowling averages are the worst in a series for Australia in a long time and C: The sheer weight of runs from other players.

At the time Dravid set that record, he was already firmly established as a 50+ player.

Smith nor Kohli were even close to 50+ players before this series.

Point A) is irrelevant
Point B) is because he's scored 4 hundreds. The circle is complete yet again.
Point C) is also disingenuou because only Vijay and Rahane have done well against the Aussie attack and even those two are a million miles behind Kohli in the run tally.

 

[Noah]

Honestly I don't remember the last series in Aus which didn't have flat pitches/high scores.

They are always quick and bouncy, have fast outfields, and offer value for strokes. It's only on days 4 and 5 where wickets start to fall as the pitches break up. The Kookaburra ball barely swings too.

I have always associated Tests in Australia with lots of runs, fast paced cricket, and wickets for fast bowlers and Warne. Pitches which seam or swing or are uneven from Day 1 are rare.

I think Australian pitches are actually really good for entertaining cricket. They offer runs to batsmen who are disciplined and show good footwork but the pace and bounce also means they are generally unfavourable to those who don't. Likewise, there is generally something there for bowlers who are very disciplined and patient but the ability to score quick runs brutally punishes bowlers who stray. I think your typical Australian pitch (without falling into the trap of pretending that all pitches in a country are homogenous) offers a bit of movement early, flattens into a good batting track during the middle and turns into a minefield near the end of the Test.

Australian pitches got really flat from around 2000-2005 and this particular series is looking similar but I think they generally do a good job producing games that last five days and end in results, albeit with a slight bias towards batting relative to South African or early season English wickets.

 

[cnerd123]

This is exactly why you and WW get stick. Anyone who watched that series knows that Australia's attack, regardless of the names involved was tripe. I love Dravid and I think his efforts in that series were legendary. That doesn't mean he faced anything in that series close to the quality Kohli has this series. You just didn't watch 03/04 and you haven't watched the current series. There's no other reason why anyone would have the opinion you do.

Pretty much sums it up.

They look at the name, look at the career stats, and assume that because said batsman didn't average 50 before the series or the bowler didn't average below 30, they must not be capable of turning in a high quality performance.

So many ATGs with slow starts to their career would be written off by this logic. "VVS 281 came against a **** attack and a flat deck because no world class bowling lineup would let a batsman averaging in the 30s score 281 against them "

It is such bull**** reasoning. And then in a few years time when Kohli, Williamson, etc are all averaging over 50, I bet WW and Blocky will start quoting these same series and performances as evidence of them being greater than whoever the new player is that the want to discredit.

Jono makes a good point about Dravid's efforts in 03/04 coming on such friendly decks and against a weakened Aus side. India's entire efforts in that series were sort of written off because it wasn't Australia at full strength and the pitches suited India too much. Now they are being viewed as an ATG performance, and somehow Kohli's efforts here against a good bowling attack under immense pressure is suddenly not worthy.

Absolute bull**** posting.

 

[Flem274*]

You don't think the difference in performance between the UAE and Australia has nothing to do with the conditions and the team they're facing?

The UAE is a fortress because it plays right into the hands of Pakistan. There is no comparison here.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Ross makes a post directed towards WW's point about Kohli not having improved.

Yeah, another thing is using terrible "statistics" e.g. the performance of batsmen in the series aren't so impressive because the bowling averages in the series are rubbish. As if these things are completely independent variables.

 

[cnerd123]

Haha you too? Quality overall maybe. They were tripe that series though.. For one reason or the other.

Oh no, I agree with you. I thought the point was about overall quality and not performance in that series itself.

Also, regarding Smith being **** before this series - he was averaging 54 in the year leading up to the series. Played 8 matches - vs. England in Aus, vs. Pak in UAE and vs. RSA in RSA.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Blocky]

You don't think the difference in performance between the UAE and Australia has nothing to do with the conditions and the team they're facing?

The UAE is a fortress because it plays right into the hands of Pakistan. There is no comparison here.

BINGO.

Conditions and the team they're facing - where they struggled like **** despite the team they're facing not exactly having the greatest attack in the world. Smith didn't score many there did he?

The whole point is "This series has the worst bowlers, on some of the easiest batting wickets, so much so that almost every player for Australia is setting batting records"

 

[OverratedSanity]

"Haven't watched the current series" - Oh please, I was posting all of yesterday and today while watching Kohli face the short wide **** that Starc offered up. I would've also watched the 2003/2004 series but don't have photographic memory so can't recall what/how they bowled, except to say that their bowling averages for the series were much better than the ones in this series.

Ok i'll just stop here tbh.

No matter what crap was being spouted in this thread I never thought anyone would have an opinion that Australia's 03/04 attack was better than the one in this series. I need to lie down.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah, another thing is using terrible "statistics" e.g. the performance of batsmen in the series aren't so impressive because the bowling averages in the series are rubbish. As if these things are completely independent variables.

Yea exactly.

A B and C bat well and score a lot of runs.
Therefore X Y and Z have poor bowling averages

"Oh, do you see how **** X Y and Z's bowling averages are? THATS why A B and C did so well. Lets see how they do against bowlers who average less"

WTF.

 

[Blocky]

Ok i'll just stop here tbh.

No matter what crap was being spouted in this thread I never thought anyone would have an opinion that Australia's 03/04 attack was better than the one in this series. I need to lie down.

Cricket Records | Records | Pakistan v Australia Test Series, 2014/15 - Australia | Batting and bowling averages | ESPN Cricinfo

The same bowling attack that we're seeing in this series is apparently light years ahead of Gillespie, Bichel, Lee and MacGill? You do need a lie down.