Are tons really that impressive in this era?

[Blocky]

Haha please ask an Australian how good Gillespie Bichel Lee Williams Bracken and MacGill were in the 03/04 series. I beg you.

"in that series"

They were facing two undisputed all time greats, two guys who aren't that far behind ( VVS/Sehwag) and another guy who was world class for his time in Ganguly. Go look at the results in and around that series for India vs the results in and around this series for India.

So what you're telling me through this though is that Pakistan must be one of the best teams of all time to so easily beat the Australian team which is crapping all over a team you think compares to 2003/2004 India.

 

[Spark]

I apologize. I shall just call it **** logic henceforth.

it isn't quite right now that i think of it closer but it's close enough. it's **** logic regardless, yes.

 

[cnerd123]

Does every thread here have to turn into a Blockyfest? Just use the Ignore List function fellas. It is good for your blood pressure.

Do you not see the entertainment value in this?

 

[cnerd123]

So what you're telling me through this though is that Pakistan must be one of the best teams of all time to so easily beat the Australian team which is crapping all over a team you think compares to 2003/2004 India.

Amazing.

 

[cnerd123]

Like I don't know how you got to that conclusion, but I love how in your brain that actually makes sense.

 

[Spark]

So what you're telling me through this though is that Pakistan must be one of the best teams of all time to so easily beat the Australian team which is crapping all over a team you think compares to 2003/2004 India.

this is, quite honestly, probably the most ridiculously outlandish thing said in this thread to date. it doesn't even live in the same geological era, the same galaxy as what people are actually trying to say.

 

[cnerd123]

it isn't quite right now that i think of it closer but it's close enough. it's **** logic regardless, yes.

Is **** logic an infractable offence?

 

[Blocky]

Like I don't know how you got to that conclusion, but I love how in your brain that actually makes sense.

Point I'm making is that if this Australian team is brilliant and much better than the 2003/2004 era Australian team, why did they lose badly against a side that couldn't put New Zealand away in the series? I think he's going extreme on the hyperbole to try and make Australia look better than they actually are to feel good about Kohli while refusing to admit that Australia are basically **** at the moment unless they're playing England.

 

[Spark]

Is **** logic an infractable offence?

we wouldn't have much of a forum left if so

 

[OverratedSanity]

"in that series"

They were facing two undisputed all time greats, two guys who aren't that far behind ( VVS/Sehwag) and another guy who was world class for his time in Ganguly. Go look at the results in and around that series for India vs the results in and around this series for India.

So what you're telling me through this though is that Pakistan must be one of the best teams of all time to so easily beat the Australian team which is crapping all over a team you think compares to 2003/2004 India.

I like this post. Not for reasons that will make you happy, though.

 

[Spark]

Point I'm making is that if this Australian team is brilliant and much better than the 2003/2004 era Australian team, why did they lose badly against a side that couldn't put New Zealand away in the series? I think he's going extreme on the hyperbole to try and make Australia look better than they actually are to feel good about Kohli while refusing to admit that Australia are basically **** at the moment unless they're playing England.

...because pakistan played really, really good cricket?

 

[Blocky]

this is, quite honestly, probably the most ridiculously outlandish thing said in this thread to date. it doesn't even live in the same geological era, the same galaxy as what people are actually trying to say.

Taken out of context, sure.

In context, when people refuse to reply to posts like below and selectively take pieces out that they feel they can argue, it's about as sensible as most points being made here.

1. You're focusing on Kohli when my harsh criticism is against Smith
2. You're conviniently forgetting how good MacGill and Gillespie were and trying to think up reasons to discredit Dravid, Tendulkar and VVS which is especially hilarious for me because I never thought an Indian would ever discredit those three.
3. Australia's bowling averages aren't shooting up - they were never down to begin with either due to being recent debutants or **** (Starc comes to mind) or out of form (Johnson comes to mind)
4. You're conviniently avoiding the point that series records are being broken by both sides due to how easy batting conditions are and how bad the bowling attacks are
5. You're conviniently avoiding how many runs were scored against this attack in the UAE - when a guy like Mark Craig was a world beater there.

Go figure.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Go ask an Australian how good Gillespie was during that period.

I watched him mate. He was a damn good bowler, I'm not disputing that at all.

But you said this:

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

That's an enormous claim. You'll probably argue it's hyperbole but that's just a cop out. Gillespie was awesome, probably underrated, but was not the best bowler in the world over that period. It's things like that which make people wonder how much cricket you actually watch.

 

[cnerd123]

Point I'm making is that if this Australian team is brilliant and much better than the 2003/2004 era Australian team, why did they lose badly against a side that couldn't put New Zealand away in the series? I think he's going extreme on the hyperbole to try and make Australia look better than they actually are to feel good about Kohli while refusing to admit that Australia are basically **** at the moment unless they're playing England.

Wow haahahahahahah.

No one said the bolded bit.

NZ are comfortably better than Aus are now, and are feasibly better than Aus were in that 03/04 series.

Pakistan are ****ing great in the UAE currently.

None of this has any relation to what is being debated lmao.

 

[Blocky]

...because pakistan played really, really good cricket?

Oh, I see - but then turned around and played average cricket when they drew with NZ - well known as "the best touring nation to sub continent conditions in the world" - right? /sarcasm

 

[Cabinet96]

Point I'm making is that if this Australian team is brilliant and much better than the 2003/2004 era Australian team, why did they lose badly against a side that couldn't put New Zealand away in the series? I think he's going extreme on the hyperbole to try and make Australia look better than they actually are to feel good about Kohli while refusing to admit that Australia are basically **** at the moment unless they're playing England.

Basically **** at the moment unless they're playing England? Guess that would be why they won in SA etc. Australia are a good team outside of Asia, and their bowling attack is the predominant reason why.

 

[Blocky]

Wow haahahahahahah.

No one said the bolded bit.

NZ are comfortably better than Aus are now, and are feasibly better than Aus were in that 03/04 series.

Pakistan are ****ing great in the UAE currently.

None of this has any relation to what is being debated lmao.

What's being debated is how good the results from Kohli and Smith are in the scheme of history and whether or not tonnes are easier to score today (and in particular, in this series) than they've been previously. Remind me again how pointing out how poor their results were in series just before this one isn't relevant to what's being debated?

 

[cnerd123]

Oh, I see - but then turned around and played average cricket when they drew with NZ - well known as "the best touring nation to sub continent conditions in the world" - right? /sarcasm

No. New Zealand played better cricket. That is possible.

You've never actually watched or played cricket have you?

 

[cnerd123]

What's being debated is how good the results from Kohli and Smith are in the scheme of history and whether or not tonnes are easier to score today (and in particular, in this series) than they've been previously. Remind me again how pointing out how poor their results were in series just before this one isn't relevant to what's being debated?

I don't. You tell me. You are the one who is doing it lmao.

Love ya blocky

 

[Spark]

Basically **** at the moment unless they're playing England? Guess that would be why they won in SA etc. Australia are a good team outside of Asia, and their bowling attack is the predominant reason why.

it does illuminate the logic though. everything that has been said has followed from that premise, the increasingly absurd and patently at-odds-with-reality statements that are coming out are all an attempt to justify this hilarious refusal to acknowledge that australia maybe, might maybe, be a decent side.