Because it's also widely accepted that Lee was (by Australian standards at least) nothing special as a test bowler and also tended to be a bit expensive? And most people would probably accept that Johnson at his best was more damaging than Lee which explains both how Johnson has the better record and why Johnson would be regarded as more inconsistent?There's something I can't understand. Pundits have been telling us for years how Mitchell Johnson has been 'erratic & inconsistent' throughout his career. So how come his career average, SR & RPO figures are all lower than his contemporary and Nein 'ATG' Brett Lee?
Heart Dravid so muchSimilar patten to this game so far 2nd Test: Australia v India at Adelaide, Dec 12-16, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Boult to find his mojo and get the 6fer?
Hope you doubled up with draw in India, because if you did..my draw bet is looking suiiite
On this, Kumble actually only took one second innings wicket in that game. Was Agarkar that did the damage, with Sachin taking a couple of key wickets too.Yeah, weird things happen in the 2nd innings. It's possible that losing Khawaja will leave the Aussie lineup weak for a collapse but I don't think NZ have a spinner good enough to hold the opposition in a second innings chokehold. Every instance of a team making 550 and losing has a gun spinner performance behind it - Peel, Kumble, Warne.
Even if Southee/Boult do the damage to expose a Khawaja-less middle order then I expect Voges and Marsh to set up a stiff target with NZ just hanging on at the end.
This is assuming that Taylor and Craig don't have a good partnership that lets NZ bat for another half a day this innings. If that happens they're in business.
Anyway, all 3 results back on. Cabinet is probably right that I made an error abandoning this match after a session, but in my defence, I have actually slept this weekend for a change