ed is the Boult to your Wagner. He is accurate and pacy, always threatens with a good full length, but don't mind facing him. Whereas you are more effective with slow short balls that bait the batsmen into unwise responses despite lacking the skill of ed.
2001 series the exception to that, though weather helped out a bit.
Yeah that is true, but it was only really the 3rd test that series where NZ was competitive. Aus dominated the first 2 and would have been 2-0 up if not for the weather you mentioned.
i certainly am world class
To be fair, we got to 274-6 chasing 284 to win in the Brisbane test - I'd call that fairly competitive. Plus there was a plumb lbw inside the first half-hour that wasn't given, followed by a 200-run opening stand.
Yeah I think NZ deserve credit for making the running in that Brisbane test ... declaring 199 runs behind sort of forced Australia's hand in making a game of it.
Not even remotely. Only reason NZ were chasing 284 and not 450+ was because Aus declared at 2-80 in the second innings to make a game of things, which was a result of time lost to rain. It was a classic Steve Waugh thing to do, risking the loss to try and force the win.
well then too bad for steve waugh if he lost. i know australians are as terrified of looking passive as we are of looking improper when it comes to cricket, but australias obsession with penis length has often been its undoing.
This is a complete misrepresentation of events. When NZ "declared behind" they were 8-down and not in the game by any stretch. Aus declaring at 2-80 in the second innings is what really made a game of it, and they weren't forced to do it. It was very generous.
Richardson, Bond, Cairns and Vettori would all be locks, I reckon, Astle/Nicholls pretty even, Nash a chance (certainly would have made the side for this test).
