***Official*** Super Series

[social]

A few thought on some players.

Kallis - far and away the most technically accomplished batsman in the world today. With the weight of runs he scores, he must be the no. 1 player in the world right now.

Katich - should be replaced by Hussey sooner rather than later. However, spot will likely go to Hodge if anyone.

Clarke - will only be spared the axe on the basis of potential.

Lee - needs wickets badly.

Watson - assess him at the end of the season.

MacGill - proved the folly of selectors failure to pick him for at least 3 of the Ashes tests (what do you expect when one of the selectors is more tour guide/reality tv star than anything?)

Freddie - grounds are bigger here than the postage stamps youre used to playing on

Rudi - whilst not a player, he still deserves the "foot in mouth" award for the year by declaring that he was not in favour of using technology for aiding decisions and then making his umpteenth howler of the year shortly thereafter.

 

[Beleg]

Quite a few members of this forum (and likely a few million Indians) probably did, when they realised he'd gotten a pair. Oh, Inzy...

LOL!

He deserves all the dissing he will get (and than some more) after this performance.

 

[Ikki]

I agree with your selections - all pretty obvious enough. Why they drafted Inzy into the side though, who knows. He was never going to succeed. Anyway, I don't know that Australia have had a 'second coming'. I still think England would be more than a match for them, and nothing that's happened in this game really alters my opinion. If anything, Australia's middle order looks even more brittle than in the Ashes.

Keep dreaming mate.

Freddie - grounds are bigger here than the postage stamps youre used to playing on

Hahaha.

 

[shaka]

Kumble may have been picked if he did not have a slight back injury that has kept him grounded recently, although it did play in the hands of NZ fans and Vettori.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Freddie - grounds are bigger here than the postage stamps youre used to playing on

Yawn. I suppose they brought the ropes in (not even counting the the fact that balls will travel faster and farther in Australia anyway) for his first innings eh? Also if he doesn't bother going for sixes you're in even bigger trouble when England visit next year.

 

[matty1818]

lol if england played that world XI at edgbaston or the oval, the same result would occur, to say this stamps australias authority over the world is odd, they had the chance to do that and failed, this is not a case of redemption, it means nothing. England could have played this world XI, beaten them, we wouldnt then be considered to have asserted ourselves as no1, purely because it's a make-shift team which is what it isnt - a team, something id consider a pre-requisite to any 'team' game....

 

[Pedro Delgado]

MacGill - proved the folly of selectors failure to pick him for at least 3 of the Ashes tests (what do you expect when one of the selectors is more tour guide/reality tv star than anything?)

Not sure he'd have turned it as much back in England, this SCG wicket seemed to be made of charcoal with bits flying everywhere.

Freddie - grounds are bigger here than the postage stamps youre used to playing on

Remind me again how many sixes he hit in this match?

 

[Sanz]

lol if england played that world XI at edgbaston or the oval, the same result would occur, to say this stamps australias authority over the world is odd, they had the chance to do that and failed, this is not a case of redemption, it means nothing. England could have played this world XI, beaten them, we wouldnt then be considered to have asserted ourselves as no1, purely because it's a make-shift team which is what it isnt - a team, something id consider a pre-requisite to any 'team' game....

BS. If the result had gone the other way, people would have raved about how strong the World XI was and how Lara, Kallis, Dravid etc made such a strong batting lineup. The fact is the world XI lost and Australia won it convincingly both in tests and ODIs, they deserve all the praise and YES it does stamp their authority over the world.

As for England beating this world XI, Not in a million years. Imagine an english team without Flintoff & Harmison.

 

[Pratters]

Which is still irrelevant to the question you tried to answer.

The question was why people hate Smith and both parts were relevant. Why you say its irrelevent is beyond me.

 

[honestbharani]

BS. If the result had gone the other way, people would have raved about how strong the World XI was and how Lara, Kallis, Dravid etc made such a strong batting lineup. The fact is the world XI lost and Australia won it convincingly both in tests and ODIs, they deserve all the praise and YES it does stamp their authority over the world.

As for England beating this world XI, Not in a million years. Imagine an english team without Flintoff & Harmison.

I agree with Sanz. Sure, the World XI were never going to be a "great" team, given how little time they were gonna spend together, but even then, to beat this collection of players was going to take a big effort and Australia did a great job. Credit should be given where it is due. It is not Australia's fault that the World XI weren't able to play as a team and that some players were rusty and some selections were faulty etc. They could only play the team pitted against them and they did it extremely well indeed.

 

[Ikki]

BS. If the result had gone the other way, people would have raved about how strong the World XI was and how Lara, Kallis, Dravid etc made such a strong batting lineup. The fact is the world XI lost and Australia won it convincingly both in tests and ODIs, they deserve all the praise and YES it does stamp their authority over the world.

As for England beating this world XI, Not in a million years. Imagine an english team without Flintoff & Harmison.

No Shizzle Mate. As for England, god damn you win one Ashes after these many years and now you're chock-a-block competetors. Should we say Australia THRASHED the World XI or that the World XI didn't play well? Because it is easier to say after the Ashes test that Australia DID NOT PLAY well and England still had trouble beating them. I'm just amused at this new found confidence from the English. You lot still have a long way to go.....very long.

 

[Barney Rubble]

No Shizzle Mate. As for England, god damn you win one Ashes after these many years and now you're chock-a-block competetors. Should we say Australia THRASHED the World XI or that the World XI didn't play well? Because it is easier to say after the Ashes test that Australia DID NOT PLAY well and England still had trouble beating them. I'm just amused at this new found confidence from the English. You lot still have a long way to go.....very long.

Anyone who uses the word "shizzle" and isn't Snoop Dogg is always going to be skating on thin ice, especially if they're as arrogant as you seem to be. Most of Australia has accepted that England are a very good cricket team - looks like the "ghetto" hasn't quite caught up yet.

For someone with only 19 posts, reawakening the Ashes debate in such a way as this wasn't the brightest of ideas, mate.

 

[Ikki]

I observe my friend. If I was as ****y as I sound I'd like reading my own posts as you seem to do 1,836. The only reason I used "shizzle" was in a mock "wannabe" as in the English team also. Furthermore, I wasn't bringing up the Ashes argument, however, in this thread there is a lot of nay say about Australian cricket and that's the humourous part for Australia almost always delivers quality performances. Scratch the ashes . I just think like anything the English love the use of hyperbole. You played very well, fine. Flintoff is a good player fine. The arguments like Shane Watson can never be Flintoff or England would have done the same thing to the World XI seem a bit vomitted from envy.

 

[honestbharani]

I observe my friend. If I was as ****y as I sound I'd like reading my own posts as you seem to do 1,836. The only reason I used "shizzle" was in a mock "wannabe" as in the English team also. Furthermore, I wasn't bringing up the Ashes argument, however, in this thread there is a lot of nay say about Australian cricket and that's the humourous part for Australia almost always delivers quality performances. Scratch the ashes . I just think like anything the English love the use of hyperbole. You played very well, fine. Flintoff is a good player fine. The arguments like Shane Watson can never be Flintoff or England would have done the same thing to the World XI seem a bit vomitted from envy.

With all due respect, I think the argument about Watson being the next Flintoff seemed to have come out from envy on the Aussies' side than the English. Sure, he has the potential to be a decent to good all rounder, but to say he will be as good as Freddie juz because Flintoff had a poor start as well is a huge disrespect to the hardwork Freddie would have had to do to get to where he is at the moment. I mean, I would venture to say that Pathan has better figures as an all rounder than Freddie at the respective stages of their careers. Does that mean Pathan will be better than Freddie?

 

[Sanz]

The argument that the World XI couldn't play as a team would have been valid if there were any brilliant individual performances by the World XI players. The fact is that there was none.

 

[Ikki]

With all due respect, I think the argument about Watson being the next Flintoff seemed to have come out from envy on the Aussies' side than the English. Sure, he has the potential to be a decent to good all rounder, but to say he will be as good as Freddie juz because Flintoff had a poor start as well is a huge disrespect to the hardwork Freddie would have had to do to get to where he is at the moment. I mean, I would venture to say that Pathan has better figures as an all rounder than Freddie at the respective stages of their careers. Does that mean Pathan will be better than Freddie?

You do make a case and I guess for some that could hold water. Myself however, I had been an admirer of Watson before the Ashes started and believe he could have played. Australia never really needed to look anywhere for an All-Rounder, that was fictionalised by the English. We always had Watson and he had always been promising. I think now is just the case of Australians pointing him out.

 

[Mister Wright]

The argument that the World XI couldn't play as a team would have been valid if there were any brilliant individual performances by the World XI players. The fact is that there was none.

Perhaps not with the bat, but with the ball there were some amazing performances. Flintoff's spell on the morning of the 2nd day was magical. Harmison's spell before lunch on the 3rd when Australia looked like pilling on a 600 run+ lead was superb as were Flintoff and Murali after lunch on the same day. It just was a shame that some of the batsman had not played for a while and McGrath was at his best.

 

[Sanz]

Does that mean Pathan will be better than Freddie?

He may not. But how can we be sure that he CAN'T ? I am not saying that after four years, Pathan/Watson are going to better than or as good as Flintoff, I have no way of knowing it now. Same way those who say that Pathan/Watson ca't become like Flintoff actually have no way knowing it either. They are just stating their opinion.

Flintoff, early in his career, was compared to Botham, wasn't he ??

 

[Mister Wright]

You do make a case and I guess for some that could hold water. Myself however, I had been an admirer of Watson before the Ashes started and believe he could have played. Australia never really needed to look anywhere for an All-Rounder, that was fictionalised by the English. We always had Watson and he had always been promising. I think now is just the case of Australians pointing him out.

I couldn't believe it when Watson's name wasn't announced in the Ashes test squad, especially considering he made a return to the ODI side. I thought he should have gone as the reserve batsman despite that the selectors think he is a bowling allrounder.

 

[Mister Wright]

He may not. But how can we be sure that he CAN'T ? I am not saying that after four years, Pathan/Watson are going to better than or as good as Flintoff, I have no way of knowing it now. Same way those who say that Pathan/Watson ca't become like Flintoff actually have no way knowing it either. They are just stating their opinion.

Flintoff, early in his career, was compared to Botham, wasn't he ??

He still is. It is ridiculous to be comparing the three as they are all different players. Flintoff is probably the most genuine allrounder of the three, however I would say that Watson's batting is slightly better making him a batting allrounder (despite what the selectors think) than Flintoff whereas Pathan's bowling is probably better than both of them, yet he is unproven with the bat as an allrounder.