***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[tooextracool]

What were his overall figures for those first 3 Tests?

extremely expensive. anything over 4 is generally very very poor, and the fact that hoggard managed to go at 5 is an absolute joke.

 

[Tom Halsey]

a 40 run lead is not really being outplayed. australia may have had the upper hand, but they certainly didnt outplay us. and it would have helped if either one of gough or headley actually played in that game.

A 40 run lead was worth double that on that kind of pitch.

 

[tooextracool]

A 40 run lead was worth double that on that kind of pitch.

oh come off it, australia were batting last,hence a 40 run lead is hardly anything significant.

 

[Tom Halsey]

oh come off it, australia were batting last,hence a 40 run lead is hardly anything significant.

It was when they had Warne and we had Tufnell (no slight on Tufnell who was very good on his day, but no-one expected him to take 11 wickets).

 

[tooextracool]

It was when they had Warne and we had Tufnell (no slight on Tufnell who was very good on his day, but no-one expected him to take 11 wickets).

before the test match you mean? we're talking about during the test match, and after he took 7 in the first innings, i think they were definetly in with a chance in the 2nd innings.

 

[Tom Halsey]

before the test match you mean? we're talking about during the test match, and after he took 7 in the first innings, i think they were definetly in with a chance in the 2nd innings.

I didn't then expect him to take 4/27 in the 2nd innings though, and I didn't expect Caddick to bowl as well either.

Tufnell took 6/something against the Windies in the early 90s, and took 1/150 in the 2nd innings or something.

 

[chalky]

The problem is that you're not going to win series on the back of two bowlers. You may win some Tests, but you can't have a quality side if the weak links are as weak as those in the current Australia side. .

You want to bet me Australia won't win every test series they play between now & the next Ashes (wheather permitting)?

 

[tooextracool]

I didn't then expect him to take 4/27 in the 2nd innings though, and I didn't expect Caddick to bowl as well either.

Tufnell took 6/something against the Windies in the early 90s, and took 1/150 in the 2nd innings or something.

yes but generally when someone bowls well in the first innings you expect them to bowl well in the 2nd innings too. and caddick really i think him bowling well in the 2nd innings on a crumbling pitch is almost always extremely likely.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I expected Caddick to bowl well, not as well as he did. I never expected us to get anywhere near defending 125ish.

 

[chalky]

did you even watch that series? theres a reason why we nearly won you know. gough in his prime, caddick with the ball moving about off the seam and in the air and headly in the same conditions is a very very good combination to have.

So good the selectors dropped Caddick for Mike Smith during the series.

 

[roseboy64]

You want to bet me Australia won't win every test series they play between now & the next Ashes (wheather permitting)?

Possible but also unlikely too.

 

[chalky]

Possible but also unlikely too.

Who is going to beat them?

 

[roseboy64]

Might have a drawn series without weather.

 

[chalky]

Might have a drawn series without weather.

Against whom?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You want to bet me Australia won't win every test series they play between now & the next Ashes (wheather permitting)?

And that proves what? A great team isn't built on a year of cricket.

 

[roseboy64]

Against whom?

South Africa possibly.

 

[chalky]

And that proves what? A great team isn't built on a year of cricket.

Thats not the point the point you have put forward is you can't win test series with only two quality bowlers. My arguement is when they are as good as Warne and Mcgrath you will vast the majority of the ones you play.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Thats not the point the point you have put forward is you can't win test series with only two quality bowlers. My arguement is when they are as good as Warne and Mcgrath you will vast the majority of the ones you play.

No. My point is that you're not going to win Test series (as in plural) with just two great bowlers. This implies some consistency. According to your point, Australia should never lose a series again, until these two retire. That's stupid. I can assure you that until Australia finds some support for Warne and McGrath, they will not consistetly win series. If the best of the rest average over 40 (ala the Ashes), Australia will not be a force.

 

[chalky]

South Africa possibly.

Possibly could would still make the Aussies heavy favourites home & away.

 

[chalky]

No. My point is that you're not going to win Test series (as in plural) with just two great bowlers. This implies some consistency. According to your point, Australia should never lose a series again, until these two retire. That's stupid. I can assure you that until Australia finds some support for Warne and McGrath, they will not consistetly win series. If the best of the rest average over 40 (ala the Ashes), Australia will not be a force.

They beat New Zealand in New Zealand easily with Kaspa averaging 39 with the ball and Gillespie 45. Why because Mcgrath averaged 15 & Warne 22. The two tests they lost in England Mcgrath didn't play even then it took an outstanding in England to Narrowly beat them. Sri Lanka have won dozens of tests on the back of one great bowler.

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
The problem is that you're not going to win series on the back of two bowlers. You may win some Tests, but you can't have a quality side if the weak links are as weak as those in the current Australia side. .

I ask the question again even with tthose weak links (which I agree are pretty poor) who is going to beat Australia up to the next ashes series.