***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[a massive zebra]

Has anyone noticed that when they play together, MacGill almost always outbowls Warne by a significant margin.

 

[Barney Rubble]

England here squeeked home needing every bit of luck they got

And yet without the intervention of the weather, some would say it would have been 3-1 or even 4-1. You Aussies must be really, really unlucky.

 

[shaka]

Has anyone noticed that when they play together, MacGill almost always outbowls Warne by a significant margin.

Plays a bit on Warne's mind a little, but has been well documented.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Has anyone noticed that when they play together, MacGill almost always outbowls Warne by a significant margin.

One might suggest it's because the batsmen expend so much mental energy trying to work out what Warne's doing, that they lose concentration and forget that MacGill is also a world-class bowler.

 

[andyc]

The greats of Windies cricket would be ashamed.

Hell, I'm ashamed and I'm Australian

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Has anyone noticed that when they play together, MacGill almost always outbowls Warne by a significant margin.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1703
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1706

etc, etc...

It's pretty much a myth that MacGill always outbowls Warne by a significant margin, though sometimes his figures do come out better. The Super Series was a good example, where Warne was comfortably the better bowler of the two throughout the test, but finished with 31-7-71-6 to MacGill's 24.1-4-82-9.

 

[Jono]

In the previous Ashes series, England lost pretty well their entire seam attack, either before the team was picked, before the tour started or during the first test.

On that occasion, Flintoff didn't make it, having failed to recover from a hernia operation. The few England supporters who were on this message board at the time shrugged their shoulders - just like the team did.

We got thrashed, but everyone held their heads high and congratulated Australia - something I have been used to doing on many occasions in the past. You, on the other hand, come over as a stereotypical bombast who cannot bring himself to admit that those precious Ashes were dashed from Ponting's grasp.

Today, it's because Symonds wasn't picked. Yesterday, because McGrath stepped on a ball. The day before that, you were accusing the umpires of cheating. What's tomorrow's excuse? Ball-tampering? Total eclipse of the sun in Vanuatu? Planets badly aligned? George Bush? Clinton?

You're getting England and Australia mixed up here

 

[Jono]

Send 'em home. The lot of 'em. Just go.

West Indies fans rejoice. The last time Howardj had such red hot disgust for a cricket team, they went on to win the very test match he said it in.

 

[howardj]

West Indies fans rejoice. The last time Howardj had such red hot disgust for a cricket team, they went on to win the very test match he said it in.

The Windies comment was 'tongue in cheek'.

But, hell yeah, I am disgusted in their meek displays

 

[Linda]

The Windies comment was 'tongue in cheek'.

But, hell yeah, I am disgusted in their meek displays

Whos going to be dropped from the team, howardj? I worship your every word on that subject...

 

[howardj]

Whos going to be dropped from the team, howardj? I worship your every word on that subject...

From the Windies' team? It's easier to list those who should be retained.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

From the Windies' team? It's easier to list those who should be retained.

So they'll be going in with four players then? There's hardly any alternatives...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It was a shame that Australia lost the Ashes, but at least they didn't lose them to England. They lost them to misfortune.

Salty salty tears.

And has anyone noticed Lara's weakness against yorkers? This time he got out to one LBW, but I remember Waqar Younis knocking him over and getting him clean bowled with one before. Seems like he brings his bat up too high to properly play balls that come low at speed.

The high bat lift has served him well enough to be on pace to become the highest scorer the game has seen. He does get out to yorkers at times, but every batsman does - that why bowlers bowl yorkers. The Waqar deliveries is probably one of the best you'll ever see in this game, especially to a left-hander. I also remember Heath Streak producing a similar delivery. I dare suggest that all batsmen have a weakness against the yorker, though. It's just that bowlers don't produce quality yorkers often enough to maximize upon that weakness.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But seriously, you're being ridiculous. Of course it was easy for you England supporters to admit defeat graciously even without your seamers. Your team, even at full strength, was nothing compared to the Australian team that played, and the best you could've hoped for regardless of injury was a narrow(er) defeat. Australia weren't depending on luck at all - they steamrolled England based on pure, hard superiority.

So what you're saying is that you know for a fact that Australia would have thrashed a full-strength English team? This is because Australia was better on paper right? And that's how matches are decided, right? On paper, right?

 

[Pratters]

Salty salty tears.

I really dont get why some people cannot accept a team has beaten them. Isnt sport about trying your best despite the adversities and if you lose the match, accept it and congratulate your opponent more than any thing else.

 

[ClownSymonds]

No, cricket isn't played on paper, but records do show that Glenn McGrath is certainly one of the greatest bowlers ever to play the game. I can't say for certain that Australia would have beat England had McGrath not been injured, and I will admit that Australia didn't handle things well at all when he did go down, but I think it's safe to say that Australia probably would have won the series with McGrath in the team for the entirety of it. If you look at it objectively, you'll probably have to agree with me.

As for England having a right to complain about losing the test against Pakistan because of the absence of Vaughan and Jones - Vaughan was replaced by a man who averaged over 50 in the match (better than Vaughan's career average), and Jones probably wouldn't have done much better than Hoggard or Harmison. The difference between McGrath and an out of form Kasprowicz is a lot bigger.

England won the Ashes, and I'll accept that, though maybe I'm not happy with the reasons for them winning. The thing that bothers me is that many people claim that England are a better team than Australia because of it, and that is absurd.

 

[Pratters]

No, cricket isn't played on paper, but records do show that Glenn McGrath is certainly one of the greatest bowlers ever to play the game. I can't say for certain that Australia would have beat England had McGrath not been injured

England won the Ashes, and I'll accept that, though maybe I'm not happy with the reasons for them winning. The thing that bothers me is that many people claim that England are a better team than Australia because of it, and that is absurd.

I will explain it to you or try to. Mainly because I understand your feeling gutted at the loss. Australia could have won the series if McGrath had played. But injuries are a part and parcel of sport itself. The true test of a team lies in handling situations.

If we even discount this aspect also, cricket is full of possibilities, the ifs and buts. It can lead to one team winning and another losing. But it doesnt mean a team is worse over all than another team or better over all.

Bangladesh beat Australia in a one dayer. It does not mean Bangladesh is better than Australia. While a test series is much more difficult to win than a one dayer, in the context of deciding which team is better over all a sole test series win more often than not does not mean whether one team is superior or the other team is superior. Specially when the margin is so close.

It merely means, given the resources, England played better cricket than Australia and were deserving winners of the Ashes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Forget the people who are jumping the gun and calling England a better test team than Australia right now. For even if McGrath had played all the matches and England had won the Ashes given the situation, that claim would not be fulfilled as of now.

Cheers.

 

[age_master]

England lost a test to pakistan....

 

[Top_Cat]

Ah it's being set up nicely for my prediction; a big opening partnership, a couple of quick wickets and then Brad Hodge to hit a maiden Test hundred against a tired attack.

Remember kiddies it's merely a prediction and could quite easily go awry if those selfish openers gorge on the WI pace attack.

 

[luckyeddie]

England won the Ashes, and I'll accept that, though maybe I'm not happy with the reasons for them winning. The thing that bothers me is that many people claim that England are a better team than Australia because of it, and that is absurd.

On here? On Cricket Web?

Even our most, er, 'patriotic' (e.g. jingoistic) English members aren't going as far as to suggest that England are a better side or have better players than Australia - I agree, that is absurd given the almost perpetual pedigree of the prawn barbecuers. You don't get knocked off the top on the basis of one game, even one series.