**Official** West Indies in England 2012

[uvelocity]

also I don't remember aussies being saved by massive noballs every third minute

 

[flibbertyjibber]

also I don't remember aussies being saved by massive noballs every third minute

No you just had 3rd umpires not giving blatant run outs instead.

 

[Jager]

also I don't remember aussies being saved by massive noballs every third minute

 

[benchmark00]

Does the same apply in AFL? If so, any North players going to get 3 votes this year? Cos you're losing quite a bit.

Above Richmond on the ladder iirc.

 

[Spark]

there's more of a deliberate comparison to it than just that, hence the title "Strauss' new Australians ready for South Africa".

Don't get why you would need to make a point about how the victory was "swift and lethal" anyway, it's a lowly ranked WI team played on home soil - i.e. shouldn't that just be expected if anything?

PS: I like getting my knickers in a twist.

Columnists never pick their own headlines.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Columnists never pick their own headlines.

Exactly, I think the headline writer is a former Sun employee.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, not enough puns.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Mark Nicholas writing is as **** as his commentary. This side has just lost 4 Tests in the SC (3 in the desert, ok) over the past six months, were in a slippery spot heading into the final day at Lord's against a low-ranked side...don't recollect the Australian teams ever doing that. Can't wait for SA to arrive and hopefully put matters right.

 

[Spark]

You don't ever recall Australian teams getting mildly embarrassed in the subcontinent?

Really?

 

[TT Boy]

You don't ever recall Australian teams getting mildly embarrassed in the subcontinent?

Really?

3 zip?

 

[Jono]

Above Richmond on the ladder iirc.

Shut it.

 

[Spikey]

3 zip?

let harbhajan singh take 32 wickets in 3 tests which is much more embarrassing

 

[Scaly piscine]

Australia of old would have got Ajmal reported for chucking and gotten mildly beaten instead. Then there's the way they intimated umpires as a given in each game and how no DRS would have meant very few of the lbws would have been out. I also think the extra 'allowance' for unorthodoxy (and controlled chucking) these days favours the sub-continent far more than it does the likes of Australia and England.

 

[Cabinet96]

also I don't remember aussies being saved by massive noballs every third minute

Yes if it wasn't for the no balls the West Indies would surely have won by an innings. I mean Cook added a massive 22 to his total after the first no ball!

 

[social]

Australia of old would have got Ajmal reported for chucking and gotten mildly beaten instead. Then there's the way they intimated umpires as a given in each game and how no DRS would have meant very few of the lbws would have been out. I also think the extra 'allowance' for unorthodoxy (and controlled chucking) these days favours the sub-continent far more than it does the likes of Australia and England.

Australia of old would never have been beaten by the Pakistan of 2011/12 vintage

Their batsmen would have caved in so early against McGrath and co as to make Ajmal irrelevant

Where India were different was that they had a few batting greats in that team to get them half decent scores for Harby to bowl to - Pakistan had no-one remotely in that class

 

[Cabinet96]

Australia of old would never have been beaten by the Pakistan of 2011/12 vintage

Their batsmen would have caved in so early against McGrath and co as to make Ajmal irrelevant

Where India were different was that they had a few batting greats in that team to get them half decent scores for Harby to bowl to - Pakistan had no-one remotely in that class

England managed to bowl superbly well that series, yet that didn't make Ajmal and co irrelevant. Unless your saying you'd have bowled Pakistan out for less than 99. I'm not saying you would have lost to Pakistan, but I don't think your bowlers would have done such a good job that it would have rendered Ajmal irrelevant.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Every single time the old Aussie teams were beaten (01 and 05 basically), it required near mythical performances from a few players. The current English side is very good, but doesn't have the game breaking abilities required when faced with a decent batting order in good form. And obviously crap against spin.

 

[tooextracool]

You don't ever recall Australian teams getting mildly embarrassed in the subcontinent?

Really?

The only Australian side to get embarrassed in the subcontinent in the last 20 years, was the one that showed up in 2008/09(by which time they were number 1 in name only anyways)

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The only Australian side to get embarrassed in the subcontinent in the last 20 years, was the one that showed up in 2008/09(by which time they were number 1 in name only anyways)

To be honest losing a game when you make the opposition follow on is as embarrassing as it gets and that was long before 08/09.

All non Asian sides struggle at various times in Asia, some more than others. Most Asian sides struggle outside Asia. It is one reason why we love the game as no side dominates totally apart from truly great ones.

 

[tooextracool]

Australia of old would have got Ajmal reported for chucking and gotten mildly beaten instead. Then there's the way they intimated umpires as a given in each game and how no DRS would have meant very few of the lbws would have been out. I also think the extra 'allowance' for unorthodoxy (and controlled chucking) these days favours the sub-continent far more than it does the likes of Australia and England.

Seems like a lot of sour grapes. Ajmal averages 19 against England, has a third of his total wickets tally against them and is averaging around 30 against everyone else. There's no excuse for being hopeless against him when all other nations have not, and there is even less excuse for being hopeless against Rehman, who wouldn't scare a club cricketer, even if he was bowling with hand grenades.