The ICC Super Series

[BoyBrumby]

My guess is it will be the same as last time - he will bowl with a lot of heart and put it in the right spots and probably be his sides number one wicket taker by a mile, but still won't make it a competitive series or do enough to displace Kumble.

I think that's a very fair call. NZ's "pace" attack looks as threadbare as I've seen it for a while, so Vettori is going to have v little support.

I think it's safe to assume he'll at least bowl a lot of overs!!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think that's a very fair call. NZ's "pace" attack looks as threadbare as I've seen it for a while, so Vettori is going to have v little support.

I think it's safe to assume he'll at least bowl a lot of overs!!

I'm not sure if I should be looking forward to watching McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz/Lee bowl on seaming wickets against their batting lineup or dreading it, either...

 

[SpeedKing]

The players were better.
Without players you have no team.
A team is only what the players in it make it.
It is nothing more than a collection of players.

that is why this Aussie team is Great. Every 11 that they send out always makes the best they can out of every situation.

The point being made was that this is the Greatest team not the greatest collection of players. If you wanted the greatest collection, you can go and look at all those threads about Greatest XIs and all that.

Or you could just wait for that Super Series.

 

[marc71178]

South Africa 1969\70
Australia 1948
Australia 1934
West Indies 1979
West Indies 1957
England at some point in the mid-1950s
Pakistan 1999 (if they'd been anyone but Pakistanis they'd have broken all records)
South Africa 1998\99
That's about all I can do off the top of my head.

The last 2 are absolutely ludicrous, as is the inclusion of a side that drew 2 and lost 3 of the 5 games they played.

 

[marc71178]

yeah he is a useful ODI bowler but i looking at openers for the super test he wont get picked in front of fleming

If we're looking for openers for a Test, Fleming won't get picked!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If we're looking for openers for a Test, Fleming won't get picked!

Agreed. Sehwag will be one, the other will probably be Strauss if he has a good Ashes series, or Smith otherwise.

 

[marc71178]

Depends if Smith perseveres with his "hiding in the middle order".

Although I note he was very brave to open in the Zimbabwe game.

 

[Swervy]

The last 2 are absolutely ludicrous, as is the inclusion of a side that drew 2 and lost 3 of the 5 games they played.

I didnt see those last two on that list...sweet jesus....how on earth are we to take Richard even half seriously after that???? Classic stuff

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I didnt see those last two on that list...sweet jesus....how on earth are we to take Richard even half seriously after that???? Classic stuff

This current Australian team is just lucky, dontcha know? They have catches dropped off them and their bowlers get hundreds of wickets at awesome averages through bad strokeplay. If things went the way Richard thinks they should they'd hardly win a game.

 

[Richard]

Depends if Smith perseveres with his "hiding in the middle order".

Although I note he was very brave to open in the Zimbabwe game.

I can't help thinking it's unlikely he'll bat down there again.
Given that no-one has ever troubled him the way Hoggard did (except Martin Bicknell, briefly)

 

[Richard]

Oh please.

You could make a case for Australia 1948 and West Indies 1979 (although 84 was probably a better team), and I suppose at the outside maybe England in the 50s, but the rest are ridiculous. South Africa 1969/70 played one dominant series and then were banned, so we will never know how good they were. West Indies 1957 were a great side but were far from dominant even in their own era. Pakistan in 1999 were an extremely average side with some quality individuals, and they were accordingly thrashed by Australia 3-0, when Australia were far from their best. South Africa 1998/99 is frankly a joke, they wouldn't make the top 25 let alone the top 10.

There have only been two sides before this Australian team that have so dominated cricket, and you cannot judge players on first class records or what might have been, so South Africa are out. England in the 50s would have to make the top 5 as well.

All the more reason for not judging sides on whether or not they dominated the World game, isn't it?
How on Earth was the West Indies side of 1984 better than the one of 1979? Oh, let me guess - because that one happened to be the one that won a load of games in a row!!!!!

 

[Richard]

The fact that you think the Pakistan test team of 1999 is better than the current Australian team makes it extremely hard for me to take any of your other posts seriously.

There's a reason they were beaten 3-0 by Australia, and that wasn't even the current Australian team either, which is better than the Australian team of 1999.

Really?
You won't find many who'd say that Australia without the Waughs is stronger than Australia with the Waughs - for quite a while now most people have been saying they're past their peak (though of course the results keep coming).
As for why Pakistan got beaten - simple, lots of players underperformed. Ain't like that's unusual at all.

 

[Richard]

Thats what everybody says Richard, Australia are a team that has the players that make the team unbeatable whereas the Pakistani team was just a collection of players. Even though I dispute the fact that the Pakistani team contained more talent than the current Australian side.

Pakistan had these players: Saeed Anwar, Inzamam-Ul-Haq, Moin Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed. Backed-up by Yousuf Youhana and a couple of other mediocre batsmen.
If you think there's less talent there than the Australian side either of 1999\2000 or current, you really need your head examined.
Just because they didn't around that time make top use of the talent doesn't mean it wasn't there.

 

[Richard]

This current Australian team is just lucky, dontcha know? They have catches dropped off them and their bowlers get hundreds of wickets at awesome averages through bad strokeplay. If things went the way Richard thinks they should they'd hardly win a game.

I'm afraid that catches are dropped aplenty and poor strokes are played aplenty is not a matter of opinion that is up for dispute - it's fact.
Whether this paucity of opposition is deserved is the thing up for dispute - and most people in this cricketing World really don't like to talk down seemingly spectacular achievements - it's much better to talk up some poor ones.

 

[mavric41]

I'm afraid that catches are dropped aplenty and poor strokes are played aplenty is not a matter of opinion that is up for dispute - it's fact.
Whether this paucity of opposition is deserved is the thing up for dispute - and most people in this cricketing World really don't like to talk down seemingly spectacular achievements - it's much better to talk up some poor ones.

Yet the bowlers keep getting wickets and the batsmen keep geting runs - amazing!!

 

[Richard]

Not really amazing, no.
You just need to watch and read to find-out why.

 

[marc71178]

Pakistan had these players: Saeed Anwar, Inzamam-Ul-Haq, Moin Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed. Backed-up by Yousuf Youhana and a couple of other mediocre batsmen.
If you think there's less talent there than the Australian side either of 1999\2000 or current, you really need your head examined.

So go on then, please evaluate the sides man for man and tell us how they're better than the current Australian side.

Also bear in mind that if they played all the players you've just listed then Moin would be batting at 6.

 

[marc71178]

Not really amazing, no.
You just need to watch and read to find-out why.

We all do watch to find out why.

It's because they're one of the best sides ever.

 

[Richard]

So go on then, please evaluate the sides man for man and tell us how they're better than the current Australian side.

Also bear in mind that if they played all the players you've just listed then Moin would be batting at 6.

Saeed Anwar - better player of seam and swing than Hayden will ever be. Given that this is an opener's main priority that's what matters - not battering popguns on flat pitches.
Wajutallah Wasti\some other poor opener - less good than Slater or Langer
Ponting\Langer - better than any other number-three
Inzamam-Ul-Haq - better than both Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn, probably put together.
Stephen Waugh - better than Youhana will ever, ever, ever, ever be.
Moin - good batsman, while obviously not as good as Gilchrist
Wasim Akram - one of the modern-day greats. Better bowler than any of the Australian seamers and while not as good as the batsmen at batting, it comes out better.
Waqar Younis - better bowler than any of the Australian seamers.
Shoaib Akhtar - better bowler than any of the Australian seamers.
Saqlain Mushtaq - exceptionally good bowler on a turning pitch, while obviously not as good as a seamer on a non-turner.
Mushtaq Ahmed - obviously not as good as Warne but one of a few in the game's history who's come remotely close.

 

[Richard]

We all do watch to find out why.

It's because they're one of the best sides ever.

No, it's because there are lots and lots of poor sides, who mysteriously become even worse (sometimes not so mysteriously because of lots of injuries) usually when they play Australia.
Added to the fact that there are some very, very good players indeed in the side.