The ICC Super Series

[marc71178]

The fact that they lost in Zimbabwe simply suggests that they were capable of playing exceptionally poorly.

Or maybe it indicates that they were nowhere near as good as you make them out to be?

 

[marc71178]

Because at their peak they're more deadly than the more consistent side?

Did this peak ever actually happen?

 

[marc71178]

No, they're not - a review of the calibre of the players is more accurate.

How is it?

A great team will win games.

Hence this Australian team is rated is highly.

Your list of so-called better sides included a side that drew 2 and lost 3 of its 5 games as well as a team that was whitewashed by a side inferior to the current Australian side.

How exactly are these sides better then?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm saying that he - and Wasim, and Waqar - were\are capable of bowling wicket-taking deliveries on flat pitches.
Something I've hardly ever seen McGrath do.
On a seamer, of course, McGrath is the better bowler.

Did you happen to catch the second day of the current first test against New Zealand, Richard? More classic McGrath, bowling with devastating brilliance on a flat wicket. He seems to have done a lot of work on his ability to reverse swing the ball as well, further helping his cause on such pitches.

 

[aussie]

aussie

Did you happen to catch the second day of the current first test against New Zealand, Richard? More classic McGrath, bowling with devastating brilliance on a flat wicket. He seems to have done a lot of work on his ability to reverse swing the ball as well, further helping his cause on such pitches.

tell him marc

 

[marc71178]

Did you quote the wrong passage aussie?

 

[Richard]

well u cant blame hyaden for them dropping catches but lets leave it at that for now on the anwar hayden debate

I don't, I blame Hayden for giving the chances that are dropped.
And I don't credit him for them dropping them.

 

[Richard]

Or maybe it indicates that they were nowhere near as good as you make them out to be?

No, Zimbabwe were the worst of the Test-nations.
No-one would say they were better than Pakistan.

 

[Richard]

Did this peak ever actually happen?

Yes.

 

[Richard]

How is it?

A great team will win games.

Hence this Australian team is rated is highly.

Your list of so-called better sides included a side that drew 2 and lost 3 of its 5 games as well as a team that was whitewashed by a side inferior to the current Australian side.

How exactly are these sides better then?

Because the players were better, even if in these particular instances they didn't play as if that was the case.

 

[Richard]

Did you happen to catch the second day of the current first test against New Zealand, Richard? More classic McGrath, bowling with devastating brilliance on a flat wicket. He seems to have done a lot of work on his ability to reverse swing the ball as well, further helping his cause on such pitches.

No, I didn't - might watch most of them on ICC Cricket World whenever it's next on.
We don't get New Zealand games here (unless England are touring, obviously).

 

[Richard]

Did you quote the wrong passage aussie?

No, he made a glaring mistake.
Funny, because he knows plenty of stuff that some don't but is equally capable of durrbrain comments and nonsensical passages.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, I didn't - might watch most of them on ICC Cricket World whenever it's next on.
We don't get New Zealand games here (unless England are touring, obviously).

'

Okay. Keep an eye out in particular for the inswinger which gets Astle lbw, and the outswinger which gets McMillan. The second in particlar might be of interest to you, since it followed the "inswinger-inswinger-inswinger-outswinger" pattern you like to talk about so much, but quite rarely happens. McMillan got accustomed to the ball coming into him, and the one which went away tempted him to play away from his body a fraction and caught the edge. Fantastic bowling.

The whole spell is worth watching actually, from when he got McMillan just before lunch and then ran through the last 5 wickets in an hour or so after it.

 

[Richard]

Well sadly I won't be able to - best I can do is read about it.
Interesting to hear about McGrath swinging the ball, though...

 

[Swervy]

Well sadly I won't be able to - best I can do is read about it.
Interesting to hear about McGrath swinging the ball, though...

its never stopped you making daft assertions about players before..so no problems really

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well sadly I won't be able to - best I can do is read about it.
Interesting to hear about McGrath swinging the ball, though...

I thought you saw his spell against Pakistan at the WACA? He consistently swung the ball throughout that. McGrath has never been a big swinger of the ball mind you, he concentrates more on moving it off the wicket and bowling an uncomfortable line and length, but recently he's made some adjustments to his action and delivery stride that have increased his ability to swing the ball, with good effect so far.

 

[Richard]

I know he's never been a big swinger, and yes, I know he swung the ball during that WACA match, otherwise I'd not have said he bowled well.
And that's why I said it's interesting that he's started swinging it more...

 

[Richard]

its never stopped you making daft assertions about players before..so no problems really

No, it's never stopped me making sensible assumptions before, and it won't do here, either.
If I adjudge McGrath has bowled well I'll adjudge so.

 

[marc71178]

Because the players were better, even if in these particular instances they didn't play as if that was the case.

Sorry, but last time I looked, Cricket was a team game, so the best team is the team that performs the best.

 

[marc71178]

No, he made a glaring mistake.
Funny, because he knows plenty of stuff that some don't but is equally capable of durrbrain comments and nonsensical passages.

And how do you know that he did that?

How can you answer a question I've asked of someone else about what they meant to do?