Will Shane Warne ever make a Century for Australia

[marc71178]

Oh my god, that was almost funny.

It's taken him 20,162 posts, bit he's finally got halfway there.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What, prey, does a few weeks ago have to do with anything? If you're referring to Bangladesh's most recent Test - Sri Lanka (with about 4 unquestionably Test-class players) beat them comfortably by 10 wickets. Hardly much of an improvement.
Like I say - I don't really give a damn if Bangladesh are a fraction better than they were in 2001.

A few weeks ago is relevant because it is before the most recent test, indicating that people aren't just going "oh, Bangladesh were competitive against Australia, they must have improved". We noticed Bangladesh improving well before the current series, and said so, this is just further evidence.

Sri Lanka, incidentally, are still rarely that competetive outside the subcontinent - India have rarely been in their entire 75-year Test history.
Bangladesh are still nowhere close to looking like a Test-class side - same way they weren't despite those 2 Tests in 2003.

Right. And those teams are still "test class".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You do if the best Test side in The World plays absolutely abysmally.

Sorry, but did you actually watch the game? Australia didn't play "absolutely abysmally". They were a bit flat, sure, but until recently it didn't matter if you were a bit flat against Bangladesh, because they weren't good enough to take advantage of it. Bangladesh smashed Australia all over the place on the first day, and took advantage of the conditions perfectly (another thing they weren't capable of before), and then on the second day they bowled extremely well and Australia were completely shellshocked.

 

[Burpey]

Richard = a mole.


Quite adept at digging holes for himself.

 

[marc71178]

With a bit of luck he'll keep digging and end up down in Australia

 

[Richard]

A few weeks ago is relevant because it is before the most recent test, indicating that people aren't just going "oh, Bangladesh were competitive against Australia, they must have improved". We noticed Bangladesh improving well before the current series, and said so, this is just further evidence.

No, it's not. You were just lucky this happened now, as anyone who says something untrue then sees something which suggests they were right and then goes "see, told you so!" is.
The fact that things have returned to normal (and very probably will do for the rest of the next year or so) is evidence as such.

Right. And those teams are still "test class".

Err, yes, they are, because even India and Sri Lanka away are rarely if ever utterly obliterated the way Bangladesh were. Seriously, you'd be hard-pressed to miss the fact that England simply treated them as if the matches were totally pointless - which they were. It was just "let's get this rubbish over with as quickly as we can".

 

[Richard]

Sorry, but did you actually watch the game? Australia didn't play "absolutely abysmally". They were a bit flat, sure, but until recently it didn't matter if you were a bit flat against Bangladesh, because they weren't good enough to take advantage of it. Bangladesh smashed Australia all over the place on the first day, and took advantage of the conditions perfectly (another thing they weren't capable of before), and then on the second day they bowled extremely well and Australia were completely shellshocked.

Try a few other games - Bangladesh certainly were capable of taking advantage of flat opponents before. They certainly were on Test debut - they certainly were against Pakistan in 2003, they certainly were against England in 2003\04.
But it doesn't happen very often.

 

[aussie]

well the fact that Dizzy scored one i think he can, but he will need a fairly mediocre attack, he has missed his chance in BAN, maybe vs Zim next year, since most of the attacks for the major sides are getting it together.

 

[Son Of Coco]

With a bit of luck he'll keep digging and end up down in Australia

Hey!

Actually...we can have a room made up in one of the detention centres for him.

 

[Richard]

well the fact that Dizzy scored one i think he can, but he will need a fairly mediocre attack, he has missed his chance in BAN, maybe vs Zim next year, since most of the attacks for the major sides are getting it together.

That double-century has to rank as the most unlikely in history.
Even against such a weak attack, I'd never have believed Gillespie had it in him.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That double-century has to rank as the most unlikely in history.
Even against such a weak attack, I'd never have believed Gillespie had it in him.

No matter what you think of Bangladesh's attack, there's no way that Mortaza, Hossein (who actually bowled pretty well at times) and Rafique are any worse than your average second division county attack, and the idea of Gillespie scoring a double century for Yorkshire would have seemed absurd until today.

 

[Richard]

Where the hell did I say they were worse than your average second-division (or even first-division) English-domestic attack?
I rate Rafique on a turner very highly - Test-class, in fact. I also rate Mortaza on a seamer (albeit we don't really seem to have seen one of those this series). I said didn't I - I'd never have believed Gillespie had it in him to score a double-century, no matter how weak the attack. If you'd told me he'd come in as a nightywatchman this season and achieve even Hoggard's feat of late 2004, I'd have been rather surprsied - this I'd have thought "nah, no way" and I expect pretty much everyone else would have, too.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Where the hell did I say they were worse than your average second-division (or even first-division) English-domestic attack?
I rate Rafique on a turner very highly - Test-class, in fact. I also rate Mortaza on a seamer (albeit we don't really seem to have seen one of those this series). I said didn't I - I'd never have believed Gillespie had it in him to score a double-century, no matter how weak the attack. If you'd told me he'd come in as a nightywatchman this season and achieve even Hoggard's feat of late 2004, I'd have been rather surprsied - this I'd have thought "nah, no way" and I expect pretty much everyone else would have, too.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[Richard]

Mm? Didn't sound like it.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I read Faaip's post and didn't get the point of it. He agreed with Richard in a tone suggesting he didn't agree with him.

Weird

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Force of habit?

 

[roseboy64]

Could be.

 

[sirjeremy11]

I suspect for Warne to get a test hundred, Australia will have to have a terrible top order collapse, or be in quite a great deal of trouble, or for him to be night watchman. The first two are unlikely, as if you have Ponting, Hayden etc failing, the likelihood Warne will get 100 is very small.

And I suspect Australia may have found themselves a farily competent night watchman...

 

[Goughy]

No matter what you think of Bangladesh's attack, there's no way that Mortaza, Hossein (who actually bowled pretty well at times) and Rafique are any worse than your average second division county attack,

Disagree. Bangladesh are not quite comparable to a 1st class quality side in England. Not saying they never will be but they are not there yet.

EDIT: Just checked. 5th out of 9 in the 2nd division last year (ie average with 4 above and 4 below) was Essex.
List of some of their bowlers used last year. Pick your attack. Andre Nel, Gough, Tudor, Kaneria, G. Flower, Andre Adams, Dale Steyn, Bopara, Middlebrook

And out of interest, their batting included Alastair Cook, Andy Flower, James Foster, Grant Flower, Irani etc.

Given the choice of players Essex had play for them last year and what Bangladesh have on offer I know which I would pick.

Whilst Im here I may as well give my opinion on the question in the Thread Topic- Maybe. I hope so. Im not saying he deserves it but I would like to see it.

 

[wpdavid]

I suspect for Warne to get a test hundred, Australia will have to have a terrible top order collapse, or be in quite a great deal of trouble, or for him to be night watchman. The first two are unlikely, as if you have Ponting, Hayden etc failing, the likelihood Warne will get 100 is very small.
.

After what we saw last summer, you wouldn't bet against him making it in the next Ashes. There seems to be a psychological edge there - he's very confident against the English attack who, in turn, don't look at all confident against Warne once he's reached double figures.