Will Shane Warne ever make a Century for Australia

[Sanz]

Warne's did score a Century against Bangladesh :- 20 1 112 0.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

o rly

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

He'd be disspointed in not converting his start in the second innings, I'd imagine. Only getting 28.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He'd be disspointed in not converting his start in the second innings, I'd imagine. Only getting 28.

Don't let that get in the way of the hilarious, hilarious comedy.

 

[Jono]

Don't let that get in the way of the hilarious, hilarious comedy.

Match figures 33.5, 3-144 is hilarious after all the crap he gave Bangladesh. Actually, as you said, its 'hilarious, hilarious comedy'.

I'd also like to know, in your view, if a Bangladesh top order wicket isn't worth much, how much is a Bangladeshi tail end wicket worth? 3 of them in fact.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd also like to know, in your view, if a Bangladesh top order wicket isn't worth much, how much is a Bangladeshi tail end wicket worth? 3 of them in fact.

I don't think it's worth much, but then Warne has hardly inflated his figures by taking 3 wickets @ 40.

I rate MacGill's 8 for 100 odd pretty highly though, given the situation in which he took them and how well Bangladesh were batting.

 

[Richard]

Still denying that they're improving then?

No, I'm still pointing-out that they're not.
They were supposedly improving in 2003, too.

 

[Richard]

What's wrong with that? They've played very well.

I expect Bangladesh will continue to struggle away from home, much like the other subcontinent nations (albeit moreso), but I think they've done enough to show that they can be quite competitive at home indeed. Consider that South Africa never gave Australia this much of a challenge across six tests.

No, but only twice were they ever annhailated.
The fact that Bangladesh have looked more like winning than South Africa ever did shows quite clearly that something has gone very badly wrong.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Did Warne really give Bangladesh that much? I mean, I know he questioned their credibility as a test nation, but then again, so did Ponting and I don't see you reaming him because his team were losing.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, but only twice were they ever annhailated.
The fact that Bangladesh have looked more like winning than South Africa ever did shows quite clearly that something has gone very badly wrong.

Bangladesh played well, Australia were worn-out and unmotivated at the start of the match, and they weren't adjusted properly to the conditions. That's all that "went wrong".

And regarding their efforts in 2003, they never got into a winning position against the best team in the world in 2003. Bangladesh have been visibly improving in Whatmore's time, particularly since the win over Zimbabwe. In the last 12 months or so, they've been consistently competitive. They've beaten 3 of the top 8 sides in ODIs, and recently pushed Sri Lanka fairly well in tests and backed it up by comprehensively winnings two days of a test against Australia. If you don't think that indicates some sort of noteworthy improvement, you're nuts.

 

[marc71178]

No, I'm still pointing-out that they're not.
They were supposedly improving in 2003, too.

So yes, you're still denying something that is fairly obvious to all and sundry,

 

[Richard]

If something is obvious to all-and-sundry because of a single Test-match, I pity all-and-sundry.

 

[Richard]

Bangladesh played well, Australia were worn-out and unmotivated at the start of the match, and they weren't adjusted properly to the conditions. That's all that "went wrong".

And regarding their efforts in 2003, they never got into a winning position against the best team in the world in 2003. Bangladesh have been visibly improving in Whatmore's time, particularly since the win over Zimbabwe. In the last 12 months or so, they've been consistently competitive. They've beaten 3 of the top 8 sides in ODIs, and recently pushed Sri Lanka fairly well in tests and backed it up by comprehensively winnings two days of a test against Australia. If you don't think that indicates some sort of noteworthy improvement, you're nuts.

Pushed Sri Lanka fairly well? Didn't get totally walloped by a second-string Sri Lanka, more like.
The win over Zimbabwe is clearly no watershed, as they were totally annhailated in England afterwards.
Apart from the fact that ODIs mean nothing to Tests, they've hardly made a convincing improvement there, either. Winning 2 games - against 2 under-strength (and quite possibly under-motivated) sides.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Pushed Sri Lanka fairly well? Didn't get totally walloped by a second-string Sri Lanka, more like.
The win over Zimbabwe is clearly no watershed, as they were totally annhailated in England afterwards.
Apart from the fact that ODIs mean nothing to Tests, they've hardly made a convincing improvement there, either. Winning 2 games - against 2 under-strength (and quite possibly under-motivated) sides.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "improvement"?

If you are very bad at something, and you become a little bit better at something but still aren't great, that is improvement. Understand?

In 2003, Bangladesh weren't regularly challenging or beating top 8 sides in ODIs, understrength or not. They are now. In 2003, Bangladesh weren't capable of dominating consecutive days of test cricket against the best team in the world. They did that this week.

The signs of improvement are so blatantly obvious that I can't possibly believe that you don't see them, you can only be acting as if you don't to save face on the forum or something. Using the loss to England as an example is hardly a good move, as Bangladesh had never played in England before, and clearly improved over the course of the two matches. You will note that I said earlier that Bangladesh are likely to be a competitive and challenging side for non-subcontinental tourists, not that they would go to England and beat them in a test series. Sri Lanka weren't competitive touring outside of the subcontinent in the early 90s either, but they were certainly "test class".

And for all your talk of "just one game", do you remember having the exact same discussion with people a few weeks ago? People recognised Bangladesh's improvement then too, there is just yet another even more obvious example for you to ignore.

 

[Jono]

No, but only twice were they ever annhailated.
The fact that Bangladesh have looked more like winning than South Africa ever did shows quite clearly that something has gone very badly wrong.

Yes, that South Africa are not a very good test team, and need to learn how to catch.

The fact that you're denying any improvement is disgraceful. You don't take a 150+ run first innings lead over the best in the world without improving.

 

[marc71178]

If something is obvious to all-and-sundry because of a single Test-match, I pity all-and-sundry.

There's only one person in need of pity here.

 

[GarethKeenan]

I doubt Warne will ever score a test century, unless it is in the next Ashes series, in fact I can't understand why he still bats as high as he does with that rubbish average and capacity to throw his wicket away at any time, he should be behind both Lee and Gillespie in the current side.

 

[Richard]

Do you understand the meaning of the word "improvement"?

If you are very bad at something, and you become a little bit better at something but still aren't great, that is improvement. Understand?

In 2003, Bangladesh weren't regularly challenging or beating top 8 sides in ODIs, understrength or not. They are now. In 2003, Bangladesh weren't capable of dominating consecutive days of test cricket against the best team in the world. They did that this week.

The signs of improvement are so blatantly obvious that I can't possibly believe that you don't see them, you can only be acting as if you don't to save face on the forum or something. Using the loss to England as an example is hardly a good move, as Bangladesh had never played in England before, and clearly improved over the course of the two matches. You will note that I said earlier that Bangladesh are likely to be a competitive and challenging side for non-subcontinental tourists, not that they would go to England and beat them in a test series. Sri Lanka weren't competitive touring outside of the subcontinent in the early 90s either, but they were certainly "test class".

And for all your talk of "just one game", do you remember having the exact same discussion with people a few weeks ago? People recognised Bangladesh's improvement then too, there is just yet another even more obvious example for you to ignore.

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.
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.

 

[Richard]

Yes, that South Africa are not a very good test team, and need to learn how to catch.

South Africa are a damn sight better than Bangladesh even factoring in the abysmal catching.

The fact that you're denying any improvement is disgraceful. You don't take a 150+ run first innings lead over the best in the world without improving.

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

 

[Richard]

There's only one person in need of pity here.

Self-seeking sympathy now?