View Full Version : The Ashes can kiss my ringpiece
NMFC ALWAYS
6 Mar 2009, 16:55
Playing and beating South Africa is the best thing for Australian cricket
The two best teams in the world going hammer and tongs
I hate these Saffies like i hate Hawthorn supporters ( they're all gay )
Thoughts ???????
Playing and beating South Africa is the best thing for Australian cricket
The two best teams in the world going hammer and tongs
I hate these Saffies like i hate Hawthorn supporters ( they're all gay )
Thoughts ???????
When are SA playing India ?
NMFC ALWAYS
6 Mar 2009, 17:08
When are SA playing India ?
Winning only test matches at home doesn't qualify India for top rankings
They are poo away from their sand pitches ( Kinda like your footy team against mine )
roostersgal4eva
6 Mar 2009, 17:21
I agree with you compleatly
AUS vs Saffies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ashes anyday!
NMFC ALWAYS
6 Mar 2009, 17:25
I agree with you compleatly
AUS vs Saffies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ashes anyday!
Convict power :thumbsu: , the Poms are no match for us in any circumstance
When are SA playing India?
India have always (or nearly always) maintained an impeccable home record. They've always had sides with a substantial amount of talent and they've always relied heavily on Sachin Tendulkar. I don't see how this has changed, aside from them winning a bit more recently (except in Sri Lanka, where they were mauled). Sure, they thumped Australia in India, but they did the same thing in 1998, too.
They've already lost Kumble (one of their greatest bowlers) and Ganguly (merely a good batsman). I know that Dravid has been below his best for a long while, but his overall record will take some replacing. The retirements of Laxman and obviously Tendulkar will hurt, too.
With regards to their current run of form, I feel like I've seen it all before (like the 2003/04 period, for instance)...which means their decline (especially after the retirements of the remaining three batsmen) is inevitable, if only for a little while. They've been like that over the past decade (decline, form spike, decline, form spike). They're not definitively #2.
DT_fanatic
7 Mar 2009, 00:22
India have always (or nearly always) maintained an impeccable home record. They've always had sides with a substantial amount of talent and they've always relied heavily on Sachin Tendulkar. I don't see how this has changed, aside from them winning a bit more recently (except in Sri Lanka, where they were mauled). Sure, they thumped Australia in India, but they did the same thing in 1998, too.
They've already lost Kumble (one of their greatest bowlers) and Ganguly (merely a good batsman). I know that Dravid has been below his best for a long while, but his overall record will take some replacing. The retirements of Laxman and obviously Tendulkar will hurt, too.
With regards to their current run of form, I feel like I've seen it all before (like the 2003/04 period, for instance)...which means their decline (especially after the retirements of the remaining three batsmen) is inevitable, if only for a little while. They've been like that over the past decade (decline, form spike, decline, form spike). They're not definitively #2.
The only reason we were mauled in Lanka was because of one freak spinner. Sehwag gets on top of him in the second test and we end up winning that quite easily.
There are two differences in this team compared to the one in 03/04 - this time around we actually have a decent pace bowling attack that will be very, very potent in English and South African conditions and a keeper who is competent at both keeping and batting. Indian teams of the past have always relied on the batsmen getting them through and winning them games but that's not the case anymore. Also helps having a coach that is more John Wright than Greg Chappell.
Losing Kumble and Ganguly hasn't meant a whole lot. Like you said, Ganguly was merely a good batsman, great record, but he can be replaced. As for Kumble, well he was averaging 50 over his last year and was ineffective in Lanka - he was starting to become more of a liability than an asset. Mishra replaces him for the second test in the Australian series and suddenly we're a much better side and go on to win that test. Losing VVS will be the same as losing Ganguly, again, a good batsman who can be replaced.
For me, Dravid and Tendulkar will be the major losses, even though the former has been going through a prolonged form slump, I don't think we have a #3 ready to go at the moment and until we find one we need to hang on to Dravid for as long as possible. Luckily both him (doesn't play ODIs anymore) and Tendulkar (picks and chooses what he plays depending on fitness/future commitments) should be around for atleast a couple more years, more than enough time to guide the youngsters and help us aim and possibly attain that #1 test position.
It's a shame we aren't playing Aus or the Saffers (especially them) in a test series any time soon. It doesn't look like the Saffers are going to be getting that #1 spot and I don't think Australia with their weak (yes - Hilfy and Siddle will be harmless on good batting decks; don't get me started on McDonald; still haven't resolved the spinner's issue) bowling attack could be conclusively viewed as the #1 team either. If India got to play either side away or at home I'd be pretty confident of winning.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
7 Mar 2009, 00:50
I'd be more worried about NZ to be honest mate.
I reckon they might give your mob a nice little touch up in the tests.
First time i saw Zaheer Khan bowl half decently in that series late last year. For what it's worth i don't think his a great bowler, just steady. Sharma is a very good prospect but his currently injured i believe. Even then, he is still young.
As far as im concerned India beat their chest a lot but never really do much. They beat an understrength Australian side at home, great effort but it's not enough to make them #1. They have to show they can win away from home and they are yet to do that.
WHo can forget their poor performance in the 2007 World Cup.
I'd be more worried about NZ to be honest mate.
I reckon they might give your mob a nice little touch up in the tests.
Well provided they actually get out on the park :rolleyes:
Seriously, without the rain, I think NZ will get a lot closer to India than many people think.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
7 Mar 2009, 01:01
I hope they do.
Put India back in their place.
The only reason we were mauled in Lanka was because of one freak spinner. Sehwag gets on top of him in the second test and we end up winning that quite easily.
Yeah, don't forget that you guys were outbatted, as well. Murali also had a substantial impact. If not for Sehwag's exploits, you guys may well've been whitewashed.There are two differences in this team compared to the one in 03/04 - this time around we actually have a decent pace bowling attack that will be very, very potent in English and South African conditions and a keeper who is competent at both keeping and batting.
From what I recall, in 2003/04 the Indians had two promising up-and-comers - Pathan and Balaji. After bowling well for a brief period, both faded. Sharma is markedly more talented than those two, but Zaheer Khan is a thoroughly overrated bowler - when not playing against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh or in swing-friendly conditions, his record suffers. Granted, he has improved over the years, but that's because he used to suck when not playing on utter greentops. You're right about the wicket-keeping, though.
Indian teams of the past have always relied on the batsmen getting them through and winning them games but that's not the case anymore. Also helps having a coach that is more John Wright than Greg Chappell.
I'm not convinced of this.
Losing Kumble and Ganguly hasn't meant a whole lot. Like you said, Ganguly was merely a good batsman, great record, but he can be replaced. As for Kumble, well he was averaging 50 over his last year and was ineffective in Lanka - he was starting to become more of a liability than an asset. Mishra replaces him for the second test in the Australian series and suddenly we're a much better side and go on to win that test. Losing VVS will be the same as losing Ganguly, again, a good batsman who can be replaced.
I do feel that Laxman is actually somewhat better than Ganguly, myself. Both Ganguly and Laxman are replacable, true, but I think that losing Kumble will hurt more than it would seem initially, despite a poor last year.
As for Mishra, I don't think he'll be as good as Kumble was. Sure, he's done well thus far, but he's only played at home. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a large discrepancy between his home and away performances. Too many Indian spinners (most notably Narendra Hirwani) suffer from this.
For me, Dravid and Tendulkar will be the major losses, even though the former has been going through a prolonged form slump, I don't think we have a #3 ready to go at the moment and until we find one we need to hang on to Dravid for as long as possible. Luckily both him (doesn't play ODIs anymore) and Tendulkar (picks and chooses what he plays depending on fitness/future commitments) should be around for atleast a couple more years, more than enough time to guide the youngsters and help us aim and possibly attain that #1 test position.
Guide the batsmen, perhaps (although I do think that the Indian team still relies too much on Tendulkar), but not the bowlers, who are required to take 20 wickets. Overseas, with a condition-reliant bowler and a young talent, with a couple of home-loving spinners in tow, I'm not convinced of India's ability to do this. Remember, wickets win matches.
It's a shame we aren't playing Aus or the Saffers (especially them) in a test series any time soon. It doesn't look like the Saffers are going to be getting that #1 spot and I don't think Australia with their weak (yes - Hilfy and Siddle will be harmless on good batting decks; don't get me started on McDonald; still haven't resolved the spinner's issue) bowling attack could be conclusively viewed as the #1 team either. If India got to play either side away or at home I'd be pretty confident of winning.
I feel that South Africa are more likely to attain that #1 ranking than India, TBH. Unfortunately, I agree that Australia's position as #1 is tenuous. While Hilfenhaus probably will be not much more than restrictive on a good deck, I'm not sure whether that applies to Siddle and Johnson. Siddle has bowled some fiery spells on good pitches (like in Melbourne, for instance) but is inconsistent.
Chops_a_must
7 Mar 2009, 01:31
Laxman is not replaceable IMO.
Easily the most under rated part of the Indian team, by a mile I would say, and probably just about the most under rated batsman in world cricket in this era.
I'd rate him second only to Tendulkar in that line up - he's just been hidden by the hype and ego of some of the others.
Laxman is not replaceable IMO.
Easily the most under rated part of the Indian team, by a mile I would say, and probably just about the most under rated batsman in world cricket in this era.
I'd rate him second only to Tendulkar in that line up - he's just been hidden by the hype and ego of some of the others.
He averages around 45. Very good, but not irreplacable - not for India, anyway.
Laxman is not replaceable IMO.
Easily the most under rated part of the Indian team, by a mile I would say, and probably just about the most under rated batsman in world cricket in this era.
I'd rate him second only to Tendulkar in that line up - he's just been hidden by the hype and ego of some of the others.
Laxman was god against Australia, but he has been relatively average against other countries, which is an anamoly really.
Chops_a_must
7 Mar 2009, 01:48
Laxman was god against Australia, but he has been relatively average against other countries, which is an anamoly really.
I know his average doesn't compare to the others, but that is another story.
He is more important than his average suggests. A clutch player, who wins matches off his own bat and performs when is most needed. Done it against other countries, not just us. That's much more important in my eyes than numbers on a page. You can't buy that.
NMFC ALWAYS
7 Mar 2009, 02:04
Dale Steyn throws pies
Anyone else believe that Siddle has really messed this pretty boy up ?
Had a lot to say with ball in hand until he strode out to the wicket to bat the other day , coward of the highest order
NMFC ALWAYS
7 Mar 2009, 02:06
In conclusion , South Africans suck , whether that be at sport or just being people in general
I'm a fan of Boucher and Ntini , but the rest are a bunch of bat sucking dogs
Go Aussies
When are SA playing India ?
1 - Australia - 38 - 4777 -126
2 - South Africa -41 - 4951 - 121
3 - India - 43 - 5071 - 118
1 - South Africa - 34 - 4245 - 125
2 - Australia - 37 - 4573 - 124
3 - India - 47 - 5704 - 121
Not in the best two, but they are a close third... twice.
The South Africans are a heck of a lot better than the Indian team. I would prefer them to be no.1 than India, whose board pretty much runs cricket these days.
Bomber Bears
7 Mar 2009, 04:59
Ashes is my favourite. The last and current Saffer series have been good but you'd have to go back to 97/98 when there was another good series. Usually we just humilate the saffers.
Let's face it. The Poms need the Ashes far more than we do.
The Ashes is so far ahead of any cricket contest for me.
Nothing comes close. Regardless of result/team quality, it's got the history that no other cricket (and potentially sporting) contest does.
japaljarri
7 Mar 2009, 15:27
The Ashes is so far ahead of any cricket contest for me. Nothing comes close. Regardless of result/team quality, it's got the history that no other cricket (and potentially sporting) contest does.
l agree. There is nothing quite as satisfying as an away Ashes win. The context/history places it as the pre-eminent contest in Australian cricket.
TheColeTrain
8 Mar 2009, 11:13
The Ashes are great, but to beat South Africa away (which is looking very very likely) after they took us at home and the cricket world claimed it was a changing of the guard is about as satisfying as it gets.
South Africa is also a good team, England is average at best
japaljarri
8 Mar 2009, 11:43
If we win this tour in SA l will have it as my most enjoyable wins away along with Ashes 89 and when Marto stroked us to victory in India. But as a generic series whole the Ashes away is just magic.
The Ashes are great, but to beat South Africa away (which is looking very very likely) after they took us at home and the cricket world claimed it was a changing of the guard is about as satisfying as it gets.
South Africa is also a good team, England is average at best
But that's not really the issue.
If South Africa were a mediocre mid-rankings side in 2020, no one would care that much about the series.
If England were in the same position, the series would still be built up as bigger than Ben Hur.
South Africa is just the flavour of the week (months/years). Just like India was 6 months ago.
The Ashes will always be bigger, more important, and hold a greater place in Australian cricket.
Kids grow up wanting to play in an Ashes series. Especially an away series. That's the way it's always been, that's the way it will always be.
Tripwire
8 Mar 2009, 15:35
Who would you rather flog?
The Poms or the Saffers?
The Reaper
8 Mar 2009, 15:43
Who would you rather flog?
The Poms or the Saffers?
I think it is better to ask this
If for some reason Australia were to not beat a team in a series for ten years, who would you prefer it to be against?
South Africa or England?
I think it is better to ask this
If for some reason Australia were to not beat a team in a series for ten years, who would you prefer it to be against?
South Africa or England?
England, but that's not the case is it?
The situation is, South Africa are the first team to beat us on home soil in a test series in a very long time. They also dominated the ODI's. It's a fight for the #1 test position.
There is so much writing on this series that makes it so important.
With that said, I'm living in England.. We better win the damn ashes.