Remove this Banner Ad

Amazon's "The Test"

  • Thread starter Thread starter workhorse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

BronCrow said:
Yes of course they do. They play in a team that wins more often, therefore that should make them better. Against weaker opposition though.

Before you go any further, please remove Sehwag and Gambhir from that list. Sehwag at his best was brilliant, but didn't produce it often enough. Gambhir also is not good enough to be lumped in with the others. I also think that Ganguly is debatable. Best captain they have had for a long time, but no better than anyone in the current team.

Whilst Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman were all better players individually, they played in a team that had nowhere near the same success. Came close to winning here in 03/04, but that was as close as they got. Were a wonderful team at home, but terrible away. A better version of the current day Australian team.



Yes, test cricket in the 90's was frankly of a better standard than today, as was test cricket 15 years ago. This very much my argument. I am comfortable in making that argument.

A case in point. Australia retained the Ashes last year in England. We lost the Ashes in England in 2005, yet I could only make an argument for Smith and Cummins being in the 2005 team.
Click to expand...
There were some quite awful cricketers getting Test matches in the 90s. Robelinda's YouTube channel has a plethora of evidence of it. It's a classic case of the cricket you grew up watching will always be the best cricket.

Also I really hope you understand why your case in point has massive holes in it. If not I'm happy to go through some cases where the exact opposite is true.
 
corbies said:
There were some quite awful cricketers getting Test matches in the 90s. Robelinda's YouTube channel has a plethora of evidence of it. It's a classic case of the cricket you grew up watching will always be the best cricket.

Also I really hope you understand why your case in point has massive holes in it. If not I'm happy to go through some cases where the exact opposite is true.
Click to expand...

even the West Indies side you could argue has a better or at least more rounded attack now than it did when it was Walsh, Ambrose, and any one of half a dozen gap fillers like Pedro Collins, Reon King, Franklin Rose, Corey Collymore, Merv Dillon, Jermaine Lawson, Kerry Jeremy etc
 
corbies said:
There were some quite awful cricketers getting Test matches in the 90s. Robelinda's YouTube channel has a plethora of evidence of it. It's a classic case of the cricket you grew up watching will always be the best cricket.

Also I really hope you understand why your case in point has massive holes in it. If not I'm happy to go through some cases where the exact opposite is true.
Click to expand...
Of course there were awful cricketers. I don't need to watch it on youtube, I watched it at the time. There have been terrible players in all generations. This applies to all sports. That does not change what I am saying.

Believe me, I could make holes in any argument you have too. You could just agree to disagree with me and leave it at that. I doubt you are any more of an expert on this subject than I or anyone else.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

BronCrow said:
Stokes?

You could do better than Geraint Jones behind the stumps.

Broad?
Click to expand...

Flintoff!!!

Yeah but Bairstow and Buttler are not!

Our pace bowling attack was pretty damn good so he wouldn’t fit in. It’d be between him and Harmison but without Broads bunny Davey, I’d probably stick with Harmy!
 
the issue in that sort of hypothetical is do you count the series or the career. if you're only looking at the series, well ok, you probably do keep the attack, overlooking anderson and broad, although Archer would have a fair shout, but then you woudn't keep Bell coz he wasn't the Ian Bell of 2010/11 and 2013, so you would end up making at least one change. whereas if you do the opposite, bell's place isn't in in doubt but anderson and broad surely come in
 
eddiesmith said:
Flintoff!!!

Yeah but Bairstow and Buttler are not!

Our pace bowling attack was pretty damn good so he wouldn’t fit in. It’d be between him and Harmison but without Broads bunny Davey, I’d probably stick with Harmy!
Click to expand...
I could probably find room for both Flintoff and Stokes. Bell would probably come out.

Would have Bairstow comfortably ahead of Jones.

Would also have Broad ahead of Harmison. Harmison was great that series, but I felt underwhelmed otherwise, especially against Australia.
 
I watched it all yesterday. As an England fan the most interesting bits for me were seeing the Aussies in defeat but I must admit the whole thing was engrossing. The reaction of the players when Stokes was doing his Headingley thing, i.e. 'He'll hit one down someone's throat sooner or later', suggests the lack of a plan, which would also explain why Paine didn't seem to understand what was going on. My favourite bit though was when Langer said of having Ponting around in the nets "it's like having read 100 self-help books." I thought, **** me JL you probably have. I've never seen someone with so much passion and intensity talk so much waffle. Ponting seemed to be the only one in the entire set up who was actually giving practical advice. I was impressed with Mitch Marsh's irrepressible good spirits, Aaron Finch's honesty and and vulnerability, and Pat Cummins' intelligence. I must say I also admired Khawaja's determination to speak his mind, while the others just stared at their shoes. Didn't like Saker and Haddin, but to be fair never have: they seemed like relics of the previous mindset.
 
eddiesmith said:
And not a single English player from last year would make the 2005 team!
Click to expand...

Think there's a bit too much reminiscing about the past there. I'd argue 5 potential changes. Root for Bell, Leach in for Giles, Archer/Broad and Stokes in for Harmison and Hoggard and despite Bairstow and Buttlers flaws I'd still argue they're both a better option that Jones.

Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Root, Pietersen, Stokes, Flintoff, Buttler/Bairstow, Archer/Broad, Leach, Jones
 

Remove this Banner Ad

A Pom said:
Think there's a bit too much reminiscing about the past there. I'd argue 5 potential changes. Root for Bell, Leach in for Giles, Archer/Broad and Stokes in for Harmison and Hoggard and despite Bairstow and Buttlers flaws I'd still argue they're both a better option that Jones.

Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Root, Pietersen, Stokes, Flintoff, Buttler/Bairstow, Archer/Broad, Leach, Jones
Click to expand...

There is no way you would bring in Stokes for Hoggard, it was the swing bowling that undid Australia in 2005 and Hoggard was vital to that. Its Stokes or Flintoff, not both. Picking too many all rounders is why we were shit in the past!

But its once again do you consider career records or performances in that series? Because on recent history, Root isn't replacing anyone.

As for keepers, Bairstow and Buttler were horrendous last year.
 
Just finished it! Loved it! Can’t wait for the next series, and I’ll go a ooh aah Glenn McGrath cleansweep for the mighty Aussies!
 
Would've like a bit more on the Ashes and less on meaningless ODIs but it was a relevant story arc showing the team come from low to high.

I actually didn't mind Khawaja's part. The 'no one tells me what to do' was irritating but other than that he was an interesting person in the team. The premise of the show was built around the evolution of culture and team building. Khawaja made a pretty fair point when he said bonding is great and all but if you have a skilled team you're good and when you don't, you're no good. Despite the importance the doco placed on culture, pretty much none of the team's improvement came from players developing in the system. Smith came back and killed it. Marnus came from no where and killed it. The ODI team that got pumped in the England series didn't have any of Warner, Smith, Maxwell, Carey, Cummins, Starc or Zampa - all pretty clear members of the best XI. We were always going to get pumped then. A doco that banged on about selection and injury/resting players wouldn't be quite as appealing to some of course, so the culture thing made sense.

I really do like Paine and he came across well but time hasn't healed the mistakes he made. His bowling first craze in the Ashes was costly - probably of a series win. His review debacle and Stokes fields were obviously wrong but I can forgive them as pressure moments. The rogue bowl first call i struggle to fathom.

There were plenty of positives though.

As noted by others, Mitch Marsh came across as a legend. Was nice to see Langer mellow. His inclusive leadership style with bringing in Ponting, Waugh etc is good. I didn't get any tactical genius vibes from him so it's important that he has a good team. He clearly has the respect of the team and I think he seems like a pretty rational guy. Lyon was fantastic. He is clearly a crucial member of the team, on and off the field. The more years he hangs around for, the better.

The positive tone the doco ended on is backed up by the summer the team had. It really is in a good place now. Labuschagne changes the dynamic of the team. We still have a batting issue away from home but two reliable guns is a lot better than one.
 
tomsimpkin31 said:
The ODI team that got pumped in the England series didn't have any of Warner, Smith, Maxwell, Carey, Cummins, Starc or Zampa - all pretty clear members of the best XI. We were always going to get pumped then.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Saker says in one of the coaching meetings that "the skill just isn't there".
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Cleavy said:
tvtonight.com.au

Airdate: The Test | TV Tonight

Seven to screen sports doco on how the Australian team rebounded from the 2018 ball-tampering scandal.
tvtonight.com.au tvtonight.com.au

not sure how you can cram 8 eps into a 2 hour version (incl ads)...
Click to expand...

It put me to sleep but it seemed they crammed the losses into about 20 minutes, skipped the World Cup and mostly focused on Smith and the Ashes?
 
It missed the entire one day series in India which seemed like a real turning point in the teams trajectory for me. The belief in the team after coming back to win that series really began to grow on that little tour.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Gough
    • Like
  • Poll Poll
Test The Ashes Fifth Test January 4-8 1000hrs @ The SCG
438 439 440 441 442
Replies
11K
Views
170K
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
Gough
    • Like
  • Poll Poll
Test The Ashes Fourth Test December 26-30 1000hrs @ The MCG
346 347 348 349 350
Replies
9K
Views
135K
Lunchtime
Lunchtime
Gough
    • Love
  • Poll Poll
Test The Ashes Second Test December 4-8 1430hrs @ The Gabba
397 398 399 400 401
Replies
10K
Views
172K
Bedi
Bedi
Gough
    • Like
  • Poll Poll
Test The Ashes Third Test December 17-21 1000hrs @ The Adelaide Oval
445 446 447 448 449
Replies
11K
Views
190K
RookiePick
RookiePick
Gough
    • Like
  • Poll Poll
Test The Ashes First Test November 21-25 1300hrs @ Perth Stadium
325 326 327 328 329
Replies
8K
Views
138K
cats_09
cats_09
Gough
  • Poll Poll
Openers for the first Test
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
RookiePick
RookiePick
Jascave
    • Like
Pick the Australian and England teams for the 150th Anniversary Test in March 2027 at the MCG
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
2K
Around the Wicket
A

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom