This is UNF***ING BELIEVABLE

[WCE2000]

this is the best test i've ever seen.

7/135.

I told you's 150 could be enough to win this match.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[WCE2000]

Australia wicket.

India need 4, Australia need 2.

I can't believe what i am watching here. This is test match cricket at its very best.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[Visro]

Wasn't enough in the end

Vis

------------------
I was put on this Earth to complete a certain number of tasks. I am so far behind, I will never die...

 

[WCE2000]

#%&@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i can't believe that.

but how approriate Singh hit the winning run

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[WCE2000]

i thought 150 would be enough.

i was about 80% right.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[ptw]

so does this confirm that the West Indies of 1984 were a better side than Australia of 00/01 ?

I think so


ptw

 

[vanders]

i think we are better because the competition is stronger these days

 

[RogerC]

Vanders, you have got to be joking. We beat weak teams overseas (Zimbabwe? New Zealand?) And Pakistan and India at home (I can't recall the last time either team performed well overseas). And the weakest, most demoralised West Indian team in living memory. The West Indies team of the mid eighties won easily in India. 3-0. Against an Indian team boasting Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Armanath, Shastri, Kapil Dev, Kirmani, Sidhu. This Indian team (okay, with Singh, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dravid - but missing Srinath and Kumble) beat us 2-1. There is no comparison.

Hell, the competition is weaker these days, if anything. Certainly the West Indies and England are much weaker. New Zealand has never been the same after the departure of Hadlee and Crowe. Only the Australian side is measurably better, but not to the extent of comparing us with the mid-eighties West Indian team. No way.

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Originally posted by vanders:
i think we are better because the competition is stronger these days

its actually the opposite.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by RogerC:

Hell, the competition is weaker these days, if anything. Certainly the West Indies and England are much weaker.

There's no way that England are weaker now than in 1984, in 84 we lost 5-0 to the Windies with some particularly gutless displays-that side may have had more talent but this one actually has a backbone.

Overall it's a tough call as to whether the standard is better or worse-I'd say it's probably pretty similar.

 

[jod23]

All i want to do is put that whole Indian debacle behind us and kick some pommie butt.
Bring on the Ashes.

 

[Darky]

Australia and South Africa are the only strong teams. Some of the others can win at home, like India and the West Indies, but are a rablle when touring. The remaining teams are all piss-weak although England appear to be improving (based on their results). Definitely weaker opposition, and the Windies of the mid 80s would slaughter the current Aussie team.

 

[RogerC]

Dipper, I wouldn't go evaluating the mid eighties English team on that series alone. The same guys (virtually) went on to beat India in India a few months later. And the Windies were thrashing everyone in those days. I'd still rate a team that contains Gower, Botham, Broad, Lamb and Willis above the current team.

Actually, now I look at it, they also had Fowler, Cook, Cowans, Terry and Pocock, so you may have a point after all