Sport Today

by **CaraMi** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:29:37

Quote:

>>> To be able to succeed in I4 is a skill set, period. That blokes such
>>> as SRT and SRW don't possess it as much as some others doesn't
>>> necessarily = they're sooks.

>> Who called SRW a sook because of his 4th inning performance?

> I was replying the "Gutsy & mentally tough eh? Characteristics that
> you'd expect to show in the 4th innings of a match" bit.
> There was
> also a "Waugh was a sook as a player when things were not going his
> way" remark earlier in the thread.

If you read through the chain, he was called a sook for stuff he said
rather than stuff he did with the bat. I interpreted Jellore's remarks
also refer to stuff he said when he was player.

by **patty..** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:43:22

Quote:

> > >He also named the Australian side as the worse to ever contest the

> > >Ashes which is most probably true even through they haven't

> > >named it yet

> > Unfortunately there's something of a tradition of English cricket

> > writers/commentators doing that before almost every tour of England by

> > Australia, after which they proceed to beat us. For obvious reasons the

> > tradition lapsed in the 1990s, but it certainly happened in 1989.

> > --

> > John Hall

> Denied by some on this group ( I won't mention any names, I prefer to

> let stinking dogs lie). This is not the worst team ever to tour, 1912

> and 1985 are at least equally bad.

Wood
Hilditch
Wessel
Border
Boon
Ritchie
Phillips
McDermott
O'Donnell
Lawson
Thomson
Holland
Matthews
Wellham
Bennett
Gilbert

I'd put that squad up against the current shower any day.

I can't throw any more superlatives

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> or hyperbole than that, my apathy gene has just kicked in.

by **alve** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 05:05:25

Quote:

>>> He averages 45+ while Dhoni averages under 40. While I'm not, as you
>>> know, one for relying heavily on averages, that's a significant
>>> difference

>>difference to his overall average of 45+. But not as significant a
>>difference as the significant difference between that figure of Prior's and

>>a significant 50.2 v Eng/RSA/RotW. AND BAD'S NOT EVEN OUR #1 KEEPER. Matt
>>Wade will own Prior. Significantly.

> Priors last 2 innings against Aus were 85 and 118.

Don Bradman's last innings was 0.

by **alve** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 05:09:34

Quote:

>>> >He also named the Australian side as the worse to ever contest the

>>> >Ashes which is most probably true even through they haven't

>>> >named it yet

>>> Unfortunately there's something of a tradition of English cricket

>>> writers/commentators doing that before almost every tour of England by

>>> Australia, after which they proceed to beat us. For obvious reasons the

>>> tradition lapsed in the 1990s, but it certainly happened in 1989.

>>> --

>>> John Hall

>> Denied by some on this group ( I won't mention any names, I prefer to

>> let stinking dogs lie). This is not the worst team ever to tour, 1912

>> and 1985 are at least equally bad.

> Wood
> Hilditch
> Wessel
> Border
> Boon
> Ritchie
> Phillips
> McDermott
> O'Donnell
> Lawson
> Thomson
> Holland
> Matthews
> Wellham
> Bennett
> Gilbert

> I'd put that squad up against the current shower any day.

Interesting how that side and the current Team Harmony have so much NSW
dross in them. Dave Gilbert. lol.

alvey

by **alve** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 05:46:48

Quote:

>>> Why what? Or do you also think it's okay to call one of the most gutsy
>>> and mentally tough cricketers of his generation a sook?

>> Gutsy & mentally tough eh? Characteristics that you'd expect to show in the
>> 4th innings of a match.

>> SRW contempories 4th innings averages:

>> Hayen = 49.5
>> Langer = 40.5
>> Punter = 50.4
>> MEW = 41.0
>> Martyn = 27.2
>> Gilcrist = 35.4

>> SRW = 25.5. Fail.

>> alvey

> It's dodgy when one tries to link numerical success with attributes
> such as gutsiness or toughness.

But they are a measureable. Which is much better for mine than blind
opinion.

Quote:

> Allan Border averaged 34 in I4 but if
> you believe that either MEW or Langer were tougher than him because of
> their better figures, let's agree to disagree.

No no no no no.

As I've often said, AB is vastly under-rated as a contempory ATG because
his stats are not *quite* as good as others. But the reason for that is as
obvious as obvious can be. His career precisely spanned the period of the
WIPQ. And not only that, because of the Packer influence, Oz played them a
shedload. 31 Tests for AB. And then there were other *** fasties about
then; Haddlee, W & W, Imran, Kapil Dev, Willis & Botham et al. I'd be
fairly confident in asserting that AB faced more quality quicks than any
batsman in Test history. And for most of his time he wore a bullseye as his
team's only quality player. Jeez he had it tough.

In short, it's *really* dodgy when you try and statistically compare eras,
even overlapping ones. That's why I used SRW's contempories from the
(mostly) post AB period.

Quote:

> To be able to succeed in I4 is a skill set, period. That blokes such
> as SRT and SRW don't possess it as much as some others doesn't
> necessarily = they're sooks.

Agreed, however I was responding to your G & MT claim re Selfish Roger.

alvey

by **guyper** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 06:49:45

Quote:

> > > To be able to succeed in I4 is a skill set, period. That blokes such

> > > as SRT and SRW don't possess it as much as some others doesn't

> > > necessarily = they're sooks.

> > Who called SRW a sook because of his 4th inning performance?

> I was replying the "Gutsy & mentally tough eh? Characteristics that

> you'd expect to show in the 4th innings of a match" bit. There was

> also a "Waugh was a sook as a player when things were not going his

> way" remark earlier in the thread.

> Ramapriya

Wtf is a sook? Mumbai English?
Lol
Why do you Indians copy native English speakers? You are not??!

by **Jellor** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 07:04:19

Quote:

> >>> To be able to succeed in I4 is a skill set, period. That blokes such
> >>> as SRT and SRW don't possess it as much as some others doesn't
> >>> necessarily = they're sooks.

> >> Who called SRW a sook because of his 4th inning performance?

> > I was replying the "Gutsy & mentally tough eh? Characteristics that
> > you'd expect to show in the 4th innings of a match" bit.
> > There was
> > also a "Waugh was a sook as a player when things were not going his
> > way" remark earlier in the thread.

> If you read through the chain, he was called a sook for stuff he said
> rather than stuff he did with the bat. I interpreted Jellore's remarks
> also refer to stuff he said when he was player.

You have hit the nail on the head.

by **Mad Hamis** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 08:42:40

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 04:36:08 -0700 (PDT), eusebius

Quote:

>On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Mad Hamish

>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:00:45 -0700 (PDT), eusebius

>> >I'm not sure if you can sustainably make the argument that Prior is
>> >superior to Ames, although I note the 'probably' in Mike's initial
>> >statement.

>> If you look at what Ames managed against and in Australian Prior has a
>> pretty fair case.

>I think you'd have to say that Prior faced considerably weaker
>Australian bowling.

Australia in the 20s and 30s didn't exactly have a lot in the way of
good pace bowlers. (Wall was pretty decent in Australia, Nash was good
but iirc only played 1 test versus England, McCormick was variable)
2 of Australia's top 3 spinners

Ames averaged 27 with 1 100 in 17 tests versus Australia and 17 with
2 50s in 10 tests in Australia from 10 tests.

Ames'batting record at test level is based on making runs against NZ,
South Africa and the Windies.

Prior's worst record is versus RSA with an average of 33.50 and 5 50s
from 7 tests, his average in RSA is down, average 22 but that's on 1
series back in 2009-10
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

by **Mad Hamis** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 08:50:33

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:10:32 +0000, Mike Holmans

Quote:

>tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>>Tipped Australia to lose the Ashes series 12 nil even through they only
>>play 10 Tests :-)

>>Actually his big mistake is forgetting about the English weather

>>He also named the Australian side as the worse to ever contest the Ashes
>>which is most probably true even through they haven't named it yet

>>A quick summary :

>>England wins the top 3 batting positions by a landside

>>The next 3 are pretty even

>>Keeper batsman would also be pretty even if they pick Paine

>Prior is probably the best keeper-batsman in England's history and is
>obviously the best in the world at present. He's even the #7
>specialist bat in the rankings these days.

>There are two days' worth of light between Prior and any likely
>Australian candidate.

I'd consider Paine to be pushing him. Not as good with the bat but
significantly better with the gloves and is just coming off an
important performance in the Shield final.
He's got to be a chance after Haddin and Wade failed with bat and
gloves in India and after Wade's woeful performance with the gloves in
the last Australian summer.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

by **willsutto** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:04:00

Quote:

>>>> Unfortunately there's something of a tradition of English cricket
>>>> writers/commentators doing that before almost every tour of England by
>>>> Australia, after which they proceed to beat us. For obvious reasons the
>>>> tradition lapsed in the 1990s, but it certainly happened in 1989.

>>> The Daily Telegraph cricket book said (before the '89 series) that it could be looked forward to with "guarded pessimism" by England, noting that someone at some point would call this the worst Australian team ever to tour England, which would spur them on.

>> Allan Border (captain)
>> Geoff Marsh (vice captain)
>> Terry Alderman
>> David Boon
>> Greg Campbell
>> Ian Healy
>> Trevor Hohns
>> Merv Hughes
>> Dean Jones
>> Geoff Lawson
>> Tim May
>> Tom Moody
>> Carl Rackemann
>> Mark Taylor
>> Michael Veletta
>> Steve Waugh
>> Tim Zoehrer

>> Without doubt the batting strength of the 89 squad will lap the current
>> team.

>> But the pace bowling of the current team will be far superior but the
>> spin attack loses out badly

> Thank you for your latest drivel. Pace bowling far superior? Lawson
> wasn't at his best, but Alderman was an absolute master in English
> conditions. Alderman, Rackemann (who hardly played due to injury),
> Lawson and even Hughes were consistent bowlers, something the current
> crop and their coaches could do well to try to emulate (barring
> Siddle, who is pretty consistent, without being super penetrative.
> Still in English conditions, regardless of era, I would take Alderman
> over him any day). Spin attack loses badly? Lyons has improved and is
> hardly outshone by Hohns (although May became quite a reasonable
> performer, however he didn't play a test in 89)

you wouldnt know if someone bit you on your arse and thats very strange
as your head if firmaly planted there

Alderman was class but the rest .............................

As for spinners.... jeez, I think your shoulders have followed your head

by **D Ramapriy** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:22:14

Quote:

> > >>> To be able to succeed in I4 is a skill set, period. That blokes such
> > >>> as SRT and SRW don't possess it as much as some others doesn't
> > >>> necessarily = they're sooks.

> > >> Who called SRW a sook because of his 4th inning performance?

> > > I was replying the "Gutsy & mentally tough eh? Characteristics that
> > > you'd expect to show in the 4th innings of a match" bit.
> > > There was
> > > also a "Waugh was a sook as a player when things were not going his
> > > way" remark earlier in the thread.

> > If you read through the chain, he was called a sook for stuff he said
> > rather than stuff he did with the bat. I interpreted Jellore's remarks
> > also refer to stuff he said when he was player.

> You have hit the nail on the head.

I owe you (and the others for furthering a thread pointlessly) an
apology, then. I genuinely thought you meant "Waugh was a sook as a
player when..." to mean on-field temperament.

Ramapriya

by **alve** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:01:00

Quote:

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:10:32 +0000, Mike Holmans

>>tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>>>Tipped Australia to lose the Ashes series 12 nil even through they only
>>>play 10 Tests :-)

>>>Actually his big mistake is forgetting about the English weather

>>>He also named the Australian side as the worse to ever contest the Ashes
>>>which is most probably true even through they haven't named it yet

>>>A quick summary :

>>>England wins the top 3 batting positions by a landside

>>>The next 3 are pretty even

>>>Keeper batsman would also be pretty even if they pick Paine

>>Prior is probably the best keeper-batsman in England's history and is
>>obviously the best in the world at present. He's even the #7
>>specialist bat in the rankings these days.

>>There are two days' worth of light between Prior and any likely
>>Australian candidate.

> I'd consider Paine to be pushing him. Not as good with the bat but
> significantly better with the gloves and is just coming off an
> important performance in the Shield final.

I saw a fair bit of that game on Fox. It was depressing seeing just how
much better glovemen Paine & Hartley are than the Chosen Ones.

Quote:

> He's got to be a chance after Haddin and Wade failed with bat and
> gloves in India and after Wade's woeful performance with the gloves in
> the last Australian summer.

Paine should change his name to Buckley to match his away Arses chances. He
*might* get a gig next home series but unless there's an
injury/retirement/homework assignment episode he won't get a tour with Aus
this winter.

btw... From today's media, here's some of Clarke's astounding views & India
wrap;

"...we are only a couple of months removed from advancing to within one
Test match of taking the #1 Test ranking from South Africa."

"We picked a squad we thought was suited to Indian conditions..."

"Phil Hughes grew as an international batsman, Ed Cowan found a way to have
success in tough conditions and Steve Smith showed composure at the
crease."

He's mad.

alvey

by **Mad Hamis** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:46:34

Quote:

>Wood
>Hilditch
>Wessel
>Border
>Boon
>Ritchie
>Phillips
>McDermott
>O'Donnell
>Lawson
>Thomson
>Holland
>Matthews
>Wellham
>Bennett
>Gilbert

>I'd put that squad up against the current shower any day.

I don't think I would at the time they were playing that series.
If we could get them all at their peaks then yeah.

Wood and Hilditch were both low 30s average batsmen and Hilditch was
just starting his fatal fascination with the hook.
Kepler was probably better than anybody Australia currently has other
than Clarke.

Border is ahead of Clarke
Boon at that time was just starting in tests, he'd played 1 series
against the Windies and averaged 26.4, at the end of the 85 Ashes he
averaged 21.33 and his average didn't get above 35 until a year later,
it didn't get over 40 until 1988

Ritchie was telented but didn't seem to have the dedication and
commitment needed 30 tests 3 100s tells a bit of the story

Phillips was a similar story to Ritchie, looked good but didn't do
enough. Saying that it would have been a lot more sensible to keep him
as a specialist batsman than stick him behind the stumps.

McDermott was not the bowler he was 3 or 4 years later.

Lawson was a reasonable test bowler.

Thommo was well past it by 85.

Holland did nothing away from the SCG

As a bowler Matthews did very little at test level his batting was
moderate but not that good against the better sides

Wellham didn't do a lot at international level.

Bennett was not much of a bowler

Gilbert is in contention for the worst specialist bowler to play more
than 5 tests for Aus.

Clarke is ahead of everyone but Border

The current bowling attack is definately better (although it'd help if
they picked the right members of the attack for the conditions)
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

by **Jellor** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:29:13

Quote:

> > > >>> To be able to succeed in I4 is a skill set, period. That blokes such
> > > >>> as SRT and SRW don't possess it as much as some others doesn't
> > > >>> necessarily = they're sooks.

> > > >> Who called SRW a sook because of his 4th inning performance?

> > > > I was replying the "Gutsy & mentally tough eh? Characteristics that
> > > > you'd expect to show in the 4th innings of a match" bit.
> > > > There was
> > > > also a "Waugh was a sook as a player when things were not going his
> > > > way" remark earlier in the thread.

> > > If you read through the chain, he was called a sook for stuff he said
> > > rather than stuff he did with the bat. I interpreted Jellore's remarks
> > > also refer to stuff he said when he was player.

> > You have hit the nail on the head.

> I owe you (and the others for furthering a thread pointlessly) an
> apology, then. I genuinely thought you meant "Waugh was a sook as a
> player when..." to mean on-field temperament.

> Ramapriya

No need to apologise, it was probably my error in the first place. I
never intended to suggest that SRW was a sook as a player. Check out
his famous contest with Ambrose for starters.

by **eusebiu** » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:52:45

Quote:

> > > >He also named the Australian side as the worse to ever contest the

> > > >Ashes which is most probably true even through they haven't

> > > >named it yet

> > > Unfortunately there's something of a tradition of English cricket

> > > writers/commentators doing that before almost every tour of England by

> > > Australia, after which they proceed to beat us. For obvious reasons the

> > > tradition lapsed in the 1990s, but it certainly happened in 1989.

> > > --

> > > John Hall

> > Denied by some on this group ( I won't mention any names, I prefer to

> > let stinking dogs lie). This is not the worst team ever to tour, 1912

> > and 1985 are at least equally bad.

> Wood
> Hilditch
> Wessel
> Border
> Boon
> Ritchie
> Phillips
> McDermott
> O'Donnell
> Lawson
> Thomson
> Holland
> Matthews
> Wellham
> Bennett
> Gilbert

> I'd put that squad up against the current shower any day.

Yeah, even if some of those players went on to do good things (and
Border is a better player than Clarke overall) I would say that 1985
were worse. Boon had a very poor series, and Thomson was only a shadow
of his former self. If this crop play as poorly as the 1985 team, then
5-0 is almost an inevitability, though. 1985 is just about the base
level (remember they had quite a few defections to a rebel team)

Sport Today

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian

Nice one Ian