Quote:
> > > > http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/210813.html
> > > > "Bill Brown, Australia's oldest former Test player, believes Ricky
> > > > Ponting's side can copy the unbeaten record of the 1948 Invincibles.
> > > > Brown played the last two of his 22 Tests on the tour led by Don
> > > > Bradman, and said the current team had the talent not to lose any of
> > > > its 23 matches."
> > > > Well, that prediction certainly stood up nicely, didn't it?
> > > 20/20 doesn't count.Aus still has a chance for that record.
> > Any match that Australia loses will somehow not count.
> > Higgs
> Such records, by definition, say quite as much about the opponents
> conceding them and the contexts in which the games were played as the
> quality of the touring side. Anything can be a "record" if it's
> sufficiently narrowly defined. Whether it's meaningful in all the
> contexts which sports people take seriously is quite another thing.
> Cricket in England in 1948 was not at its high point, for any number of
> reasons, the war prominently amongst them, and if the current FC scene
> in England was not more competitive than then I'd be very surprised.
Oh I broadly agree.
The 1948 team was obviously very well credentialed, but the truth is
that the opposition was not as potent as it might have been, and as you
say, the war played a big part in that. It's interesting to contrast
the approaches to the games of Bradman and Miller. One having fought in
the war, one having spent it in the (relative) safety and comfort of
Australia.
But, yes, you can make anything a 'record' if you want to.
But as Mike pointed out, Brown has specified the 23 games of the tour,
which obviously had to include this 20/20 game, joke/bizarre
incarnation that those matches may be.
Going by previous experience, had any English pundit been silly enough
to make some sort of prediction about the outcome of results that were
all too quickly proven incorrect, the gloating on this group would be
deafening.
As you may have noticed, there aren't too many posters around today.
Expect them to turn out in droves as soon as Australian starts winning
(which wont be too far away, IMO), and belittling any comments that
English posters have made. Mike will attract a fair amount of stick for
his comments here (and some might say he deserves it)
Higgs
Quote:
> And as we all know being "invincible" in cricket is not at all the same
> as winning all your games. Trying to manufacture wins in circumstances
> where there is a very substantial risk of loss provides entertainment
> and challenge way beyond a stale draw. A side that plays very well and
> pushes for the win in every case where there is a palpable chance, but
> is defeated in two or three close contests where they could easily have
> drawn is not inferior to a side that takes the easy option and turns
> the match into batting practice and finishes a tour undefeated,
> particularly if the more aggressive side faced better credentialled and
> performed opposition in the games they lost.
> I think England will be more competitive this tour than at any time in
> the last 12 years. I do expect (and hope) that England will win *at
> least* one test and go close in another. Accordingly, if Australia wins
> by more than one test they will have done reasonably well.
> Fran
by