Lets go on an ego trip

[Beny]

I'm confused about the whole Van Dimens Land thing-Modern day Tasmania. The Dutch are known to have landed in WA...In other words a bloody big dust bowl. You'll have to excuse my ignaorance but I can't stand Aussie history. I just simply dont care about the gold rush.

Originally Posted by Ern

So you see Beny Freddie is gearing up to mash the Aussies

So what's you're point... Is Freddie going to take 20 wickets and score 700 runs?

However judging by the fact brett lee is by far the best aussie seamer coming through we'd **** it against a aussie second 11.

I'd take him over Anderson. Our Aussie 2nd XI batting line up would still be better than yours.

BTW Had the pleasure of watching Greame Smith's double ton the other night.

[Beny]

Nope. We are the only team with four. The reason why it is significant is your are basing the fact you are going to thrash on the fact that you just carted New Zeland with one Test bowler in the top twenty. I am not disputin the fact that currently the Aussies are a better team, what I am saying is it will not be the same as the ususual thrashing.

England beat NZ and all of a sudden they should be number 1? I'm just being logical.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

I'm confused about the whole Van Dimens Land thing-Modern day Tasmania. The Dutch are known to have landed in WA...In other words a bloody big dust bowl. You'll have to excuse my ignaorance but I can't stand Aussie history. I just simply dont care about the gold rush.

Now I am confused Occasional fan wrote this!!, I thought you liked history.

Originally Posted by Beny

So what's you're point... Is Freddie going to take 20 wickets and score 700 runs?

The post was a bit tounge in cheek, but 20 wickets in 10 innings, I would think so, 700 run, that would mean an average of 70, could be done, but 500+ is more realistic, maybe not the plus

Originally Posted by Beny

I'd take him over Anderson. Our Aussie 2nd XI batting line up would still be better than yours.

confused again, you answered RBLC this time, but on your mention of your 2nd X1, I should coco

Originally Posted by Beny

BTW Had the pleasure of watching Greame Smith's double ton the other night.

On his day, he can be as good as anyone in the world, but he has a bad temprement, and that is what lets him down, lots of players have scored the odd 200+

[Beny]

Originally Posted by Ern

Now I am confused Occasional fan wrote this!!, I thought you liked history.

Ohh I love it. Just not Aussie History . Eruopean history, Greek hisotry, Roman, South American e.c.t But Aussie history is the most boaring subject I've ever had to study. Possibly more to do the teacher than the subject but either way I was turned off it compleatly.

Originally Posted by Ern

The post was a bit tounge in cheek, but 20 wickets in 10 innings, I would think so, 700 run, that would mean an average of 70, could be done, but 500+ is more realistic, maybe not the plus

I mean in one match. Bob Woolmer has just said that is the minimum needed to beat us.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Beny

So what's you're point... Is Freddie going to take 20 wickets and score 700 runs?

LOL.. that's a complete pipe dream.. and about double what might be reasonably expected.. but the point is.... even if he DID score 700 and take 20 wickets.. then assuming they came fairly evenly over a 5 Test series... I doubt it would overly worry Ricky ponting: England would need performances at that level from all XI players to even get a 0-0 series result!

Originally Posted by Beny

I'd take him over Anderson. Our Aussie 2nd XI batting line up would still be better than yours.

That would be my point: an Aussie 2nd XI wouldn't be found wanting for batting.. would boast a better wicket-keeper batsman.. and would have an attack that was at least able to compete. I'd give England the edge in any series... but I don't doubt for one minute that a series like that would be tougher than facing most genuine Test sides.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

I mean in one match. Bob Woolmer has just said that is the minimum needed to beat us.

Bob who? , No I will say this without hesitation, Flintoff will not score 700 runs in one match, and he wont take 20 wickets.

No our batting line up is not quite as strong as yours, so we need to score about 300, in the first innings, so we will be going into the 3rd innings with an 100+ lead, because we have the bowlers.

Strange things happen in cricket, Laker once took 19 wickets in a match

[Beny]

Ok,


Lets imagine that our bowling line up's were simmiler (which they ar'nt since we have about two bowlers better than you at least. Warne is better than Giles and Kaspa is better than Anderson and we can argue about the rest later).

The deciding factor then would be that our batting line up is 10 times better than the English. So in effect whilst you lot have a bowling line up that can match us we would still win based on the batting.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

LOL.. that's a complete pipe dream.. and about double what might be reasonably expected.
.

Beny,
Rachael has just said Freddie will score 350 runs and take 10 wickets in one match, you read it here.

[Ernest]

You have a good batting line up, they have proved that, but leaving Anderson and Hoggard apart, Ricky Ponting and co, will fing batting against Harmison and Flintoff tough going, and groundsmen will prepare pitches in England favour.

I think there will be a draw or two, but I think Australia will lose it a Headingly, and it wont be the first time, or the second.

I really cant see Australia beating england at Headingly.

[Beny]

You have a good batting line up, they have proved that, but leaving Anderson and Hoggard apart, Ricky Ponting and co, will fing batting against Harmison and Flintoff tough going, and groundsmen will prepare pitches in England favour.

But I would say that you're lot will find batting against McGrath, Gillespie, Kaspa and Warne tough.