Lets go on an ego trip

[Beny]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Cricke...577485395.html

Originally Posted by The Age

It was, Fleming said, like facing "three Richard Hadlees and the greatest leg spinner of all" in Shane Warne. The notion that Australia, notwithstanding its ageing players, could keep getting better was "scary".

Personaly I belive that England are going to get a shock next year when they come up against an Aussie team right at it's peak like never before. Micheal Clarke has added a new dimension to our batting line up. Essentialy we have gained a new Ricky Ponting and every batsmen in the team would be a national celebrity in any other line up. Our 'weak link' is Justin Langer, a man who averages 45 and has three double tons to his name.
Our bowling is better than it has ever been. In Jason gillespie and Glenn McGrath we have arguably the best two paceman in the world backed up by either Kaspa who has averaged 25 this year after 11 test matches starting with Sri-Lanka, then India- the two hardest places in the world to tour- and then New Zealand. Or Brett Lee- one of the fastest bowlers in the world.

The talk about age affecting our players is no more than wishfull thinking. McGrath is as fit and deadly as ever and will certinly be the same at the end of next year. Perhaps the only player in-danger of retierment before the ashes is Lehman although if he goes he will likely be replaced with an equally good batsmen in the form of Katich, Hodge or Hussy.

So will any team in the world Beat the Aussies in 2005 over a whole series? I doubt it very much.

[Zainub]

Wishful thinking? I don't know about that but I am a firm beleiver that age is nothing but a number, you're only as old as you want to feel you are, the way Aus play right now they look as energetic as any young team might, and what matters in the end is results, not how many young players you have in your side. A lot of teams have been guilty in the past of sacrificing there present for the sake of the future. Australian haven't done that. That's why now they can boast of back up squad that is it self so strong it migh give a test first XI a good run for their money. Those younger players were not hurried into the first side at the expense of older players for the sake of investing in the future, instead they were asked to wait, and now, that seems to be paying off rather well with the likes of Hussay and Hodge all having a repuatation of being mentally very mature tough cricketers, not sure I can say that about fringe players for other test teams. Not selecting a player just because he's on the wrong side of 30s and because he might not be in the team 5 years down the line is rubbish. If you're playing well enough there is no reason for your age to keep you out of the side. Younger players must wait. They can wait, because they are young.

On paper, Australia's chances of retaining its status as the best side in the world for another 2 to 3 years are I must admit better than any of their rivals' chances to topel them.

And by the way, Aus still have to play a test series in 2004 so, technically speaking they can get beaten over a series in this year too ;-)

[vvvrulz]

As for England getting a shock, I beg to differ.. because their line-up is looking far stronger than in previous years, and with the rise of Harmison and Flintoff, I think they are certainly capable of outdoing the Aussies. Not going to be easy though.

[Beny]

Harmison is perhaps as good as Gillespie although not as consistant. His bowling averge now reflects this. I can't see Flintoff as being a top class bowler for long periods of time. As a Batsmen he is fantastic but no better than any of the top 7 Aussies save for Lehman, Martyn and Langer.

[Occasional Fan]

Beny, you might have seen some comments in other threads yesterday from some of the Brits who loaf around on this board. Most of us, I think, readily admit that the Aussies are still a pretty scary bunch (well, most of us excluding Ern, that is). That really means that we can't be shocked next summer if Australia wins the series: stiff upper lips would be maintained all round. The only possibly shocks would be for the Aussies when the new world order makes itself known: stiff upper lips and English restraint not fully guaranteed in that event.

[Beny]

Yes But i'm saying that you're going to get smashed.

[Occasional Fan]

Thanks for clarifying that, Beny!

Ern! He's at it again!

[Beny]

Thats Ok.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Beny

you're going to get smashed.

Beny,

Pride comes before a fall mate. I admit the Australians are looking good and that the Ashes will not be as easy as Ern predicts, but I still feel we have a chance. It is not purely down to Harmison and Flintoff. We have four bowlers in the PWC top twenty. The batting is possibly the most solid it has for many years. We have three young players coming through presurising the etablished batsmen for places. We have a captain who loves the Australians. Our keeper is highly rated by Gilchrist.

I would say that things will be closer than you think.

Originally Posted by Stephen Fleming (in another interview)

England will have to play extremely well to compete. But they do have the personnel who can do that

[Teatime FatCat]

Originally Posted by Beny

Harmison is perhaps as good as Gillespie although not as consistant. His bowling averge now reflects this. I can't see Flintoff as being a top class bowler for long periods of time. As a Batsmen he is fantastic but no better than any of the top 7 Aussies save for Lehman, Martyn and Langer.

So what your actually saying is that Harmison would be the second best seamer in the series, and that Flintoff is better than half of your batting line up? I'd also say that as an all rounder he adds more value to our team than Clark does to yours.

However - I like to see myself as 'Diet Ern', Yes you are better than us by some distance - but No, you won't smash us. It's going to be a much closer seris than you think, and it's going to make a few of you Aussies sit up and notice!

Right, time or a cup of tea and a Tim Tam