Australian Batting vs English Batting

[redback]

Have England got anyone that bats at 7 and can make a ton like gilchrist did today against Pakistan although he batted at 6 in this game he made 100 in a session awsome to watch

[dagonz]

cricket will have two eras now ,pre-gilchrist - post-gilchrist, he could be the greatest if he continues at this rate.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by dagonz

cricket will have two eras now ,pre-gilchrist - post-gilchrist, he could be the greatest if he continues at this rate.

Already is the greatest wicket keeper batsman in many people's opinion...in mine as well...no competetion...at least from his generation of players...he is by far the best.

[Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1]

Hi,
Excuse me for not reading all the previous posts in the thread because time does not permit so what i am going to say has probably been said before. but i think there is no comparison between the australian and english lineup. it is the aussys for sure. i think the indian lineup is more of a contest and im not being biased there. we do have proven performers. anyway that is beside the point. the aussy openers are better that the english openers. the aussy middle order is better than english middle order (especially based on current form!). the aussy lower order is better than english lower order.

BUT the ENGLISH TAILENDERS (9,10,11) imo are a good contest for the aussy tail and maybe they are better. i dont rate kaspa or mcgrath as decent batsmen. and the english tail is new on the scene really since it was 2004 when it all kicked off for england. hoggard is the english version of 'The Wall' and jones and harmison are just sloggers.


but hey your tail dosn't make your batting lineup

[vvvrulz]

The poms have a 'potentially' equal batting line-up with the Aussies with the likes of Vaughan, Thorpe and Strauss in there. They lack consistancy more so than class.

[Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1]

Originally Posted by vvvrulz

The poms have a 'potentially' equal batting line-up with the Aussies with the likes of Vaughan, Thorpe and Strauss in there. They lack consistancy more so than class.

not even potentially

[Seamer]

Send England on a tour to India against Harbijan, Kumble, Kartik. Send them on a tour to Sri Lanka against Murali and Vass. Then you would have your answer. As i have said in other threads, you cannot judge a team,s ability against weaker teams on pitches that suit them. Once they have conquered the best, on their own soil, then they can lay claims of being close to the mighty Aussies. I cannot think of one world class bowler they have overcome since they were destroyed by the Aussies 4-1 in 2003.

[Ernest]

Hi Seamer,

With respect no team does that well on the subcuontinent, due to the nature of the wickets.

Originally Posted by Seamer

Once they have conquered the best, on their own soil, then they can lay claims of being close to the mighty Aussies. I cannot think of one world class bowler they have overcome since they were destroyed by the Aussies 4-1 in 2003.Yesterday 10:27 AM

So if England beat Australia in England, what you are saying applies Quid Pro Quo.

In 2003 I think you must agree England were just a little unlucky, there new found quick bowler Simon Jones, suffered thatterrible accident, and Andrew Flintoff was injured, and Harmison had not arrived at that time.

It's with respect I say, Australia had the luck in India in 2004, first India had Australia on the rocks, then rain intervened, must have favoured Australia, this set the tone of the tour, but India fought back in the last Test, and proved Australia were beatable.

Not having a pop at your team, but this argment will rumble on, and we will know the outcome about August 2005 .

[Seamer]

Hi Ernest,
I concede that the merits of both sides being able to play on the subcontinent are somewhat irrelevant as the ashes will be contested in English conditions. The point i am trying to make is weather each sides batsmen is able to perform under pressure, on occasions in difficult conditions, and against quality bowlers. I have never said that the current England batsmen DO NOT HAVE the ability to do so, rather they hav,nt proven it yet. At times, they have held thier own against Pollock in the current series, and while Pollock is a class bowler, he does not have three other class bowlers to help maintain the pressure. Australia do. Like i said, England are yet to prove themselves.
Australia on the other hand HAVE proven themselves - against all nations in all conditions around the world. The only series we have,nt won home and away was India last summer(Drawn). This time round, both England and Australia will have strong bowling attacks (bar injuries, cross fingers). Australia will have the mental strength and physical ability to stand up to the pressure. Hopefully, for England sake, they will to, but until they prove themselves then doubts will remain.
P.S Australia were UNLUCKY in India. They won Two tests convincingly(no luck there - just skill) and narrowly lost the last dead rubber on a disgraceful spinners wicket without Warne due to injury. (Clarke got 6-9, thats how bad that wicket was) As Rauhl Dravid said "The better team won"
Roll on June! This ashes will be a beauty

[Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1]

first thing first seamer. aussys were LUCKY to win that series. 2nd test was india's for the taking but rain had to intervene. dont blame the pitch on the last test mate..... it was the same for both teams....


and yes seamer you are right. england DO need to prove themselves on foreign pitches against world class bowlers. saffers have a pretty decent bowling attack and have already catalised TWO english batting collapses in 3 tests. major collapses at that! infact one of those was on a nice flat track that was great for scoring!!!! dosn't really put the english batting lineup in good light. although it dosn't mean they suck, it does help prove the point that they are not amazing, are not on par with aussy batting lineup and really do need to prove themselves.