The West Indies would have won if it was not a wash out, I just had that feeling that they would have won. No English bowler to me looked dangerous and they looked less potent than the bowling line up that came to Australia. I guess you could say that there was no sting in the bee.

Very good post by Rachael at there were some very interesting points that she made about some players and I want to statistically confirming and/or abject to Rachael's post

Players that are currently in the team and there first class and test stats which will show how strong Australian cricket still is without Langer, Martyn, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie (still under contract)

Ricky Ponting
Test - 110 mat, 183 inn, 9368 runs at 59.29, Hs 257, 33x100, 36x50
ODI - 280 mat, 272 inn, 10395 runs at 43.31, Hs 164, 23x100, 62x50


Michael Clarke
Test - 27 mat, 41 inn, 1512 runs at 42.00, Hs 151, 4x100, 5x50 - 8 wickets at 16.00, bb 6/9
ODI - 112 mat, 98 inn, 3329 runs at 45.60, Hs 105*, 2x100, 25x50 - 32 wickets at 37.43, bb 5/35

Michael Hussey
Test - 16 mat, 26 inn, 1597 runs at 79.85, Hs 182, 5x100, 8x50
ODI - 72 mat, 54 inn, 1826 runs at 58.90, Hs 109*, 2x100, 10x50
FC - 193 mat, 345 inn, 16956 runs at 54.34, Hs 331*, 44x100, 75x50

Brad Hodge
Test - 5 test, 9 inn, 409 runs at 58.42, Hs 203*, 1x100, 1x50
ODI - 18 mat, 15 inn, 516 runs at 39.69, Hs 123, 1x100, 3x50
FC - 192 mat, 338 inn, 14798 runs at 48.51, Hs 302*, 45x100, 55x50

Chris Rogers
FC - 91 mat, 163 inn, 7732 runs at 50.20, Hs 319, 21x100, 37x50

Phil Jaques
Test - 2 mat, 3 inn, 96 runs at 32.00, Hs 66, 1x50
ODI - 6 mat, 6 inn, 125 runs at 20.83, Hs 94, 1x50
FC - 101 mat, 179 inn, 9542 runs at 55.80, 27x100, 46x50

Adam Voges
ODI - 1 mat, 1 inn, 16 runs at -, Hs 16*
FC - 29 mat, 49 inn, 1724 runs at 42.04, Hs 178, 6x100, 5x50

Brad Haddin
ODI - 21 mat, 19 inn, 467 runs at 25.94, Hs 70, 1x50 - 28 Catches + 4 Stumpings
FC - 82 mat, 138 inn, 4933 runs at 40.43, Hs 154, 7x100, 30x50 - 229 Catches + 21 Stumpings

Stuart Clark
Test - 9 mat, 47 wickets at 17.80, bbi 5/55, bbm 9/89, Econ 2.45
ODI - 25 mat, 36 wickets at 31.47, bb 4/54, Econ 5.36
FC - 75 mat, 281 wickets at 26.78, bbi 8/58, Econ 2.89

Mitchell Johnson
ODI - 18 mat, 26 wickets at 27.88, bb 4/11, Econ 5.33
FC - 20 mat, 67 wickets at 27.74, bb 6/51, Econ 3.28

Ben Hilfenhaus
ODI - 1 mat, 1 wicket at 26.00, bb 1/26, Econ 3.71
FC - 21 mat, 99 wickets at 27.52, bb 7/58, Econ 3.18

Stuart MacGill
Test - 40 mat, 198 wickets at 27.20, bbi 8/108, bbm 12/107, Econ 3.16
ODI - 3 mat, 6 wickets at 17.50, bb 4/19, Econ 3.50
FC - 174 mat, 739 wickets at 29.88, bb 8/108, Econ 3.39, 42x5wh, 6x10wi

Brad Hogg
Test - 4 mat, 9 wickets at 50.22, bbi 2/40, bbm 3/108, Econ 3.50
ODI - 106 mat, 133 wickets at 27.10, bb 5/32, Econ 4.49

Andrew Symonds
Test - 13 mat, 19 inn, 518 runs at 27.26, Hs 156, 1x100, 2x50 - 11 wickets at 44.36, bbi 3/50, bbm 5/56.
ODI - 170 mat, 138 inn, 4226 runs at 39.49, Hs 156, 5x100, 22x50 - 124 wickets at 37.57, bb 5/18
FC - 203 mat, 336 inn, 13124 runs at 42.61, Hs 254*, 39x100, 54x50 - 218 wickets at 36.23, bb 6/105

Shane Watson
Test - 3 mat, 4 inn, 81 runs at 20.25, Hs 31 - 2 wickets at 61.50, bb 1/25, Econ 3.96
ODI - 65 mat, 47 inn, 1001 runs at 34.51, Hs 79, 7x50 - 62 wickets at 34.11, bb 4/39, Econ 4.89
FC - 55 mat, 94 inn, 3938 runs at 49.22, Hs 203*, 11x100, 19x50 - 103 wickets at 30.15, bb 6/32

Brett Lee
Test - 59 mat, 65 inn, 1098 runs at 21.11, Hs 64, 3x50 - 231 wickets at 31.60, bbi 5/30, bbm 8/123, Econ 3.56
ODI - 150 mat, 68 inn, 739 runs at 18.02, Hs 57, 2x50 - 267 wickets at 22.65, bb 5/22, Econ 4.69
FC - 94 mat, 108 inn, 1644 runs at 18.68, Hs 79, 5x50 - 392 wickets at 27.66, bb7/114, Econ 3.44

Cameron White
ODI - 16 mat, 10 inn, 157 runs at 22.42, Hs 45 - 4 wickets at 50.25, bb 1/5
FC - 73 mat, 120 inn, 4025 runs at 37.26, Hs 260*, 9x100, 17x50 - 136 wickets at 37.77, bb 6/66, Econ 3.53

Shaun Tait
Test - 2 mat, 5 wickets at 42.00, bbi 3/97, bbm 3/121, Econ 4.37
ODI - 15 mat, 28 wickets at 24.46, bb 4/39, Econ 5.54
FC - 43 mat, 174 wickets at 27.33, bb 7/99, Econ 3.64

Nathan Bracken
Test - 5 mat, 12 wickets at 42.08, bbi 4/48, bbm 4/71, Econ 2.72
ODI - 67 mat, 112 wickets at 21.36, bb 5/67, Econ 4.34
FC - 57 mat, 181 wickets at 26.71, bb 7/4, Econ 2.55

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Think I disagree that both of those guys can be classed as young!!

Johnson is 25, while Clarke is 26... for me anyone classed as young or promising should be in their early twenties, by their mid-twenties they should be established players IMO.

Australia do have talent, of that I have no doubt, but I get the feeling that other nations have as much up and coming talent.

As for Seamer suggesting the West Indies would have won, just feel that that comment is a classic WUM... even though England were down to just three front line bowlers, did the West Indies really stand a chance of getting 400 in the day!!

As it is people seem to forget that the West Indies never looked like bowling England out once, let alone twice!! England took 10 wickets in the first innings with only three bowlers (and two of those were next to useless!), we could have picked up twenty if the rain had not come down.

Anything to back this up? I assume you've seen him play often then?

Doubt she has ever seen a picture of him, let alone seen him bat....

They got 89 in about 23 overs. The full day was scheduled for 83 overs plus the last hour. Arithmetically they were well on track and yes, I believe they could have given England a run for their money if the weather had not scuppered their chances. Quite honestly, the gulf between the teams which was talked about before the off was not demonstrated at Lord's: I think the game was much closer than you suggest, FF.

Irrelevant if England declared twice. One of the biggest myths about this game is that you can only win it by taking twenty wickets. Quite obviously that's not true.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

With 4 bowlers they failed to bowl England out once, with just three England bowled them out in the first innings and didn't really get an opportunity to so the same in the second innings...

I can see England (when they have a full quota of bowlers available) taking 20 wickets in the next three test, I doubt the West Indies will be able to achieve that feat once.

The reason the West Indies scored so quickly was that Strauss set attacking fields, if they had got slightly close to the 400 figure do you still think he would have done that?? England were never in danger, and if you think that they were then you are living in a dream world. But we will never know as the weather prevented any possibility of a result.

The fact is you don't need to take twenty wickets to win, and you can lose twenty and still win, but to consistently win Test series you need to be able to bowl sides out twice regularly.

In this Test, on a pitch that was giving the bowlers assistance, England got to 550-5 with 4 batsmen hitting hundreds. The West Indies never looked like they would get close to bowling them out. In the second innings, the batsmen were chasing quick runs, and wickets were given away in order to set up a declaration, would they have lost so many if they were not doing that - I doubt it.

Ah, that'll be the problem then. I thought the comments I made were facts, but they were a dream. Thanks for pointing it out: I'd never have known.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

It's all a big dream guys!... Do you really think that's air you're breathing now?

Seriously though I have to agree with FF on this one. Despite the fact that Englands bowlers are all without class (except for Freddie of course), Harmison proving my belief that he was a one trick poney with a short life span, and Hoggard being hot and cold; The West Indies Batsmen are if posssible, a tad worse. None of them are good enough to stick around for a big score on an English pitch.

__________________
It's hard enough to remember my opinions, without remembering my reasons for them!
Nietzsche

That is a harsh and somewhat arrogant comment. I agree that Harmison is really a mediocre fast bowler who got lucky a few times, but Hoggard is undoubtedly a class act. He is one of the best pace bowlers that England ever produced, but unfortunately, they have not made best use of his abilities. Hoggard himself is a mild-mannered man, not the sort to twist his captains arm to get a bowl and so ends up under-achieving and under-appreciated.