jerry Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 IAN Chappell believes Australia's second Test loss to England proves it is overrated and just a "very good side with two great bowlers".The former Australia captain has also taken aim at struggling opening batsman Matthew Hayden, saying he has shown England's bowlers a lack of respect and symbolised what was wrong with Ricky Ponting's team. Chappell's attack followed Australia's heartbreaking three-run loss to England in the second Test at Edgbaston that left the series tied 1-1. The tourists were without injured spearhead Glenn McGrath at Edgbaston and his absence was felt in an attack that failed to bowl in partnerships and support a rampant Shane Warne. "I have seen it said they are the best ever but I have never believed that - the batting has let them down," Chappell said. "They are a very good team with two great bowlers. "You will always be in with a chance of winning games in such a situation. "Crunch time will be when Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne move on. "That is when this Australia side will really feel the pinch. "Without McGrath in this second Test, Australia was not able to have any control and England just went berserk. "The public now is getting the idea that this is a very good side with two great bowlers." Chappell said Hayden has disappointed so far with only 77 runs at 19.25 in four Ashes innings as Australia deals with a 1-1 series heading into Thursday's third Test at Old Trafford. "The rest of the world has got carried away with just how good this Australia side is," he said. "They (Australia) have got a bit over-confident. "I would put Matthew Hayden in that category and he has paid the penalty. "We have seen a side that is very good against some average attacks, but this is the first time for a while they have come up against a really good attack. "They have usually had their own way and got over confident. "Matthew Hayden has got into that way of thinking. He is so used to smashing the ball around that he hasn't made the adjustment and said to himself: 'This is not the kind of attack I have been facing, this one I should respect more'." Hayden has endured a modest run since he posted his 20th and most recent century in the mid-winter Top End Test series against Sri Lanka last year. In 27 innings since, he has passed 50 only five times and made 741 runs at 30.87. The Queenslander's career average peaked at 58.97 on the tour of Sri Lanka last year but has slipped to 52.23 since. England have planned well for the powerful left-hander and that was shown in the first innings at Edgbaston when he was dismissed for a golden duck. Source Exactly what I said yesterday. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digistil Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 I was sayin' the same thing too...the USA Cricket team would destroy Australia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry Posted August 9, 2005 Author Share Posted August 9, 2005 :p They are just a "good" side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rahul Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 but they are better than India , so that makers them best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.M.K Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 The way I look at is that England played really really well in the 2nd test, Australia played really really bad. But the Aussie only lost by 3 runs. Australia best is sh*tloads better then England best. Take Flintoff out of the 2nd test and the Poms would have struggled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khal0l Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 also i think you have to remember that leading into Austalia's tour of england they didint play as much cricket as england. and it was shown that the Australia were a bit rusty when losing to Bangldesh and england at the start of the one day series Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drgrudge Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 They are definitely better than any country that plays cricket today.. They have won so much matched tht should have lost or drawn. Remember that World cup match btw England and Australia, Aussies should have lost the match and their tail-enders and lower order batsmans bailed them out. Even in the 2nd ashes test, aussies should have won.. it's a sorta luck that England won (or perhaps aussies dint have as much luck as Eng had :p ) Never mind any single individuals.. Take as a whole team.. England and India have really good players and each players have a very good record.. but as a team they fail to deliver. India is placed 8th and England also in some 6-7th ; not sure. They play Test cricket really well but not ODI's. See their Test rankings 2nd and 3th but their ODI rank sucks... But Australia is the only team who play well in both the forms of cricket.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unidentified Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 oh man i live like 1 minuite away from lords and every time theres cricket i cant even get out of my house the roads are bloked with the thousands of people going to watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golazo Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 most of australias players are in a bad form slump, except warne, lee and mcgrath. whereas england has had plenty more practice than australia before the ashes and the one dayers and most of their players are in a good patch of form very good side with two great bowlers yeh because it was those 2 bowlers that scored 360 runs against india in the world cup final lol and warne was out for 2 years but australia still won heaps of matches, how could this be lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KitCh Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 It doesn't matter if you win by 3 runs or by 300 runs, at the end of the day, England won...Okay maybe they had a little luck on their side but they still won.Winning is winning no matter how big the margin between the winner and loser. KitCh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry Posted August 10, 2005 Author Share Posted August 10, 2005 but they are better than India , so that makers them best 586354839[/snapback] India is not the only team out there. also i think you have to remember that leading into Austalia's tour of england they didint play as much cricket as england. and it was shown that the Australia were a bit rusty when losing to Bangldesh and england at the start of the one day series 586354946[/snapback] Lame excuse, Australia have now played almost 10 one-days and they were not "rusty" or they wouldnt have won the first test. most of australias players are in a bad form slump, except warne, lee and mcgrath. whereas england has had plenty more practice than australia before the ashes and the one dayers and most of their players are in a good patch of form. 586355266[/snapback] Lame excuse, see above. Most of England's players are in good patch of form ? Okay :blink: Vaughan, Strauss, Bell, Flintoff (save the last test match) and every England player was out of form. The only consistent player on the England side is Pietersen. Excuses, excuses, excuses .. :rolleyes: :pinch: yeh because it was those 2 bowlers that scored 360 runs against india in the world cup final lol 586355266[/snapback] No, but McGrath took 3 wickets in that final including the most prized one of Tendulkar. Think before you speak. :laugh: and warne was out for 2 years but australia still won heaps of matches, how could this be lol 586355266[/snapback] They could do that because the fast bowlers picked up wickets. Warne's replacements were all failures. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts