Sorry England...but your no chance in hell

Technically England weren't the better side. They only won matches when McGrath wasnt playing. So to me...the series was 1-0. [Dont even mention Simon Jones...played 4 matches...got 18 wickets...McGrath played 3 and got 19]
 
rashaba16 said:
Technically England weren't the better side. They only won matches when McGrath wasnt playing. So to me...the series was 1-0. [Dont even mention Simon Jones...played 4 matches...got 18 wickets...McGrath played 3 and got 19]


Are you on drugs?
 
rashaba16 said:
Technically England weren't the better side. They only won matches when McGrath wasnt playing. So to me...the series was 1-0. [Dont even mention Simon Jones...played 4 matches...got 18 wickets...McGrath played 3 and got 19]

Yeah that would be because we're not totally over-reliant on one seamer!
 
barmyarmy said:
Yeah that would be because we're not totally over-reliant on one seamer!

Yeah, but with the out of form Gillespie and with only two main bowlers performing well (Lee, Warne)...What can you expect? However, Australia's performance was not up to their usual standard and England deserved to win
 
rashaba16 said:
Technically England weren't the better side. They only won matches when McGrath wasnt playing. So to me...the series was 1-0. [Dont even mention Simon Jones...played 4 matches...got 18 wickets...McGrath played 3 and got 19]


We outplayed Australia in at least 3 tests maybe even 4.
 
rashaba16 said:
[Dont even mention Simon Jones...played 4 matches...got 18 wickets...McGrath played 3 and got 19]

Got some stats for you:
Simon Jones:
Overs - 102
Wickets - 18
Average - 21.00
B/B - 6/53
Strike rate - 34.0

Glenn McGrath:
Overs - 134
Wickets - 19
Average - 23.15
B/B - 5/53
Strike rate - 42.3

Yes, Jones may have played more matches, but he bowled less than McGrath (a whole 32 overs less), but yet was only 1 wicket behind with a better strike rate and average. Yep, lets not even mention Simon Jones. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top