Video: West Indies v Australia, Third Test, 1999

Quite wrong, mate. The fast bowling may have been slightly better back then, though McGrath hasn’t lost much. Certainly Waugh’s captaincy was substantially better than Ponting’s, even in his first series. But in 1999, Warne was not bowling well. The side contained Elliott, a very soft batsman, Slater an absolute fruitcake, Langer was nowhere near what he is now, and the following year, the side picked up Hayden, Gilchrist, and Lee. In 1999 England were just over 100 runs away from squaring the series. Something they won’t get close to later this year. This side’s batting is much tougher and much more settled. Also much more attuned to winning around the world, something England have a long way to go to achieve, and probably never will. It is also much more consistent, having not lost a live game by more than 4 wickets since Calcutta 2001. You won’t pick that up by watching a 14-minute video. You’re out of line.
Respectfully, Andrew Schulz, Sydney.

Andrew;

Michael Slater fruitcake? he averaged 45 with the bat in 1999, 3 runs better than his career tally of 42! Give me some of them sultanas

Justin Langer better now? he posted 7 of his 22 Test tons between 1998/9 and 1999/0 seasons. That’s almost a third of his centuries in 2 seasons in a career spanning 13 years. Sound a bit like a peak to me!

And poor old Shane Warne. He played 3 tests in 1999 (Sri Lanka) and picked up 8 wickets at 14.37 a piece. Very bad year for Shane.

You might not be able to analyse a team from a 14 minute video, but 3 minutes of research to back up your argument wouldn’t have gone amiss.

Chris

Couple of things there, the odds will fluctuate as the Ashes draws nearer and injuries/availability etc become more relevant.

If the bookies are tipping towards Australia right now, it would likley boil down to home advantage. The teams are that close in ability and (arguably) form, that not much else could separate them.

William Hill have England as 3-1 outsiders to Australia at 1.66 favourites.

I’m not sure I care that much about the Aussies here – what about the Windies? Where’s the pride, the talent, the will to succeed against what looked like hopeless odds? Where, less sentimentally, are the successors to Ambrose and Walsh? As an Englishman, I’d be happy to see the Windies whitewash us 4-0 or 5-0 at home, if it meant that they returned to form as a major force in world cricket. We’ve really lost something here, and Steve Waugh’s side, whilst dominating cricket in a similar way, never inspired the affection that the Windies did in their prime.

Just want to thank Chris was his extensive research. Really put me in my place. Also for his advice for me to research. Sadly no amount of research would get me to where you are at buddy. Are you telling me Warne only played against Sri Lanka in 1999? Without opening a book, I would have thought he also played tests against England, West Indies (the very series in question-he was actually dropped for the final test), Zimbabwe, India, and Pakistan. And did not have a very good year recovering from a shoulder injury. The one-day world cup actually put him back on track.

Slater’s figures for 1999 are flattering (we’re not actually talking about a calendar year here anyway). He scored centuries at the start and finish. The fact is though, he was very ordinary after returning to the Test side for the Indian tour of 1997/98 except for one magnificent home series against England. Hayden @2006 is a 20-run-per-innings better bat than Slater @ 1999, plus much better value in the field, between wickets, and as a team player.

As for Langer, your argument is self-defeating. He did not arrive as a Test player until his effort in the run-chase in Hobart against Pakistan in 1999. Prior to that, he was tentative and not worthy of his place. If you don’t think he is a much better bat now than on that WI tour, then your stats won’t help you.

The point is though, guys, we are talking about a side that could not beat the West Indies, as opposed to a side that has won everywhere, in every place at last visit, with one very, very high profile exception. It’s all hypothetical, but the batting is significantly stronger now.

Just a question for you. Why, when Australia lost in Sri Lanka in 1999, and in India in 2001, were they still considered number 1 by a mile, yet when they lose to England in 2005, and have a much better record around the world, they are on the verge of losing that ranking, and in the eyes of many, have indeed lost it?

And Chris give us some stats to back up your point that Australia and England are close in form. Since the Ashes, England have won 1 of 6 Tests, Australia 8 of 9. Perhaps you’ve lost some Tests, like you did with Warne in 1999.
Don’t forget, guys, it’s a long long time since we’ve seen a pathetic capitulation from Australia like we did from England at Mohali and Lahore.

Andrew,

Perhaps in your part of the world 3 minutes is an extensive amount of time. We should poll the fairer species and find out. However, my research was never offered as ‘extensive’ merely proffered to poke even more holes in the sponge that was your initial argument.

You offer up two pieces of evidence in your last comment that evoke the very spirit of a self defeating argument.

Firstly the inability to beat the West Indies.

In no way, would any rational observer of cricket, with the ability to muster even a smidgeon of impartiality, mention the West Indian side of 1999 with such flippant disregard for the significance of a series draw to them, as you have done.

As much as we may argue about the differences between Australia of 1999 and now, these are insignificant when compared to the chasm that separated the West Indian side of the two periods. There are three irrefutable reasons why this is so. Curtly Ambrose, Courtenay Walsh and Home Soil.

Certainly the 1999 WI team was weaker than in the earlier part of the decade, but in no way was it comparable to the shambolic WI team of today, and you refer to it as if it were.

Secondly, the one high profile loss

My dear friend, it is high profile because of the enormity of losing the Ashes. An occurrence that the 1999 team would not only have not let happen, but would not have let the possibility enter their consciousness for a solitary moment, such was the superiority of that bygone team.

The swagger, the dominance, the outright obnoxious arrogance that permeated their presence on the field, was what set them apart, and whilst diluted within the present line up, still clearly exists in a concentrated form among their followers.

My case, your honour, rests.

Chris

how’s it looking now guys? When does that being skittled start, Christopher?