McGrath names his England bunnies

[genghis_khan]

I'd say there will be a greater chance of Gilly being Flintoff's bunny than Strauss being McGrath's bunny.

how do you figure that?

Gilchrist is a better batsman than Strauss and McGrath is a better paceman than Flintoff.

 

[evertonfan]

how do you figure that?

Because Gilchrist was Flintoff's bunny for the whole of last summer, and Strauss scored both of his Ashes centuries in the matches that McGrath was playing; Old Trafford and The Oval.

 

[tassietiger]

Because Gilchrist was Flintoff's bunny for the whole of last summer, and Strauss scored both of his Ashes centuries in the matches that McGrath was playing; Old Trafford and The Oval.

Wouldn'tve scored 100 against McGrath before he did his ankle - ahh, he was in such glorious form then.

Anyway, I loved when McGrath named Inzamam as his bunny one time and Inzy said something in a press conference along the lines of "So what, the bowler is supposed to target the batsman".

Just as long as we're able to wipe a few smirks off of aussie faces that'll do me. I find it amazing that Australia are so ready to write off England's chances again after what happened last time. I thought we were promised a more humble, respectful honest approach after the Ashes defeat

It's so much more enjoyable to win when the opposition side is arrogant about it. Australia is actually doing England a favour by giving them a bit of motivation. The least England could do is just say "Warney is fat" or something.

 

[rickyp]

Who said the Poms would select Harmison over McGrath?

Obviously you cant read because thats not what i said.

What i find more interesting is that because you beat a side without their strike bowler fit you think that you are suddenly a real chance at victory. Your ashes win last year was nothing more than a blip in our radar of perfection

 

[evertonfan]

Obviously you cant read because thats not what i said.

What i find more interesting is that because you beat a side without their strike bowler fit you think that you are suddenly a real chance at victory. Your ashes win last year was nothing more than a blip in our radar of perfection

A blip is usually a lack of concentration and a one off bad performance. Being outplayed in 3 of the 5 tests isn't a blip. Fair enough, you will beat us convincingly in the Ashes but I grow sick of the arrogance of some Australians.

And as for the 'beating a team without their strike bowler' comment, that is just stupid because we were missing two of ours and our captain.

 

[rickyp]

A blip is usually a lack of concentration and a one off bad performance. Being outplayed in 3 of the 5 tests isn't a blip. Fair enough, you will beat us convincingly in the Ashes but I grow sick of the arrogance of some Australians.

And as for the 'beating a team without their strike bowler' comment, that is just stupid because we were missing two of ours and our captain.

um how many ashes have you one won in the past 20 years, coz im pretty sure its 1, and btw, you outplayed us in 2 tests, we outplayed you in 1, you may notice that the scoreline was 2-1. You can say as much as you want that you "outplayed us" but the reality of it is, its not a 6 day test match, and the final result was a draw

 

[evertonfan]

um how many ashes have you one won in the past 20 years, coz im pretty sure its 1, and btw, you outplayed us in 2 tests, we outplayed you in 1, you may notice that the scoreline was 2-1. You can say as much as you want that you "outplayed us" but the reality of it is, its not a 6 day test match, and the final result was a draw

Yes, which means you wern't good enough to beat us. You can say all you want, you deserved to be beaten in that series. You may be better than us now, but you were outplayed for the most part of that series.

And this is the arrogance I was talking about.

 

[andrew_nixon]

but you were outplayed for the most part of that series.

England hardly outplayed Australia. We were hammered in one test, drew a game we should have won, and the two we did win were in very close games. We only really outplayed Australia in the final test.

 

[evertonfan]

England hardly outplayed Australia. We were hammered in one test, drew a game we should have won, and the two we did win were in very close games. We only really outplayed Australia in the final test.

I say we hammered Australia at Old Trafford, we hammered them at Trent Bridge and if it wasn't for Shane Warne we would have won by 9/10 wickets.

 

[rickyp]

I say we hammered Australia at Old Trafford, we hammered them at Trent Bridge and if it wasn't for Shane Warne we would have won by 9/10 wickets.

talk about double standards!!! its not ok for us to say if we had mcgrath we would of won, but it is ok for you to say if we didnt have warne you would of won.

In that case, GUYS ITS OFFICIAL, according to the rules of evertonfan, we would of won the ashes had flintoff not been playing!

 

[evertonfan]

talk about double standards!!! its not ok for us to say if we had mcgrath we would of won, but it is ok for you to say if we didnt have warne you would of won.

In that case, GUYS ITS OFFICIAL, according to the rules of evertonfan, we would of won the ashes had flintoff not been playing!

I agree with everything you say; If England didn't have Fred we wouldn't have won, If Australia had a fully fit McGrath we wouldn't have won, and if Warne wasn't playing at all, we would have won convincingly.

Can we just drop this now? Neither of us are going to back down and after all, you do play for England.

 

[andrew_nixon]

I say we hammered Australia at Old Trafford, we hammered them at Trent Bridge and if it wasn't for Shane Warne we would have won by 9/10 wickets.

Old Trafford was a drawn game we should have won. Not a hammering.

Trent Bridge we won by 3 wickets chasing less than 130. Not a hammering.

 

[evertonfan]

Old Trafford was a drawn game we should have won. Not a hammering.

Trent Bridge we won by 3 wickets chasing less than 130. Not a hammering.

The result doesn't do the game justice; I'm sure any other team who won when enforcing a team to follow on would count it as a hammering. If it wasn't for Warne then the outcome would have been as convincing as it deserved to be.

 

[James219]

What? How can someone say "if it wasn't for Shane Warne" or the like; I mean, he is part of the team, he's supposed to do his job!

 

[evertonfan]

What? How can someone say "if it wasn't for Shane Warne" or the like; I mean, he is part of the team, he's supposed to do his job!

Hey! Other people are saying 'if it wasn't for Flintoff' so i'm entitled to say 'if it wasn't for Warne'!