How many Centuries will Pietersen end up with?

Red wrote:Mark Waugh's tally is reasonably disappointing given that he had to play 128 tests to achieve that. Compare that to for eg., Greg Chappell's 24 in 87 against better bowling than Waugh ever faced.

what better bowling did GSC face?

He hardly ever faced the 4prong in tests, when he did he got rolled.

When Botham was flying in '81 he was largely AWOL

He retired before Wasim entered the scene and started after Snow went on the rampage in AUS & SA's exile

What ws the best bowling he did well against? Hadlee and some pie throwers or the Indian spin prong maybe.


Mark Waugh faced MUCH better bowling IMO

Erm, I think you should have a little look at Greg Chappell's performances against "the four prong" in the Super Tests during WSC. I think you'll find he was immense.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Erm, I think you should have a little look at Greg Chappell's performances against "the four prong" in the Super Tests during WSC. I think you'll find he was immense.

True, but the poster was talking about his 87 tests for AUS, where he allegedly faced better bowling than M. Waugh

I can't see it personally

skully wrote:

JKLever wrote:Aye, Vaughan looked a cert for 20 tons earlier in his career

I was certain that Australia's top 7 in the early 2000s would all end up with 20+ tons.

The 7 was (and no. of tons):

Hayden (30)
Langer (23)
Ponting (35)
M Waugh (20)
Martyn (13)
S Waugh (32)
Gilchrist (17)

Mark Waugh just made it after his form tailed off badly. Martyn pulled the plug with 2 or 3 years left under his belt and Gilly's form fell away a bit. So a good start to your ton run does not mean you'll end up with a pile of them.

Just ask Andrew Strauss.

Too early to write him off completely of course, but after 10 tons in his first 2 years of Test cricket, he's managed only a further 2 over the next couple of years...both against the Snoozers.

Suspect the second half of his career to date is more indicative of his likely return for however much longer he continues to 'get away with it' by producing a career saving knock just as he teeters on the brink of being ditched.

Yeah, but Andrew Strauss was a typically English opener with two strokes in his repertoire. The review system may have a bearing on future batting records though, and one would suspect it will influence Pietersen's pursuit (of hundreds). I'm knocking my prediction down to 28.

PearlJ wrote:

Henry wrote:Surely the talk of Ponting getting 50 test tons is now a distant dream?

LMAO

Whoever talked of Ponting getting 50 tons?
Sounds like more of your shit.

F*ck off you gimp. It was your former captain Steve Waugh who talked up the possibility, and the Aussie media ran with it. No doubt you started playing with yourself when you read it too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/6178896.stm


And there you go.

Henry wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Henry wrote:Surely the talk of Ponting getting 50 test tons is now a distant dream?

LMAO

Whoever talked of Ponting getting 50 tons?
Sounds like more of your shit.

F*ck off you gimp. It was your former captain Steve Waugh who talked up the possibility, and the Aussie media ran with it. No doubt you started playing with yourself when you read it too.

An ex-player mouthing off? Puhleez. That hardly amounts to serious talk.

Don't quote me wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Erm, I think you should have a little look at Greg Chappell's performances against "the four prong" in the Super Tests during WSC. I think you'll find he was immense.

True, but the poster was talking about his 87 tests for AUS, where he allegedly faced better bowling than M. Waugh

I can't see it personally

Well I can.

Mark Waugh didn't debut for us until the early 90s when the Windies attack was certainly past its peak. The one real gun they had was Ambrose and he caused Waugh no end of problems, even in ODIs where MW had a very good record.

England was largely pox during his career and he mainly made runs against SA when Donald was missing. I recall one particular ton when he feasted on Symcox who for some bizarre reason was Cronje's preference ahead of the pacemen. As soon as they returned Waugh was all at sea.

Waugh also made two successive pairs in Sri Lanka despite his reputation against spin.

During Greg Chappell's career he faced England attacks with more menace and depth than MW, he faced the Windies at their zenith and NZ had Richard Hadlee for his whole career. India had Dev and Pakistan had a few reasonable quicks. He never got to play against Zim or Bang and only had one test against SL.

He described WSC as the biggest challenge of his career yet was easily the stand-out Australian. Coincidentally he said at the weekend that he only had to use 80% of his ability prior to WSC. It is quoted in the Australian.

Red wrote:

Don't quote me wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Erm, I think you should have a little look at Greg Chappell's performances against "the four prong" in the Super Tests during WSC. I think you'll find he was immense.

True, but the poster was talking about his 87 tests for AUS, where he allegedly faced better bowling than M. Waugh

I can't see it personally

Well I can.

Mark Waugh didn't debut for us until the early 90s when the Windies attack was certainly past its peak. The one real gun they had was Ambrose and he caused Waugh no end of problems, even in ODIs where MW had a very good record.

England was largely pox during his career and he mainly made runs against SA when Donald was missing. I recall one particular ton when he feasted on Symcox who for some bizarre reason was Cronje's preference ahead of the pacemen. As soon as they returned Waugh was all at sea.

Waugh also made two successive pairs in Sri Lanka despite his reputation against spin.

During Greg Chappell's career he faced England attacks with more menace and depth than MW, he faced the Windies at their zenith and NZ had Richard Hadlee for his whole career. India had Dev and Pakistan had a few reasonable quicks. He never got to play against Zim or Bang and only had one test against SL.

He described WSC as the biggest challenge of his career yet was easily the stand-out Australian. Coincidentally he said at the weekend that he only had to use 80% of his ability prior to WSC. It is quoted in the Australian.

Waugh averaged just under 40 in matches against Ambrose, with the baulk of those runs scored in the WI

He has 100's vs Ambrose something SRT, Hayden and many others can't claim

It's a similiar story vs Donald

He has a better avg vs him than SRT, Hayden, Lara and many others

He may have got hurried and hit and found batting difficult, but they found it even harder to get him out.

Let's not forget Ambrose was partnered by Walsh and at times Marshall, when Waugh was scoring these runs

as well as symcoz, Donald had the likes of Pollock, Kallis, Ntini as back up.

When did chappel score runs against attacks as good as these for AUS in his 87 tests? Basically never as far as I can see. Although I accept GSC was a better batsman than Waugh, to say he faced better bowlers by far in his tests for AUS than Waugh, is very difficult to justify.

Against Wasim & Waqar he managed to avg in the mid 40's, the likes of SRT & Lara wish they could say the same, he didn't get as many runs as others, but there are few who got as many tough runs as Waugh amongst his contemporaries. A silk glove around a steel fist, a bit like GSC

No surprises that he scored more runs against the Windies on their pitches which are far more benign that ours. Their bowlers were always more lethal on our decks.

Greg Chappell faced Snow early in his career, always had a couple of good pommy quicks plus Underwood. Had Imran Khan and Safraz for Pakistan as well as their very good leggie. He faced the might of Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Croft and Garner in the late 70s and early 80s at their peak. Waugh never faced anything like that. And he averaged over 50 against the Windies. Also faced that mob in WSC and was the highest run scorer. For that matter also faced the World XI in WSC which had the likes of Garth le Roux in it.

Waugh struggled against Ambrose and Marshall and Walsh were past their peak by the time he faced them. The English attacks he confronted were also tres ordinary.

Greg Chappell faced Snow early in his career, always had a couple of good pommy quicks plus Underwood. Had Imran Khan and Safraz for Pakistan as well as their very good leggie.

Apart from the 4 prong GSC never had to face more than 1 great fast bowler IMO

Whereas Waugh was running into donald/pollock, ambrose/walsh, or wasim/waqar every other year.

He faced the might of Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Croft and Garner in the late 70s and early 80s at their peak. Waugh never faced anything like that. And he averaged over 50 against the Windies

.

Vs the 4 prong? GSC never did anything like that in test matches for AUS, as far as I can remember

I accept his feat in world series cricket were sensational and better than anything Waugh did, but remember the original poster compared their AUS careers. In their AUS careers, one guy had to face the fire at it's hottest

Waugh struggled against Ambrose and Marshall and Walsh were past their peak by the time he faced them.

Waugh avg 60+ vs those 3 in 1991, when ambrose and wlash would have been in thie late 20's and Marshall is Marshall

Augustus wrote:Yeah, but Andrew Strauss was a typically English opener with two strokes in his repertoire. The review system may have a bearing on future batting records though, and one would suspect it will influence Pietersen's pursuit (of hundreds). I'm knocking my prediction down to 28.

Rubbish. He scored runs all around the wicket at the start of his career. And Strauss would have had more centuries were it not for the appalling decisions he received in Australia, shattering his form, technique and confidence.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:.......Rubbish. He scored runs all around the wicket at the start of his career. And Strauss would have had more centuries were it not for the appalling decisions he received in Australia, shattering his form, technique and confidence.

No doubt Strauss is the only batsman ever to have received ' appalling decisions" that obviously had to result in "shattering his form, technique and confidence".

Poor dear.

Yup, three appalling decisions in a row tends to do that to you.

How are India doing, racist?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Augustus wrote:Yeah, but Andrew Strauss was a typically English opener with two strokes in his repertoire. The review system may have a bearing on future batting records though, and one would suspect it will influence Pietersen's pursuit (of hundreds). I'm knocking my prediction down to 28.

Rubbish. He scored runs all around the wicket at the start of his career. And Strauss would have had more centuries were it not for the appalling decisions he received in Australia, shattering his form, technique and confidence.

The decisions were incorrect (on replay) but were not appalling ...and it could be argued that if he had form technique and/or confidence then he wouldn't have been wafting at balls well wide of off stump or not playing shots at balls that would pass near the top of the stumps which was the cause of the incorrect decisions

Watch them again. They were appalling. Two of them were edges that were nowhere near the bat. The third was a ball that was going miles over the stumps. Koertzen was clearly on crack. And racist.

And the "he shouldn't have been playing that shot" argument is rubbish. Batsman sometimes play and miss. Even batsman with perfect technique/confidence. To say he deserved it because he played and missed is ridiculous. Especially as the bat was about four miles away from the ball.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:...

How are India doing, racist?

We're presently $hit and likely to be so for a while, Rushdie lover.

But it could be worse. We could be England captained by 'sexual healing'

furriner wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:...

How are India doing, racist?

We're presently $hit and likely to be so for a while.

Nice to see you're coming to terms with it. Now we just need you to accept that you're a racist thunderc*nt and we're sorted.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I'm a thunderc*nt.

If you say so.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I'm a thunderc*nt.

Seconded

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Watch them again. They were appalling. Two of them were edges that were nowhere near the bat. The third was a ball that was going miles over the stumps. Koertzen was clearly on crack. And racist.

And the "he shouldn't have been playing that shot" argument is rubbish. Batsman sometimes play and miss. Even batsman with perfect technique/confidence. To say he deserved it because he played and missed is ridiculous. Especially as the bat was about four miles away from the ball.

i've watched them plenty of times ...they are all close on first look / real speed ...and obvious mistakes when seen in replay ...so they are not appalling ...just wrong

I didnt use the "he shouldnt have been playing that shot" argument to say he should have been given out ...but as an alternative theory that he was already out of form/confidence before he was wrongly given out

Odd , before the SA series I suggested that Strauss had been found out by most bowlers and would not feature against SA.

Laura was the leader of the pack ridiculing me.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Watch them again. They were appalling. Two of them were edges that were nowhere near the bat. The third was a ball that was going miles over the stumps. Koertzen was clearly on crack. And racist.

And the "he shouldn't have been playing that shot" argument is rubbish. Batsman sometimes play and miss. Even batsman with perfect technique/confidence. To say he deserved it because he played and missed is ridiculous. Especially as the bat was about four miles away from the ball.

But Strauss was also dropped (a sitter) in the only innings he got to fifty and received a favourable decision in another. And to be honest our attack wasn't sensational during that series despite the 5-0 drubbing and the pitches were generally flat. Strauss never did anything on that tour to suggest that he was either in great form or looked to be a class batsman. Cook with a faulty technique had more solidity about him. Even Collingwood made runs on occasions but Strauss always looked like he might get out, poor decisions or not.

taipan wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I'm a c0ckjuggling thunderc*nt.

Fixed.