***Official*** 1st Test at The Gabba

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Clapo

7 Aussies & 4 Poms. TBH i'd have Hussey ahead of Pietersen, he always looked in control, whereas Pietersen played far to many rash shots for mine.

Ah, you spotted my deliberate mistake in the counting. Well done, your $1 Sanity voucher is on its way by courier goat.

[pasag]

Over a hundred pages for one test match. Not bad tbh.

[GIMH]

Decided against staying up to watch last night, as it happens I'm off work sick today so I ended up watching a reurn of the entire day's play, ie I turned on just as KP was getting out. I figured that as it was being reran we had been rolled over and so it was, but tbh I wouldn't complain about our second dig too much. Sure, there were some stoopid shots, but there were encouraging signs, and maybe just maybe confidence will be on the up from here.

I don't wish to make excuses, and as poor as we were full credit must go to Aus who put in a truly great performance. Nonetheless, if we had put the same amount of application into our first innings as we did our second we could have gotten a draw here, which makes our collapse all the more disappointing.

I imagine Strauss will pick his game up next time out, not worried by Flintoff's batting yet (he made a worse start last year let's not forget) and I think we have a solid middle order, a very good middle order in fact (imo) and the criticism that is often directed to Bell/Collingwood is harsh, good to see them both play a good innings aiece.

Having said all that, it's difficult to see us taking twenty wickets and that's really, really worrying. I haven't considered permutations, nor do I know much about the likely surface at Adelaide, but Monty must play. He has to.

Don't think it will be five nil but this is the least optimistic I have been in a long time.

[social]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

Jones must have the highest percentage of clean bowled dismissals of any top 7 batter in test cricket today. The only surprise was he passed 30 before letting one through, but I don't expect that to happen too often for the rest of the series.

Quite a final margin of victory - 277 plus 9 wickets. Even allowing for absences, that's as demoralising as anything we saw from 1989 to 2002/3. Not for the first time, England were badly let down by some of their senior players. You won't see two more stupid dismissals than Strauss managed, but he wasn't alone in giving his wicket away. Meanwhile, back in Harmyland, the self-delusion continues. Apparently he hopes that his previous 46 tests count for something and he won't be dropped after one bad performance. *One* bad performance? Has he been sleepwalking for the last two years? Maybe that would explain a thing or two.

Shame that arthritis is kicking in with one or two of the Aus boys, but presumably they'll be fit for Friday. Congrats to what is clearly still an exceptional bunch of players.
I wonder how long they'll keep going after this series? 5 - 0 to avenge 2005 wouldn't be a bad way to finish. Still, if the Adelaide & Perth tracks are as benign as they're meant to be, then maybe England will escape a whitewash, but only if they bat first. Presumably Panesar will come in for Anderson. Mahmood should come in for Harmy, but probably won't, and the nonsense will continue. What happened here was OK because the poor dear was nervous. Continued failure in tests 2 & 3 will be OK because the wickets don't suit him, etc, etc, etc ...

Strange interview that one

He admits he bowled absolute tripe then takes humbrage at the suggestion his spot might be on the line

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Only 39 pages for me tbh.

Jones played some great shots IMO.

[social]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Having said all that, it's difficult to see us taking twenty wickets and that's really, really worrying.

That's the big difference this time

Last year, Eng had positives to draw on after the first test because your bowlers worried our bats but the fielding let you down

[Josh]

Yeh this is my 78th page.

[Nnanden]

My 104th.

Clark for Adelaide?

[Matteh]

Originally Posted by Matt79

What would the match XI look like - for me:
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Collingwood
Pieterson
Flintoff
Jones
Warne
Lee
Clark
McGrath

8 Aussies and 3 Poms. Pieterson/Hussey is a tough call, given Pieterson had two digs for one failure one success, and Hussey only got one go. Lee gets in ahead of Hoggard on the basis of his 45* more than any great difference in their bowling performances...

Shade harsh on Bell tbh. Hit his 50 in almost as many balls as it took Pietersen to get his 90 odd i believe, whilst everyone else decided not to turn up.

[PhoenixFire]

1) Langer
2) Cook
3) Ponting (C)
4) Bell
5) Collingwood
5) Pietersen
6) Hussey
7) Jones
8) Warne
9) Lee
10) Clark
11) McGrath

Harsh on Fred, but Bell played so well.......

[Matteh]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

1) Langer
2) Cook
3) Ponting (C)
4) Bell
5) Collingwood
5) Pietersen
6) Hussey
7) Jones
8) Warne
9) Lee
10) Clark
11) McGrath

Harsh on Fred, but Bell played so well.......

As Flintoff was only any good as a bowler in this match surely there's an argument for putting him in for Lee who didn't really do all that much with the ball.

[PhoenixFire]

Oh yeah, that's the one thanks. Switch Lee for Flintoff, and move him up the order.

[aussie]

Well for Australia, pretty much every aspect of their play was spot on. All the batsmen except Gilchrist made runs & all the bowlers at certain points of the test bowled very well. Its going to be hard to make changes for the second test.

Only worry i would think is that Gilchrist still has to work on his play with bowlers coming around the wicket to him & Lee who i though bowled very wel in the 1st innings especially on the 3rd morning when he & McGrath were absolutely superb againts Bell & KP, but in the second innings his tactis were a bit strange TBH when he went tried to bounce out the openers & KP. All he needs to do is bowl like how he did on the 3rd day & he be just fine.


For England as Tufnell said they didn't show up, lost the test as soon as they got bowled out for 157 pretty much, Bell's 50 was worth a hundred againts a lesser bowling attack IMO, no bowler except Flintoff & Hoggard looked capable of getting wickets. The second innings batting would have given them a lot of confidence but without doubt they need to get the bowling attack bowling well as a unit or else they won't be stopping Australia.

As was the case in 2005 they were smashed in the 1st test & recovered superbly, but as Chappell rightly said the reason they recoved was because they actually bowled well & created chances at Lord's but didn't capitalise this time around at no time did they bowl well. Another key reason was the in 2005 England depended alot on defeating Australia's batsmen with conventional/reverse swing & its likely for the remainder of the series they won't have that luxury (unless Adelaide does give some reverse swing) so they need so other means of taking wickets thats why i think Panesar has to play.

[chris.hinton]

Flintoff simply is not a captains jockstrap, Giles is useless with the ball and when the belief came back it was too late

Drop Harmison and play Panesar keep Giles in for Insurance but bowl Panesar more then him.

Questions need to be asked though

[steds]

Originally Posted by Clapo

7 Aussies & 4 Poms.

7 Aussies, 3 poms and a South African.