Haha, his 100+ balls faced was a major factor in making sure it was remotely close. If England had drawn the match it'd would have been noted as the key innings.Originally Posted by Matt79
I think the result kind of highlights the ridiculousness of the approach really.Originally Posted by Alysum
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
Ignore the troll.Originally Posted by Matt79
Ridiculous just about sums Collingwood up today.Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
On a pitch like that, a standout bowler should have been given Man of the Match. Hoggard or Stuart Clark. Any bowler who excelled on the first four days on that road, deserves more credit than a batsman who did likewise.
As someone said on radio this morning, if England had taken the game up to Australia in the first couple of hours instead of playing for a draw from the start they would have had too many runs for it to be anything other than a draw. Collingwood did well to stay around, but when you have a guy scoring no runs at one end it puts a bit of pressure on the guys at the other. You're basically in a situation where, if a couple of wickets fall, your team's under pressure becuase all of a sudden if you lose 10 wickets you don't have enough runs to defend.Originally Posted by Matteh
Was Hoggard injured in the 2nd innings?
After the first over he wasOriginally Posted by howardj
Funniest moment of the day comes from Ian Healy.
"This Ashes series continues to twist and turn like a... giant python!"
Someone get him away from the microphone.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
Ponting > Collingwood
Paul Collingwood defended like Trevor Bailey and showed no interest in protecting his lower-order until the last-gasp arrival of James Anderson. The breakthrough of the first-innings 206 was replaced by a breakdown. He remained not out on 22 but in the context of the result who cared?
Making runs, any runs, was more valuable than eating up time, although the methods were magnificently complementary. Collingwood faced 119 balls, struck two fours and let his team down. A half-century, even some intent to attack or a desire to hit something loose - there were opportunities - would have ensured more fame and a draw. Block, leave, pad-up, defend. Take a single, leave the tail-ender exposed, watch them scatter like the ground's seagulls.
Has a team ever played and been captained (in terms of the choice of bowlers) so badly on a final day of a Test match? If I didn't know better, I'd say the game was fixed. Hoggard, Harmison and Flintoff should have bowled at least 25 of the 32 overs. Hoggard and Flintoff in the main.
If you're going to have a pop at a member of the England team, Collingwood shouldn't be it tbh. The fact he hit a double century and then kept his wicket (even if you disagree with the methods) when everyone else was losing theirs means he's clearly not the one to question.Originally Posted by Laurrz
Superb post.Originally Posted by Laurrz
Not the first time either. Your wisdom is not going unnoticed.
Unfortunately this game is being played towards the end of 2006, and we all know how poor Harmison' s been for the majority of the last 2 years.Originally Posted by Craig
Really, it would just be nice to be proved wrong occasionally. The shortcomings of this side were evident to everyone except Duncan Fletcher, and they've all been shown up. Anderson & Giles' inadequacies & lack of cricket this year always meant that there were better alternatives. Fred was always going to struggle at 6, especially given the amount of cricket he's played since June. The idea of Jones being any sort of test batsman has long since been shown up as complete mythology, and, if Fletcher really doesn't rate Read then he should have taken Foster as backup. And Harmison's performances haven't surprised anyone who's actually watched him over the last 24 months, whatever some people will try to tell you.
The assumptions that we have to play as many of the 2005 side as possible, and that we have to play 5 bowlers, just ignores everything that has happened since. And much of what actually happened in 2005, tbh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)