Cricket Player Manager
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: 2nd test - biggest contributor

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator Gamblor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13

    2nd test - biggest contributor

    Am interested in others thoughts on who was the biggest contributor for the English over the course of the 2nd test. From an Australian point of view it's pretty clear - no-one in the first innings, Clarke then Haddin in the 2nd, and bugger all with the ball.

    From an Engligh point of view it's a bit more complex, so I'd like to know who the English supporters think was the biggest contributor to their win:

    1. Andrew Strauss. Set the tone on Day 1, batting all day. Really set up the big first innings lead that ultimately won them the test.

    2.Andrew Flintoff. First innings didn't do much, taking just the 1 wicket (Hussey, bowled). With the bat he only made 4 runs in the first innings. In the 2nd innings he was 30 N.O. with the bat, then took 5 wickets with the ball, those of Hughes*, Katich*, Haddin, Hauritz and Siddle.

    3. Rudi Koertzen. Whilst Rudi cannot bat or bowl or even field, being an umpire, he certainly did have a contribution to the game. Wickets of Australians he adjudicated as being out, when they were in fact not out, were: In the first innings, Hughes and Ponting. In the 2nd innings: Hughes (again), Katich and Hussey. Now, that's 1 less wicket than Flintoff, however, TWO of Flintoff's wickets were actually Koertzen's wickets (the * wickets above), meaning Flintoff only got 3 wickets in the 2nd innings, and 1 in the first, for a total of 4.

    Personally, I'd actually go for Strauss with his big score of 161 in the first innings (then a handy enough 32 in the 2nd) as the man with the biggest contribution in the game, but for 2nd I think I'd have to go for Koertzen, just ahead of Flintoff, for the former's efforts when England had the ball. He's been the catalyst for 5 Australian wickets, whereas Flintoff was only the catalyst for 4.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Gamblor; 20-07-2009 at 10:41 PM.

  2. #2
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamblor View Post
    Thoughts?
    Yep. You're being a tool. An obvious one too.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  3. #3
    Cricket Spectator Gamblor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Yep. You're being a tool. An obvious one too.

    You deny that Koertzen had an influence on the game?

    I am asking a legit question - who had a bigger influence on the game: Strauss, Flintoff or Koertzen.

    Serious question, looking for serious answers.

  4. #4
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    #teamAthlai
    Posts
    27,933
    Meh Koertzen had some influence from Doctrove. Mistakes happen.

    Strauss was the real game winner, his hundred was the big difference between the teams.
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society


  5. #5
    Cricket Spectator Gamblor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Meh Koertzen had some influence from Doctrove. Mistakes happen.

    Strauss was the real game winner, his hundred was the big difference between the teams.
    So... you agree then on the following order of contribution?

    1 - Strauss
    2 - Koertzen
    3 - Flintoff

  6. #6
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    #teamAthlai
    Posts
    27,933
    Flintoff was 2nd. Then Cook/Anderson/Prior/Collingwood and Koertzen would be sitting ahead of the likes of Broad.

  7. #7
    Cricket Spectator Gamblor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Flintoff was 2nd. Then Cook/Anderson/Prior/Collingwood and Koertzen would be sitting ahead of the likes of Broad.
    Hmm I think poor old Rudi is being undervalued again. It's not just the wickets he took (ie numbers) but also the quality of the wickets. His five wickets were all top order, in Hughes, Ponting, Hughes again, Katich, Hussey.

    He took three out of a possible four wickets in opening stands, that's remarkable on it's own.

    The more I think about it, actually, the more he quite possibly should be #1.

  8. #8
    State Regular jondavluc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Westside of that big light blub thingy
    Posts
    943
    to this thread.Mistakes happen get over it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Death
    Dumb I told him"the serpent that never dies is dead I took her life three thousend years ago! the never ending battle has ended"

    Awesome Test XI

    Tillekeratne Dilshan
    Simon Katich
    Ricky Ponting (c)
    Michael Hussey
    Michael Clarke
    AB de Villiers
    Brad Haddin (k)
    Daniel Vettori
    Peter Siddle
    Dong Bollinger
    Ben Hilfenhaus

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member superkingdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    DRS Box
    Posts
    19,048
    Lock and forget
    Dave Mohammed >>>> You

  10. #10
    U19 Cricketer Trumpers_Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ayers Rock
    Posts
    460

  11. #11
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamblor View Post
    You deny that Koertzen had an influence on the game?
    Well for a start Hughes was out first innings and Ponting should've been given LBW rather than caught, so net result was out.

    In the second innings, Hughes was actually given out by Doctrove, so again, not Koertzen.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  12. #12
    Cricket Spectator Gamblor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    Well for a start Hughes was out first innings and Ponting should've been given LBW rather than caught, so net result was out.

    In the second innings, Hughes was actually given out by Doctrove, so again, not Koertzen.
    Hughes didn't glove that one in the first innings, it came off his arm. In the 2nd innings, Ponting "should've" been given LBW? Hmm... well the umpire had said not out to the LBW (Rudi) so that argument is incorrect. It was swinging down legside anyway. Good old Hawkeye doesn't account for the ball swinging, so Hawkeye had it hitting leg. As to Hughes being given out by Doctrove? Rudi should've referred it to the 3rd umpire, and he didn't.

    0 for 3 their Marc... or should I say, "Rudi"?

  13. #13
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamblor View Post
    In the 2nd innings, Ponting "should've" been given LBW? Hmm... well the umpire had said not out to the LBW (Rudi) so that argument is incorrect.
    1st innings you mean (unless you have doubts about the 2nd innings dismissal?

    The LBW was turned down because he thought there was an inside edge - so he was given caught, it was hitting, so the LBW shout was good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gamblor View Post
    As to Hughes being given out by Doctrove? Rudi should've referred it to the 3rd umpire, and he didn't.
    No, he couldn't refer it if his colleague had a clear view - which his colleague said he did - therefore it was his colleague gave the catch.

    I actually feel both disputed catches should've been given, as the 2D replay is flawed owing to the foreshortening effect that makes it ineffective for judging such incidents.

  14. #14
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend andyc's Avatar
    Yeti Sports 1.5 Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    23,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamblor View Post
    Hughes didn't glove that one in the first innings, it came off his arm. In the 2nd innings, Ponting "should've" been given LBW? Hmm... well the umpire had said not out to the LBW (Rudi) so that argument is incorrect. It was swinging down legside anyway. Good old Hawkeye doesn't account for the ball swinging, so Hawkeye had it hitting leg. As to Hughes being given out by Doctrove? Rudi should've referred it to the 3rd umpire, and he didn't.

    0 for 3 their Marc... or should I say, "Rudi"?
    ... Yes it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

  15. #15
    Cricket Spectator Gamblor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    1st innings you mean (unless you have doubts about the 2nd innings dismissal?

    The LBW was turned down because he thought there was an inside edge - so he was given caught, it was hitting, so the LBW shout was good.
    Yes, obviously I meant first innings. Pretty sure I can't argue with the 2nd innings one, though I never did get to see the replay of the bowler's front foot..... conspiracy? Probably.

    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    No, he couldn't refer it if his colleague had a clear view - which his colleague said he did - therefore it was his colleague gave the catch.

    I actually feel both disputed catches should've been given, as the 2D replay is flawed owing to the foreshortening effect that makes it ineffective for judging such incidents.
    The 2D replay may be flawed, but when you can see that there is no gap b/w ball and ground, and there is no fingers b/w ball and ground, ipso facto ball is touching ground. That's true in 2D, 3D and even our 4D friends declare it true. (Some rogues from the 9th dimension have other theories, but that's not relevant here)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. CW XI Test History
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Statistics and Records
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 29-11-2007, 06:34 AM
  2. Best Spinner ever
    By grant28 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 233
    Last Post: 07-12-2006, 12:39 PM
  3. ***Official*** Sri Lanka in India
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1454
    Last Post: 30-12-2005, 03:15 PM
  4. Go for 50 Tendulkar
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 16-12-2004, 10:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •