2nd test - biggest contributor

[Gamblor]

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?

 

[Top_Cat]

Thoughts?

Yep. You're being a tool. An obvious one too.

 

[Gamblor]

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.

 

[Athlai]

Meh Koertzen had some influence from Doctrove. Mistakes happen.

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

 

[Gamblor]

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

 

[Athlai]

Flintoff was 2nd. Then Cook/Anderson/Prior/Collingwood and Koertzen would be sitting ahead of the likes of Broad.

 

[Gamblor]

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.

 

[jondavluc]

to this thread.Mistakes happen get over it.

 

[superkingdave]

Lock and forget

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

 

[marc71178]

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.

 

[Gamblor]

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"?

 

[marc71178]

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.

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.

 

[andyc]

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.

 

[Gamblor]

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.

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)

 

[Gamblor]

... Yes it does.

If a ball swings late into the batsman's pads, Hawkeye doesn't swing it sometimes at all or otherwise sufficiently in it's projection. That's it's flaw.

 

[mat]

Australia actually got lucky with a few dismissals that were called no-balls, the majority from Freddie's behalf. Yes this was inevitable but its a chance for Australia none-the-less.
I'm an australian and am obviously disapointed about the result, and it surely is easier to blame the umpires. But could it have been a different story if Australia had taken that final wicket in Cardiif, where teh umpires had liitle effect? We'll never know

 

[zaremba]

Thoughts?

You've started a really poor thread, your contributions to it have been factually inaccurate, and your whole outlook is frankly a little bit embarrassing.

 

[vic_orthdox]

No need for this thread, just goint ot be a flame war.