Also that we contributed to our downfall quite a bit. And anyway, Cardiff was an abberation, not conditions we're going to see again (hopefully), and certainly not conditions that favour us.The first 19 wickets no longer count I see.
In truth, Aussie did fantastically well to get the game to that stage given conditions. Check out how England's bowling fared in that match.
I think Mitchell Johnson's performances have a lot to do with it. He's the only bowler most people would have heard of before the series, and he was talked up so much by the press it's not hard to see why people who haven't seen this Aussie team before think the attack is rubbish if he's supposed to be a world-beater.
It's rather a fallacy he's not a slow starter, at least against decent attacks. In his 20 innings versus yer crims he's registered 11 single digit scores. There's also the small matter of one fifty in 12 (IIRC) knocks since his "breakthrough" 199. &, obv, choking one shy of a double ton has its own tale to tell anyway, as do the 7 & 0 scored his his recall was rubber stamped.
Who said we did?Because against the worst Australian bowling attack I've ever seen, players who get themselves out are what we need
SWALEC should've favoured England TBH, and certainly should've done if it was a little bit quicker.
Yeah, was talking about the slowness tbh. After our experiences with slow decks in the winter.
I'm not saying it's terrible or anything, but Hilfenhaus - Siddle - horribly-out-of-form Johnson - Hauritz is hardly McGrath - Clark - Lee - Warne, is it?
With the exception of Hilfenhaus, its hard to see how the Australian bowlers deserved to have taken 19 wickets in that test. Their 2nd inning performance was a step up, but in the first innings they were collectively very poor as they have been all series. England merely obliged by batting poorly, no one going on to convert their starts into 100s for example.The first 19 wickets no longer count I see
In truth, Aussie did fantastically well to get the game to that stage given conditions. Check out how England's bowling fared in that match.
It doesn't need to be to take 20 wickets, and it almost certainly doesn't need to be to take 20 English wickets.
Yes, although the majority of those single digit scores came when he was still finding his feet in international cricket and almost certainly wasn't ready to be playing test match cricket. In his next effort, against McGrath, Warne, Clark and Lee (an improved bowling attack to the 1 bowler show we saw in 2005), he got 4 50s and 2 20s failing to convert any of them into big scores and thereby exhibited what is now a hallmark of his career. Certainly wasn't, for lack of a better word, 'sherminated' the last time he played the Aussies.
You could say the same about England at Lord's bar Flintoff. Australia gifted them five 1st innings wickets.
Not really. Swann was excellent when he was allowed to bowl and Anderson was impressive, albeit not brilliant, in both innings. Just because Australia batted poorly, it doesnt mean that England didn't bowl well.
Infected scar tissue now - GIMH started a thread in CC.Ouch.