Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The difference is if any of those four had gotten his luck they *would* have scored a century. None of them should be happy with what they did.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Jamee999
Hall of Fame Member
It's the fact that it's been the story of his career.
JBH001
International Regular
Not sure what management will be telling Broad in a few hours.
Trust himself, and Harmison and Anderson against the new ball, and score runs by batting properly, or counter-attack as soon as he feels able, and try to get as many runs as possible (350 + ideally). I reckon he should put faith in his partners, and approach the morning session as the proper batsman he has the capacity to be.
Trust himself, and Harmison and Anderson against the new ball, and score runs by batting properly, or counter-attack as soon as he feels able, and try to get as many runs as possible (350 + ideally). I reckon he should put faith in his partners, and approach the morning session as the proper batsman he has the capacity to be.
pup11
International Coach
Obviously its a pitch that has been prepared in such a way that it would produce a result, Oval pitches in the recent history have been flat and hard right through the game, though such (dusty) conditions don't suit England much, but this was probably the only way in which they could have produced a result oriented pitch at the Oval, though I don't think England have picked the right bowling attack for these conditions.
Last edited:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Excellent - neither have Aus.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah, I reckon Ravi would have gotten out early in the same manner as Prior. Spooning one to gully.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
As has often been the case during this series, everyone is bagging out the batting side and giving nothing to the bowling side.
Let me say at the outset I saw less of last night's play than I have the balance of the series, having missed most of the first session, and going to bed at 4 down after tea, because by then it was apparent that even if England didn't lose another wicket we'd pared back the RR to an extent there wasn't going to be major damage like 380-400 scored in the day.
Must say I've not seen a wicket in England go through the top like that on day one before. Still and all, from what I saw the bounce seems to be true. We've all hit out at England's poor batting, but I think context is important here. After the first session, Australia really dialled it back and were prepared to play the waiting game. That takes discipline of a kind they haven't always displayed this series, so I think they deserve credit for that. Siddle either side of tea was great, but there seems to be a consensus that Clark was no good.
Why is that? I realise he didn't take a wicket, but if it's not his kind of deck, and it's doing nothing to the point where you can be worked off the stumps to leg on a fast outfield, what was wrong with the dry-line approach he went with? I would have thought he played his part from the planning POV.
As for the England batting, well at least the game is advancing and their total isn't completely toilet. Gives them something to bowl at. And they need to push the game along anyways.
Obviously the ball's going to turn big as the match goes on, but if it holds together on days 2 and 3 and Australia bat well, then it really ought not matter that much.
Let me say at the outset I saw less of last night's play than I have the balance of the series, having missed most of the first session, and going to bed at 4 down after tea, because by then it was apparent that even if England didn't lose another wicket we'd pared back the RR to an extent there wasn't going to be major damage like 380-400 scored in the day.
Must say I've not seen a wicket in England go through the top like that on day one before. Still and all, from what I saw the bounce seems to be true. We've all hit out at England's poor batting, but I think context is important here. After the first session, Australia really dialled it back and were prepared to play the waiting game. That takes discipline of a kind they haven't always displayed this series, so I think they deserve credit for that. Siddle either side of tea was great, but there seems to be a consensus that Clark was no good.
Why is that? I realise he didn't take a wicket, but if it's not his kind of deck, and it's doing nothing to the point where you can be worked off the stumps to leg on a fast outfield, what was wrong with the dry-line approach he went with? I would have thought he played his part from the planning POV.
As for the England batting, well at least the game is advancing and their total isn't completely toilet. Gives them something to bowl at. And they need to push the game along anyways.
Obviously the ball's going to turn big as the match goes on, but if it holds together on days 2 and 3 and Australia bat well, then it really ought not matter that much.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And if they don't and the pitch doesn't hold together that well? Too many 'ifs' for my liking. Bowling North as much as they have weakens the batting response too. If the aim was to have a bloke mainly to keep it tight, well he's done that. I'd suspect, though, that the selectors would have expected more than innocuous meds. That North got so many overs suggests Ponting knows they've missed a trick.
It baffles that the panel would just ignore conventional widom for this track when Aus gives visiting skippers so much crap for doing the same (Hussian, Brisbane, 2002). The word for weeks now has been that no matter how flat, The Oval turns. Hauritz had to play, for mine, whoever they dropped.
pup11
International Coach
No it isn't, there were a lot of balls yesterday that hardly carried to the keeper, and then there were some balls that took off from nowhere, so the bounce is definitely not true, and its only gonna get worse, and batting is likely to get really tough as the game progresses.
That's why I think 307-8 isn't bad effort from England, of course they had the best of batting conditions to bat in and had they batted better in the first innings they could have pushed Australia into a tight corner in this game/series, but still if the last two wickets add another 40-50 runs then they would have fighting total on the board.
Though as I already mentioned, like us the English too have messed with their selections, and what it does is put a lot of pressure on Swann' shoulders to deliver the goods, but then our batting line too has capitulated a few times in this series, therefore AFAIC the game is still pretty evenly poised.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Sorry but that's a load of rubbish.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
I thought Bell did well, he was under the most incredible pressure and he was gutsy enough to top score. Trott as well I thought was excellent, and it was a bit of a freak dismissal to get him out.
It was disappointing that either Prior or Flintoff didn't get going a bit, but Johnson's slower ball does seem to cause people trouble, and we know Fred's hit and miss.
It was disappointing that either Prior or Flintoff didn't get going a bit, but Johnson's slower ball does seem to cause people trouble, and we know Fred's hit and miss.
inbox24
International Debutant
Australia are really under the pump here, especially if Broad and the tail put together 50 for the last two wickets. Bowling first we're gonna have to get a big lead otherwise chasing any half decent total on the last few days on a turning track with so many lefties in the team, Swann's really gonna have a field day.
We really need Haddin and Clarke the best players of spin to stand up and play big innings because the others will just get dug out.
We really need Haddin and Clarke the best players of spin to stand up and play big innings because the others will just get dug out.
Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
Am with In Burges here. There were so many times when it looked like England could amass a 400+ score. England were 176/2 until Australia pulled it back.
Really happy still with the bowling attack, I thought every bowler played their role well. If Hauritz should've played instead of someone in this Test, on this deck, it should've been Hilfenhaus. But only a crazy person would have made that move after Hilf's series.
North could've easily had a wicket or two, and imo did nothing short of what Hauritz would've achieved. And again, even if Hauritz was selected over Siddle/Johnson/Clark, I believe we would've dearly missed the roles those bowlers fulfill.
I am still convinced that Australia have picked the right XI, and look forward to watching us bat today.
Really happy still with the bowling attack, I thought every bowler played their role well. If Hauritz should've played instead of someone in this Test, on this deck, it should've been Hilfenhaus. But only a crazy person would have made that move after Hilf's series.
North could've easily had a wicket or two, and imo did nothing short of what Hauritz would've achieved. And again, even if Hauritz was selected over Siddle/Johnson/Clark, I believe we would've dearly missed the roles those bowlers fulfill.
I am still convinced that Australia have picked the right XI, and look forward to watching us bat today.
Last edited:
That (deserved) reputation won't be tested in this match, not against Swann.