Bowling teams weren't that bad, they just look like it often when bowling on pitches that give no assistance whatsoever.
Happy with this pitch, and like others here, hope there are more like it in test cricket, rather then the snore-fest anaemic monsters that are becoming commonplace.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
Yep Jacob Oram was pretty close to unplayable that series.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
Oz lost the 5th test because they lost the toss AND because they picked the wrong attack
IF they had picked the right attack AND lost the toss, the game would've been closer
IF they had picked the right attack AND won the toss, the game would've been a no contest
In other words, it was a crap pitch because the toss decided the result
ECB took a punt, came up trumps and anyone that says differently is simply talking crap
Last edited by social; 27-08-2009 at 11:06 AM.
160ao lost you the match. Nothing else. No coins, no stars aligning against you, no selectorial decisions. 160ao.
I've been one of Broad's few supporters on this forum but he benefitted from perfect bowling conditions and managed to move the ball for just about the only time in his career
As I said BEFORE lunch on day one, Oz were gone and it was just a matter of time before Eng won the match
The game was a farce but of more concern to Oz's short term future is whether CA regard the series as such or a symptom of a far greater problem
Rain, what are you talking about?
Weather was good in the build up to the test and during it.
Regarding the 'ridiculous sideways movement', you and I both know that no other bowler was able to get that kind of movement all game. He bowled cutters off the pitch and got the ball to move in the air, there isn't much more to it than that. You could argue that the pitch was made to suit his and Swann's style of bowling but whatever it is, it doesn't change the fact that the toss made no difference to the result. 3 out of 4 innings produced scores of 300+ including the last 2 innings of the test match. Like it or not the Aussie 2nd innings performance had very little to do with the toss.
Yes, an hour. Not sure how that would dramatically change the wicket as the no water got on the surface, it was already bone dry and cracking due to the lack of water.
I personally don't agree with curators dramatically changing the playing characteristics of a surface dependent on what the home team requires. When a wicket has played a certain way for a while and then it is worked on to produce something totally different I don't think that's an ideal scenario.
I would think the English hierarchy would have enjoyed a game where the toss had some affect on the match (how much is debatable) as it gave England their best chance of winning. In the end England needed a result wicket in the 5th Test and they got it. They also played better and won the match, so they should get credit. There's no real excuse for Australia being bowled out for 160. Broad bowled a good spell and we collapsed like he was Malcolm Marshall at the height of his powers.
It'll be interesting to see if the same starts happening in Oz now as we don't have the likes of Warne and McGrath, players who could get us a result on most surfaces. Unfortunately our strengths are also most other team's strengths too, with a pitch that negates spin being our best option.
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)