"What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)
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
England were 3 for 42 when Clark took his first wicket.
Obviously England were smashing Australia and without Clark's THREE wickets we would have lost that test.
Three for forty-two
Big, fat, stinking deal. Instead of winning of winning by an innings an 80 runs Australia might have only won by 10 or 9 wickets and had to bat again. What a disaster. I'm glad Clark was tehre to save Australia with his THREE wickets.
I mean Siddle cleaning up the tail, something Australia failed to do in 4/5 matches had nothing to do with. People go on about Clark's THREE wickets more than Siddle's five. Yeah, 4/5 wickets were tail enders. Someone remind me how the English tail performed at Cardiff please.
Last edited by slippyslip; 28-08-2009 at 09:53 PM.
You still seem to be conducting a lone tilt at the "Australia would have lost without Clark" windmill. Enjoy it!
Anyhow, think about the 2nd innings at the Oval - England 3 down for bugger all - Australia could have done with THREE more quick wickets at that stage, don't you think?
Last edited by zaremba; 29-08-2009 at 03:30 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)