• 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* First Test at the Gabba

Howe_zat

Audio File
Well not really, because that game clearly wasn't anywhere near even.

At the end of the game, Australia led by 261 runs with five wickets in hand. That's a strong position.
It's a good position but it doesn't count for much because so much of the game was curtailed by rain. England were the better side on two of the three full days played. I'd accept that it was a fairly even game but not that Australia dominated by any means.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Yeah, I've said elsewhere that we often play better right after our worst performances.

You're still a **** though Richard, I mean EWS.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
It's a good position but it doesn't count for much because so much of the game was curtailed by rain. England were the better side on two of the three full days played. I'd accept that it was a fairly even game but not that Australia dominated by any means.
Yeah, my position, and original point which I chose not to drag out with wordiness, was that it was a fairly even game in which Australia took momentum from. This differs from Cardiff where England got out of jail but could hardly claim momentum after being thoroughly outplayed. Wasn't trying to start a debate over whether Australia would've won if not for rain or anything like that, but if anyone took momentum from that it was them, and they build on that momentum the following Test by winning by an innings.. and then still got rolled in the decider.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Upper**** wrote a good piece in the blog last year after the Cardiff test about who had momentum. There is definitely a case of us having momentum through the euphoria of that escape and the opposite emotions the filth would have had.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Yeah, my position, and original point which I chose not to drag out with wordiness, was that it was a fairly even game in which Australia took momentum from. This differs from Cardiff where England got out of jail but could hardly claim momentum after being thoroughly outplayed. Wasn't trying to start a debate over whether Australia would've won if not for rain or anything like that, but if anyone took momentum from that it was them, and they build on that momentum the following Test by winning by an innings.. and then still got rolled in the decider.
TBH if there was anyone who claimed momentum there, it was Broad. A gift 6-for and a carefree smashed 60 can do good things to one's confidence.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wasn't trying to start a debate over whether Australia would've won if not for rain or anything like that, but if anyone took momentum from that it was them, and they build on that momentum the following Test by winning by an innings.. and then still got rolled in the decider.
I thought they only got rolled in the decider because of the pitch at the Oval not because we played the better cricket?:ph34r:
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
So what happens if Australia don't win this series?

Can he carry on as captain if he hasn't won the ashes back and would the public still want him to carry on anyway.

I know that is an if,but or maybe but it may happen and he is probably under more pressure now than at any time of his reign and if today is anything to go by he hasn't handled it well as some of those fields were bizarre to say the least.
Of course he can if his own form holds. You want him to take 8 wickets a match too? All great captains have one thing in common...

They have good cattle.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Of course he can if his own form holds. You want him to take 8 wickets a match too? All great captains have one thing in common...

They have good cattle.
Not true.

Fleming was a bloody good captain and he had a lot of carthorses in his side.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I thought they only got rolled in the decider because of the pitch at the Oval not because we played the better cricket?:ph34r:
Haha, does anyone still go on about that? They need to have a look at the scorecard. That one innings was simply brilliant bowling aided by mindless batting (MICHAEL CLARKE I AM LOOKING AT YOU). Although we did get the attack horribly wrong for that game, that pitch was going to be murder for Clark.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Upper**** wrote a good piece in the blog last year after the Cardiff test about who had momentum. There is definitely a case of us having momentum through the euphoria of that escape and the opposite emotions the filth would have had.
I think that's clutching at straws somewhat. Didn't seem to help Australia at Trent Bridge in '05 for example, or England in the last Test against SA this year. On the other hand, India had a similar escape in 2007 and won the series, and of course England bounced back well in '09 at Lords. I doubt there's any correlation.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
AWTA

He is useful bringing the ball back to the left hander but i have never seen him cut one back to a righthander.Only really seen him in ashes tests though so he may have one but i haven't seen it and you have seen him more than i have.

I rate him as a steady bowler but not someone who will run through a decent side.Useful to have if you have a couple of real tearaway quicks in the side but they don't appear to have that at present anyway.
What about that delivery to Trott which came back into him. Hiflenhaus can definitely move it both ways
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Yeah more important as far as the series/confidence etc. was concerned was the first session at Lords'. The public might have been euphoric but amongst the 22 that actually mattered I don't think for a second there was any misconception as to who had been thoroughly outplayed and who had done the outplaying. Remember - the only reason that match got to where it was was because England had batted like monkeys for much of the day (Andrew Strauss, looking at you), struggling, bloody and bruised, over 200 on a placid pitch which had seen five Australians make 80+ scores not long before.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
What about that delivery to Trott which came back into him. Hiflenhaus can definitely move it both ways
Yeah, that was his offcutter. As I said, it doesn't normally go very far and is hence usually only effective against left handers, with the increased angle from bowling across them. He doesn't doesn't bowl a genuine inswinger.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
What about that delivery to Trott which came back into him. Hiflenhaus can definitely move it both ways
Was a cutter IMO. Definitely didn't swing in. Didn't move as much as it seemed live in the end, padding up near off stump tends to give that impression.
 

nick-o

State 12th Man
It's a matter of pride, supported by tradition. It's often bandied about (semi-seriously) in Australia that the second-most influential person in the country - aside from the PM - is the Test captain. It's entirely unthinkable that someone would turn down the Test captaincy like Mark Butcher did if it was offered to them. The formula for consistent captaincy policy started with Border, after it became painfully obvious that the Hughes/Yallop selection cluster**** had gimped the team beyond repair. If one's captaincy was predicated on results, Border would have been stripped of it well before he turned the side around. After sticking with Border yielded serious results, it was agreed that the captain's authority - bolstered by length of stay - was vital to a winning side. It's why they've never dropped a captain on results since then and even refused to drop them on form. It's not a flawless policy, but it correlates very tightly with Australia's winning period.

....
There may be an element of chicken-and-egg in that -- is Australia's winning period a result of the captaincy-for-life policy, or is the captaincy-for-life policy only possible if you are going through a period of dominance? You could argue that when the team is full of ATGs the role of the captain is very different (in many ways quite minimal) compared to a team full of lesser lights. And you could also argue that the captaincy is having a seriously adverse effect on Ponting's own batting -- and now he's the only real great left in the batting lineup you simply can't afford to have him performing at anything less than 100%.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, that was his offcutter. As I said, it doesn't normally go very far and is hence usually only effective against left handers, with the increased angle from bowling across them. He doesn't doesn't bowl a genuine inswinger.
Oh I thought you were saying he only bowled on cutters or something.

Confusing myself at the moment.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I think that's clutching at straws somewhat. Didn't seem to help Australia at Trent Bridge in '05 for example, or England in the last Test against SA this year. On the other hand, India had a similar escape in 2007 and won the series, and of course England bounced back well in '09 at Lords. I doubt there's any correlation.
Yeah, its just a case of each to their own. All teams react to things differently hence why you can never really categorically have momentum.
 

Top