*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[GIMH]

Ha, fair enough but any X V Y thread in CW is always full of facile opinions

[Goughy]

Hayden was a flat track bully but a guy who took 500 test wickets at 21 IN THE SAME ERA is criticised because "allegedly" he didnt move the ball enough

Im a huge fan of McGrath. Im not sure why you are quoting my post

[Howe_zat]

Hayden was a flat track bully but a guy who took 500 test wickets at 21 IN THE SAME ERA is criticised because "allegedly" he didnt move the ball enough

Who's criticising him?

[tooextracool]

No-one is denying that Oz's attack looked very ordinary today but you you conveniently ignore the fact Cook and Trott are only there because we dropped them

Are you kidding? If you pluck any random Aussie and smack the ball the same way as Cook and Trott did to Clark and SIddle, 9 out of 10 times those catches will not be taken. Believe it or not 300/1 is an accurate depiction of how the bowlers bowled yesterday, lets not let half chances get in the way of the big picture.

[GingerFurball]

vcs has beaten me to it, but as I'd already multi-quoted Coz I went with it anyway. Oz had a similar escape at OT in 2005, but followed on in the 4th test. Momentum a bit nebulous IMHO.

Momentum is only a factor as long at the team who has that momentum continues to run with it.

I don't think there's much of a case for either claim wrt Cardiff in 09 or Old Trafford in 05. What happened at Lord's was simply a case of England learning from their mistakes made at Cardiff - that the batsmen had to capitalise on the starts they made. They were lucky that Anderson and Panesar's resistance gave them the opportunity to effectively start the series afresh at Lord's. Any claim that Australia took momentum into Trent Bridge in 05 is also tosh, they'd gone from being a boundary away from being 2-0 up to being comprehensively outplayed and lucky not to be 2-1 down.

The best example I can think of momentum changing in a series is actually from 2006/07. Ponting threw away Australia's early dominance by not enforcing the follow on at Brisbane, which allowed Pietersen and Collingwood to get a bit of form and score some runs in the 4th dig, which England could face without any sort of pressure. When England won the toss and batted at Adelaide, those two again combined and England posted 551/6 - which was a pretty emphatic statement considering how badly beaten they'd been at Brisbane. Up until Giles dropped Ponting, the momentum in that series had completely swung England's way. Warne snatched it away on that fateful final morning and Australia never looked back.

[Howe_zat]

"Momentum" is a word that gets bandied about a lot when people want to talk about "form", but need a slightly different word for some reason. It definitely helps to put some runs of good play together. But judging from all the examples we're seeing on this thread, "momentum" is very erratic and just serves as another way to point out which side you think has done better recently.

I for one only use "momentum" when I mean "the product of mass and velocity" and I don't really want that to change.

On the other hand, it could be fun to find more terms from applied mathematics enter the cricketing lexicon. Which side to we think has the hysteresis right now? I'd say Australia have some torque to their side built up but England will have the torsion going into the second Test.

[GIMH]

Don't take the thread off on a tangent

[vcs]

Momentum is only a factor as long at the team who has that momentum continues to run with it.

I don't think there's much of a case for either claim wrt Cardiff in 09 or Old Trafford in 05. What happened at Lord's was simply a case of England learning from their mistakes made at Cardiff - that the batsmen had to capitalise on the starts they made. They were lucky that Anderson and Panesar's resistance gave them the opportunity to effectively start the series afresh at Lord's. Any claim that Australia took momentum into Trent Bridge in 05 is also tosh, they'd gone from being a boundary away from being 2-0 up to being comprehensively outplayed and lucky not to be 2-1 down.

The best example I can think of momentum changing in a series is actually from 2006/07. Ponting threw away Australia's early dominance by not enforcing the follow on at Brisbane, which allowed Pietersen and Collingwood to get a bit of form and score some runs in the 4th dig, which England could face without any sort of pressure. When England won the toss and batted at Adelaide, those two again combined and England posted 551/6 - which was a pretty emphatic statement considering how badly beaten they'd been at Brisbane. Up until Giles dropped Ponting, the momentum in that series had completely swung England's way. Warne snatched it away on that fateful final morning and Australia never looked back.

I think that's a good example. As a spectator you can just sense these subtle shifts happening (body language, marginal umpiring decisions, luck), so I disagree with Howe_zat that it's just another descriptor of form. The team with the momentum often tends to back itself to play much more aggressively in the tight moments, and gets rewarded more often than not.

[Woodster]

Just like to pass comment on Strauss today (or yesterday). I thought a good sign for Strauss was his cover driving which was excellent, at times an area of such concern for him, his balance into the drive was excellent. Nice to see him being so positive against the spinners, although it was to prove his downfall and nearly did earlier in the piece trying to go over the top off Doherty. His sweep is not completely convincing, but he didn't let the slow bowlers settle and he played the short ball typically well.

He looked really positive and solid and it is a good sign for us in the series.

[zaremba]

Pretty good stuff overall by England so far. I thought Anderson and Broad were immense in the morning on Day 3, and with a modicum of luck we'd have led on 1st innings. And our batting in the second innings has been simply outstanding. Assuming we don't now lose by surrendering a hatful of wickets in the final morning (which is quite possible) this could all be pretty demoralising for Australia.

Mitch Johnson an early contender for the Harmison Medal

[Howe_zat]

I think it's a bit unfair to cite luck on day 3 but not on day 4, both Strauss and Hussey had let-offs but capitalised brilliantly. I'd say the match is dead even so far, but I'm sure Anderson was the best bowler of the last two days.

Just think if there was a day extra, what a finish we might have had. Still plenty of cricket to play, but it's almost certainly going to be a draw, so we're just going to see some jostling for bragging rights.

So what, exactly, has happened to Johnson?

[Blaze 18]

I wonder if we will see a declaration from England at lunch with a lead of say, two hundred or thereabouts.

[Woodster]

Pretty good stuff overall by England so far. I thought Anderson and Broad were immense in the morning on Day 3, and with a modicum of luck we'd have led on 1st innings. And our batting in the second innings has been simply outstanding. Assuming we don't now lose by surrendering a hatful of wickets in the final morning (which is quite possible) this could all be pretty demoralising for Australia.

Mitch Johnson an early contender for the Harmison Medal

I think it's a bit unfair to cite luck on day 3 but not on day 4, both Strauss and Hussey had let-offs but capitalised brilliantly. I'd say the match is dead even so far, but I'm sure Anderson was the best bowler of the last two days.

Just think if there was a day extra, what a finish we might have had. Still plenty of cricket to play, but it's almost certainly going to be a draw, so we're just going to see some jostling for bragging rights.

So what, exactly, has happened to Johnson?

We've come back into the Test really well so far, and it may have a negative effect on Australia, only time will tell in that. It may be an indication as to how Australia hit back in the first session tonight, if they rattle a few it'll get their tails up, if Trott and Cook get through to lunch it will take it out of them.

I think both sides have enjoyed a modicum of luck, but Hussey and Haddin needed a fair bit to get through Anderson's spell, and Broad's effort.

Looking forward to the first session. Do you think England have any genuine aspirations in getting to a reasonable lead and having a go at Australia ? Or will it be a case of taking it over by over and if we get to a position where we can be more positive we may do so ?

[Howe_zat]

If Strauss declares before tea I'll eat my shoes.

One thing I learned today is that Marcus North isn’t an awful bowler. He can put a decent, tidy spell together when his captain needs that. It’s just that he has never taken a wicket, ever.

Sure, sometimes he happens to be bowling when a wicket falls. But I was once stood on the street when somebody gave me a coupon book for Subway. Saying Marcus North took a wicket last night is a bit like saying I stole a coupon book.

[Blaze 18]

Yeah, he will likely choose to play it safe. I cannot say I blame him either - just imagine the reactions of the fans and media if England were to make a sporting declaration and lose.