That's just being realistic though
That's just being realistic though
"He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."RIP CraigosKnowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
Not that many of Ponting's dismissals on the pull have been top-edges. He's mostly middled them, but his technique on the pull/hook means that he hits in the air very often... and when he middles it, they sail. Luck and two men back do the rest.
Of more concern was when he tried the Clarke short-arm jab. I have no idea how Clarke plays that shot, but it's not for Ponting. Luckily he shelved it for the true Ponting pull at first opportunity. Him playing that would be much more of a sign he's concerned about his ability to pull effectively.
Last edited by Spark; 29-11-2010 at 08:35 AM.
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
But again that's not confidence. That's form. If he wasn't confident, he wouldn't have been trying to play the shot. You do actually see the ball better, pick up the length better, your feet move better, you're more relaxed at the crease etc. etc. with time at the crease so yes I can see how just spending time in the middle can get you from failing to middle any pulls to middling everything.
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Originally Posted by John Singleton
Yeah true, but my point is that it wasn't a lack of confidence that led Ponting to play the pull so badly in the first part of that knock, if anything, it's overconfidence, as he thought he could play the shot fine when it looked to everyone else that he wasn't.
EDIT: Maybe form is the wrong word. "settled at the crease" is more what I meant.
Trott was the definition of a loose shot. Could've bowled a basket ball through the gate.
Considering it was Prior's first ball he should hang his head in shame as well. Whipping across the line first up FTL.
And you guys were saved by us not being able to catch a cricket ball. Whatever, the point remains that we scored 481 runs in there, which is plenty.
You have to admit that, aside from Siddle's one spell after tea, England largely got themselves out in the first innings. There were no demons in the pitch and we saw on the last three days what could be done without a load of loose shots and with a bit of luck. Both sides are going to struggle to take 20 wickets this series without a collapse.
Australia will have a lot more worries in the bowling. Anderson and Siddle both came up with excellent spells in this match. But only Johnson and to a lesser extent Hilfenhaus could be described as bad. Swann was below-par but his recent record makes up for it, and Doherty was inconspicuous.
One thing we did see is that England are very tough to beat when they are on the back foot, and for them to win they are now going to have to be able to take advantage when things go wrong for Australia.
"Your averages, captain, coaches and players can probably survive incompetence over a relatively short series, so if youíre going to be rubbish, make sure itís against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand or someone."
Cook was dropped just after he reached 100, Strauss was dropped on 60 odd, Trott was dropped on 30 odd (although you'd be hard-pressed to call it a genuine chance).
The points is these things happen in test cricket, at the end of the day, 481 is a lot of runs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)