*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Marcuss]

The vast majority of which were scored in one partnership which offered a number of chances and had an LBW incorrectly turned down.
481 is quite a lot, but ignoring your 2 high scorers, you're innings was very comparable to ours. Just we didn't get the let offs.

[Howe_zat]

The vast majority of which were scored in one partnership which offered a number of chances and had an LBW incorrectly turned down.
481 is quite a lot, but ignoring your 2 high scorers, you're innings was very comparable to ours. Just we didn't get the let offs.

...


517 is quite a lot, but ignoring the two highest scorers, we got barely over a hundred.

[Marcuss]

...


517 is quite a lot, but ignoring the two highest scorers, we got barely over a hundred.

Yeah, because 11 batsmen vs 3 (or effectively 9 vs 1) is entirely comparable.

[Prince EWS]

Nah Marcuss, I'll agree that England had the better of the game, but it's due entirely to the second innings, and what you're posting right now is nothing more than biased ****. Excluding the top two run-scorers makes no sense, nor does bringing dropped catches into the argument as if both teams used neutral fielders (admittedly the latter was done by someone else). Australia definitely had the better of the first innings, pretty comfortably.

[GIMH]

I'd say the one argument you can make is that if you wanted to look at the let-offs, Australia's were caused by umpiring error whereas ours were caused by Aussie incompetence. But I don't think it really matters. I'm not a subscriber to FCA and although I think the anti-corruption unit need to investigate Dar () I think there's a lot to be said for going on when you know you should have been out, whatever the means. And as such, when being actually serious, rather than biased or silly (which, let's be fair, I am 95% of the time) I can't take anything away from Australia's innings - they weathered our storm really well and then kicked on.

That being said, I don't think looking at who was happier on day x or y is really relevant either, it's a two-innings game and I think you have to say that overall England looked the better side, due to the sheer volume of runs for one wicket in our second dig. As well as Ponting was playing, I couldn't see us conceding that many for that few wickets, in all honesty. But it was a close game and a draw was obviously fair, as time wasn't really lost, so meh.

[Marcuss]

Nah Marcuss, I'll agree that England had the better of the game, but it's due entirely to the second innings, and what you're posting right now is nothing more than biased ****. Excluding the top two run-scorers makes no sense, nor does bringing dropped catches into the argument as if both teams used neutral fielders (admittedly the latter was done by someone else). Australia definitely had the better of the first innings, pretty comfortably.

No, Australia had the better first innings but this stemmed from Benchmark's assertion that England were incapable of bowling out Australia. The point I made was that we were capable of such a thing, and that the only thing that prevented us from doing so were some dubious (see : incorrect) umpiring decisions, a decision which lead to a monumental partnership between Haddin and Hussey, and without that partnership your innings was almost identical to England's.
Biased my ass.

[zaremba]

I wonder which side will be the happier of the two.

England, surely.

Because even on that horrible 3rd day, they bowled beautifully and without luck to both Haddin and Hussey for a sustained period. Haddin described it afterwards as the best bowling you'll ever have to face in Test cricket (or words to that effect). And either side of the Hussey/Haddin stand they didn't have too many problems dismissing Australia.

Australia's bowlers will surely be feeling far more chastened. None of their front-line bowlers took a wicket over the course of 2 days throughout much of which they were able to set attacking fields. That's hard to recover from.

And besides, as we all know from 2009, what really counts is how many centuries your team makes, and England are winning on that score

In retrospect, I'd have liked the English declaration to have come with no more than about 10 overs to go. Or maybe no declaration at all. Just make them suffer physically and mentally.

[Prince EWS]

No, Australia had the better first innings but this stemmed from Benchmark's assertion that England were incapable of bowling out Australia. The point I made was that we were capable of such a thing, and that the only thing that prevented us from doing so were some dubious (see : incorrect) umpiring decisions, a decision which lead to a monumental partnership between Haddin and Hussey, and without that partnership your innings was almost identical to England's.
Biased my ass.

He didn't say they were incapable of it; he said they hadn't shown they were capable of it in the first Test. Which is true. Take away the 100 odd runs Hussey scored post-lbw and Australia still posted a huge total.

[GIMH]

He didn't say they were incapable of it; he said they hadn't shown they were capable of it in the first Test. Which is true. Take away the 100 odd runs Hussey scored post-lbw and Australia still posted a huge total.

Haha, come on EWS, you're more intelligent than suggesting only Hussey's runs are lost if he goes when Jimmeh trapped him!

As I said, it doesn't really matter, but you're being way simplistic there

[Uppercut]

I'd say Australia put in the better performance on the grounds that despite losing the toss, they were the only team that was ever in a position to win the match.

Their attack looks piss-weak though. England's seems much, much better.

[zaremba]

He didn't say they were incapable of it; he said they hadn't shown they were capable of it in the first Test. Which is true. Take away the 100 odd runs Hussey scored post-lbw and Australia still posted a huge total.

It's not just the lbw shout, it's the overall balance of play on that 3rd morning, when England's bowling was simply outstanding (see the Haddin comment I referred to above) and looked like taking wickets consistently. They showed pretty clearly that they were capable of taking wickets. The fact that it didn't happen is beside the point.

[Prince EWS]

I'd say Australia put in the better performance on the grounds that despite losing the toss, they'd have been the team to win the match had the pitch started to disintegrate late in the game instead of flattening out.

So in other words, you think Australia played better because they had a first innings lead? That analysis completely discounts anything that actually happened in the second innings just because the pitch didn't do what you wanted it to.

[Prince EWS]

It's not just the lbw shout, it's the overall balance of play on that 3rd morning, when England's bowling was simply outstanding (see the Haddin comment I referred to above) and looked like taking wickets consistently. They showed pretty clearly that they were capable of taking wickets. The fact that it didn't happen is beside the point.

Little better way to show you're capable of doing something than actually doing it. It's a performance-based sport. I think everyone knows England are quite capable of bowling Australia out cheaply, but they didn't do it. Australia, on the other hand, managed it. That's important in analysing what actually happened in the Test. That was his point.

I actually disagree with his overall point about Australia having the better of the game, but I think people are picking on that one point for more than it was actual saying.

[GIMH]

I'd say Australia put in the better performance on the grounds that despite losing the toss, they'd have been the team to win the match had the pitch started to disintegrate late in the game instead of flattening out.
.

Not having that. The pitch didn't disintegrate, so it's pretty irrelevant when analysing the performances.

[Uppercut]

The pitch doesn't have anything to do with anything, really. Seems I've made my point rather badly if that's what you got from my post. I'll edit.