Page 394 of 405 FirstFirst ... 294344384392393394395396404 ... LastLast
Results 5,896 to 5,910 of 6067

Thread: *Official* First Test at the Gabba

  1. #5896
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,598
    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.

  2. #5897
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcuss View Post
    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.
    Every 5 years we have an election and have to decide who are the least obnoxious out of all the men. Then one gets in and they age really quickly. Which is always fun to watch.

  3. #5898
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post


    ...


    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.

  4. #5899
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,618
    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.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 29-11-2010 at 08:47 AM.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009


  5. #5900
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,700
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  6. #5901
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

  7. #5902
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze 18 View Post
    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.

  8. #5903
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcuss View Post
    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.

  9. #5904
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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

  10. #5905
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,648
    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.
    Last edited by Uppercut; 29-11-2010 at 09:18 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  11. #5906
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

  12. #5907
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.

  13. #5908
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,618
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.

  14. #5909
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.

  15. #5910
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,648
    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.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Test cricket under lights?
    By vcs in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 05-03-2010, 06:12 PM
  2. **Official** England in New Zealand
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6035
    Last Post: 17-04-2008, 01:38 PM
  3. CW XI Test History
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Statistics and Records
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 29-11-2007, 05:34 AM
  4. Greatest west indian fast bowler of all time?
    By superwills in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 21-09-2007, 03:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •