Page 395 of 405 FirstFirst ... 295345385393394395396397 ... LastLast
Results 5,911 to 5,925 of 6067

Thread: *Official* First Test at the Gabba

  1. #5911
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,446
    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.
    Hussey was on 85* and Haddin 24*, so remove Hussey's 110 takes you to 371. There's no way Haddin would've made another 112 with the tail either. Had that decision been given you'd have been 229/6. Your last 4 wickets added 31, so that would've given you 270.
    Obviously it's not perfect but there's no way you would've still posted 350+

  2. #5912
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.
    Yes but when you're analysing the quality of someone's bowling on a particular day, you surely don't just look at their stats, do you?. You look at how well they actually bowled. Luck plays an enormous role in whether, on any given day, you get wickets or not.

    On the other hand, we could say, well, Finn got a 6-fer, so he's shown (a) how utterly lethal he is with the ball, (b) that he's capable of bowling out Australia almost single-handedly, and (c) that he's miles better than Jimmy. Which for anyone who actually watched the game is obviously nonsense.

  3. #5913
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,371
    England should definitely be happier as they can justifiably pick the same x1 for Adelaide whilst Oz will need some feeble excuse e.g. "continuity"

    Positives for Oz were Hussey, Watto (scored runs despite being out of form since India) and Ponting, who was comfortably the best batsman on show in this test and Adelaide cant come soon enough for him

  4. #5914
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,896
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    Positives for Oz were Hussey, Watto (scored runs despite being out of form since India) and Ponting, who was comfortably the best batsman on show in this test and Adelaide cant come soon enough for him
    TBF to Watson I thought he also bowled pretty well and without any luck on the 5th morning.


  5. #5915
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,108
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    Yes but when you're analysing the quality of someone's bowling on a particular day, you surely don't just look at their stats, do you?
    Hang on, are you new to Cricket Web?
    "It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
    Jason Koumas

    SWA

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

  6. #5916
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.
    No, nothing to do with the first innings lead. Just the fact that they bowled England out cheaply, but weren't bowled out cheaply themselves. They at least took a step towards winning the game, England didn't.

    I'm pretty sure I was going to make exactly the same point regarding England being the better side during the '09 Edgbaston test in an argument about that a while back.
    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.

  7. #5917
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,896
    Still don't follow you, Will. You're stopping the clock at an arbitrary point in proceedings by discounting the 2nd innings.

  8. #5918
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    No, nothing to do with the first innings lead. Just the fact that they bowled England out cheaply, but weren't bowled out cheaply themselves. They at least took a step towards winning the game, England didn't.

    I'm pretty sure I was going to make exactly the same point regarding England being the better side during the '09 Edgbaston test in an argument about that a while back.
    Ahh I see. Yeah, that's basically Murphy's argument. Both teams showed they could bat to differing standards of "well" in an innings but only Australia managed to bowl out the opposition cheaply in at least one innings.

    I don't really see it that way - I'm more of a "what would've happened if it was a timeless Test" sort of guy when it comes to looking at draws (and I also think the ability to bowl out a team for < 300 is an irrelevant skill when coupled with the ability to let said team score 517/1 in the second innings) - but it's definitely a lot more valid in my eyes than what I thought you were saying.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 29-11-2010 at 09:43 AM.
    ~ Cribbage

    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by simonlee48 View Post
    Sanga has done well but Murali has done better. In my opinion, Murali is simply the best off spinner in history of cricket and I can't make that kind of statement for Sanga.
    Sanga isn't the best off spinner in the history of cricket? News to me.

  9. #5919
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcuss View Post
    Hussey was on 85* and Haddin 24*, so remove Hussey's 110 takes you to 371. There's no way Haddin would've made another 112 with the tail either. Had that decision been given you'd have been 229/6. Your last 4 wickets added 31, so that would've given you 270.
    Obviously it's not perfect but there's no way you would've still posted 350+
    Strauss's fault for wasting his referrals .

    In fairness, things did go England's way on the afternoon of day 2. If you're assessing England's capability of bowling Australia out it's entirely fair to mention that they didn't get the results they'll normally get if they bowl as well as they do on the first morning. But bowling leg-side to Ponting isn't going to get long-term results either, so there's qualifications on both sides.

  10. #5920
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,473
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    Still don't follow you, Will. You're stopping the clock at an arbitrary point in proceedings by discounting the 2nd innings.
    I'm not really. I'm just distinguishing between "could have won but failed to" and "never had any chance of winning". Both suck, admittedly, and hence a draw is the right result. But if I'm going to make a choice it has to be the former.

  11. #5921
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,692
    Australianism: Letting the opposition score 517/1 in the second innings.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  12. #5922
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,766
    All about little moments really. If Hussey's edge first ball carries an extra two feet, he's gone and Australia are in deep ****. If Siddle's ball that got Pietersen seams just a little more it's a play and miss, if it doesn't move at all it's disappeared past the bowler for 4.

    I don't think the disparity between the first innings scores fairly reflects the efforts put in by the bowlers at all, however. A very even contest throughout IMO, though obviously Haddin and Hussey deserve enormous credit for their partnership.

  13. #5923
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I'm not really. I'm just distinguishing between "could have won but failed to" and "never had any chance of winning". Both suck, admittedly, and hence a draw is the right result. But if I'm going to make a choice it has to be the former.
    But you can't win matches by bowling the opposition out once. And while Aus may have got into a strong position they completely failed to turn a strong position into a win. "could have won but failed to" is a major underestimate of their failure in the third innings.

    Yes, Australia were the only side that could have won at the end of the third day. But that's still a pretty arbitrary cut-off point to decide that they had the best of it.

    England had taken a "step towards winning" just after tea on day 2 when Aus were 150/5 and 110 behind. But since they didn't make it count we can't say it was all that valuable.
    And we still haven't walked in the glow of each other's majestic presence.

  14. #5924
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,372
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    I don't think the disparity between the first innings scores fairly reflects the efforts put in by the bowlers at all, however.
    Yeah, neither do I - I think it fairly reflects the efforts put in by the batsmen though.

  15. #5925
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,473
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Australianism: Letting the opposition score 517/1 in the second innings.



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
  •