*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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+

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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.

[social]

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

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by social

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.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by zaremba

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?

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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.

[zaremba]

Still don't follow you, Will. You're stopping the clock at an arbitrary point in proceedings by discounting the 2nd innings.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

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.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by zaremba

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.

[silentstriker]

Australianism: Letting the opposition score 517/1 in the second innings.

[GingerFurball]

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.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

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.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Australianism: Letting the opposition score 517/1 in the second innings.