*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Jono]

Lol at people trying to find psychological wins from a match like this.

Just move on to the second test fellas.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

The test deserved better.

No it didn't tbf

[flibbertyjibber]

Originally Posted by Jono

Lol at people trying to find psychological wins from a match like this.

Just move on to the second test fellas.

If Australia had been 100-4 not 100-1 then there may have been some advantage.As it is Katich can put his dismissal down to tired body and mind after 2 days in the field and move on.

[Jono]

That's my point though. It was a **** pitch (lol @ Bill Lawry saying it was the perfect pitch on Day 4, such a joke of a commentator) and people trying to justify why their team was better on a road is one of the more meaningless tasks in recent times.

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Haha this is ridiculous.

Let's face it lads. England are so much better than Australia that the only way Australia can come close to them is if England throw all of their wickets away and if the umpires are blatant cheats.

Which is why I've said we only threw away 2/3 wickets.
Seriously reply to what I say, not what you want me to be saying.

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

When a dismissal occurs, there's generally two reasons.

1. You've made a bad decision.
2. You've made the right decision, but executed it poorly.

Very occasionally, there is the third: you did everything right, but the ball was too good.

Trott was the second case. For mine, that's not a loose shot. Loose shot refers to something like Strauss', which was a bad decision.

Yeah, I said it was a bad shot/decent ball and neither a woeful **** or a magic ball. The drive was loose though, was a bad shot to a ball pretty similar to the one he'd just faced.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Jono

That's my point though. It was a **** pitch (lol @ Bill Lawry saying it was the perfect pitch on Day 4, such a joke of a commentator) and people trying to justify why their team was better on a road is one of the more meaningless tasks in recent times.

Well said. What a **** pitch.

[Blaze 18]

Originally Posted by zaremba

I've just seen a nice clip of the esteemed Australian captain telling Aleem Dar "that's ****ing weak umpiring, Aleem, that's ****ing weak umpiring"

Link ?

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Blaze 18

Link ?

Don't know if it's on the internet. They showed it on the Sky Sports highlights. Bleeped out the word ****ing.

[GIMH]

I saw that last night as well.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Jono

Lol at people trying to find psychological wins from a match like this.

Originally Posted by Jono

It was a **** pitch... and people trying to justify why their team was better on a road is one of the more meaningless tasks in recent times.

You're spot on. Neither of these teams can possibly recieve any psychological boost or blow by reason of the fact that England avoided likely defeat at Australia's favourite ground, scoring 517-1, with their top 3 all getting big runs, none of the main Aussie bowlers taking a single wicket in 2 days despite having a big lead and the ability to set attacking fields, and their lethal hard-man fast bowler looking like the only member of the Village People who wouldn't get in the village cricket team.

And more importantly, you're quite right that it's a mystery why anyone would want to offer opinions about such matters in the "First Test at the Gabba" thread.

Because all that matters is that the pitch flattened out a bit and (wow!) the Kookaburra doesn't do much after the shine wears off.

[GIMH]

It must suck to come into a thread and try and own everyone and end up getting owned yourself

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Jono

No it didn't tbf

Was pretty decent IMHO; first two days especially. Pitch rather killed it from day 4 onwards, but it was never a draw-draw until lunch on day 5 really.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by zaremba

You're spot on. Neither of these teams can possibly recieve any psychological boost or blow by reason of the fact that England avoided likely defeat at Australia's favourite ground, scoring 517-1, with their top 3 all getting big runs, none of the main Aussie bowlers taking a single wicket in 2 days despite having a big lead and the ability to set attacking fields, and their lethal hard-man fast bowler looking like the only member of the Village People who wouldn't get in the village cricket team.

And more importantly, you're quite right that it's a mystery why anyone would want to offer opinions about such matters in the "First Test at the Gabba" thread.

Not sure I'm with you on this. The whole 'psychological boost' idea seems to me to be overrated. If anything its likely to inflate egos and in England's case possibly give them a sense of complacency. In Australia's case it may just give them the kind of kick up the backside that they might respond well to.

Look I'd like to think that England is a confidence team, but lets face it. Look at all our performances over the past year and a half and you'll notice a trend that we tend to perform better with our backs to the wall than when we go in with a heightened sense of expectation. We went into this test match with Australia in disarray and our entire batting and bowling with plenty of form under their belt and proceeded to collapse to 260 against some **** bowling. And when people thought we barely had a hope in hell we scored 517/1. Heck go back to SA series, at centurion when things seemed easy and a draw seemed inevitable we proceeded to collapse and nearly throw away the first test. Then when we went into the 2nd test at Durban as clear underdogs, we ended up confounding the bookies by winning by the not so significant margin of an innings and 99 runs.And yet when everyone thought we had the series in the bag, we proceeded to bat like nitwits and lose by an innings.

Do you see a pattern here? Fact of the matter is that as a team we respond to being under the cosh, we thrive in difficult situations and we prefer to be underdogs than go in as favorites. If you think batting like complete morons against a hopeless attack in the first innings isn't a cause for concern, or that only one bowler turned up then go right ahead and talk up how we have the 'mental' edge based on a day and a half's worth of cricket.

[Howe_zat]

I'd agree that this "psycological boost" and "moral voctory" natter is by and large bull****. Both sides had personal wins and losses.

However, Australia will come out of this Test with more worries than England. Their bowling has some serious problems and it is rightly Australia, not England, that are considering serious changes to their side.