If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
I'd say on the whole England batted better and with a lot more discipline, and Australia bowled better, which isn't really a huge shock. Australia would have lost heavily without the Hughes/Agar stand in the first innings, but then Bell/Broad saved England in a similar way since 200 odd certainly wouldn't have been enough as a target. Pretty even test overall as the final score suggests.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
I think I misphrased the second. What I really meant was that it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest Australia played the better cricket over the game. I wouldn't say so but it's a fair enough position given how tight the match was. I definitely think they bowled better.
Yeah, can't disagree with any of that and just because Agar got his runs at 11 does not mean they were some kind of fluke. It was a part of the match in which Australia played much better than England.
Agar didn't look special but he certainly didn't look entirely toothless either. He caused the English left-handers in particular to think carefully about how they were going to play him and obviously he really should have had at least one more wicket (which would've made his figures look much better)
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
get ready for a broken ****in' arm
Overall I dont think they bowled poorly as a unit but I watched virtually every ball of this Test -- some thing I hadnt been able to do for a while -- and I was a little disappointed in Starc and Pattinson having seen little of them before and knowing them more from reputation than first hand viewing.
Those saying Clarke's captaincy was marred by DRS use, consider that the keeper and bowler are the main culprits in poor DRS use, especially the keeper, I would exonerate Clarke from blame there to some extent. Agar was good with the ball, was bowling with a dodgy finger and he kept it tight and picked up two good wickets. As for the Rogers/Watson debate, consider that Watson was first to go in both innings, Rogers played a role in continuing the thread in the second dig (not helped at all by Cowan) and stemmed the flow somewhat in the first innings, he also gains half a point for keeping the ball in good nick maybe.
There are two colours in my head
Like I said in the other thread, if Watson gets a 0 I don't know what the other Australian batsmen get. I'd rather a handsome 30 and an LBW over getting to 12 and then slogging to mid-off or whatever. There's already like three articles on cricinfo blaming him for Rogers getting out and/or the entire collapse too. The only Australians who have done anything of much value this test are Harris, Siddle and maybe Smith and Clarke. Watson still contributed more than most though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)