![]() |
This is good stuff on Sky![]()
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
Walt Whitman
Play will start at 5pm IMO. This one's done unless the Aussies can get us to FO.
Originally Posted by Axl Rose
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
Ironically I reckon some English bats are arguably more suited to Australia than England. Particularly Cook.
But still, I think Australia will be close, if only because Australia will get conditions more suited to their style of play. 3-0 is still 3-0, but it hasn't accurately reflected the standards of each side IMO. We were robbed in Manchester by rain, went very close in the first test and threw away a strong position in the fourth test.
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
RIP Hughesy 1988-2014. 63* for eternity.
Was persistently drizzling here since I said there had been no rain, but it's cleared up again despite the horrible grey skies.
Don't think because England had dry pitches prepared means that those are the conditions they like to bat in. They whitewashed India on green-tops in 2011. The pitches were prepared to confer a spin bowling advantage as it was perceived Swann > Lyon which hasn't bee entirely correct.
I can't speak for Root but Cook would bat in Australia any day. If Cook was playing half his tests in Australia his record would be amazing.
I have deep scepticism that Cook scored millions of runs because it was Australia. May have been a minor factor, but the major reason he scored millions of runs was because we bowled absolute pies and he was in career-best form. Neither of those are likely this time around, let alone guaranteed, so to simply assume that he'll have a good return series is pretty silly. Indeed, he might (might) do worse - the pacier decks might simply mean he nicks off more often.
The point being that just as it's dangerous to assume that a player in great nick will suddenly "revert to mean" just because, it's equally dangerous to assume that a player in less than great nick will do the same unless something quite significant happens.
Last edited by Spark; 24-08-2013 at 08:03 AM.
citoyens, vouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution?
Based on what? The fact we dished up a platter of pies to him last time? Hopefully we bowl better to him this summer. If we do and he still scores a ****load of runs then I'll go with what you said.
And I'm surprised to hear England didn't struggle with the might of the Indian pace attack on green tops whilst they skittled the Indian batsmen on their favourite type of wicket![]()
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 24-08-2013 at 08:09 AM.
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
Look you clearly don't understand anything about cricket so after this post I'm done talking to you.
See when the start of day 3, and the opposition have put 500 on you, you need to get through days 3 and 4 and see where you're at before you can think about winning the Test. That means minimising risks and batting more defensively than normal on day 3.
Then when you throw in a pitch that is slow as ****, it makes timing your drives very difficult. Both Pietersen and Root have said it was impossible to time anything. This means it's difficult to put away the occasional 4 ball that's been bowled. This doesn't help the run rate either.
And I know you're sitting there going 'but Australia didn't bat as slowly.' This is because the pitch was quicker on day 1, because Kerrigan bowled pies to Watson on the first morning and because Australia threw the bat to set up the declaration. Rogers, Clarke and Smith up until his ton all batted very slowly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)