• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

tooextracool

International Coach
howardj said:
For sure. If his poor form was isolated to a few a games, then fair enough. But, as his record in the Pakistan and New Zealand series' suggests, his poor form in England is actually an accurate reflection of the bowler that he now is.
i suggested at the start of the ODI series itself, that gillespie since his return from injury in 03/04 hasnt quite been the same bowler. hes been extremely inconsistent. hes obviously looked even worse in this series,but i think at least a fair amount of credit should go to england for targetting him at the start of his spell, in not just the tests but also the ODI series.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Craig said:
And I still don't see the point in Hoggard being night/watchman. Surely there are better options?
nope, jones and harmison are only sloggers and england seem to think that giles is a lower order batsman so hoggard it is.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Scaly piscine said:
Well I wouldn't have minded anyone getting bowled out this first hour, always a chance of getting out with the new ball, but that was just rubbish from Bell. Looks like he's had another rough decision tho.
nope it was clearly out.
but it was quite a ludicrous shot and a waste of a start, especially from someone who spent the entire day yesterday defending and trying to get some runs on board that he hadnt got all series.
 

matty1818

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
tooextracool said:
that really is a problem with the australian bowling attack at the moment. they are one bowler short, and how dearly they need a capable all rounder(not the watson rubbish). with them already carrying gillespie, if one of mcgrath or lee have a bad day they have some real problems like they did yesterday. if shane warne has a really bad day at any point in this series, they really are going to get pasted.
this is where englands 4 pronged pace attack stands out IMO, they've been carrying hoggard all series, but when someone else has a bad day, they still have enough bowlers to be able to rotate around.
i agree although sometimes i think that bowling him for 12 or so overs in a whole test match isnt enough. As it happens the Australians have got out reasonably quickly so he hasnt been required to be a part of a bowling attack that has had to dig in so far.

To a certain extent we are riding our luck (and australia's current poor batting form). Because if someone like ponting and somebody else have a large partnership Australia could easily post a total of 600 or so on a batting wicket. Whilst you look at this England batting line up with most players contributing, and achieving there average at least, we still do not post big scores. I believe this is because Australia genuinely have the potential to bat, whilst with England once the first four are knocked down the line up looks shaky, its very concievable that pietersen, flintoff and Gojo, could be knocked over very quickly whilst the Australian middle order has substance to it.

Which makes me wonder if we should bring in an extra batsmen like collingwood or Fat Bob and treat Flintoff like a bowler. This would strengthen our batting line up considerably with flintoff playing at 7 and jones at 8. Also if we picked colly he could easily bowl 13 overs a test match and so the bowling wouldnt suffer greatly and either freddy or S Jones could be given the new ball. The only overs hoggard bowls is the initial spell and i believe that Jones swings it more than he does and at great pace. I know Freddy is batting well at the moment and making scores but it doesnt look too reliable to me, especially with pietersen determined to get himself out at mid-wicket everytime the Australian bowlers look at a loss to get him out.

Revised team would look something like this :Tres, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Colly, Flintoff, G Jones, Gilo, Harmy, S Jones.
 

King_Ponting

International Regular
tooextracool said:
nope it was clearly out.
but it was quite a ludicrous shot and a waste of a start, especially from someone who spent the entire day yesterday defending and trying to get some runs on board that he hadnt got all series.
Im really starting to question the effictiveness of sniko cause to me that also looked clearly out.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
social said:
Had a hundred there for the taking but took every bait Aus gave him.

Missed hooks with two fielders back.

Skied one with EVERYONE out.

Yes, I agree, his batting was rubish.
good god, have you even been watching the game?
his dismissal was poor yes, but anyone who is suggesting that he batted poorly upto that point seriously has no clue what hes talking about.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
King_Ponting said:
Im really starting to question the effictiveness of sniko cause to me that also looked clearly out.
Clearly? The ball didn't deviate and there was no sound, live or otherwise. This is like one of those 'Murali chucks because my eyes are better than technology' arguments.
 

howardj

International Coach
Scaly piscine said:
Clearly? The ball didn't deviate and there was no sound, live or otherwise. This is like one of those 'Murali chucks because my eyes are better than technology' arguments.
I definitely did not think he hit it either. As you say, no sound, no deviation, no snicko. What were people actually going on? Did people think because Australia appealed, it had to have been out?
 

King_Ponting

International Regular
When i saw it i heard a sound and straight away i thought it was out..... Maybe my eyes are screwing with me but there did seem to be an upward deviation after the ball passed the bat....
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Shane Warne said:
Oh yeah. the one which was hitting at least middle and leg, which was pretty much ignored compared to Hoggard to Hayden which was shaving the outside of the stump after swinging.
which changes the fact that both were poor decisions how?
and to cap it all of, hayden got one more off jones later on, fortunately enough for everyone he managed to get himself out not too long after.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Shane Warne said:
Which is why a 70 year old man who's just recovered from cancer (Boycott) said straight away that it was outside the line.
oh trust me, boycott is streets ahead of anyone else when it comes to making decisions in real time. he'd have without doubt made the best umpire in the history of the game if you ask me.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
social said:
Truly is amazing how many balls aimed at off stump, hit off stump.

God knows what Katich was thinking.
the only thing that he could have been thinking, was that every other ball before had been going away from off stump. one came back with a hint of reverse, as flintoff showed with his fingers after taking the wicket. nonetheless still a poor shot.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Adamc said:
England are getting good at this first-ball business.
more simon jones actually, hes got a wicket several times with the first ball of his spell this series. martyn at Lords, so nearly Clarke at Lords, gilchrist today and also ponting just after tea. which makes vaughan not bowling him at edgbaston on the 4th day seem even more bizarre.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
FaaipDeOiad said:
The question now arsises - will Vaughan enforce the follow-on? It's actually a fairly tough one, because of how much the pitch is helping Giles now. If, theoretically, Australia were to follow on say 220 behind and score 350-400, England would then have to face Warne (and McGrath) on an uneven, dusty turner with a tricky total. It's a big if, but it would have to be in Vaughan's mind somewhat.

The weather forecast might come into it as well. Were I in Vaughan's position, I'd bat again.

edit: Adam beat me. ;)
i'd be extremely surprised if vaughan does enforce the follow-on, because even if australia have about 150 odd to bowl at england in the 4th innings, warne will be a real nightmare. that along with the fact that englands bowlers will be a lot less fresh bowling continuosly for about 2 days.
nonetheless i dont think hed have to make that decision tomorrow, because australia wont follow on. you might just say that australias batting only starts after 7.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
King_Ponting said:
Im really starting to question the effictiveness of sniko cause to me that also looked clearly out.
believe me snicko and that ridiculous ultra slow motion replay, are just useless and only increase doubt when it comes to making decisions. on the replay there was a clear deflection, which IMO says enough.
 

Knopfler

School Boy/Girl Captain
One thing that must be said about Clarke is that he has looked a born test player this series. He's played all the bowlers as well as any of the Australian batsmen, and looked very classy in the process
None of the Aussie batsmen have played the bowlers well, so that really isnt saying much.

As "tooextracool" just said, our batting only starts at Warne.
 

Top