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

[Mister Wright]

If that's a quote from Episode III I haven't seen it yet.

The Dark side dealing in absolute is, but the rest is Star Wars folklore.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ahh, one needs to clarify. It was only a light hearted jibe. I should have put a smiley there to indicate that. I guess I was dizzy from the thread going round in circles...not Richard's fault BTW, someone whom, while I don't often agree with, completely respect and I don't wish for you to conform...except when I'm arguing a point with you .

And TC...completely embarrassing.

*awkward silence*

Um, England vs Australia, anyone?

 

[tooextracool]

I agree it turned, but nothing special, SCG has turned ever since I was a kid, do you understand the difference between turn and a turner?

do you even know what a slow turner is?
whether it was nothing special turn, which only happens when theres TURN + BOUNCE, it still doesnt change the fact that there was slow turn in the wicket, which is all quality spin bowlers need to get wickets.

Tell me TEC what was the scoring rate for that last session as they tried to save the game, players holding on grimly for a draw hardly try and slog sweep a six?

so they were trying to win then chasing a target at 10 runs an over in test match cricket?
they had no chance of victory, and really they never stood any chance of victory after india scored 705. the only reason they played aggressively was because that was the best way to play the indian spinners, and katich used his feet to brilliant effect throughout that game. it does not in anyway change the fact that the draw was the ulterior motive.

 

[tooextracool]

O'Reilly, Barnes and Lohmann would have struggled to bowl Aust out for less than 300 on that pitch, I thought the Indians tried hard, to keep Aust under 4 an over is a fair effort.

incase you havent realised 16 wickets is pretty close to 20.

 

[tooextracool]

well thats typical aussie attitude, but come on tec Mumbai was far worst than Darwin

no it was not, perhaps it was marginally, but how in the world can you say that darwin was considerably better when it lasted for only 2 and a bit days? they were both not test class and they were both fairly similar in that there were low scoring and teams struggled to get past 200.

 

[tooextracool]

i wont say India played better than australia thrughout the mumbai test at all tec, until that last innings where australia needed just 104 to win, they were the front runners,

no india playd better than australia did overall, and australia played very poorly in both innings 3 and 4. they deserved to lose.

i agree that sometimes the aussies do make rough complaints when they loose but that was justified mumbai was a poor test match surface

oh its justified, but taking it to the ICC is not, especially when australia produces some of the most appalling batter friendly wickets at home.
and really, how can you say that its justified when ponting said that the game should last 5 days, and yet when it lasted 2.5 days in darwin he was talking the same wicket up and saying they needed more wickets like that in test cricket.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Um, England vs Australia, anyone?

Haha. I had to laugh, reading that end to your post, scrolling down and seeing a wall of quote-happy TEC argument posts directly below it.

 

[Richard]

Never said that. Introspection is thought, evaluation, re-evaluation, questioning the very basis of one's beliefs, etc., Not conforming at all.

And you really think I don't do that every day, pretty much?

 

[Richard]

Haha. I had to laugh, reading that end to your post, scrolling down and seeing a wall of quote-happy TEC argument posts directly below it.

Me too, frankly.
Still, it won't go away, and believe it or not it is related to England-vs-Australia.
Anyway...

Ahh, one needs to clarify. It was only a light hearted jibe. I should have put a smiley there to indicate that. I guess I was dizzy from the thread going round in circles...not Richard's fault BTW, someone whom, while I don't often agree with, completely respect and I don't wish for you to conform...except when I'm arguing a point with you .

Good to know.
I might add that I've always had a similar impression of you to T_C and I'd reiterate that I'd be surprised if you'd speak like that in a genuine way to anyone, however utterly ludicrous their ideas.
Incidentally, I can't actually remember a single occasion where you've argued a point with me - presumably leaving it up to others, eh?

 

[archie mac]

incase you havent realised 16 wickets is pretty close to 20.

Sorry for the confusion, I am referring to the 3rd Test here, and the pitch India bowled on in the 1st inns.

 

[archie mac]

do you even know what a slow turner is?
whether it was nothing special turn, which only happens when theres TURN + BOUNCE, it still doesnt change the fact that there was slow turn in the wicket, which is all quality spin bowlers need to get wickets.
so they were trying to win then chasing a target at 10 runs an over in test match cricket?
they had no chance of victory, and really they never stood any chance of victory after india scored 705. the only reason they played aggressively was because that was the best way to play the indian spinners, and katich used his feet to brilliant effect throughout that game. it does not in anyway change the fact that the draw was the ulterior motive.

I guess we will never know how Warne would have bowled on that strip, but the way the indian's batted especially the little master, taking no risks I don't think he would have made a huge difference.

I agree they had no chance of victory, what I am saying if it was such a tough pitch, I think they would have been playing with more caution, after all they lost 6 wickets, and still had Katich in.
Not 9 wickets and holding on.

 

[Richard]

I guess we will never know how Warne would have bowled on that strip, but the way the indian's batted especially the little master, taking no risks I don't think he would have made a huge difference.

Taking so few risks he should have been out twice before reaching 70?

 

[archie mac]

Taking so few risks he should have been out twice before reaching 70?

Yes the Australian catching was below par throughout the series, not to mention Blee's no-ball woes!
But how many players make a big score without having at least one life?

 

[Richard]

Lots.
The Australian catching has been below-par since 2002\03, with very few exception matches.

 

[archie mac]

Lots.
The Australian catching has been below-par since 2002\03, with very few exception matches.

I don't know if there are any stats, but my gut feeling would be that less than 30% of batsman scoring 200+ would do so without giving at least one chance.

I don't think Australia has ever replaced Mark Waugh and to a lesser degree Taylor in the slips. Just as well they would be almost unbeatable otherwise.

 

[Scallywag]

I've not compared it exactly, no. I have with Gilchrist and Trescothick, and it's fact that they get more let-offs than most. With Langer it's not bothered me as much as those 2, but now I think about it it's not remotely inconceivable.
With regards the random example of Dravid, Dravid has - of course - had innings I can think of where he's benefited from let-offs. But off the top of my head he's had nowhere near as many as Langer.

As was done in the case of the bowlers, here too, the numbers were dug out for the total number of deliveries that a batsman wasn't in control of in the period starting from September 1, 2001 (when we started recording ball-by-ball data for every delivery in every Test match). Each ball when the batsman played and missed, edged, miscued or was rapped on the pads added to the not-in-control (NIC) counter

You are wrong Richard

Dravid is the luckiest batsman and the statistics prove it. You have no evidence except that you think Langer is lucky. Unless you have something concrete to prove your theory then I can only conclude that you just make things up.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Lots.
The Australian catching has been below-par since 2002\03, with very few exception matches.

On average it has been down yes. I saw an interview with John Buchanan where he said that with the amount of travel etc it's becoming increasingly harder to give 100% to every area of the game - which might explain a slight decline in standards set a few years back.

I have my doubts that 'lots' of batsmen score chanceless 100's though Richard....

 

[Jnr.]

As was done in the case of the bowlers, here too, the numbers were dug out for the total number of deliveries that a batsman wasn't in control of in the period starting from September 1, 2001 (when we started recording ball-by-ball data for every delivery in every Test match). Each ball when the batsman played and missed, edged, miscued or was rapped on the pads added to the not-in-control (NIC) counter

You are wrong Richard

Dravid is the luckiest batsman and the statistics prove it.

Ridiculous. That says more about his technique than his luck. Dravid plays with such soft hands that edges are not likely to carry to close in fieldsmen. That's what makes him such a solid and brilliant batsman - even if he is not in control, he's not likely to get out to it.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Should we assume, though, that Langer is not also capable of such technical facets of batting?

 

[Jnr.]

Should we assume, though, that Langer is not also capable of such technical facets of batting?

Langer's technique is good, but not as good as Dravid's. I'm pretty sure they were talking about Langer's 'luck' regarding edges that do carry (but dropped), or lbw's given not out anyway.