Find This Interesting?

[Richard]

Rubbish.

Bearing in mind how close Australia got with 2 wickets left and only tailenders in on the Sunday morning, that wicket was critical.

No, it wasn't - Australia only got close because of a bad decision.
That wicket wasn't too important - Clarke was hardly batting well, any more than at any other point in the series.

 

[open365]

Harmison and "superb slower-ball" do not go together. The Harmison slower-ball is about the most obvious one in The World. No Harmison slower-ball is anything that a stock-ball isn't. Clarke quite obviously spotted it, he just played the wrong line - exactly, coincidentally, as he did again (with a ball of normal speed) in the Super Series Test...
In any case, I was clearly referring to the Kasprowicz wicket.

 

[Richard]

 

[Scaly piscine]

Personally I find this interesting:

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/NEW/LIVE/frames/AUS_BDESH_T1_09-13APR2006.html

But I guess Motson might disagree.

 

[luckyeddie]

Personally I find this interesting:

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/NEW/LIVE/frames/AUS_BDESH_T1_09-13APR2006.html

But I guess Motson might disagree.

I've tried that groundbait myself, Scaly.

I reckon that it'll get a mention in about 14 or 16 months time, when he thinks that everyone else will have forgotten.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I've tried that groundbait myself, Scaly.

I reckon that it'll get a mention in about 14 or 16 months time, when he thinks that everyone else will have forgotten.

Yea but that was in the Bangladesh v Australia thread - he was never gonna look at that.

New Zealand in South Africa thread maybe...

 

[open365]

Harmison and "superb slower-ball" do not go together. The Harmison slower-ball is about the most obvious one in The World. No Harmison slower-ball is anything that a stock-ball isn't. Clarke quite obviously spotted it, he just played the wrong line - exactly, coincidentally, as he did again (with a ball of normal speed) in the Super Series Test...
In any case, I was clearly referring to the Kasprowicz wicket.

Have you ever played cricket? Have you ever faced a quality slower ball form a pace bowler?

Clarke was done all ends up.

It;s hard to explain if you've never been bowled by a slower ball.

You get yourself read, your body's actions are set in motion, you go forward, but it's slower, you try as hard as you can to stop yourself and wait for the ball, but it's hard, very hard. The best you can do is try to play it to legside, so you hit it earlier than you would do playing straight hence not hitting it in the air.

Clarke was done so well that he was to quick for it, it was a terrific slower ball, end of.

 

[marc71178]

That wicket wasn't too important - Clarke was hardly batting well, any more than at any other point in the series.

So you think needing 107 with 3 wickets and a recognised batsman at the crease isn't anywhere near more likely than 107 with 2 wickets and no top order players left then?

Of course had that ball been bowled by someone like Nel, you'd have been talking about it like it was one of the all time great balls.

 

[Richard]

Personally I find this interesting:

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/NEW/LIVE/frames/AUS_BDESH_T1_09-13APR2006.html

But I guess Motson might disagree.

Err, no. I don't find it remotely interesting.
If EXD - like others - is looking for ammunition in his "we must take Bangladesh matches in the same context as games between the up-to-standard teams" - he's placed his faith pointlessly here, because 1 game proves nothing.
Indeed, even if Bangladesh did the same in the next game, it's still not much - not to mention being near enough unthinkable.

 

[Richard]

Have you ever played cricket? Have you ever faced a quality slower ball form a pace bowler?

Clarke was done all ends up.

It;s hard to explain if you've never been bowled by a slower ball.

You get yourself read, your body's actions are set in motion, you go forward, but it's slower, you try as hard as you can to stop yourself and wait for the ball, but it's hard, very hard. The best you can do is try to play it to legside, so you hit it earlier than you would do playing straight hence not hitting it in the air.

Clarke was done so well that he was to quick for it, it was a terrific slower ball, end of.

Err - did you actually watch the ball? Clarke quite clearly picked it, he just played down the wrong line. He categorically WASN'T done for pace.

 

[Richard]

So you think needing 107 with 3 wickets and a recognised batsman at the crease isn't anywhere near more likely than 107 with 2 wickets and no top order players left then?

Neither are remotely likely.
That Australia got as close as they did was purely down to Bowden turning-down a plumb lbw shout.

Of course had that ball been bowled by someone like Nel, you'd have been talking about it like it was one of the all time great balls.

No, I wouldn't - you've tried that one before, remember?
As demonstrated by the Lee-Strauss example in the next game - when some poor bowler bowls a good ball, I do acknowledge it. Lee, poor as he is, completely did Strauss with that ball, because it was well-disguised.
Harmison slower-balls, however, aren't well disguised, they're the most obvious slower-balls ever.

 

[marc71178]

Neither are remotely likely.
That Australia got as close as they did was purely down to Bowden turning-down a plumb lbw shout.

In Cricket, anything can happen.

107 with 3 wickets left is far more gettable than with 2 left - especially when you consider the final margin was 2 runs.

 

[Richard]

And it was only that because of a very poor Umpiring decision.
Had Clarke been there at The Close I'm near enough certain England would still have won that game.

 

[marc71178]

So what if it was?

That is irrelevant, I can just as equally say that the last wicket was a poor decision as well.

What is relevant is that Australia got within 3 runs of victory with only 2 wickets left at the start of the day, so if they'd had 3 wickets left, who knows?

 

[aussie]

its going to be said until he actually proves everyone wrong.

i assume his innings againts BAN wont be counted?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So what if it was?

That is irrelevant, I can just as equally say that the last wicket was a poor decision as well.

What is relevant is that Australia got within 3 runs of victory with only 2 wickets left at the start of the day, so if they'd had 3 wickets left, who knows?

Especially if one of those players was a specialist batsman batting with Shane Warne. Not losing Clarke would have made a massive difference.

 

[Richard]

So what if it was?

That is irrelevant, I can just as equally say that the last wicket was a poor decision as well.

Not relevant. The bad not-out came first - without it, we'd not have even had the bad out (which will never even be definitively proven, anyway).

What is relevant is that Australia got within 3 runs of victory with only 2 wickets left at the start of the day, so if they'd had 3 wickets left, who knows?

It'd probably have been near enough identical. Possibly, in fact, England would've been less complacent on the final morning.

 

[Richard]

i assume his innings againts BAN wont be counted?

Err, when has it ever been counted as equal of innings against Test-class teams?