Ashes - memories

[Richard]

As usual, no realistic possibility can be read for those logicals.
Not, of course, for those who seek to pick holes in anything for the purposes of one-on-one warfare.

 

[SJS]

those who seek to pick holes in anything for the purposes of one-on-one warfare.

Very perceptive indeed Richard.

 

[C_C]

As usual, no realistic possibility can be read for those logicals.

I have no problem with the above statement.
however, your earlier statement was devoid of any realism and full of absolutist crappola.
Hope you see the difference.

 

[marc71178]

True, but whether someone enjoyed it or not is not the only thing relevant to an innings.

It is in a thread about what people remember and enjoyed.

 

[marc71178]

Never say never.
Theoretically, nothing that doesnt contravene the laws of science is impossible- the statistical possibility might be extremely remote but it is possible nonetheless.

There comes to mind a game involving Pakistan and West indies where such a feat was accomplished.
After the morning session on the third day ( with 7 of the 15 sessions completed in the match), Pakistan were dismissed for 106, with the west indies having made a mammoth 579/9 in the first innings.
Pakistan were made to follow on with 8 sessions ( more than half the test) remaining and in response, Pakistan made a stunning 657/8 declared, riding on Hanif Mohammed's 337- the only triple ton, if i remember correctly, that was made in a team's second dig.

Never say never.

A more recent example is the England turnaround in SA - but for a dropped catch they'd have won from an almost impossible position.

 

[tooextracool]

It was, and while the stroke was a shocker the actual going down the pitch wasn't really a bad idea because with another 50 runs added to the target that was we'd have been in the game in a big way given that we reduced them to effectively 89\4.

rubbish, they were going along nicely while they were playing sensibly. then ramprakash comes up with a brilliant idea that it was time to up the scoring on a pitch where run scoring was difficult, what a genius.

 

[aussie]

My top 5 sicne the 97 series are:

- McGrath's destruction of England at lord's

- Gough's superb Hatrick at sydney

- Waugh's superb 157 at the oval while injured

- Pigeon's superb catch to dismiss Vaughan at adelaide

- Waugh's emotional century at sydney

 

[Richard]

A more recent example is the England turnaround in SA - but for a dropped catch they'd have won from an almost impossible position.

And was there ever a point in that game where to play for the draw would have been sensible?
No.
And as for but for a dropped catch, if Jones had indeed caught Gibbs the final day would have unfolded totally differently. Maybe it might have been an easy win. Equally, maybe it might have been a much more easily played draw.

 

[Richard]

rubbish, they were going along nicely while they were playing sensibly. then ramprakash comes up with a brilliant idea that it was time to up the scoring on a pitch where run scoring was difficult, what a genius.

Charging Warne is never the best idea in The World, no, and it was a very poor shot.
But the pitch wasn't getting any better and if he'd somehow managed to hit the ball you never know, he might have played a match-turning innings.

 

[Richard]

It is in a thread about what people remember and enjoyed.

But that's not the only relevant thing in any thread.
No thread is disallowed from discussing things other than certain stipulations.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah, he'd have put Australia in.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, he'd have put us in.

I think England's bowling was more of a problem than the wicket actually. If they'd have bowled well then things may have turned out a little better (notice I don't say 'well').

 

[Craig]

so it would have been better then to face mcgrath and gillespie in what could have been seamer friendly conditions instead of bowling first in bowler friendly conditions and then batting in better conditions later on?

You are going to face them some time, and if you graft it out, keep wickets in hand, then you can prosper later on. Also it is no use bowling first in helpful conditions if your bowlers don't take use of them now isn't it? And I ask when did bowling first to Australia actually work (ie in winning a Test)? I think of Durban 2002?

Batting first shows you are ready to take them on, and if your batsmen are worrying themselves over facing McGrath and Gillespie, shows they have lost it mentally already, and therefore the battle, thus the Test and the Ashes.

 

[Richard]

I think England's bowling was more of a problem than the wicket actually. If they'd have bowled well then things may have turned out a little better (notice I don't say 'well').

If we'd have bowled well (ie read "like Australia would likely have bowled") I'm confident we'd have restricted Aus to 300-350. Yes, restricted!
Hussain's reasoning - completely sound - was that the best time for his weak, inexperienced, injury-hit seam attack to bowl was when there was at least a little in it for the seamers.
He then somehow managed to decide that his own reasoning was not sound. How, I don't know. Does he really believe it'd have been better to bat first and get bowled-out for 250?

 

[Richard]

You are going to face them some time, and if you graft it out, keep wickets in hand, then you can prosper later on. Also it is no use bowling first in helpful conditions if your bowlers don't take use of them now isn't it? And I ask when did bowling first to Australia actually work (ie in winning a Test)? I think of Durban 2002?

Batting first shows you are ready to take them on, and if your batsmen are worrying themselves over facing McGrath and Gillespie, shows they have lost it mentally already, and therefore the battle, thus the Test and the Ashes.

Thing is, even if they're not worrying about it, it's still a near-impossible task in seaming conditions.
If you bat first on a seamer to "show your confidence" that confidence isn't likely to last long.

 

[tooextracool]

Charging Warne is never the best idea in The World, no, and it was a very poor shot.
But the pitch wasn't getting any better and if he'd somehow managed to hit the ball you never know, he might have played a match-turning innings.

and if habibul bashar managed to get away from that disgraceful pullshot 3rd ball of his inning he might just have played a blinder.

 

[tooextracool]

You are going to face them some time, and if you graft it out, keep wickets in hand, then you can prosper later on.

and its quite conceivable that you'd be 40/3 against glenn mcgrath and the like before you get to the prospering part.

Also it is no use bowling first in helpful conditions if your bowlers don't take use of them now isn't it? And I ask when did bowling first to Australia actually work (ie in winning a Test)? I think of Durban 2002?

and how do you know that the english bowlers wouldnt have taken advantage of them had they played in seamer friendly conditions?
caddick usually bowls well in seamer friendly conditions, ditto hoggard, and theres no way hussain would have known that jones would get injured.

Batting first shows you are ready to take them on, and if your batsmen are worrying themselves over facing McGrath and Gillespie, shows they have lost it mentally already, and therefore the battle, thus the Test and the Ashes.

and yet if england had australia at 40/3, he'd be hailed for his decision to field first. if we were to use your theory, then it would effectively dismiss any team from fielding first.

 

[Richard]

and if habibul bashar managed to get away from that disgraceful pullshot 3rd ball of his inning he might just have played a blinder.

Somehow I doubt it.
Unlike Ramprakash in that innings he hadn't been batting wholly competantly for an hour and a quarter previously.

 

[marc71178]

and if habibul bashar managed to get away from that disgraceful pullshot 3rd ball of his inning he might just have played a blinder.

Actually the Bashar thing is more likely than Ramprakash doing anything of note.

 

[Richard]

Really?
Because Habibul has clearly been such a wonderful Test-match batsman, hasn't he?
Aside from a very short spell he's often batted as irresponsibly woefully as he has this Test.