Cricket Player Manager
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: australia since Ashes 2005 in test cricket

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator jemo27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39

    australia since Ashes 2005 in test cricket

    when do you thing in test cricket has austrlai most looked like lossing a test match, we have hade on draw against South Africa but the most worried I have been is the first test against Bangladesh espeicllay after the first innings each. only Banladesh fauilure in there second innings and Pontings batting saved Australia and a droped catch

    what do other people thing is the closed Australia has come to losing a match since the 2005 Ashes series
    the World XI was no contest, neither were the West Indies
    South Africa drew the first match but needed to make something like 500 in the 4th inns nether looked like it, in the Second test i went to 2 days and they nver looked like winning, McGrath had an one hundred last wiket partnership with M.Hussey
    the 3rd test Australia one it when it should have been a draw but for Smith declaring

    I just looked up hour test matchs and I now recall the 3rd test agoianst South Africa with langer getting hit in the head but i still fell the 1st test agianst Bangladesh was more worrying for me and in the media as a loss especially whe i looked like we could have to follow on.

    which test since the ashes 2005 do poeple feel Australia came closed to Lossing

    I would say it is between 3rd test South Africa at Johannesburg or Ist test at Fatullah

  2. #2
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    South Africa would almost certainly have won 3, maybe 4 or even 5, Tests against Australia in 2005\06 but for dropped catches, rain and miracle last-wicket partnerships.

    Clearly the closest anyone came was South Africa in said 1-wicket loss.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #3
    Cricket Spectator jemo27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39
    In Australia, the first test against Bangladesh was the biggest worry then 3rd test againutst SA in SA

    the South Africa games in Australia, Australia never looked like lossing, the first test in perth was save by South Africa but australia was in no danger of lossing, the second test Australia won easy, I went to 2 days of the match and the 3rd test would have been a draw if not for Greame Smith declaring on day 5.

    the Bangladesh game Australia was totally out played in the first inns of both teams

  4. #4
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    South Africa would almost certainly have won 3, maybe 4 or even 5, Tests against Australia in 2005\06 but for dropped catches, rain and miracle last-wicket partnerships.

    Clearly the closest anyone came was South Africa in said 1-wicket loss.
    they were ahead in a lot of the matches but as usual succumbed to pressure

    that 1 wicket match was a thriller...
    also the match before ...Aussies (with the help of Warney) managed to get the last wicket when it was quite dark


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    South Africa would almost certainly have won 3, maybe 4 or even 5, Tests against Australia in 2005\06 but for dropped catches, rain and miracle last-wicket partnerships.

    Clearly the closest anyone came was South Africa in said 1-wicket loss.
    So, in short, they weren't good enough to win 3, 4 or 5 tests against Australia?
    "What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)

    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.

  6. #6
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Their catching wasn't good enough. Or their taking-of-the-final-wicket.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by jemo27 View Post
    In Australia, the first test against Bangladesh was the biggest worry then 3rd test againutst SA in SA
    Nah. 1-wicket victories are about the closest anyone can come to losing without losing.
    the South Africa games in Australia, Australia never looked like lossing, the first test in perth was save by South Africa but australia was in no danger of lossing, the second test Australia won easy, I went to 2 days of the match and the 3rd test would have been a draw if not for Greame Smith declaring on day 5.
    Australia looked very much like losing in the First and Second Tests, had catches been taken they probably would have, and had it not rained so much at The SCG South Africa would have had a much better chance to force home their extremely powerful position.

  8. #8
    International Coach PhoenixFire's Avatar
    Curveball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire
    Posts
    14,988
    They came close in Adelaide 2007 v England, but thrashed us in the end.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    And once again, one simple take of a catch might very well have changed all that.

  10. #10
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    And once again, one simple take of a catch might very well have changed all that.
    But it consistently doesn't. Because Aussies don't miss like that. That's like saying, 'well if one batsman got a century, someone got a five wicket haul, or Hussey wasn't so damn good, it would have changed the outcome.' Well yea, but they didn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    It's nothing like it at all. Scoring centuries and taking big hauls takes countless deliveries of excellence. Taking a catch is one thing or the other in one delivery. And it's something there's virtually never any excuse for not doing.

    One single dropped catch can completely change a match from what it would have been had it been taken. Everything else in a game of cricket takes massive numbers of deliveries to do and requires multitudes of skills. Taking a catch should be done near enough every time, and it's unforgiveable the number that go down, especially of late.

  12. #12
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    It's nothing like it at all. Scoring centuries and taking big hauls takes countless deliveries of excellence. Taking a catch is one thing or the other in one delivery.
    Not really. It's not about taking 'a catch'. It's like scoring one run. You have to do it consistently throughout the whole match, just like you have to consistently score runs. If you can't do that - you lose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    One single dropped catch can completely change a match from what it would have been had it been taken.
    By definition then, so can one wicket by bowled or LBW. What's the difference?

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Not really. It's not about taking 'a catch'. It's like scoring one run. You have to do it consistently throughout the whole match, just like you have to consistently score runs. If you can't do that - you lose.
    One catch not being taken has way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way more potential to change a match than one run not being scored.

    Of course you have to take catches consistently throughout a game. But if you take 7 catches and drop 1, the 1 drop can still completely change the course of a match. If you score 492 runs and miss-out on 21, it's exceptionally unlikely to change the outcome of the match.
    By definition then, so can one wicket by bowled or LBW. What's the difference?
    The fact that taking a wicket by such isn't a simple "did" or "didn't". You have to pitch the ball in the right place to hit the stumps, beat the bat, and in some cases not pitch it outside leg. To take a catch the ball has to be caught. It has to go into your hands and stay there.

    Taking a catch is an impossibly more simple, straightforward thing to do than bowling a batsman out (or indeed getting him to hit the ball in the air to a fielder). Which is why it's so much more galling to see a fielder fail to take every opportunity of a catch than it is to see a bowler not bowl out a batsman every delivery.

  14. #14
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    One catch not being taken has way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way more potential to change a match than one run not being scored.
    What about one wicket not being taken? Since a catch is a wicket, they would be the same, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    The fact that taking a wicket by such isn't a simple "did" or "didn't". You have to pitch the ball in the right place to hit the stumps, beat the bat, and in some cases not pitch it outside leg. To take a catch the ball has to be caught. It has to go into your hands and stay there.
    No. You have to judge the ball at the right angle, get your body in position, and then catch the ball.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Taking a catch is an impossibly more simple, straightforward thing to do than bowling a batsman out (or indeed getting him to hit the ball in the air to a fielder). Which is why it's so much more galling to see a fielder fail to take every opportunity of a catch than it is to see a bowler not bowl out a batsman every delivery.
    What's that got to do with anything? We are talking about the impact on a game. Either catching is just as important and impactful as everything else or it isn't. Its a very important cricketing skill and saying he didn't take a catch is the same as sayinf he didn't get this guy out in another manner.

    You're using it as an excuse, such as 'Well, it would have been close except that one catch'. This is the same as saying, "It would have been close except no one got Hussey out." Or "It would have been close, if Australia didn't bowl so well."

  15. #15
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Dire that we've come full circle with this 'but for dropped catches' thing Rich - I think this was the first issue I ever replied to you on. As SS points out its a fundamental skill, and if you aren't good enough to do it consistently and do it when it matters, then you are in no way a good enough team to win matches. SA were smashed by a thoroughly better team during that tour, apart from the one draw they earnt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 23-12-2007, 05:19 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-01-2007, 01:40 PM
  3. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 16-07-2006, 08:13 AM
  4. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 13-09-2005, 05:51 AM
  5. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 21-04-2005, 09:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •