Craig
World Traveller
Take Brisbane and Sydney aside, really England should be kicking themselves after Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne. Even to get a draw out of Adelaide they batted to play out time, which is something I will never understand at this point why you would do it; even if you wanted a draw, wouldn't you just bat normally and bat out the day? If Australia wanted the win then it is them who have the onus of doing so. The more negative you bat, the more likely you are going to get out, and that is against anybody in club cricket all the way to the Test arena.
And take Perth, after bowling them out under 250, and not to get a lead of some sort was criminal, really anything from a 100-200 lead, to owing to the performances of Clarke, Hussey and Gilchrist, they would have had a better chance of winning or again saving the Test at need be. Or even perhaps that wouldn't have happened as the English bowlers would have been motivated and Australia in all sorts of trouble trying to get out of a hole?
And Melbourne despite being rolled for 159, and to have a team 5-84, and not being able to roll them for around your total and or even to get a handy 10 or 20 run lead is poor IMO. They haven't been without their chances, just unfortunatly they haven't taken them. As for Stuart Clark, I think they could have played him a lot better and looked to have got runs off him, especially ones, twos and threes. As good as he is, I think if he is attacked then he does start to go for a few and you are on top, as is the case with any bowler. It will be interested to see how he will cope if he comes on two aggressive batsmen who are attacking him (I am talking about top drawer players like Mohammed Yousef, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara etc.) and like wise he had to bowl to Ricky Ponting in Test cricket.
So there I have put some time, effort and thought into, does anybody agree with me or not as I would hope it doesn't get ignored.
And take Perth, after bowling them out under 250, and not to get a lead of some sort was criminal, really anything from a 100-200 lead, to owing to the performances of Clarke, Hussey and Gilchrist, they would have had a better chance of winning or again saving the Test at need be. Or even perhaps that wouldn't have happened as the English bowlers would have been motivated and Australia in all sorts of trouble trying to get out of a hole?
And Melbourne despite being rolled for 159, and to have a team 5-84, and not being able to roll them for around your total and or even to get a handy 10 or 20 run lead is poor IMO. They haven't been without their chances, just unfortunatly they haven't taken them. As for Stuart Clark, I think they could have played him a lot better and looked to have got runs off him, especially ones, twos and threes. As good as he is, I think if he is attacked then he does start to go for a few and you are on top, as is the case with any bowler. It will be interested to see how he will cope if he comes on two aggressive batsmen who are attacking him (I am talking about top drawer players like Mohammed Yousef, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara etc.) and like wise he had to bowl to Ricky Ponting in Test cricket.
So there I have put some time, effort and thought into, does anybody agree with me or not as I would hope it doesn't get ignored.