*Official* First Test at Swalec Stadium, Cardiff

[Top_Cat]

It's my opinion that it's a basic fact; it's others' opinion that my opinion is wrong.

Simple as.

haha.

Nuff said, I'm done.

 

[NUFAN]

3/97 at lunch. If only two weeks had fallen then I would of said it was England's session, but now with three wickets lost, I say it has swung Australia's favour.

Would say it's a draw if 2 weeks had fallen. :P

Reckon 2/97 would be fairly even, if Australia was batting and we were 2/97 I wouldn't feel as though we are on top.

 

[Ikki]

I reckon CW should really implement the "Live Topic" feature on the forums.

YouTube - vBulletin - Live Topic v1.00b (demo)

 

[Richard]

I didn't think Richard posted in match threads?

Whereas I knew you don't post much in ones that don't involve Australia. Likewise I don't post at all in those that don't involve England. I do post in most that do however.

Ergo, our paths cross for the first time in a match thread now.

 

[S Chanderpaul]

KP double ton coming up.

 

[Uppercut]

Harmless short ball that Strauss messed-up completely against. That'd never get him out on about 199 occasions out of 200, if not a much smaller percentage.

Bopara on the other hand completely duped by superbly disguised change-up.

LOL. Just a harmless wee 5oz lump of rock-hard boiled leather flying towards his face at 93mph.

Do see what you mean though. Bopara gave a masterclass in how to play the short ball when you're ****e at playing the short ball earlier- got smashed on just about every body part but the bat was never anywhere to be seen. He did struggle not to let it screw up his footwork though.

 

[Andre]

Aggressive poms know they're in trouble.

Nah, it's annoying for everyone. It's been done to death, it's irrelevant, and I told you so's never create a good discussion, atmosphere, and are pretty boring (all IMO, to be fair).

Anyway, after winning the toss and batting the Poms will be disappointed at that session. Aussies on top. 1-0 in the session count to the visitors.

 

[Craig]

Would say it's a draw if 2 weeks had fallen. :P

Reckon 2/97 would be fairly even, if Australia was batting and we were 2/97 I wouldn't feel as though we are on top.

I'm working on the Richie Benaud theory that you would take 2 wickets down for around 90-100 runs on the board by lunch on the first day.

I thought Siddle was inconsistent. He bowled some pretty good deliveries but then he bowled some gash ones as well.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I feel good batting will almost always see a short delivery be harmless; you don't. Either way, that's Lunch 97-3 and I'd say Australia have the better of that session but not by a large margin.

You also once said that if bowlers are good enough then they will control a batsman's limitations. How can bowlers control the batsman if they are limited and can't bowl an attacking short-pitch delievery?

 

[Uppercut]

Anyway, KP looks out of touch. I think the Aussies are afraid to say it and the English are afraid to admit it, but he just looks in bad form. Not "ominously", just, like he's having a rough patch dealing with certain types of delivery. I've never seen him look so awkward before.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I hope the Aussies get in and around Collingwood's off-stump after lunch. Someone like Hilfenhaus could be handy.

 

[Richard]

You also once said that if bowlers are good enough then they will control a batsman's limitations. How can bowlers control the batsman if they are limited and can't bowl an attacking short-pitch delievery?

The short ball is often a very good defensive option. Ergo use of it well can control a batsman very well.

 

[Burgey]

Simple fact is good batting makes almost all short balls harmless. Go back over Strauss' career and see how often he's been out to them.

But the batsman can never be too good for the bowler, remember?

 

[Uppercut]

Clark had him in the back pocket last time round. Although Hilfy has impressed me today. Quite a lot faster than Clark, who was clearly a defensive option for Australia with the way he was bowling against the Lions.

 

[Richard]

I hope the Aussies get in and around Collingwood's off-stump after lunch. Someone like Hilfenhaus could be handy.

Hilfenhaus as I'm always hearing he bowls (never yet seen him actually do it) should be the absolutely perfect bowler for Collingwood. Outside off, full, swinging away. Just keep bowling that all day and Collingwood is always a near sitting-duck.

 

[Top_Cat]

Anyway, KP looks out of touch. I think the Aussies are afraid to say it and the English are afraid to admit it, but he just looks in bad form. Not "ominously", just, like he's having a rough patch dealing with certain types of delivery. I've never seen him look so awkward before.

Yup, he's definitely not there, is he? Playing across the line down the ground too. All good when you're seeing them like a football but otherwise, he ends up turning his back foot and getting bowled or nicking behind.

 

[Richard]

But the batsman can never be too good for the bowler, remember?

Yup. What does the post you quoted have to do with that? No batsman can force a bowler to bowl repeated short deliveries - or in fact force him to bowl anything at all. What he bowls is entirely down to the bowler's ability.

 

[Burgey]

Anyone else think it was an odd technique for Hughes to take that catch so low.

Spose' as long as he catches it, it's all good. Now to the crease comes my tip for England's leading run scorer Paul Collingwood.

Didn't pick it up imo

 

[Richard]

Nah, it's annoying for everyone. It's been done to death, it's irrelevant, and I told you so's never create a good discussion, atmosphere, and are pretty boring (all IMO, to be fair).

Andre Maddocks, WAG.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The short ball is often a very good defensive option. Ergo use of it well can control a batsman very well.

It's a good attacking option too, especially on a wicket that is said to have 'tennis ball bounce'.