Your argument completely ignores:You are right, it was thoughtful bowling and I dont deny that it was a good ball. But I don't agree with the fact that it was a 'wicket-taking' delivery. Its not like he bowled a booming inswinger or anything to get him out.
tbf I was asleep.It seems he can now sense when the weather is about to change and bring an end to the day's play, and time the throwing of his wicket away appropriately.
I think you are missing a big point here, Ponting had fielders in the deep for both Collingwood and KP for most part of their innings when Hauritz was bowling, and that left a lot of avenues for them to easily pick singles from, but still every now and then both KP and Collingwood tried to give him the charge and target the short straight boundaries, but Hauritz bowled smartly enough to not let them do so, and restricted them to just playing within themselves.Theres a couple of things that are factually incorrect about your statement though.
KP and Collingwood firstly did not play aggressively against him. They looked to milk him around during their time at the crease and took singles against him. KP btw had a SR that was less than 50 which is saying something. By the time KP got out to Hauritz he was going at less than 3 an over. So the point that you make that England looked to play aggressively against him and thus lost a batsman in the process is factually wrong. Even the shot that KP played that led to his own dismissal wasn't an aggressive shot, it was supposed to be a little paddle sweep that would have got him at best 2 runs. Was it good bowling? Well he saw it early and tossed it wider than one would think he wanted to toss it, but still it was more of a brain explosion than anything else. Its not like he tried to slog sweep him for 6 and got out in the process. It was KP being as arrogant as he possibly could and going for a shot even though he knew that it wasn't on because he had no respect for the bowler.
As far as the other 2 are concerned, lets just remember that we are referring to the 2 worst batsmen in the England side here. One looked clueless, even against a bowler with no variations like Hauritz. Whilst the other, had made up his mind about jumping down the track before the ball even left Hauritz' hand (so its not like he was deceived in the flight as people on here have insinuated). Honestly, there were 3 very poor shots that resulted in 3 dismissals all courtesy of Hauritz. 2 of which came by the way when England already had 430 odd on the board so one has to question how Hauritz played such an instrumental role in restricting England.
Don't know whether to feel bad or angry, he has made this a habit now to get out just before the close of day's play, there was a great opportunity for him to bring up his first century on English soil and he pretty much threw it away, but still despite everything, he played very well yesterday, and made sure that the momentum stayed with Australia, after the loss of three quicks wickets of Katich, Hussey and Ponting.Clarke
Knew this would happen even yesterday.
What's your point?SL vs. Pak > this test match, with 1/100th of the attention/coverage.
His point is... and i'm just guessing here...What's your point?
Yep... Just felt like being a smart-alec... which would be true but that's the way of the world - Somerset scored 479 in the 4th innings to beat Yorkshire last week and that was largely ignored too
Quality typo that sums up how we batted!a. the quality of the bowling that preceded the dismal;
The fact that you disagree that the last Pakistan vs Sri Lanka series was batsman friendly just demonstrates how little you know about cricket, TBH.Shows how little attention you pay to the real world.
See, you're actually not arguing the point. There's a series going on right now between Pak and SL, no-one's saying that the previous series wasn't batsman friendly. And how does the last series affect the assertion that the most recent match was a really good contest?The fact that you disagree that the last Pakistan vs Sri Lanka series was batsman friendly just demonstrates how little you know about cricket, TBH.