Ausage
Cricketer Of The Year
Uppercut referring to physical attractiveness maybe?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Second Test at Lords
- Thread starter superkingdave
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Johnson scoring runs should under no circumstances impact greatly on his place. We know he can score runs century here or no century here, but he's in the side for bowling, not batting.
Hussey scoring them would obviously help, but Clarke or Haddin scoring or not scoring is essentially irrelevant to everyone who doesn't have fifth-day tickets.
Demolition Man
State Vice-Captain
Clarke making a mess of andersons figures.
Anyone that is fair dinkum would admit adersons first innings figures were inflated by some very cheap wickets. Perhaps this is a bit of a even-up.
Swann on, hopefully huss can find a few boundaries.
Anyone that is fair dinkum would admit adersons first innings figures were inflated by some very cheap wickets. Perhaps this is a bit of a even-up.
Swann on, hopefully huss can find a few boundaries.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The Ashes - can turn normally sane self-hating Australians-with-English-parents into raving luuhhneys.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't mean "always" literally. I just associate Hussey with ugly centuries and Clarke with pretty fifties.
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Seen him in ODI cricket lately?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Anderson took the only first-innings wicket to result from good bowling.
Pigeon
Banned
I think it is sent to the repairguy after over-use by one Hauritz.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ha ha. Not a self-hater mate, and only one of the parents was a soap-dodger. Haven't seen the **** since I was six.
Anyway, I'm off and out of here. Have a 530 gym appointment tomorrow.
Go the Huss and the Pup. Do something ffs.
Demolition Man
State Vice-Captain
If johnson scores runs, especially a ton he would become an option for the selectors as an all-rounder.
If clarke and haddin both score big runs I think it becomes entirely relevant with 413 runs to go.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Bails blowing off depriving Hussey of four runs and saving Broad yet four more.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
My only slight criticism of Uppercut's posting on here (well, more a disagreement with his logic than a criticism of his actual posting, as such) is that he does seem to change his mind a little readily based on what is really fairly limited evidence. Broad is one such example. You don't bowl rubbish for a year and a half and then suddenly deserve to be called a good bowler because you bowl okay in one series and average 31 in it instead of your usual 45. If someone performs better than they have previously for a few games, that's no real guarantee that they've actually improved - even poor players can play well sometimes unless they are ridiculously bad.
There's no doubt that Broad bowled well in the West Indies.. but there's also no doubt that he's gone back to the way he was bowling beforehand in this series (bar this spell). If you bowl a certain way for your whole career, then bowl better for three games before going back to how you were bowling beforehand, the chances are you've not improved at all and that you've simply gone through a mini-purple-patch. Realistically, a bowler who averages about 45 most of the time and 31 when he's at the top of his game is not a good bowler. Broad's obviously not completely useless, but he's clearly not very good at this point either, and short sample sizes hinting otherwise are hardly definitive opposition to that.
There's no doubt that Broad bowled well in the West Indies.. but there's also no doubt that he's gone back to the way he was bowling beforehand in this series (bar this spell). If you bowl a certain way for your whole career, then bowl better for three games before going back to how you were bowling beforehand, the chances are you've not improved at all and that you've simply gone through a mini-purple-patch. Realistically, a bowler who averages about 45 most of the time and 31 when he's at the top of his game is not a good bowler. Broad's obviously not completely useless, but he's clearly not very good at this point either, and short sample sizes hinting otherwise are hardly definitive opposition to that.
Last edited:
duffer
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sunday night, England winning. Can't blame him tbh.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Johnson is a bowler who bats. Always will be as well. He will never be equal in batting and bowling ability - his bowling will always be superior to his batting.
No it doesn't. Australia have no chance of scoring these runs, unless Haddin and Clarke both get 250 or so.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Kidding, obv's. But I can't help but feel that your status as the most England-hating of all Aussies on here has something to do with your half-British parentage. If someone else can offer me an explan'o, please do.
Demolition Man
State Vice-Captain
Hughes, caught down leg side glancing the gloves is harldy good bowling.Anderson took the only first-innings wicket to result from good bowling.
North playing a cross bat shot on 0 getting an inside edge is harldy a result of great bowling.
Ponting getting given out caught when he didn;t hit the ball was to do with it being a good delivery but again the wrong decision was made.
Clarke out caught was a result of good planning, a poor shot and bowling to a plan at best.
At best 2 of the 4 wickets were a result of good bowling.