*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Prince EWS]

Honestly, the talk of Ponting being booted if Australia don't win the series is nonsense. It's not the captains job to win the series, it's the teams. The captain's job is to:

a) Lead the team well
b) Make good tactical decisions

By all means get rid of him because he can't set a proper field, but it's not his fault the batting keeps collapsing or Mitchell Johnson and friends can't bowl properly anymore. Clarke won't be any better on b) anyways and the talk on North taking over makes me want to throw up. Happy for Katich to take over though. Truth be told we have enough problems at the moment, stability at the top is essential for now.

I completely agree. My post was a prediction rather than opinion. Genuinely think Ponting will get the arse if Australia lose.

 

[Burgey]

I love listening to him as with him being neutral he just says it as it is with no hint of bias.The likes of Botham,Healy and Chappell always talk up their own players and talk down the opposition regardless of what they are doing on the field.

The way Holding spoke about Johnson at Lunch was very insightful.Basically said nobody with an action like him will ever be capable of producing consistant performances and that he had heard he was a great bowler many times but never seen it himself.

Holding is nowhere near neutral tttt. His commentary generally reflects who's paying the bills.

All right for him to refuse a 7-2 field when four balls an over were bouncers.

 

[vcs]

I also think, should the unthinkable come to pass, that the selectors will retain him. If for no other reason than that they wouldn't want to keep him for the ODI captaincy alone, with the WC coming up. But he'd be working with a very small margin for error after that. If he has a great series with the bat and Australia still lose, things would start to get very tricky indeed.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Holding is nowhere near neutral tttt. His commentary generally reflects who's paying the bills.

All right for him to refuse a 7-2 field when four balls an over were bouncers.

He is quite happy to slag off England players as and when they deserve it so that comment is totally absurd,the thing is he does it in a constructive way by explaining where the bowler is going wrong,leaves the batting technicalities to the likes of Gower though which is fair enough.

 

[Spark]

I completely agree. My post was a prediction rather than opinion. Genuinely think Ponting will get the arse if Australia lose.

.

 

[Prince EWS]

.

So that's how you overtook me for the most posts in the thread.

 

[Spark]

So that's how you overtook me for the most posts in the thread.

You know I'm going to beat you, ****

 

[GotSpin]

This, a thousand times this. Bowlers, and certainly swing-dependent ones, need to make the batsman play while secure in the knowledge that they won't get worked off their pads for two singles every over.

I always think of Hilfenhaus as a bowler who is mostly going to get wickets from LBWs or caught at first slip.

He is such a nothing bowler when he starts plonking it outside off. However, given that he can move the ball both ways, he's such a good bowler when he bowls it dead straight. But he needs the protection in mid wicket to bowl that way.

 

[Prince EWS]

You know I'm going to beat you, ****

I smashed you in the tour games thread IIRC.

Watching the first session at the pub the last couple of days has crueled me.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, we heard about this a lot in the last Ashes in England - constant references were made to how vital momentum was. If anything, the opposite was true. Australia were all over England in the first Test and England just survived through that Panesar/Onions partnership, but then England smashed Australia in the second Test. Australia were then all over England in the next two, drawing a game in which they were the better side and then winning by an innings, giving them the ultimate momentum into the fifth Test... whereby they got hammered.

Both sides are good, but neither side is consistent or ruthless. It means we're going to see a lot of see-sawing fortunes, just like we did in this Test.

Australia were the better team in the third test of 09???? WTF?!

 

[Prince EWS]

Hilfenhaus doesn't move the ball both ways. He bowls outies. He has an off cutter but it doesn't get very far and is hence usually only effective against left handers, with the angle. His inswinger is the biggest myth in cricket since.. Johnson's.

 

[Prince EWS]

Australia were the better team in the third test of 09???? WTF?!

Well, debatable. They definitely took the momentum from it with that second innings batting effort though, much as England will take the momentum here if it's a draw even though it's been about honours even.

 

[Spark]

Australia were the better team in the third test of 09???? WTF?!

Post the Clarke-North partnership we were in a very strong position, IIRC. ~270 ahead, 5 down and Clarke was ravenous. And lucky.

I smashed you in the tour games thread IIRC.

Watching the first session at the pub the last couple of days has crueled me.

Haven't been so prolific myself. In the India thread I was almost doing ball-by-ball at one stage.

 

[GIMH]

Well, debatable. They definitely took the momentum from it with that second innings batting effort though, much as England will take the momentum here if it's a draw even though it's been about honours even.

That would be like me claiming we had the momentum after Cardiff.

On no planet were Australia the better side at Edgbaston.

 

[Prince EWS]

That would be like me claiming we had the momentum after Cardiff.

Well not really, because that game clearly wasn't anywhere near even.

At the end of the game, Australia led by 261 runs with five wickets in hand. That's a strong position.

 

[Spark]

That would be like me claiming we had the momentum after Cardiff.

On no planet were Australia the better side at Edgbaston.

TBH the best way to determine that is "who, had there been an extra 5 sessions (which was the amount of time lost I believe) would have been more likely to win?"

I'd have backed us.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Hilfenhaus doesn't move the ball both ways. He bowls outies. He has an off cutter but it doesn't get very far and is hence usually only effective against left handers, with the angle. His inswinger is the biggest myth in cricket since.. Johnson's.

AWTA

He is useful bringing the ball back to the left hander but i have never seen him cut one back to a righthander.Only really seen him in ashes tests though so he may have one but i haven't seen it and you have seen him more than i have.

I rate him as a steady bowler but not someone who will run through a decent side.Useful to have if you have a couple of real tearaway quicks in the side but they don't appear to have that at present anyway.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Well not really, because that game clearly wasn't anywhere near even.

At the end of the game, Australia led by 261 runs with five wickets in hand. That's a strong position.

England eased off a bit once the chance of victory had gone.Even Bloopara was bowling at the end which shows they were just killing time.

 

[GIMH]

Well not really, because that game clearly wasn't anywhere near even.

At the end of the game, Australia led by 261 runs with five wickets in hand. That's a strong position.

TBH the best way to determine that is "who, had there been an extra 5 sessions (which was the amount of time lost I believe) would have been more likely to win?"

I'd have backed us.

Must have missed the bit where Strauss gave up and started resting his best bowlers. These posts also ignore that our batting on the Sunday was frantic because we were short on time.

Australia fought back well and Clarke and North were magnificent but you really can't claim they were the better team.

 

[Prince EWS]

England eased off a bit once the chance of victory had gone.Even Bloopara was bowling at the end which shows they were just killing time.

Haha, it's really irrelevant to my point anyway tbh. Wasn't trying to start a pissing contest, particularly as I was supporting England then regardless. My point was - we constantly heard about how important momentum was during that series and in the end it meant **** all as the performances swung wildly from Test to Test. England winning the decider after going down by an innings the previous game is the perfect example.