It's a good position but it doesn't count for much because so much of the game was curtailed by rain. England were the better side on two of the three full days played. I'd accept that it was a fairly even game but not that Australia dominated by any means.
Yeah, my position, and original point which I chose not to drag out with wordiness, was that it was a fairly even game in which Australia took momentum from. This differs from Cardiff where England got out of jail but could hardly claim momentum after being thoroughly outplayed. Wasn't trying to start a debate over whether Australia would've won if not for rain or anything like that, but if anyone took momentum from that it was them, and they build on that momentum the following Test by winning by an innings.. and then still got rolled in the decider.
You're a monster.
TBH if there was anyone who claimed momentum there, it was Broad. A gift 6-for and a carefree smashed 60 can do good things to one's confidence.
I thought they only got rolled in the decider because of the pitch at the Oval not because we played the better cricket?
Of course he can if his own form holds. You want him to take 8 wickets a match too? All great captains have one thing in common...
Not true.
Haha, does anyone still go on about that? They need to have a look at the scorecard. That one innings was simply brilliant bowling aided by mindless batting (MICHAEL CLARKE I AM LOOKING AT YOU). Although we did get the attack horribly wrong for that game, that pitch was going to be murder for Clark.I thought they only got rolled in the decider because of the pitch at the Oval not because we played the better cricket?
I think that's clutching at straws somewhat. Didn't seem to help Australia at Trent Bridge in '05 for example, or England in the last Test against SA this year. On the other hand, India had a similar escape in 2007 and won the series, and of course England bounced back well in '09 at Lords. I doubt there's any correlation.
I'm not sideshowtim.I thought they only got rolled in the decider because of the pitch at the Oval not because we played the better cricket?
What about that delivery to Trott which came back into him. Hiflenhaus can definitely move it both ways
Yeah, that was his offcutter. As I said, it doesn't normally go very far and is hence usually only effective against left handers, with the increased angle from bowling across them. He doesn't doesn't bowl a genuine inswinger.
Was a cutter IMO. Definitely didn't swing in. Didn't move as much as it seemed live in the end, padding up near off stump tends to give that impression.
There may be an element of chicken-and-egg in that -- is Australia's winning period a result of the captaincy-for-life policy, or is the captaincy-for-life policy only possible if you are going through a period of dominance? You could argue that when the team is full of ATGs the role of the captain is very different (in many ways quite minimal) compared to a team full of lesser lights. And you could also argue that the captaincy is having a seriously adverse effect on Ponting's own batting -- and now he's the only real great left in the batting lineup you simply can't afford to have him performing at anything less than 100%.
Oh I thought you were saying he only bowled on cutters or something.
