• 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* First Test at the Gabba

Spark

Global Moderator
Without wanting to take too much away from the batsmen, we really have seen some ordinary cricket from the fielding sides in the last few days

Bowling, fielding and captaincy has been pretty average all round
Yeah England in that little spell there were just as shoddy as we were earlier on. One sitter dropped by a usually excellent fielder, 8 or 9 overthrows given and timid field placings.

Not a lot of credit in the bank as far as either set of bowlers/fielders are concerned. Jimmy probably will take a bit out of his spell, but he didn't get any wickets there either. Likewise, Siddle will take a bit out of the first day, but again, no wickets second dig.

Perhaps Strauss shouldn't have declared. But the bigger mistake was to come out, post-tea and say "hey, well, it's a draw, let's just bowl these overs out and go home". Whereas Ponting went out and said "hey, well, it's a draw, but I've got 15-20 overs of easy pressure-free test match batting against an OK bowling attack on a flat pitch. I'm going to grab this with both hands".
 
Last edited:

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Ponting, what a star! The only genuine great on both teams proves it again with a counter-attacking whirlwind.

Silly decision by Strauss to declare. Far better to have batted and batted and batted and really put the boot in.
So true. Now he's let Ponting get a pretty easy 50 and he looks in great nick
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well we have to be happy with that, played really well after a poor first day. Not losing was vitally important and we know we are right in the series, it can be the flattest pitch in the world but 517 for 1 is still 517 for 1.

Main positive is obviously Cook but Anderson bowled very well, he keeps that up for the rest of the series and he will get wickets.

Only negative is Swann really, next test is a big one for him.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Decent result for both teams... England escaped somewhat from a defeat, and Australia got to note any problems with their line-up without actually losing a match. However, as England have the Ashes I guess this result is slightly in their favour.
 

JBH001

International Regular
Saving him,I'd have thought,he's bowled a fair amount of overs already.I'm just wondering ,how does Broad overrate himself?
By his penchant for short pitched nothing rubbish. Broad is, at best, a first change bowler - not an opening or strike bowler and he needs to stop seeing himself as one, if his bowling is anything to go by.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Why call the game off? Should've gone for a ton to put a stake through the Pom's hearts.
Strauss would probably have just put on Pietersen and Collingwood, though. "If you want to fill your boots, do it against this lot"
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No chance, England outbowled their counterparts in the first innings.
Totally, that's why there was a 200 run first innings deficit. England did bowl well in their first innings - especially the morning session on Saturday - but they didn't take the wickets when needed. To say they bowled better than Australia when one team bowled the opposition out for 260 and the other for 481 is a bit facetious.

Not saying that Australia didn't bowl/field fairly ordinarily second time around, and England batted very well, but looking at first innings alone, surely the scoreline gives a bit of an indication as to who bowled better.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
By his penchant for short pitched nothing rubbish. Broad is, at best, a first change bowler - not an opening or strike bowler and he needs to stop seeing himself as one, if his bowling is anything to go by.
Yeah, I tend to agree. To an extent anyway. He's a good cricketer - he can bowl in a couple of different styles (swing the ball in England, bowl back of a length and seam it abroad) which makes him useful all around the world and he's *almost* a good enough batsman to be classified as an allrounder, but he's not a strike bowler.
 

Jacknife

International Captain
By his penchant for short pitched nothing rubbish. Broad is, at best, a first change bowler - not an opening or strike bowler and he needs to stop seeing himself as one, if his bowling is anything to go by.
Still, my question is how does he overrate himself,all the other stuff you typed is down to the England management.I personally think, that he has improved no end and this year he has developed in to a opening bowler,he's only 24 so has got plenty of years ahead of him
 

hazsa19

International Regular
Totally, that's why there was a 200 run first innings deficit. England did bowl well in their first innings - especially the morning session on Saturday - but they didn't take the wickets when needed. To say they bowled better than Australia when one team bowled the opposition out for 260 and the other for 481 is a bit facetious.

Not saying that Australia didn't bowl/field fairly ordinarily second time around, and England batted very well, but looking at first innings alone, surely the scoreline gives a bit of an indication as to who bowled better.
Nope. Almost all the English boys threw their wickets away. Johnson was ordinary, Hilfenhouse average, and a random tweaker thrown in.

Anderson bowled one of the finest spells i've seen in a while, Broad bowled well, Finn ok, Swann poor. Apart from afternoon on day 3 they had control, but the aussies played really well and that's why they got their lead (bit of luck).
 

Top