*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Jarquis]

Nah Marcuss, I'll agree that England had the better of the game, but it's due entirely to the second innings, and what you're posting right now is nothing more than biased ****. Excluding the top two run-scorers makes no sense, nor does bringing dropped catches into the argument as if both teams used neutral fielders (admittedly the latter was done by someone else). Australia definitely had the better of the first innings, pretty comfortably.

No, Australia had the better first innings but this stemmed from Benchmark's assertion that England were incapable of bowling out Australia. The point I made was that we were capable of such a thing, and that the only thing that prevented us from doing so were some dubious (see : incorrect) umpiring decisions, a decision which lead to a monumental partnership between Haddin and Hussey, and without that partnership your innings was almost identical to England's.
Biased my ass.

 

[zaremba]

I wonder which side will be the happier of the two.

England, surely.

Because even on that horrible 3rd day, they bowled beautifully and without luck to both Haddin and Hussey for a sustained period. Haddin described it afterwards as the best bowling you'll ever have to face in Test cricket (or words to that effect). And either side of the Hussey/Haddin stand they didn't have too many problems dismissing Australia.

Australia's bowlers will surely be feeling far more chastened. None of their front-line bowlers took a wicket over the course of 2 days throughout much of which they were able to set attacking fields. That's hard to recover from.

And besides, as we all know from 2009, what really counts is how many centuries your team makes, and England are winning on that score

In retrospect, I'd have liked the English declaration to have come with no more than about 10 overs to go. Or maybe no declaration at all. Just make them suffer physically and mentally.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, Australia had the better first innings but this stemmed from Benchmark's assertion that England were incapable of bowling out Australia. The point I made was that we were capable of such a thing, and that the only thing that prevented us from doing so were some dubious (see : incorrect) umpiring decisions, a decision which lead to a monumental partnership between Haddin and Hussey, and without that partnership your innings was almost identical to England's.
Biased my ass.

He didn't say they were incapable of it; he said they hadn't shown they were capable of it in the first Test. Which is true. Take away the 100 odd runs Hussey scored post-lbw and Australia still posted a huge total.

 

[GIMH]

He didn't say they were incapable of it; he said they hadn't shown they were capable of it in the first Test. Which is true. Take away the 100 odd runs Hussey scored post-lbw and Australia still posted a huge total.

Haha, come on EWS, you're more intelligent than suggesting only Hussey's runs are lost if he goes when Jimmeh trapped him!

As I said, it doesn't really matter, but you're being way simplistic there

 

[Uppercut]

I'd say Australia put in the better performance on the grounds that despite losing the toss, they were the only team that was ever in a position to win the match.

Their attack looks piss-weak though. England's seems much, much better.

 

[zaremba]

He didn't say they were incapable of it; he said they hadn't shown they were capable of it in the first Test. Which is true. Take away the 100 odd runs Hussey scored post-lbw and Australia still posted a huge total.

It's not just the lbw shout, it's the overall balance of play on that 3rd morning, when England's bowling was simply outstanding (see the Haddin comment I referred to above) and looked like taking wickets consistently. They showed pretty clearly that they were capable of taking wickets. The fact that it didn't happen is beside the point.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd say Australia put in the better performance on the grounds that despite losing the toss, they'd have been the team to win the match had the pitch started to disintegrate late in the game instead of flattening out.

So in other words, you think Australia played better because they had a first innings lead? That analysis completely discounts anything that actually happened in the second innings just because the pitch didn't do what you wanted it to.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's not just the lbw shout, it's the overall balance of play on that 3rd morning, when England's bowling was simply outstanding (see the Haddin comment I referred to above) and looked like taking wickets consistently. They showed pretty clearly that they were capable of taking wickets. The fact that it didn't happen is beside the point.

Little better way to show you're capable of doing something than actually doing it. It's a performance-based sport. I think everyone knows England are quite capable of bowling Australia out cheaply, but they didn't do it. Australia, on the other hand, managed it. That's important in analysing what actually happened in the Test. That was his point.

I actually disagree with his overall point about Australia having the better of the game, but I think people are picking on that one point for more than it was actual saying.

 

[GIMH]

I'd say Australia put in the better performance on the grounds that despite losing the toss, they'd have been the team to win the match had the pitch started to disintegrate late in the game instead of flattening out.
.

Not having that. The pitch didn't disintegrate, so it's pretty irrelevant when analysing the performances.

 

[Uppercut]

The pitch doesn't have anything to do with anything, really. Seems I've made my point rather badly if that's what you got from my post. I'll edit.

 

[Jarquis]

He didn't say they were incapable of it; he said they hadn't shown they were capable of it in the first Test. Which is true. Take away the 100 odd runs Hussey scored post-lbw and Australia still posted a huge total.

Hussey was on 85* and Haddin 24*, so remove Hussey's 110 takes you to 371. There's no way Haddin would've made another 112 with the tail either. Had that decision been given you'd have been 229/6. Your last 4 wickets added 31, so that would've given you 270.
Obviously it's not perfect but there's no way you would've still posted 350+

 

[zaremba]

Little better way to show you're capable of doing something than actually doing it. It's a performance-based sport. I think everyone knows England are quite capable of bowling Australia out cheaply, but they didn't do it. Australia, on the other hand, managed it. That's important in analysing what actually happened in the Test. That was his point.

Yes but when you're analysing the quality of someone's bowling on a particular day, you surely don't just look at their stats, do you?. You look at how well they actually bowled. Luck plays an enormous role in whether, on any given day, you get wickets or not.

On the other hand, we could say, well, Finn got a 6-fer, so he's shown (a) how utterly lethal he is with the ball, (b) that he's capable of bowling out Australia almost single-handedly, and (c) that he's miles better than Jimmy. Which for anyone who actually watched the game is obviously nonsense.

 

[social]

England should definitely be happier as they can justifiably pick the same x1 for Adelaide whilst Oz will need some feeble excuse e.g. "continuity"

Positives for Oz were Hussey, Watto (scored runs despite being out of form since India) and Ponting, who was comfortably the best batsman on show in this test and Adelaide cant come soon enough for him

 

[zaremba]

Positives for Oz were Hussey, Watto (scored runs despite being out of form since India) and Ponting, who was comfortably the best batsman on show in this test and Adelaide cant come soon enough for him

TBF to Watson I thought he also bowled pretty well and without any luck on the 5th morning.

 

[GIMH]

Yes but when you're analysing the quality of someone's bowling on a particular day, you surely don't just look at their stats, do you?

Hang on, are you new to Cricket Web?

 

[Uppercut]

So in other words, you think Australia played better because they had a first innings lead? That analysis completely discounts anything that actually happened in the second innings just because the pitch didn't do what you wanted it to.

No, nothing to do with the first innings lead. Just the fact that they bowled England out cheaply, but weren't bowled out cheaply themselves. They at least took a step towards winning the game, England didn't.

I'm pretty sure I was going to make exactly the same point regarding England being the better side during the '09 Edgbaston test in an argument about that a while back.

 

[zaremba]

Still don't follow you, Will. You're stopping the clock at an arbitrary point in proceedings by discounting the 2nd innings.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, nothing to do with the first innings lead. Just the fact that they bowled England out cheaply, but weren't bowled out cheaply themselves. They at least took a step towards winning the game, England didn't.

I'm pretty sure I was going to make exactly the same point regarding England being the better side during the '09 Edgbaston test in an argument about that a while back.

Ahh I see. Yeah, that's basically Murphy's argument. Both teams showed they could bat to differing standards of "well" in an innings but only Australia managed to bowl out the opposition cheaply in at least one innings.

I don't really see it that way - I'm more of a "what would've happened if it was a timeless Test" sort of guy when it comes to looking at draws (and I also think the ability to bowl out a team for < 300 is an irrelevant skill when coupled with the ability to let said team score 517/1 in the second innings) - but it's definitely a lot more valid in my eyes than what I thought you were saying.

 

[Uppercut]

Hussey was on 85* and Haddin 24*, so remove Hussey's 110 takes you to 371. There's no way Haddin would've made another 112 with the tail either. Had that decision been given you'd have been 229/6. Your last 4 wickets added 31, so that would've given you 270.
Obviously it's not perfect but there's no way you would've still posted 350+

Strauss's fault for wasting his referrals .

In fairness, things did go England's way on the afternoon of day 2. If you're assessing England's capability of bowling Australia out it's entirely fair to mention that they didn't get the results they'll normally get if they bowl as well as they do on the first morning. But bowling leg-side to Ponting isn't going to get long-term results either, so there's qualifications on both sides.

 

[Uppercut]

Still don't follow you, Will. You're stopping the clock at an arbitrary point in proceedings by discounting the 2nd innings.

I'm not really. I'm just distinguishing between "could have won but failed to" and "never had any chance of winning". Both suck, admittedly, and hence a draw is the right result. But if I'm going to make a choice it has to be the former.