*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[silentstriker]

Australianism: Letting the opposition score 517/1 in the second innings.

 

[Furball]

All about little moments really. If Hussey's edge first ball carries an extra two feet, he's gone and Australia are in deep ****. If Siddle's ball that got Pietersen seams just a little more it's a play and miss, if it doesn't move at all it's disappeared past the bowler for 4.

I don't think the disparity between the first innings scores fairly reflects the efforts put in by the bowlers at all, however. A very even contest throughout IMO, though obviously Haddin and Hussey deserve enormous credit for their partnership.

 

[Howe_zat]

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.

But you can't win matches by bowling the opposition out once. And while Aus may have got into a strong position they completely failed to turn a strong position into a win. "could have won but failed to" is a major underestimate of their failure in the third innings.

Yes, Australia were the only side that could have won at the end of the third day. But that's still a pretty arbitrary cut-off point to decide that they had the best of it.

England had taken a "step towards winning" just after tea on day 2 when Aus were 150/5 and 110 behind. But since they didn't make it count we can't say it was all that valuable.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think the disparity between the first innings scores fairly reflects the efforts put in by the bowlers at all, however.

Yeah, neither do I - I think it fairly reflects the efforts put in by the batsmen though.

 

[Uppercut]

Australianism: Letting the opposition score 517/1 in the second innings.

 

[Prince EWS]

But you can't win matches by bowling the opposition out once. And while Aus may have got into a strong position they completely failed to turn a strong position into a win. "could have won but failed to" is a major underestimate of their failure in the third innings.

Yes, Australia were the only side that could have won at the end of the third day. But that's still a pretty arbitrary cut-off point to decide that they had the best of it.

England had taken a "step towards winning" just after tea on day 2 when Aus were 150/5 and 110 behind. But since they didn't make it count we can't say it was all that valuable.

I don't really agree with what Uppercut is saying completely, but it's not really an arbitrary cut-off point. He's just saying that Australia were in the game for longer than England. Whether that means all 5 days v 4 days and 2 sessions, or 2 days v 1 day, it's still the same logic. Not my way of looking at it, as I said, but not arbitrary.

 

[Howe_zat]

Fair enough Crib. Shouldn't have said "arbitrary", but the basis of my point stands.

When/where is that picture from?

 

[Shoggz]

I think it was at the denouement of the England vs Australia A match at Hobart

 

[Uppercut]

But you can't win matches by bowling the opposition out once. And while Aus may have got into a strong position they completely failed to turn a strong position into a win. "could have won but failed to" is a major underestimate of their failure in the third innings.

Yes, Australia were the only side that could have won at the end of the third day. But that's still a pretty arbitrary cut-off point to decide that they had the best of it.

England had taken a "step towards winning" just after tea on day 2 when Aus were 150/5 and 110 behind. But since they didn't make it count we can't say it was all that valuable.

I'm aware that the logic isn't 100% infallible. The truth is that if either team had made a convincing and flawless case for being the better side, the match wouldn't have been a draw, so if we're going to pick one team out of the two there's always going to be some degree of arbitrary judgment involved. It's an easy thing for two sets of opposing fans to disagree over .

 

[Furball]

Yeah, neither do I - I think it fairly reflects the efforts put in by the batsmen though.

Also reflects the luck that the repsective batting lineups carried though. I'm not trying to boil this down to "Australia got lucky, England didn't" - Hussey in particularly made the slice of luck he got at the start of his innings count - but I don't remember Pietersen or Cook looking in any sort of trouble until they got good deliveries from Siddle.

Like I said, Haddin and Hussey deserve enormous credit for their innings, I think that's the best example in my time watching Test cricket that I can think of of batsmen really earning their runs through toughing out some excellent bowling, and making the little bit of luck that you do carry really count.

 

[Uppercut]

I think it was at the denouement of the England vs Australia A match at Hobart

Yep.

It was the closest Google Images had to Cook and Strauss pointing and laughing.

 

[Jarquis]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Shoggz]

It's probably indicative of my advancing years and time spent watching England being smashed by the Australians, but I was pleasantly surprised to wake up this morning and not see "Adelaide 06 II - Siddle's slaughter!" or some such similar headline.

Again, as a seasoned England follower, my mind just struggles comprehending a scoreline of 517/1 after all the years we've had a situation where our batsmen are seemingly unable to go on and score big even on the flattest of pitches.

Going forward, I just hope Swanny rediscovers his mojo as he was disappointingly under-par in this match.

He proved he can do it in (relatively) similar conditions, with such success in South Africa last year, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

As for the Aussies, I'm kinda hoping that they retain Mitchell Johnson, as if we get a repeat of this game, it will be 100+ easy runs... but having said that, I'm convinced Mrs Mitchell had twins and they take it in turns to play and hence we might get the scary, wicket taking, finger breaking demon brother, at Adelaide!

 

[silentstriker]

Australianism: Letting the opposition score 517/1 in the second innings.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

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.

So on that basis if Siddle didn't get a hattrick then England would have got a huge total as they had plenty of batting left and Bell who looked the best player in the match would have got a massive hundred.

All this is ifs buts and maybes and rather pointless.The fact is England got 517-1 which for the home side at their banker ground is pathetic.Yes England need to improve a bit with the ball too but i think Australia are panicing how they will get 20 wickets as they have struggled to do it regularly for some time now while England are calm as they know their unit can do it and will perform better.

Anyway,this game is gone now.Roll on Thursday night and round 2.

 

[Prince EWS]

So on that basis if Siddle didn't get a hattrick then England would have got a huge total as they had plenty of batting left and Bell who looked the best player in the match would have got a massive hundred.

All this is ifs buts and maybes and rather pointless.The fact is England got 517-1 which for the home side at their banker ground is pathetic.Yes England need to improve a bit with the ball too but i think Australia are panicing how they will get 20 wickets as they have struggled to do it regularly for some time now while England are calm as they know their unit can do it and will perform better.

Anyway,this game is gone now.Roll on Thursday night and round 2.

I actually agree with all of that. That was precisely my point - people were dealing too much in hypotheticals rather than what actually happened.

 

[Jarquis]

And what happened was an incorrect LBW decision which everyone is all too keen to punish England for/forget.

 

[Woodster]

Yes a pleasing draw in the end for England, after a few occasions of being put under pressure in the opening Test. First of all a first innings score of 260 was below par and then the Hussey and Haddin partnership gave Australia a real advantage. England did very well to restrict the Aussies initially to 143-5, and then recovered well enough after the great partnership to take the last 5 wickets for 31 runs.

When faced with a deficit of 221, England batted positively and with no less quality. Trott and Cook probably batted as well as we've ever seen them in an England shirt, and Strauss recovered from the disappointment of his duck in the first dig.

Both sides will generally be quite pleased with their batting, but a lack of penetration will concern both sides on the bowling front. This was, however, a very flat deck and perhaps we shouldn't read too much into it. Although everyone thought this would be both sides areas of concern.

It's pretty much accepted England will be unchanged at Adelaide while there seem to be many question marks over a few of the Aussies. In a strange way I would probably like to see Tremlett selected over Finn, which doesn't really make sense after he took a 6-for, but I think Tremlett is currently more consistent and threatening. Finn's figures flattered him quite a bit, but he does deserve credit for perseverance.

Australia's attack imo did look flatter than ours. Johnson was down on speed and possessed all his typical accuracy. He has a decent record at Adelaide that may contribute to saving him, and I can't see Doherty of Hilf being dropped. Marcus North may be the one at greatest danger, but his spin bowling option may be important at Adelaide in the closing stages of the Test. What odds on the same sides on Friday ?

 

[Howe_zat]

Yes a pleasing draw in the end for England, after a few occasions of being put under pressure in the opening Test. First of all a first innings score of 260 was below par and then the Hussey and Haddin partnership gave Australia a real advantage. England did very well to restrict the Aussies initially to 143-5, and then recovered well enough after the great partnership to take the last 5 wickets for 31 runs.

When faced with a deficit of 221, England batted positively and with no less quality. Trott and Cook probably batted as well as we've ever seen them in an England shirt, and Strauss recovered from the disappointment of his duck in the first dig.

Both sides will generally be quite pleased with their batting, but a lack of penetration will concern both sides on the bowling front. This was, however, a very flat deck and perhaps we shouldn't read too much into it. Although everyone thought this would be both sides areas of concern.

It's pretty much accepted England will be unchanged at Adelaide while there seem to be many question marks over a few of the Aussies. In a strange way I would probably like to see Tremlett selected over Finn, which doesn't really make sense after he took a 6-for, but I think Tremlett is currently more consistent and threatening. Finn's figures flattered him quite a bit, but he does deserve credit for perseverance.

Australia's attack imo did look flatter than ours. Johnson was down on speed and possessed all his typical accuracy. He has a decent record at Adelaide that may contribute to saving him, and I can't see Doherty of Hilf being dropped. Marcus North may be the one at greatest danger, but his spin bowling option may be important at Adelaide in the closing stages of the Test. What odds on the same sides on Friday ?

Once again Woods charges in to state exactly what I would if I were better with words and didn't keep getting distracted by silliness.

 

[Woodster]

Once again Woods charges in to state exactly what I would if I were better with words and didn't keep getting distracted by silliness.

Don't be so modest, I've noticed you have a most eloquent side to you. The distracted by silliness is funny though!