*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Ausage]

Yeah, even so it doesn't really address my initial point that its unfair to be critical of the English attack considering that had one decision been gotten right we could've conceivably seen an innings that mirrored Australia's bowling effort.
As I said, people would much rather just point to the 300 and nothing else, when in reality there was more too it.

I think it's unfair to be too critical, but neither do I think a conclusive "England bowled better than Aus in the first innings" is warranted either (which some people, maybe not you have been saying). The LBW aside you have no way of knowing you would have bowled us out for a total under 300 which is the point I was trying to make.

In the absence of any other evidence, the best we can point to is the scorecard, which shows us getting 200 odd more runs than you.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Heh, bit rich.

Not really.

 

[Jarquis]

Well I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but 'pulling it out of your ass' means not knowing what you're going on about.. in this case batting. How you think this means anything but lucky is beyond me.

Secondly , your whole argument is based upon 'what if'. If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle, but that's not the case is it?

Thirdly, your consistent refusal to give credit to anything Australia did in this test shows you're posting along parochial lines.

Maybe it was a poor use of phrase, I always believed it to be to pull something out of nothing, when in dire straits or with your back to the wall. Was meant as a compliment more than anything.

It's not particularly what if. I basically just embellished upon Prince EWS's rather crass suggestion of "take away Hussey's extra 100 and we still have a big total lolzorz". The facts are we had you 160/5 and skittled your tail. even allowing for tailenders in survival mode, 95/100 you don't make it past 350 after being 240/6.

I gave credit to Siddle on day 1, gave credit to Haddin and Hussey in your first innings. Not much to praise in our second innings and then Ponting looked imperious today. But yeah, sorry if I want my number 3 to tighten up his drive against Watson 20 overs into the first overseas Ashes test, or don't want my skipper hacking balls throat high through gulley or my wicketkeeper trying to blitz away his first ball just after a partnership has been broken.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I said agree to disagree, because frankly I disagree. Trott's shot was lose, it wasn't a bad ball by any means, bit of shape into the right Haider, hitting top of off. But its a dismissal Trott won't be happy with, and a ball he'd back himself to deal with 99 times out of 100. Comparing it to Gatting is ludicrous.
Just look at the gate Trott leaves, it was a poorly executed and loose drive

You're looking at this in reverse Marcuss.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah if we're going to make a list of players who leave gates then you're going to have a lot of very good players in there.

Especially when you take into account Watson hooping the ball away before getting one to jag back. Trott was deceived into going for the off-drive. Only looked so loose because he basically lost it when the back jagged back in.

 

[Jarquis]

I think it's unfair to be too critical, but neither do I think a conclusive "England bowled better than Aus in the first innings" is warranted either (which some people, maybe not you have been saying). The LBW aside you have no way of knowing you would have bowled us out for a total under 300 which is the point I was trying to make.

In the absence of any other evidence, the best we can point to is the scorecard, which shows us getting 200 odd more runs than you.

Yes but when comparing the efforts of the two attacks allowances must be made for umpiring mistakes and the scorecard doesn't do that.
Besides, I'm not saying we were better than you, just that had that decision gone our way its conceivable we would've proved ourselves adept at bowling you out cheaply. Which is what benchmark has criticised us for not doing while ignoring the Hussey lbw decision.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Such consistently flawed posting has to be admired tbf.

 

[benchmark00]

Maybe it was a poor use of phrase, I always believed it to be to pull something out of nothing, when in dire straits or with your back to the wall. Was meant as a compliment more than anything.

It's not particularly what if. I basically just embellished upon Prince EWS's rather crass suggestion of "take away Hussey's extra 100 and we still have a big total lolzorz". The facts are we had you 160/5 and skittled your tail. even allowing for tailenders in survival mode, 95/100 you don't make it past 350 after being 240/6.

I gave credit to Siddle on day 1, gave credit to Haddin and Hussey in your first innings. Not much to praise in our second innings and then Ponting looked imperious today. But yeah, sorry if I want my number 3 to tighten up his drive against Watson 20 overs into the first overseas Ashes test, or don't want my skipper hacking balls throat high through gulley or my wicketkeeper trying to blitz away his first ball just after a partnership has been broken.

I'd love to have 6 Bradman's in my line up with unpenetrable techniques also, but that's not the case is it?

Test cricket is all about planning. You have to identify where you can get a player out, then execute. Trott and Prior (him in particular) play like that. You should've known that before the series. The Australian bowlers produced the perfect balls to get them out. So it's all credit to the bowlers.

 

[Jarquis]

You're looking at this in reverse Marcuss.

How so? Think you're overrating the ball tbh

 

[Son Of Coco]

How so? Think you're overrating the ball tbh

Think you're over-rating the batsman.

You're taking a shot that ended up somewhat 'loose' looking and saying it was the batsman's fault. Then extrapolating backwards to say the ball was just ok. This ignores totally what happened in the lead up to the dismissal.

Will guarantee that if you're bowled a succession of balls looping away and one shapes to do the same before jagging back (at 130+kph) most batsmen will look similarly poor. The ball was on a good length (i.e - drivable, but not full-pitched). By saying the ball was just 'good' but not 'great' implies you have to come up with a ball that produces miracles to get a batsman out. It's simply not true. No ball is played without some consideration given to what the same bowler has produced beforehand. What made it a good delivery (and not the batsman's fault) was what had happened up to that point. If Watson had jagged every ball in up until Trott was dismissed then you'd be right in asking yourself why he tried to drive.

Trott has shown he can drive without too many problems when the ball's not moving around. The gap was created by what happened with the delivery. That's what makes it a good ball.

 

[benchmark00]

Think you're over-rating the batsman.

Bingo.

 

[Jarquis]

I'd love to have 6 Bradman's in my line up with unpenetrable techniques also, but that's not the case is it?

Test cricket is all about planning. You have to identify where you can get a player out, then execute. Trott and Prior (him in particular) play like that. You should've known that before the series. The Australian bowlers produced the perfect balls to get them out. So it's all credit to the bowlers.

Wouldn't say that's the perfect ball to get Trott at all, you saw how good he is on the drive today and yesterday. If your cramped him for room under his ribs I'd give you more credit.
As for Prior, its not so much the perfect ball as he plays shots from the off and anyone is liable to full, quick, straight stuff early on. Which is why id have liked him to be a touch more.circumspect in those circumstances. He does have it in him to play a slightly restrained innings, and that moment required one.

 

[Jarquis]

Think you're over-rating the batsman.

Lol. Trott's a far better batsman than Watson is bowler

 

[Spark]

Nah get him driving early IMO. We saw early in this innings how many balls were squirted through gully/slips, and he looked like he'd nick one off soon - until the drop, that was, and then they weren't going to nick anything. He'll hit one or two through the covers but you're not out of the game.

 

[Jarquis]

13.6 81.7 mph, gone! Watson strikes! Who would've thought it!? Not me. Watson goes fuller, finds some movement off the wicket into Trott who drove loosely and it went through the gate and clattered into middle 41/2

Ftr.

He wasn't hopping them away prior to the wicket either.

 

[Jarquis]

Nah get him driving early IMO. We saw early in this innings how many balls were squirted through gully/slips, and he looked like he'd nick one off soon - until the drop, that was, and then they weren't going to nick anything. He'll hit one or two through the covers but you're not out of the game.

Was not exactly early on itbt. 29(53b)?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Wouldn't say that's the perfect ball to get Trott at all, you saw how good he is on the drive today and yesterday. .

Yes, when the ball.is.not.doing.anything...

 

[Spark]

Was not exactly early on itbt. 29(53b)?

Remove the word "early". Really, right until the drop I thought we had a real chance at getting him out on the drive. It's not exactly a natural shot for him.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Lol. Trott's a far better batsman than Watson is bowler

Apparently not.

13.6 81.7 mph, gone! Watson strikes! Who would've thought it!? Not me. Watson goes fuller, finds some movement off the wicket into Trott who drove loosely and it went through the gate and clattered into middle 41/2

Ftr.

He wasn't hopping them away prior to the wicket either.

Yes, well if Cricinfo says it then it must be true.

Am starting to wonder if you were actually watching the game. Watson got more than one to move away before the ball that came back in to Trott. As Spark said, he looked ordinary on the drive on the off early in the piece. Don't recall him having middled one up until the point Watson bowled him.

 

[Jarquis]

Watson did **** all with the balk that over bar the last 2 balls which both cut in. Trott defended one with ease and then invited the next one to castle him, pretty much bought it a taxi and opened the door to let it in.
There was no genius plan for Watson to set him up for the outswinger. It was just a bad shot man.