*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Jarquis]

Apparently not.



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.

Was just showing you what im saying is hardly outlandish.
Watto didn't move any away to Trott in that first over. It was either well wide or cutting in. Bar the first ball.

 

[benchmark00]

Haha this is ridiculous.

Let's face it lads. England are so much better than Australia that the only way Australia can come close to them is if England throw all of their wickets away and if the umpires are blatant cheats.

 

[Spark]

It was a bad shot and well bowled to exploit a batsman's weakness.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Was just showing you what im saying is hardly outlandish.
Watto didn't move any away to Trott in that first over. It was either well wide or cutting in. Bar the first ball.

Actually, that's a good point. I thought Watto had bowled more to him before his dismissal.

Still don't think you can throw Trott in with batsmen like Strauss who threw his wicket away though. As I said before, the ball was far enough up to tempt the batsman to drive, but did enough to miss the bat. If Trott had defended then he probably would've gotten away with it.

Not sure how a batsman would pick up on that sort of movement from a good length though.

 

[vcs]

Sometimes I miss the pre-Hawkeye days when one LBW decision not given in an innings of 190+ pretty much used to be treated as a footnote (rightly).

 

[Shifter]

Didn't need hawk-eye to decide that was hitting the stumps. Only thing that saved him was the double noise.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well agree to disagree, my reaction to both was "what the **** was that?" Rather than "what a ball". To Trott's in particular, was a really, really loose one.

When a dismissal occurs, there's generally two reasons.

1. You've made a bad decision.
2. You've made the right decision, but executed it poorly.

Very occasionally, there is the third: you did everything right, but the ball was too good.

Trott was the second case. For mine, that's not a loose shot. Loose shot refers to something like Strauss', which was a bad decision.

 

[BoyBrumby]

tbf, Richard generally has at least some idea what he's talking about.

GTFO.

Dicko's the prime exemplar on CW that knowledge and understanding aren't the same thing.

Anyway, dire last five or so pages it must be said. The test deserved better.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Haha this is ridiculous.

Let's face it lads. England are so much better than Australia that the only way Australia can come close to them is if England throw all of their wickets away and if the umpires are blatant cheats.

Thats a dirty stinking rotten lie and you should wash your mouth out.

To be honest i can't understand all the chat about who did this or that,the game is over.It was a draw on a road.Lets move on to the next match which unfortunately might be another road.

 

[Ausage]

To be honest i can't understand all the chat about who did this or that,the game is over.It was a draw on a road.Lets move on to the next match which unfortunately might be another road.

Pretty much this.

 

[Jono]

Lol at people trying to find psychological wins from a match like this.

Just move on to the second test fellas.

 

[Jono]

The test deserved better.

No it didn't tbf

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Lol at people trying to find psychological wins from a match like this.

Just move on to the second test fellas.

If Australia had been 100-4 not 100-1 then there may have been some advantage.As it is Katich can put his dismissal down to tired body and mind after 2 days in the field and move on.

 

[Jono]

That's my point though. It was a **** pitch (lol @ Bill Lawry saying it was the perfect pitch on Day 4, such a joke of a commentator) and people trying to justify why their team was better on a road is one of the more meaningless tasks in recent times.

 

[Jarquis]

Haha this is ridiculous.

Let's face it lads. England are so much better than Australia that the only way Australia can come close to them is if England throw all of their wickets away and if the umpires are blatant cheats.

Which is why I've said we only threw away 2/3 wickets.
Seriously reply to what I say, not what you want me to be saying.

 

[Jarquis]

When a dismissal occurs, there's generally two reasons.

1. You've made a bad decision.
2. You've made the right decision, but executed it poorly.

Very occasionally, there is the third: you did everything right, but the ball was too good.

Trott was the second case. For mine, that's not a loose shot. Loose shot refers to something like Strauss', which was a bad decision.

Yeah, I said it was a bad shot/decent ball and neither a woeful **** or a magic ball. The drive was loose though, was a bad shot to a ball pretty similar to the one he'd just faced.

 

[Ikki]

That's my point though. It was a **** pitch (lol @ Bill Lawry saying it was the perfect pitch on Day 4, such a joke of a commentator) and people trying to justify why their team was better on a road is one of the more meaningless tasks in recent times.

Well said. What a **** pitch.

 

[Blaze 18]

I've just seen a nice clip of the esteemed Australian captain telling Aleem Dar "that's ****ing weak umpiring, Aleem, that's ****ing weak umpiring"

Link ?

 

[zaremba]

Link ?

Don't know if it's on the internet. They showed it on the Sky Sports highlights. Bleeped out the word ****ing.

 

[GIMH]

I saw that last night as well.