but you'd think they'd at least know the wordsAdvance Australia Fair is dire.
Yep, we should sing the Italian one and let Australia have their choice of Brazil or France. Would be much more entertaining.nothing spoils a great sporting atmosphere like a couple of lame national anthems
Spot on mate.Okay, if I can be serious, for just one minute, given Australia have won the toss:
- What would represent par for either side?
- What would represent a really good day for either side?
Would say about 300-5 is a par score for the day. Couple more wickets than that, and I'd say we can be happy. Similarly if Australia can still have a couple of their top five still in at close, they'll be happy.
pretty much agree, though i think they would prefer to get to 300 with the loss of 4. if we get 6 down we're into the tail so we're always gonna feel like we're close.Okay, if I can be serious, for just one minute, given Australia have won the toss:
- What would represent par for either side?
- What would represent a really good day for either side?
Would say about 300-5 is a par score for the day. Couple more wickets than that, and I'd say we can be happy. Similarly if Australia can still have a couple of their top five still in at close, they'll be happy.
For the innings sure, I just meant todayAnything under about 430 I'd be happy. Anything under 380 I'd be very happy. Anything under 330 ecstatic.
Not really relevant given how badly Australia bowled in the 2nd innings though. It's all very well being the only team in with a shout of winning, but that means **** all if you can't press home the advantage.500plus for 1 is a shocking bowling performance any way you look at it, but Tubby Taylor made a good point the other day on the radio.
At tea time on day 3 in Brisbane, only one side could win the Test match and that was Australia. Sure, England completely dominated the following 5 (count em 5) sessions but one has to ask the question as to whether England's attack looks like taking 20 wickets (let's make it 18 wickets with Marcus North in our side).
I'd suggest not. Notwithstanding that we clearly haven't seen the best of Swann on this tour.
Quite possibly the key to winning in Adelaide is more around who wins the toss and bats first. If Australia bats first, we have to declare well before tea on day 2 and try to go along a a decent clip with say 450-500 in the board. I think that England will be able to bat for 220-240 overs so the Aussies will need to bat aggressively to have sufficient time for a result.
The thing that worries me most is that England's scoring rate was quite a bit faster than Australia's at the Gabba.
E: 3.39 versus A: 3.18. The delta is even more if you take out the 4th innings which was essentially junk time.
Australian teams that score quickly can set more aggressive fields and with some disciplined bowling (see ya Mitch, hopefully see ya Hilfy), apply more pressure, bowl in partnerships etc, because you can't rely on the freakish hattrick to happen again.
Anyway, as much as I will be sick to my stomach if we can't win back the Ashes, it makes fascinating viewing.
Yeah, I agree with you, around 300-5. More than five wickets would be great.For the innings sure, I just meant today