*Official* Third Test at the WACA

[Son Of Coco]

Disagree with that, they may not have bowled superbly, but they didn't bowl pies (apart from the odd Johnson spell in Brisbane) lets not forget that England have played well. And really Johnson broke the back of their batting today with an extraordinary spell

They've bowled a lot of **** mate. A lot. England have played well, but I don't think it's any coincidence that the two times at least one person has got it around off-stump for a concerted amount of time there's been results. Today we bowled pretty well as a team for probably the first time all series. Johnson was the stand-out, but nobody bowled particularly poorly. In other matches there's been some absolute rubbish served up.

 

[Spark]

What a highly pointless post.

How is it pointless?

I don't think Symonds was a particularly good test cricketer, let alone king, and am amazed he got as many tests as he did on top of his indiscipline.

Nor do I think Symonds being in the team had anything to do whatsoever with Clarke's performance.

 

[Jono]

Interesting to read the revised perspectives on Watson today. I always felt that an opener averaging around 50 was the least of Aus's problems in this series, even if he should have gone on with it more often. Now his contributions appear to look more valuable: perhaps it's because England didn't make 500+.

Haha. Nah the previous perspectives were just wrong. Well wrong to put most of the blame on Watson anyway.

 

[Mike5181]

Followed by an even more pointless retort

Followed but you with another pointless post....and so now we go around the circle again

 

[Spark]

Haha. Nah the previous perspectives were just wrong. Well wrong to put most of the blame on Watson anyway.

Yeah I'd think the people you'd have to blame are the cap and his deputy, given their averages are both sub-30, and Ponting's is about 16 (and even that flatters him)

And that's twice you've defended him now

 

[Rant0r]

Followed but you with another pointless post....and so now we go around the circle again

I just don't get people on this forum who say that. I get it, I really do, if you disagree, we're not a ****ing dictatorship. But posting simply to say someone elses post is a ****ty post just irritates the **** out of me, it's a waste of finger muscles and it makes baby jesus cry

 

[Rant0r]

They've bowled a lot of **** mate. A lot. England have played well, but I don't think it's any coincidence that the two times at least one person has got it around off-stump for a concerted amount of time there's been results. Today we bowled pretty well as a team for probably the first time all series. Johnson was the stand-out, but nobody bowled particularly poorly. In other matches there's been some absolute rubbish served up.

I really cant agree with this in total confidence that Australia have bowled AS badly as you make out. If they were THAT bad England would be 2-0 up and there would be a Parlimentary inquiry into the AIS

 

[Mike5181]

How is it pointless?

I don't think Symonds was a particularly good test cricketer, let alone king, and am amazed he got as many tests as he did on top of his indiscipline.

Nor do I think Symonds being in the team had anything to do whatsoever with Clarke's performance.

King is a loose term i used to explain his usefulness to that particular Australian team. He was exactly what they needed and he performed his role perfectly. He averaged 40 behind ATG players in both forms of the game and finished off matches, putting the icing on the cake etc as well as averaging mid 30s with the ball and added variety to the Australian attack.

 

[Prince EWS]

Symonds's Test batting record is one of the most misleading things in the last twenty years of cricket. Never have I seen someone have such ridiculous luck while batting - and I'm not being a **** and talking about plays and misses or something subjective like his technique; every single time he made a big score he'd been given multiple lives by the umpire. He's the best advertisement to giving some importance to the infamous FCA.

To his credit, the extreme luck he had early on gave him some confidence and he was actually pretty good under pressure (I actually think his best innings was a 70 odd he made in the West Indies), but his reputation as a Test batsman was IMO significantly enhanced by the way he bowed out or he'd have surely played on and seen his record fall in line with his actual ability.

If someone like Brad Hodge had been given the selector patience and the luck Symonds had, he'd had played 40 Tests and finished with an average of 55.

 

[Mike5181]

I just don't get people on this forum who say that. I get it, I really do, if you disagree, we're not a ****ing dictatorship. But posting simply to say someone elses post is a ****ty post just irritates the **** out of me, it's a waste of finger muscles and it makes baby jesus cry

then why are you angry at me when i was pulling someone up on doing that very thing. As well as the fact that you did it 2 adds to humour of this post of yours.

 

[Ruckus]

Haha. Nah the previous perspectives were just wrong. Well wrong to put most of the blame on Watson anyway.

Watson is a legend, I think it's time you come out of the closet and jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Spark]

Symonds's Test batting record is one of the most misleading things in the last twenty years of cricket. Never have I seen someone have such ridiculous luck while batting - and I'm not being a **** and talking about plays and misses or something subjective like his technique; every single time he made a big score he'd been given multiple lives by the umpire. He's the best advertisement to giving some importance to the infamous FCA.

To his credit, the extreme luck he had early on gave him some confidence and he was actually pretty good under pressure (I actually think his best innings was a 70 odd he made in the West Indies), but his reputation as a Test batsman was IMO significantly enhanced by the way he bowed out or he'd have surely played on and seen his record fall in line with his actual ability.

If someone like Brad Hodge had been given the selector patience and the luck Symonds had, he'd had played 40 Tests and finished with an average of 55.

Said it better than I ever could. Massively overrated with the bat at test level.

 

[four_or_six]

The Australian batting line-up really is odd-looking:

Hughes+Katich: 111@19
Watson: 259@65
Ponting: 83@17
Clarke: 115@23
Hussey: 425@106
Smith+North: 56@14
Haddin: 257@64

A proper tale of two halves. And the figures genuinely seem to reflect how well/badly they've batted, too.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't know tbh Symonds was pretty king in all forms of the game for Australia. With him in the team i think it actually helped Clarke perform IMO anyway.

This is one of the few things on which I disagree with PEWS.

Symonds was awesome, could contribute in so many ways, and regularly did so when Australia most needed him to. You'd kill for Symonds at six in this series.

 

[Spark]

Poor Katman, though. One fifty, one innings in a completely hopeless, pointless situation, one where he didn't even face a ball and one where he could barely walk. Poor bloke.

 

[Jono]

Watson is a legend, I think it's time you come out of the closet and jump on the bandwagon.

I genuinely don't like wankers/whingers

Shane Watson, Sreesanth, Stuart Broad, Roger Federer etc. etc.

 

[Mike5181]

Symonds's Test batting record is one of the most misleading things in the last twenty years of cricket. Never have I seen someone have such ridiculous luck while batting - and I'm not being a **** and talking about plays and misses or something subjective like his technique; every single time he made a big score he'd been given multiple lives by the umpire. He's the best advertisement to giving some importance to the infamous FCA.

To his credit, the extreme luck he had early on gave him some confidence and he was actually pretty good under pressure (I actually think his best innings was a 70 odd he made in the West Indies), but his reputation as a Test batsman was IMO significantly enhanced by the way he bowed out or he'd have surely played on and seen his record fall in line with his actual ability.

If someone like Brad Hodge had been given the selector patience and the luck Symonds had, he'd had played 40 Tests and finished with an average of 55.

I don't agree with the whole luck thing. Yes, some players are luckier than others but i think he made his own luck. I mean you do not average 40 in international 20/20 by luck. You dont average 40 with 5000 runs in ODIs by luck. He was a decent player but he was surrounded by great players and that's why he didn't seem quite as good as he really was.

 

[Spark]

We're talking about him purely as a test player. No one doubts that he was godly in ODIs and T20s.

 

[Rant0r]

Personally think the threat of him coming into the attack saw England throwing their wickets away to the quicker men.

Agree with Peter English in that article too, why did the remedial work necessary for Mitch Johnson to swing the ball again happen in-between the 2nd and 3rd tests? Should've happened before the series began. I assume it might be because Mitch decided he was just going to forget about swing and bowl fast...think he mentioned something about this somewhere.

*nods*

Don't think there's that much between England and South Africa's attacks. Steyn's comfortably the best of the lot and Morkel's probably about on par with Anderson, but Broad, Finn and Tremlett are soooo much better than Lopsy, McLaren, Parnell etc. That South Africa have Kallis probably tips it, but Swann more than makes up that difference (I know you only said pace attack, but still).

As I was saying yesterday in another thread, South Africa's opening bowlers are world class but their bowling options beyond that can leave them vulnerable.

Steyn and Morkel are world class, Morkel was awesome yesterday, England's backups are far better, Tsotsobe is extremely average, Parnell looks alright though.

Symonds's Test batting record is one of the most misleading things in the last twenty years of cricket. Never have I seen someone have such ridiculous luck while batting - and I'm not being a **** and talking about plays and misses or something subjective like his technique; every single time he made a big score he'd been given multiple lives by the umpire. He's the best advertisement to giving some importance to the infamous FCA.

To his credit, the extreme luck he had early on gave him some confidence and he was actually pretty good under pressure (I actually think his best innings was a 70 odd he made in the West Indies), but his reputation as a Test batsman was IMO significantly enhanced by the way he bowed out or he'd have surely played on and seen his record fall in line with his actual ability.

If someone like Brad Hodge had been given the selector patience and the luck Symonds had, he'd had played 40 Tests and finished with an average of 55.

That and Symonds wasn't really tested at his peak. He missed the Indian tour for starters, never went to England and performed below par against South Africa both at home and abroad.

Hodge.... no comment

 

[morgieb]

This is one of the few things on which I disagree with PEWS.

Symonds was awesome, could contribute in so many ways, and regularly did so when Australia most needed him to. You'd kill for Symonds at six in this series.

Not so convinced with UDRS though.

Agree with your basic sentiment however.