*Official* Third Test at the WACA

[Spark]

Think England are missing Broad without knowing it tbh. The bowling, whilst Tremlett has been good, has not had the same asphyxiating control that Broad was bringing even if he didn't get wickets.

 

[Spark]

Haha I know, but the other is just opinion .

I think I'm less inclined to believe the Richardism of ODIs and tests being completely unrelated. Sure, his most epic innings had a lot of let-offs, but the fact that he regularly turned games on their head in ODIs too makes me less inclined to think it was all a fluke. Aggressive batsmen always seem luckier because the risk factor of facing a lot of deliveries isn't immediately obvious. If Dravid gets an unplayable ball on 30 you just think "tough luck, good ball" but Symonds might have scored 70 before getting that same jaffa. And besides, a lucky batsmen is sometimes better than a good one .

He also fits a little better with my idea of the role of the number 6 in cricket. Picking your sixth best batsman is an absolutely fine policy, and in the long run would probably work out for the best. But what you really want is contributions from difficult positions and if the bowling was too good for the five best batsman in your country it's usually going to be too good for the sixth best too- I think we saw that with Marcus North. Having someone a bit unorthodox, who offers a completely different challenge to bowlers and can contribute a lot outside of his batting, is often the absolute best-case-scenario option at six. Symonds had a lot of intangibles going for him in that he quite visibly lifted his own team and got under the skin of and demoralised the opposition. Whatever the extent to which you agree with Goughy's assessment of the value of image in cricket, Symonds absolutely embodies what he's talking about, and while obviously it's not necessarily a direct causal effect, there's a ****ing huge disparity in Australia's results with and without Symonds in the past five years, in every format.

It might just be how things have worked out as a result of the timing of their decline, but I associate Symonds with Australia constantly winning, and associate Australia without Symonds with a distinct lack of aggression, no energy in the field, no ruthlessness and no ability whatsoever to turn round a game that's going against them- all of which are features that Symonds embodies to an almost absurd extent.

Odd then that in the home SA series we lost the two tests Symonds played in an ugly manner and dominated the one he didn't.

 

[Rant0r]

To be brutally honest, Symonds was never tested in tough conditions and/or against good opposition. Poor record against South Africa, never played in seaming conditions in England (poor record against England if you take out the hundred at Melbourne). Never played in India. But made a few cheap runs in Australia on flat pitches and the might of the West Indies. An average of 40 overstates his influence. And in the age of big bats, flat pitches and dibbly dobblies when Symonds played, an average of 40 probablyt equates to low 30's in any other era

 

[GIMH]

Think England are missing Broad without knowing it tbh. The bowling, whilst Tremlett has been good, has not had the same asphyxiating control that Broad was bringing even if he didn't get wickets.

I don't know if this is backed up statistically, but I've always felt Broad is our best bowler when it comes to cleaning up the tail. He hasn't really needed to do it so far this series, but I reckon once we had Australia at 180-7 or whatever it was, Broad would have helped get that to 200ao.

All conjecture now obviously, but I do think we've missed him. Might have scored a couple of runs as well, dunno.

 

[Mike5181]

Haha I know, but the other is just opinion .

I think I'm less inclined to believe the Richardism of ODIs and tests being completely unrelated. Sure, his most epic innings had a lot of let-offs, but the fact that he regularly turned games on their head in ODIs too makes me less inclined to think it was all a fluke. Aggressive batsmen always seem luckier because the risk factor of facing a lot of deliveries isn't immediately obvious. If Dravid gets an unplayable ball on 30 you just think "tough luck, good ball" but Symonds might have scored 70 before getting that same jaffa. And besides, a lucky batsmen is sometimes better than a good one .

He also fits a little better with my idea of the role of the number 6 in cricket. Picking your sixth best batsman is an absolutely fine policy, and in the long run would probably work out for the best. But what you really want is contributions from difficult positions and if the bowling was too good for the five best batsman in your country it's usually going to be too good for the sixth best too- I think we saw that with Marcus North. Having someone a bit unorthodox, who offers a completely different challenge to bowlers and can contribute a lot outside of his batting, is often the absolute best-case-scenario option at six. Symonds had a lot of intangibles going for him in that he quite visibly lifted his own team and got under the skin of and demoralised the opposition. Whatever the extent to which you agree with Goughy's assessment of the value of image in cricket, Symonds absolutely embodies what he's talking about, and while obviously it's not necessarily a direct causal effect, there's a ****ing huge disparity in Australia's results with and without Symonds in the past five years, in every format.

It might just be how things have worked out as a result of the timing of their decline, but I associate Symonds with Australia constantly winning, and associate Australia without Symonds with a distinct lack of aggression, no energy in the field, no ruthlessness and no ability whatsoever to turn round a game that's going against them- all of which are features that Symonds embodies to an almost absurd extent.

Agree completely with the Symond's piece although i guess it is slightly exaggerated due to the other great players retiring and Symonds being one of the last of that group of winning players.

 

[vcs]

I genuinely don't like wankers/whingers

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

WAC. You, not Federer, in case that wasn't clear.

 

[Rant0r]

Please don't compare Symonds to that great team, that's an insult

 

[treamcast34]

Could sense Johnson was on from that first over, and then when he gave lip to Strauss. Looking at their body langauge and attitude in general actually, it almost looks as if they called an emergency meeting following another batting collapse, agreed that this "toned down aggression" since that India test in Sydney hasn't worked, and they've decided to revert back to their aggressive, mouthy selves. Quite a deal of chirp out there, and I think it rattled us. Well that and some half-reasonable bowling from that Johnson guy.

What we need to be telling ourselves here is that this is the same side that we cruised to 1/514 against. Can they knock us over again before the test is out?

 

[Spark]

I don't know if this is backed up statistically, but I've always felt Broad is our best bowler when it comes to cleaning up the tail. He hasn't really needed to do it so far this series, but I reckon once we had Australia at 180-7 or whatever it was, Broad would have helped get that to 200ao.

All conjecture now obviously, but I do think we've missed him. Might have scored a couple of runs as well, dunno.

He was able to keep it very tight. The massive difference between here and Adelaide is that once you'd run through the top order with the new ball, at Adelaide you asphyxiated us and gave us nothing, forcing us to trudge along at 2.5RPO or thereabouts. Here you didn't do that and we piled on runs in quick time, cantering along in bursts of 4 or 5 RPO for an hour or so. Of course we scored only a little bit more but that was from an even worse position and on a much more bowling-friendly pitch. Even now when the game is running away from you and what you need to do is give us nothing at all, nothing to score off and make us work for every run, we're going along at 3.5RPO and let's face it, we haven't had to try hard.

 

[GIMH]

They were dead mouthy over here last year, and I believe they got a message from back home telling them to behave then, as well. Let them get on with it I say, a bit of chatter is always good to see!

 

[Mike5181]

Could sense Johnson was on from that first over, and then when he gave lip to Strauss. Looking at their body langauge and attitude in general actually, it almost looks as if they called an emergency meeting following another batting collapse, agreed that this "toned down aggression" since that India test in Sydney hasn't worked, and they've decided to revert back to their aggressive, mouthy selves. Quite a deal of chirp out there, and I think it rattled us. Well that and some half-reasonable bowling from that Johnson guy.

What we need to be telling ourselves here is that this is the same side that we cruised to 1/514 against. Can they knock us over again before the test is out?

The lip that Anderson and Pietersen gave Johnson back fired well and truly. They would have been better off with their first test mentality instead of soaking a match with gasoline.

 

[GIMH]

He was able to keep it very tight. The massive difference between here and Adelaide is that once you'd run through the top order with the new ball, at Adelaide you asphyxiated us and gave us nothing, forcing us to trudge along at 2.5RPO or thereabouts. Here you didn't do that and we piled on runs in quick time, cantering along in bursts of 4 or 5 RPO for an hour or so. Of course we scored only a little bit more but that was from an even worse position and on a much more bowling-friendly pitch. Even now when the game is running away from you and what you need to do is give us nothing at all, nothing to score off and make us work for every run, we're going along at 3.5RPO and let's face it, we haven't had to try hard.

I couldn't watch the last session, but I know what you mean. But forget Broad, oh Freddie, how I miss thee

 

[Spark]

They were dead mouthy over here last year, and I believe they got a message from back home telling them to behave then, as well. Let them get on with it I say, a bit of chatter is always good to see!

Agreed tbh.

 

[treamcast34]

They were dead mouthy over here last year, and I believe they got a message from back home telling them to behave then, as well. Let them get on with it I say, a bit of chatter is always good to see!

Not nearly as much as they were today, or before that Sydney test. Haddin stirring up the Barmy Army, Johnson getting right in Strauss' face. More lip than I've seen on a cricket pitch for a while.

 

[Mike5181]

They were dead mouthy over here last year, and I believe they got a message from back home telling them to behave then, as well. Let them get on with it I say, a bit of chatter is always good to see!

It always makes the contest more enjoyable. It's kind of like the NZ vs AUS chap/hadlee series. They were almost coming to blows but it just added an atmosphere that was so interesting. Johnson vs Anderson is just so much fun to watch.

 

[Rant0r]

Not a fan, I'd rather them all just stfu and play cricket

 

[Spark]

Yeah there was chatter for a lot of the dismissals and plenty in between. It's good IMO, it's meant to be a tough, passionate contest out there.

 

[GotSpin]

What a day. Carn Straya

 

[Mike5181]

Yeah there was chatter for a lot of the dismissals and plenty in between. It's good IMO, it's meant to be a tough, passionate contest out there.

Someone else mentioned Tremlett in there as well. When he got his wickets he just stayed out of all the sledging. It was quite refreshing. I think while they are batting it is fine but i don't think they should do it when they have actually taken the batsmens wicket already.

 

[Ruckus]

Whether an England or Australian supporter, you have to admit if Australia win this the series becomes so much more exciting. Would be a massive anti-climax if England win this.