YesWell played Australia, beaten Ian Bell by 1 wicket, looked dodgy for a while there though.
Who said that? Most Aussie fans here were very wary of SwannYeah, ineffective isn't he? not feared at all by the Aussies, he won't be much of a factor in this series.
Not really saying he was worse, I don't think anyone really knows what happened with Watson's review because we don't know what happened in the conversation. If Rogers told him that it was hitting and he still reviewed it's obviously really dumb, but we don't know that. Either way, I don't see how you can say on the one hand that Watson should have known he was plumb and shouldn't have reviewed but Rogers had no idea his LBW was missing leg by six inches and thus bears no responsibility for not reviewing, but whatever. I mostly think it's silly to blame Watson's wasted review on getting bowled out for ~100 on a road when he scored a quarter of the runs.I'm as big a Watson fan as you are, as you may recall, but saying Rogers was worse than Watson with the review system is ridiculous given I'm sure he would've reviewed his if Watson hadn't wasted the first one.
baby stepsWell played Australia, beaten Ian Bell by 1 wicket, looked dodgy for a while there though.
Not the dumbest of the day though.Haha that is the dumbest review.
Leads me to believe that Pattinson has a better technique than most of the top order.The way the Aussie tail bat leads me to believe that top order capitulation is partially mental rather than technical.
I'm no expert on technique but Khawaja's did not look right at all against Swann.Leads me to believe that Pattinson has a better technique than most of the top order.
was defending straight down the line, in front of his pad, was covering the straight one well but looked certain to nick anything that turned, no feet movement, couldn't get back to cut/pull or forward to drive with any conviction, looked awful IMO.I'm no expert on technique but Khawaja's did not look right at all against Swann.