Hooksey
Banned
Were they playing for a result when Broad was bowling to Smith without a single fieldsman in a catching position?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Hooksey
Banned
Australia's lack of recent success has been due to lack of on-field talent, not Clarke's or Australia's tactics. But thanks for your contribution.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
They were playing to get themselves into a position where they could consider pushing for a result.
When the opposition has 500 on the board on a slow wicket, the first priority is not losing.
Only one team came close to winning this test.
Hooksey
Banned
England's first priority is far too often "not losing". That's why they score at 2.5 runs per over on good batting wickets and set negative fields.
It's easy to win test matches when you have better cattle out there than the opposition, but tactically Cook is defensive and unimaginative.
Australia could have settled for the boring draw Cook was content with but instead chose to make a game of it. Without Clarke's enterprise on the final day that test was dead in the water.
Last edited:
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And England could have shut up shop and not gone for it at all. It takes two to tango, even though I agree that it was a sporting declaration.
Flem274*
123/5
Lack of talent is the excuse of the loser.
And are you really going to sit there and tell me the Australian batting line up doesn't possess the same level of hand eye coordination as England?
England have scored more runs than Australia over the past few years because England are prepared to play to the situation, learn from their mistakes and work harder on ironing out flaws in their methods.
There are a few exceptions of course - of the young batsmen Hughes and Smith have shown they're prepared to take the game seriously and work on their issues, but they have been failed by a system that hasn't recognised their problems before they earned their test whites and happily drops them or shuffles them around the batting order at the first sign of failure, knocking their confidence and meaning they have to start over. Then there are others who, despite some dead rubber success, have largely been given a free ride despite showing no desire to improve.
So not only do England have more bottle and brains but they have a better system behind them for getting the best out of their players.
For a nation who used to have the best system by far for helping players achieve their potential, Australia have fallen a long way. It's pretty unacceptable and they have a lot of ground to make up.
Hooksey
Banned
You are taking the piss
Going into this series how many of the Australian players would you put in a combined team made up of the two countries?
Clarke and.......and??.......and??
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
look I'm not going to pronounce Cook to be a good captain because I think he's ****, but there's nothing wrong with "not losing" as your first priority when your strength is winning by grinding teams, day by day, test by test into the ground.
Asking Trott, Cook or Root to bat anything other than their natural game of eliminating risk (Ian Bell might even fit into this category lately) is just stupid. Root, Bell, driving against fast Harris away swingers would end in disaster for them.
Instead they chose to recognise good bowling and play to the situation and their skill set.
Asking Trott, Cook or Root to bat anything other than their natural game of eliminating risk (Ian Bell might even fit into this category lately) is just stupid. Root, Bell, driving against fast Harris away swingers would end in disaster for them.
Instead they chose to recognise good bowling and play to the situation and their skill set.
Flem274*
123/5
You didn't get it at all did you?You are taking the piss
Going into this series how many of the Australian players would you put in a combined team made up of the two countries?
Clarke and.......and??.......and??
Hooksey
Banned
I didn't read past the first line
Flem274*
123/5
I should have known I was talking to an idiot.I didn't read past the first line
Hooksey
Banned
I have a great deal of respect for England's top order, and I rate Pietersen higher than most others do. But I honestly can't believe the limit of their "skill set" is 2.5 runs per over on batting tracks being referred to by many as roads.
Hooksey
Banned
Your first line was certainly idiotic:
"Lack of talent is the excuse of the loser".
That's why I didn't read any more of what was only going to be piss take anyway
Last edited:
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
For a team who's first priority is "not losing" they sure do have a damn good record in recent times. In matches that haven't been significantly shortened (at least 1 full day lost) by rain, Cook's record reads 6 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss.
Seriously though, this kind've attack is a bitter, desperate and boring attempt to shift attention away from how much better England have been than Australia.
Flem274*
123/5
If you're all about the lack of talent being a good excuse for getting thumped by England then I guess by my logic it makes you a...Your first line was certainly idiotic:
"Lack of talent is the excuse of the loser".
That's why I didn't read any more of what was only going to be piss take anyway
Not very Australian of you, to just give in when someone else has better players.
Hooksey
Banned
England have a much more talented team than Australia at the present time. That's why many were predicting a 5-0 whitewash. England deserved their series win, but Cook's tactics played very little part in it.