• 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* First Test at The Gabba

Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Jono said:
Nah PEWS cricket is not played by robots. And its not just the Courier Mail, its the Australian public's reaction to it from the last Ashes onwards. If you don't think that can drive people then you're being naive.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it's a completely stupid argument when Broad hasn't bowled that well anyway. If he'd rocked up and bowled an amazing spell to pick up these wickets then sure, you'd absolutely have a point. Correlation does not prove causation though; Broad taking four wickets - two of which had practically nothing to do with the standard of his bowling at all and another two which were definitely as much batsman error as bowler skill, decent balls as they were - really doesn't suggest anything out of the ordinary. There is such a thing as a coincidence. Broad hasn't bowled any better here than he did in England.. in fact if anything I'd suggest he's bowled marginally worse.

I'm not saying it can't have an effect. I'm just saying it really hasn't IMO, haven't actually watched the game.
 
Last edited:
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah it was good bowling.

I wouldn't say so much technique - if you look at Smith his technique is ugly as **** but he has the ability to read the length and line early and decide what's a ball he shouldn't attempt to play. Harsh on Bailey cos it was a good ball that many a test batsman would play, but he could do better to leave that.
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Top_Cat said:
Seriously, Bailey nicking out to slip in long form is just ridiculously probable. There's a reason why he averages > 40 over a long period.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean < 40? :p

What's even more frustrating is that it's not like England are getting us out with jaffas, either. Zimbabwe would blush with embarrassment at us.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Exactly what I thought would happen when Bailey batted. *sigh* Can we bring in Hughes at 3, drop Watto and Clarke down one and drop Bailey. Give Watto one more test before he's out of the side for good. Khawaja can bat 4.
 
straw man

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Oz can presumably rely on a tail wag here - seems to be the trend in cricket at the moment. Would help if they had Starc and Agar though.
 
3

3703

U19 12th Man
Saddening that in an era where England has produced a decent side we can't field even an ordinary one. Only way is down from here too, there is nothing of note coming through the ranks anymore.
 
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Me said:
ODI tons do not a basis for Test selection make, particularly when both the pitches and bowling on offer in India are far divorced from those on show in Brisbane. While it is hardly the ‘Gabbatoir’ of old, there will undoubtedly be something on offer for the seamers – and both of Bailey’s dismissals in his first Shield game of the summer were fencing outside off after making a start – hardly what you want from your number 6.
Click to expand...
Source
 
Last edited:
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
four_or_six said:
Wow... just woke up to hear them talking about Haddin. Great stuff from England or dodgy batting?
Click to expand...
as usual, it's both.

Broad and Anderson have been good. The deliveries have been probing but there hasn't been test level technique shown - apart from Warner. Bailey is the key example really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top