*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[JontyPanesar]

Wow, anyone else catch the total contempt Warne had for Strauss' remarks there on Sky?

 

[andyc]

Of the 40 English wickets to fall so far, 21 have been caught on the legside. Not encouraging signs for Perth.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Watto, when Anderson got hit by Siddle.

 

[Ruckus]

I don't think anyone is claiming England didn't deserve their series win in England.

What is being said is that the 3-0 score-line flattered them. Which you seem to be agreeing with. As do I.

Well I think some people think that the 3 games they won flattered them, which I don't really agree with. There were moments we should have seized in those matches which we simply didn't, and we payed the price.

I think it was always on the cards though that this series was going to be tight, given how competitive a lot of the previous series was, but England have surprised me here with how woeful they have played. It's like the entire team has collectively fallen out of form or something.

 

[Spark]

Well I think some people think that the 3 games they won flattered them, which I don't really agree with. There were moments we should have seized in those matches which we simply didn't, and we payed the price.

I think it was always on the cards though that this series was going to be tight, given how competitive a lot of the previous series was, but England have surprised me here with how woeful they have played. It's like the entire team has collectively fallen out of form or something.

Think you're missing the point here, which is surprising because it's the same point that's been made for four months now. 3-0 suggests a sizeable difference in quality between the two teams in favour of England, when all the cricket played since Lord's has shown that to be manifestly untrue.

 

[Riggins]

Couldn't even last long enough for me to wander down in my lunch break. Weak pricks.

 

[Ruckus]

Think you're missing the point here, which is surprising because it's the same point that's been made for four months now. 3-0 suggests a sizeable difference in quality between the two teams in favour of England, when all the cricket played since Lord's has shown that to be manifestly untrue.

not the point I was making. I don't care about some outsider who didn't even watch the series and takes the 3-0 result purely on face value. I'm talking about people who watched the series, and still think that, perhaps, some of the games in which England won were down to them being lucky or something, and Aus deserved to win them. As I said before, I don't think that was the case. There were important moments in the closely fought games that England seized far better than we did. Our batting let us down multiple times, and that's why we lost. England didn't dominate on the way to 3-0 but they still deserved that scorecard (or perhaps 3-1, if the weather didn't intervene).

 

[Burgey]

Also,

Great pic that.

 

[Spark]

not the point I was making. I don't care about some outsider who didn't even watch the series and takes the 3-0 result purely on face value. I'm talking about people who watched the series, and still think that, perhaps, some of the games in which England won were down to them being lucky or something, and Aus deserved to win them. As I said before, I don't think that was the case. There were important moments in the closely fought games that England seized far better than we did. Our batting let us down multiple times, and that's why we lost. England didn't dominate on the way to 3-0 but they still deserved that scorecard (or perhaps 3-1, if the weather didn't intervene).

Then you're making a completely different point to everyone else, and you're basically arguing against something no one has actually said.

 

[Ruckus]

Hooksey said "the 3-0 result was flattering". If you actually watched the series I don't know how you can say that. Every game England won, they deserved to win. Just because they didn't dominate a couple of those games, doesn't mean the result flatters them.

 

[Spark]

But the result did flatter them. 3-0 on face value suggests that England was significantly better than Australia which the cricket itself did not suggest. It's really that simple.

 

[Ruckus]

Why are we discussing face value, when nobody here takes it on face value ffs? If you watched the series, then you'd know 3-0 doesn't flatter them.

 

[Spikey]

3-0 doesn't suggest that the team who recorded 0 wins came up with and executed very successful bowling plans for the majority of the batsmen which could easily lead to success in the very near future.

 

[Spikey]

Hell, 3-0 in a 5 test series suggests total domination. Not "winning the big moments"

 

[wiff]

Why are we discussing face value, when nobody here takes it on face value ffs? If you watched the series, then you'd know 3-0 doesn't flatter them.

I agree. Everyone of the English wins was deserved. The other two matches were up for grabs, but not necessarily "in the bag". 3-0, fair result.

 

[wiff]

Hell, 3-0 in a 5 test series suggests total domination. Not "winning the big moments"

Not really, it means winning when it counts, like the fourth test. Broad's effort: winner. Oz batting: loser.

 

[Ruckus]

spikey, To an ignorant outsider, yes (who should be irrelevant in these discussions). Why are we taking the scorecard on face value alone when we are obviously more aware of the context of the score? I have contention with people who are actually aware of the context, yet still would say 3-0 flatters them simply because they didn't dominate all of the matches (apologies to Hooksey if he didn't mean this).

 

[Hooksey]

Hooksey said "the 3-0 result was flattering". If you actually watched the series I don't know how you can say that. Every game England won, they deserved to win. Just because they didn't dominate a couple of those games, doesn't mean the result flatters them.

3-0 was flattering in many people's opinion.

 

[Spikey]

Not really, it means winning when it counts, like the fourth test. Broad's effort: winner. Oz battling: loser.

3-0 in a 5 test series suggests there weren't many crossroads moments. They weren't many big moments. One team just constantly kicked arse because they were dominant. Just quietly, I'm not even sure if England won that many big moments over the last 3 tests in England, which most people would agree is when Australia started really performing well and putting themselves in match winning positions. No-one is arguing that England's performances over the first two tests were flattering. But over the last 3 tests in England, Australia performed very well and I'm not sure if you can claim the rain that occurred in the 3rd and 5th tests which wiped out Australia's chances of victory as a big moment England won.

 

[Ruckus]

Hooksey, so do you think Aus deserved to win any of the 3 matches that Eng won?