*Official* Fourth Test at the MCG

[Hurricane]

England haven't been stiffed...all they had to do was not come here and get pumped by the team they just beat. You wouldn't think it would be difficult to put up some sort of fight but it was.

Putting a lot of energy into defending it at home and then turning around and doing it all over again so quickly on the other side of the world is a challenge of some description. You believe a small challenge - I believe a moderate challenge.
It is just an emotional complaint take it for what it is worth. You can argue to counter it that if Aussie had've won in England then England would have benefited by getting a rematch quickly. That would be a good comeback.

 

[Adders]

England haven't been stiffed...all they had to do was not come here and get pumped by the team they just beat. You wouldn't think it would be difficult to put up some sort of fight but it was.

Stiffed is probably not the right word, but there is no getting away from the fact that we beat you and hold the Ashes for 3 months, you beat us and you've got them for 2 1/2 years. This second series was always going to be the one that counts and you got to play it at home.

I'm not sooking about it, it is what it is and we all knew this at the start........but I said yonks ago this back to back BS was always going to favour Australia more than us. Yes we could have come here and played better cricket and won, not arguing that at all......but in all honesty if this was all done in reverse there is every reason to think that the home side would have still won both series.

 

[Riggins]

Stiffed is probably not the right word, but there is no getting away from the fact that we beat you and hold the Ashes for 3 months, you beat us and you've got them for 2 1/2 years. This second series was always going to be the one that counts and you got to play it at home.

I'm not sooking about it, it is what it is and we all knew this at the start........but I said yonks ago this back to back BS was always going to favour Australia more than us. Yes we could have come here and played better cricket and won, not arguing that at all......but in all honesty if this was all done in reverse there is every reason to think that the home side would have still won both series.

well, you are.

 

[Jono]

It is just an emotional complaint take it for what it is worth. You can argue to counter it that if Aussie had've won in England then England would have benefited by getting a rematch quickly. That would be a good comeback.

Didn't think about that, but yes good point. Basically whoever won in England would be hard done by in a weird way, as they didn't get to hold the Ashes for very long at all.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

18 months Adders, next series is summer 2015.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Didn't think about that, but yes good point. Basically whoever won in England would be hard done by in a weird way, as they didn't get to hold the Ashes for very long at all.

Not really though as you can look at it when we win it back in 2015 that we will have won 5 of the last 7 series and 4 of the last 5.

 

[Adders]

I know we lost heaps of wickets but Bresnan especially looked terrible in person today. Low 120's and a couple in the high 1-teens.

Not how I saw it, I thought he bowled very dry and created pressure. He was low 120's but that was through choice, he hit mid 130's early in his first spell and then backed it off by design.

 

[Adders]

well, you are.

Turn it up mate. I am not in any way shape or form......just making a comment on how I see it, just because you think differently doesn't mean I'm sooking FFS.

And yeah, 18 months as Flibberty said.

 

[NUFAN]

Not how I saw it, I thought he bowled very dry and created pressure. He was low 120's but that was through choice, he hit mid 130's early in his first spell and then backed it off by design.

Yeah which is exactly what Siddle did too. Bresnan probably outbowled Siddle though in the third seamer battle.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Yeah which is exactly what Siddle did too. Bresnan probably outbowled Siddle though in the third seamer battle.

Dozed in and out but what I saw of Bresnan he was back to his dependable 3rd seamer role. Never going to be a world beater but does a good job in that role. Can't comment much on Siddle as hardly saw him as seemed to be asleep when he bowled apart from opening spell.

 

[Riggins]

Yeah except Siddle bowled mid to high 140's and beat the bat about 15 times.

 

[SpofforthLohman]

What are you on about ?, they had the ashes for three series mate.

 

[Adders]

Yeah except Siddle bowled mid to high 140's and beat the bat about 15 times.

Siddle 1/50 off 23
Bresnan 2/24 off 18

What exactly are you arguing against?? You know if nufers is saying Siddle was out bowled it's a fact.

 

[Spark]

Yeah he looked a class above the other two today. I know we lost heaps of wickets but Bresnan especially looked terrible in person today. Low 120's and a couple in the high 1-teens.

Yeah if he'd bowled at Warner/Clarke a fair bit he'd have been pummelled. Floaty, slow half-volleys - yeah, they should have picked Rankin IMO

EDIT: He bowled well to the batsmen he faced, but some of those deliveries looked incredibly juicy but were hit straight to fieldsmen.

 

[Riggins]

Even though we batted terribly, I didn't think his bowling was threatening. He looks down on pace and if the ball was coming onto the bat I think he would have been carted. Honestly I rate him as a bowler, I wouldn't be surprised to find out in 3 months or something that he's been injured.

 

[Jono]

Bresnan looked ordinary as **** but that's because he was bowling slow **** on purpose. Reckon he knew what he was doing on this wicket. He suits his bowling.

Not great to watch, so if you watch it live it really would just seem extremely pedestrian. I can see where Riggins is coming from. But it worked.

 

[Adders]

Even though we batted terribly, I didn't think his bowling was threatening. He looks down on pace and if the ball was coming onto the bat I think he would have been carted. Honestly I rate him as a bowler, I wouldn't be surprised to find out in 3 months or something that he's been injured.

That's exactly why he backed the pace off, low to mid 130's (his normal pace) was not going to trouble the batsmen on that wicket, would just help the ball come onto the bat better. He slowed it down on purpose.

Hey look, sometimes you see things differently when you are there live, and sometimes you appreciate it better on the TV. Almost every post match article I've read though has said how well Bresnan bowled......you saw it differently which is your call to make, but I'll take his 2 wickets and his miserly economy rate quite happily.

 

[CWB304]

Bresnan bowled very well and very intelligently. But even though they went unrewarded, Broad's first couple of spells, in which he was consistently bowling at 90-92 MPH, showed that it is possible to trouble batsmen with pace on this wicket without going express like Johnson.

 

[Adders]

Bresnan bowled very well and very intelligently. But even though they went unrewarded, Broad's first couple of spells, in which he was consistently bowling at 90-92 MPH, showed that it is possible to trouble batsmen with pace on this wicket without going express like Johnson.

Agreed, but even though Broad isn't express it is still genuine pace......big step up from Bressy's mediums.

 

[CWB304]

True...I think a fully fit Bres in good rhythm is easily capable of 90 MPH on this track. But (a) I'm not sure he *is* 100 per cent back from his niggles and (b) he deserves credit for figuring out that there was no need to strain for pace today......with Broad supplying what I agree is genuine pace his role was to keep it tight and build pressure on a pitch where even Warner, Clarke and Pietersen couldn't score freely.