• 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*** 3rd Test at the WACA

SeamUp

International Coach
Glad Vince and Malan got runs because I don't think I could take the torture of watching Ballance again.
 

quincywagstaff

International Debutant
In terms of the way the pitch is playing, just highlights how much of an advantage batting first should’ve been. Even if scores had been par on the 1st innings, England would’ve been in a great position.
 

SeamUp

International Coach
In terms of WACA crack wickets, it wasn’t as unplayable as Ambrose to Blewett in 1996/97 but it has to be in second place.
Aesthetically, obviously this one was better because it at least bounced and looked a massive jaffer. The one's that go under-ground - meh

 

SeamUp

International Coach
Chappelli - one thing Australia will need is a really good leg-spinner. I think Mitchell Swepson is the best of them. **** off Garry.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
An element of luck != “lucky”. No one claimed Johnson’s ball to Cook in Adelaide two years ago was ‘lucky’ despite bowling an in-swinger that clearly hit something and ducked away.
The difference is, Johnson's ball to Cook would still have been a good ball if it hadn't deviated ridiculously off the pitch. Starc's was a bad ball heading down leg.

I'm sorry if I'm being anal but it was pretty much the definition of a lucky break. Doesn't mean Starc hasn't bowled well obviously.
 

Top