• 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.

Australia very unlucky not be 3-0 up

sqwerty

sqwerty

U19 Cricketer
I don't understand why people say England would be disappointed at not being up 2-1. Realistically Australia should be 3-0 up. The poms should be thankful they're still in it. Who cares if England have or haven't played the better cricket in this series. The numbers are there for all to see and Australia don't have to play their best cricket to knock sides over.

First test - Flogged them

Second test - Lost by 2 runs when the poms were all but dead and buried

Third Test - All I hear is England were all over Aus for 5 days....Geraint Jones/ Pietersen dropped catches cost them the match blah blah blah. The fact is if Gilly held onto 2 easy chances England would have been bowled out for 150 and it would have been game (and ashes) over.

1-1 ??......The Poms are laughing they're still in the contest
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Australia Very Lucky Not To Be 3-0 Down

What, if McGrath hadn't have had three balls stay low in that first innings, if Australia had caught as badly in the first test as they had in the rest of the series, if Bowden had've given some 50/50 LBWs in the third Test when Aus were batting for the draw (especially with Ponting stepping across his stumps), things could have been very different. 8-)

Aus were lucky to get that close to England in the Second Test, and you can't blame "luck" for dropping catches like the ones they have. Australia skill execution hasn't been at the level it needs to be to put away a side as strong - cricket-wise, and mentally - as England, and sometimes that needs to be accepted.

Doesn't mean we cant hope for a better show in Tests 4 & 5
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
3-0 is a massive stretch considering that Aus werent really in the 3rd test at any stage.

2-1 possibly.

1-1 is realistic considering McGrath's been injured and the Eng bowlers have been on top of Aus batsmen.

I'd be disappointed if I were English as it seems Aus have scope for lots of improvement.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
social said:
I'd be disappointed if I were English as it seems Aus have scope for lots of improvement
Click to expand...
It's interesting, both teams seem to be saying that. But I'm not sure how true it is - or at least the level of potential improvement is overstated, simply because both teams have been putting in dominating performances against lower quality opposition for a long time (England not as long as Aus, but still...) and it is by this that a lot of commentators are making these claims about their respective sides.

But when you play better teams, the total output by the side isn't going to be as large - McGrath won't take 8/28 against a good team, nor will we make 500 once every three innings. These are the standards by which Aus are being rated against, and their almost farcial.

Both can play better, but much of that really should be put down to the opposition not allowing them to play better.
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
vic_orthdox said:
It's interesting, both teams seem to be saying that. But I'm not sure how true it is - or at least the level of potential improvement is overstated, simply because both teams have been putting in dominating performances against lower quality opposition for a long time (England not as long as Aus, but still...) and it is by this that a lot of commentators are making these claims about their respective sides.

But when you play better teams, the total output by the side isn't going to be as large - McGrath won't take 8/28 against a good team, nor will we make 500 once every three innings. These are the standards by which Aus are being rated against, and their almost farcial.

Both can play better, but much of that really should be put down to the opposition not allowing them to play better.
Click to expand...
I agree with all bar the comments on McGrath (he's already shown in this series that he's capable of running throught what isnt a great batting line-up) and England's potential.

They are doing most things right but it's still 1 - 1.

Aus have hardly been allowed into the contest in the last 2 matches where McGrath has been injured but it's still 1 - 1.

I mean, how many English havent performed up to expectations? Hoggard and Vaughan for the first 2 tests are about it (Jones and Giles are both ordinary and have performed as such).

How many Aus players have? Warne, Lee, McGrath in the first test and Ponting in the third.
 
Somerset

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
I can't see where you're coming from with that comment TBH, Australia deserved to win the first test but were easily outplayed during major patches during both the second and third. Considering the tail almost won the second test for Australia from a near impossible position that England should've won by 80-100 runs and if rain hadn't intervened in the third, England might very well deserve to be 2-1 ahead...
 
tassietiger

tassietiger

U19 Debutant
Well a plane would crash if the pilot turned into a loaf of bread, but fact is that it hasn't happened.

It has to give Australia a little bit of confidence to see that while England have been playing some of the best cricket of their careers so far, and only one Australian has really played some decent cricket (Warney), Australia have had the chance to be 3-0 up.
 
S

Steulen

International Regular
tassietiger said:
Well a plane would crash if the pilot turned into a loaf of bread, but fact is that it hasn't happened.

It has to give Australia a little bit of confidence to see that while England have been playing some of the best cricket of their careers so far, and only one Australian has really played some decent cricket (Warney), Australia have had the chance to be 3-0 up.
Click to expand...
I could understand 2-0, but 3-0? Are you seriously suggesting Australia could have won the 3rd Test?
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, dismal thread this.

1-1 is quite fitting given the series so far, with England marginally the unlucky side.
 
M

magsi23

U19 Debutant
tassietiger said:
Well a plane would crash if the pilot turned into a loaf of bread, but fact is that it hasn't happened.

It has to give Australia a little bit of confidence to see that while England have been playing some of the best cricket of their careers so far, and only one Australian has really played some decent cricket (Warney), Australia have had the chance to be 3-0 up.
Click to expand...

They were not in chance on any day in the 3rd test mate, England definetly dominated throughout, but 1st 2 tests were close yeh and i beleived Aus deserved to win the 2nd test too, so 2-0 to Aus yeh definetly not 3-0
 
Nate

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
sqwerty said:
I don't understand why people say England would be disappointed at not being up 2-1. Realistically Australia should be 3-0 up. The poms should be thankful they're still in it. Who cares if England have or haven't played the better cricket in this series. The numbers are there for all to see and Australia don't have to play their best cricket to knock sides over.

First test - Flogged them

Second test - Lost by 2 runs when the poms were all but dead and buried

Third Test - All I hear is England were all over Aus for 5 days....Geraint Jones/ Pietersen dropped catches cost them the match blah blah blah. The fact is if Gilly held onto 2 easy chances England would have been bowled out for 150 and it would have been game (and ashes) over.

1-1 ??......The Poms are laughing they're still in the contest
Click to expand...


We are lucky to be at 1-1 IMO.
 
luckyeddie

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nice troll again, squerty.

I've worked out why you have to start the threads too (slow on the uptake, me)
 
G

greg

International Debutant
magsi23 said:
They were not in chance on any day in the 3rd test mate, England definetly dominated throughout, but 1st 2 tests were close yeh and i beleived Aus deserved to win the 2nd test too, so 2-0 to Aus yeh definetly not 3-0
Click to expand...
Well maybe Warne, Lee and Kaspa did, but the team as a whole?
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
magsi23 said:
They were not in chance on any day in the 3rd test mate, England definetly dominated throughout, but 1st 2 tests were close yeh and i beleived Aus deserved to win the 2nd test too, so 2-0 to Aus yeh definetly not 3-0
Click to expand...
Why did they deserve to win the 2nd?

At what point were they well on top of England?
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
Why did they deserve to win the 2nd?

At what point were they well on top of England?
Click to expand...
I think it's fair to say that when England were 9/131 in their second innings, Australia were on top. That would have left a target of 231, which Australia would be favourites to get. England got back on top when Flintoff added another 51 with Jones and then Australia collapsed to 7/137.

I wouldn't really say either team "deserved" to win that game really. England made a good score and bowled well to get a first innings lead, then collapsed to a small total and left the door open for Australia, who were undone by poor batting and good bowling and looked gone, before the tail came back and almost won it. It was a see-sawing match which either team could have won if they had done the right things at the right moments. The first and third tests were, largely, quite one-sided in comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top