Ashes Predictions Thread

[wfdu_ben91]

To go against complete logic, I'm going to predict that Kevin Pietersen has a poor Ashes series. After having great success against McGrath and Warne, Pietersen will fail against the much weaker Australian bowling lineup. I reckon, he'll get a pair or a king pair somewhere during the series aswell.

Needless to say, if Pietersen does have a poor series then there won't be much reason to watch England bat.

 

[GIMH]

Just ask [insert Test bowler here] how good he is blablabla

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Just ask [insert Test bowler here] how good he is blablabla

Mohammad Asif?

 

[GIMH]

edit - I should know better, stopping this now

 

[pietersenrocks]

Series Result: England 3-0
Top Eng Runscorer: Pietersen
Top Aus Runscorer: Hussey
Top Eng Wicket-taker: Anderson
Top Aus Wicket-taker: Lee
Player of the Series: Anderson
Surprise Packet: Harmission (Surprise? Maybe)
Dropped Player(s): Siddle/Hauritz
Miscellaneous Event: Matt Prior & Freddie saving England after yet another collapse.

Miscellaneous Event: England getting raped in the first 3 games before Australia slow down. Australia showing that their T20 form was just a blip on the radar. England to get ****y in the media after "below average warm-up". More to come when I CBF thinking about it.

Sorry to tell you, but your thinking is far from reality

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Series Result: 3-1 - Australia
Top Eng Runscorer: Alastair Cook
Top Aus Runscorer: Phillip Hughes
Top Eng Wicket-taker: James Anderson
Top Aus Wicket-taker: Peter Siddle
Player of the Series: Peter Siddle
Surprise Packet: Alastair Cook
Dropped Player(s): Stuart Broad
Miscellaneous Event: Kevin Pietersen to get a pair.

 

[Richard]

wat

Australia were 175-7, requiring 283. Had Kasprowicz been given lbw when he was plumb next morning England would've won by 60-odd runs. There is no way on Earth that Clarke wicket was remotely vital. Australia were dead and buried by the time it fell.

 

[GIMH]

We won by two runs Richard...

 

[Richard]

Do you seriously believe we'd not have won by a much larger margin had Clarke still been there at the close?

Australia were dead and buried by the time Clarke's wicket fell - I repeat that. It was only England's complacency after it fell (added to that poor decision in Kasprowicz's favour) that let them come anywhere remotely close.

 

[GIMH]

Who's to say? It's all ifs and buts. You can only judge things in context. We won by two runs and Harmison dismissed their last batsman with the last ball of the day. Nobody knows what would have happened but for that, but in the context of the final result it was massive.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. Nobody knows. But the overwhelming likelihood is that if Clarke had been still in at the close, England would've won by far more than they ended-up doing, not the other way around.

Seriously, who honestly imagines Warne and Lee could have scored as many as they did had England been less complacent? Or Kasprowicz if he'd been less ridiculously lucky? (Was plumb lbw and not given and dropped at third-man by Simon Jones).

 

[GIMH]

I didn't think we were complacent, that's the thing. I just thought their guys dug in. Therefore, I kept thinking all morning, "thank **** Clarke's gone"

 

[Richard]

Did you think "thank **** Clarke's gone" at the time of his dismissal? No, of course you didn't. You thought - like everyone else - "that's another one on the inevitable road to a massive England win".

Because that's precisely what Clarke's wicket was, at the time it fell. Hindsight made it seem far, far more important than it was.

100 runs with 3 wickets left is essentially impossible. The only reason it came close to happening was England's complacency - well as Lee and Warne (not Kasprowicz) batted, they'd not have been able to do so if Flintoff had been firing in the sort of Yorkers that he knocked-over the tail with in the first-innings - when there was still a batsman (Gilchrist) at the other end.

 

[GIMH]

Did you think "thank **** Clarke's gone" at the time of his dismissal? No, of course you didn't. You thought - like everyone else - "that's another one on the inevitable road to a massive England win".

Because that's precisely what Clarke's wicket was, at the time it fell. Hindsight made it seem far, far more important than it was.

100 runs with 3 wickets left is essentially impossible. The only reason it came close to happening was England's complacency - well as Lee and Warne (not Kasprowicz) batted, they'd not have been able to do so if Flintoff had been firing in the sort of Yorkers that he knocked-over the tail with in the first-innings - when there was still a batsman (Gilchrist) at the other end.

I can tell you that when Clarke went, I thought, "that's it, the win, **** yes!" yeah. I wasn't watching, I was on a minibus on the way back from Swansea. And I thought, that's the win, we've done it, we've done it.

Which means, regardless of what happened afterwards, Harmy took the key wicket. He was the one who took the wicket that meant the match was won, IMO. It was Harmison who got Clarke out and that was the key wicket, but yes, what happened afterwards made it even more vital.

I was awarded £75 once, and I was made up. But just a couple of weeks later I was fined £80, and thought to myself, jeez, but for that £75 I'd have really been in the **** this month. Getting fined that £80 made the £75 I had been awarded more important. Things often become more important than they seemed at the time, and Harmison's wicket of Clarke is one of them.

 

[inbox24]

You can't go and predict what would have happened. If Clarke had not been dismissed he may have gone on to make a century, or he couldn't have gotten out the very next ball. By the same token a meteorite could have hit the stadium and prevented the bowler from bowling the next delivery and caused a game abandonment.

 

[zaremba]

I can tell you that when Clarke went, I thought, "that's it, the win, **** yes!" yeah. I wasn't watching, I was on a minibus on the way back from Swansea. And I thought, that's the win, we've done it, we've done it.

Which means, regardless of what happened afterwards, Harmy took the key wicket. He was the one who took the wicket that meant the match was won, IMO. It was Harmison who got Clarke out and that was the key wicket, but yes, what happened afterwards made it even more vital.

I was awarded £75 once, and I was made up. But just a couple of weeks later I was fined £80, and thought to myself, jeez, but for that £75 I'd have really been in the **** this month. Getting fined that £80 made the £75 I had been awarded more important. Things often become more important than they seemed at the time, and Harmison's wicket of Clarke is one of them.

I think you've put this pretty well.

What did you get awarded £75 for? And the £80 fine?

 

[GIMH]

£75 award was for being in the back of a car that some drunk scally put his fist through

£80 fine was for, um, public disorder section 5

 

[zaremba]

£75 award was for being in the back of a car that some drunk scally put his fist through

£80 fine was for, um, public disorder section 5

The Law giveth, and the Law taketh away

 

[GIMH]

Indeed, that'll teach me to give the V's after a warning

 

[zaremba]

Indeed, that'll teach me to give the V's after a warning

So the person you caused "harassment, alarm or distress" was a copper?