Tom Halsey actually believes it was 50-50 before the game...steds said:To say that seriously before the match, you'd have had to be poppin pills
FRAZ said:Yet another prediction of Fraz came true ...
He who is gonna win the toss gonna win the final .
luckyeddie said:Incidentally, didn't someone say they'd got twenties against Vaughan being top scorer?
Correct on all counts (especially the last, I hope) but the timing is just a little off.cricketfan said:So finally the establishment of the English Cricket Academy, initially in Adelaide and now run by 'Iron Gloves' at the EIS is bearing fruit. Chosen by the ECB as an English selector Marshie must have a bigger than usual smile right now. Head of the English academy since it opened in 2001. Well done England you deserved to win and Ponting says you will win the final.
It is absurd to say that the toss played no part in the outcome.luckyeddie said:Correct on all counts (especially the last, I hope) but the timing is just a little off.
The fruits have been there for all to see over the last couple of years, but they were green. Now they are beginning to ripen.
Hmm i meant to quote this one.marc71178 said:Yes, but they didn't win because of the toss, which is what the implication was.
Try telling that to Sri Lanka too - England batted first and blew them away (albeit under D/L).richproject said:It is absurd to say that the toss played no part in the outcome.
Sure Australia didn't bowl very well but theres no way we would normally have been subdued by vaughn and giles. There was a visible improvement in conditions when michael clarke came in in the last 10 overs, and it improved even more when england came in. Give me a break.
Absolute tripe, the ball moved around a bit for the first 10 overs of England's innings something which didn't happen at all in the whole of Australia's innings. Australia didn't take advantage of that and were comprehensively outbowled and outbatted as Ponting himself admitted - therefore the toss had no bearing on the outcome at all.richproject said:It is absurd to say that the toss played no part in the outcome.
Sure Australia didn't bowl very well but theres no way we would normally have been subdued by vaughn and giles. There was a visible improvement in conditions when michael clarke came in in the last 10 overs, and it improved even more when england came in. Give me a break.
Those spinners aren't good enough to bother England's top 7 unduly, unlike most England teams I don't think there's any weakness against spin (well I dunno what Solanki is like but how likely is he to face a spinner anyway...). I'd only say Flintoff was a bit weak against wrist spin because as Boycott says there's more chance of him picking his nose than picking a ball from the hand.FRAZ said:^ exactly .
I was also noting that point and also couple of decisions were not given early on and Lee's over started every thing any ways Vaughan played a gem . And in the finals may be Gayle or Afridi and Malik are gonna be the key men . England never seemed comfortable with the spin over all . Any ways lets see .
Stereotypical whiner - of course a one-off win proves nothing.richproject said:Ponting was just being polite. One game, and on a crap pitch at that does not prove anything. He can't come out and say what he really thinks now can he. When England bowl Australia out on a true pitch i will be the first to admit they are a better side. Until then, blah.
Look what happened to New Zealand. They batted first and were demolished. Now they recently demolished England on their home soil. England could not have improved so much in such a short period. It is a credit to Australia for scoring 259. Beat us in a series and i'll give all the plaudits.