zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Well, the luck has more or less evened itself out I'd say. Don't forget that England has suffered serious injuries to its two best players. And the umpiring errors have cut both ways.
-
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.
'No Doctoring' of the pitch at the Oval
- Thread starter huxleypig
- Start date
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Not sure how that is lucky TBH. A combination of crap captaincy and really gritty tail end batting.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
It's why I really hate it when people say "he/she/they deserved to win", No! For mine, unless the result of your particular contest is altered by something totally out of your control (such as the weather, or indeed bad umpiring), you will not deserve to win unless you actually do, it doesn't matter how close you come to winning, I fail to see why coming close to winning somehow means that "you deserve it", no, bull crap.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Half a days play was lost to weather in the First Test.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
I remember it well.
FTR, I wouldn't say England were't lucky to get away with a draw in that match. The whether you deserve to win or not point I meant as something entirely seperate.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Of course.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Last pair surviving wasn't lucky. There were no dodgy decisions in their favour etc, they simply stayed in, that's not luck, it's what they were there to do. If you're gonna call that lucky, you might as well say Australia were lucky they bowled so well at Headingley.
Dodgy umpiring has benefitted us, it also cost us a few wickets in this match.
Sour post really, if we win tomorrow, then we deserve to win the series, simple really
Congratulations England, I can't see our batsman digging this one out.
England clearly won the sessions that mattered and held on when it mattered.
Australia appears to have won the stats but lost the series.
Wickets by Bowlers
Hilf 22
Johnson 20
Siddle 20
Broad 17 (Broad should get up near the Australians in the last innings but the Australians have taken as a group more wickets.)
Anderson 12
Swann 10
Runs
Strauss 474
Clarke 448 (Clarke a good chance to pass Strauss)
North 357
Katich 340
Ponting 319
Batting Av
Trott 80 (1 test)
Clarke 74
North 59
Watson 57
Strauss 52
Haddin 48
Katich 48
Ponting 45
No other English batsman over 35!
With the toss 4 to 1 the only stat England are clearly going to own!
Maybe Australia should take a leaf out of England's book and stack our tail with bowlers who can bat regardless of how poorly they may occasionally bowl. A McDonald comes to mind.
England clearly won the sessions that mattered and held on when it mattered.
Australia appears to have won the stats but lost the series.
Wickets by Bowlers
Hilf 22
Johnson 20
Siddle 20
Broad 17 (Broad should get up near the Australians in the last innings but the Australians have taken as a group more wickets.)
Anderson 12
Swann 10
Runs
Strauss 474
Clarke 448 (Clarke a good chance to pass Strauss)
North 357
Katich 340
Ponting 319
Batting Av
Trott 80 (1 test)
Clarke 74
North 59
Watson 57
Strauss 52
Haddin 48
Katich 48
Ponting 45
No other English batsman over 35!
With the toss 4 to 1 the only stat England are clearly going to own!
Maybe Australia should take a leaf out of England's book and stack our tail with bowlers who can bat regardless of how poorly they may occasionally bowl. A McDonald comes to mind.
Daryl Harper
School Boy/Girl Captain
Broad should have been out LBW first ball to Johnson and then the rats & mice would have been exposed to about 10 more overs that the lanky lucky one used up after his let off.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You're right,but that's a poor example. Bopara would have gone on to make 8.
Well I want to say a huge thank you and well done to the curator. He prepared a brilliant pitch. One that yielded a definite result but wasn't a total mine field.
It certainly was a weird one though. Whenever a pitch is deteriorating like that it normally only goes one way and thats worse but it looked like this pitch got easier to bat on after day 2. Boycott was saying we'd got enough of a lead at 200 but fair play to Australia, they never go down without a fight.
How they didn't go in with a spinner on such a dry pitch is baffling though.
It certainly was a weird one though. Whenever a pitch is deteriorating like that it normally only goes one way and thats worse but it looked like this pitch got easier to bat on after day 2. Boycott was saying we'd got enough of a lead at 200 but fair play to Australia, they never go down without a fight.
How they didn't go in with a spinner on such a dry pitch is baffling though.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
It was a bad pitch but was possible to bat on once a batsman had got in. Whether it was "doctored" depends on your definition. It was by design completely different to any pitch ever seen at the Oval before but whether that qualifies as doctoring is open to debate.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Why?
Strauss and Trott in both innings, Hussey and Ponting in the 2nd proved that the pitch wasn't exceptionally difficult to bat on.
Cruxdude
International Debutant
A pitch that is tough for Batsmen to bat on is not a bad pitch. When there were 3 scores > 300, I don't understand how it is a bad pitch. Bad pitches would be the ones in Kanpur (2008), Mumbai (2004), all of NZ (2002-03).
Earlier curators were blamed for no-result pitch, now a pitch that promises a result but is not too tough to score on also gets him blamed.
Last edited:
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What happened in NZ 2002-03?