***Official*** 1st Test at The Gabba

[BoyBrumby]

Just off for work. I am surprised Strauss seems to have gotten a free ride here criticsim-wise after what I thought was an exceptionally ordinary shot. There was absolutely no percentage in playing the pull then, particularly to a ball that wasn't really short enough anyway.

Jaffas for Cook & Colly, which will happen with the quality of the bowling.

 

[wpdavid]

If they intended him to play through the series (as I imagine they did), I don't see why you'd risk him aggravating an injury just before the Ashes opener.

I don't think Harmison's problems are so much about fitness as they are psychological, anyway, really.

Yup, he's shot. We're looking at the result of a lethal ****tail of laziness, under achievement and weak management at all levels of his career. Laziness + complacency begats the form that we've seen over the last 2 years which, in turn begats the mental muddle which he seems to be in. In an ideal world, he'd join the reserves and learn how to bowl, which would at least help Durham out next summer as he shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the England side again. Instead, the lazy git will probably stay in the side as he has sooo much potential, which is nothing short of scandalous. Either that, or he'll fly home by Christmas and walk back into the side next summer. Which would be even more scandalous. What astonished me is the level of fantasy that some English commentators indulge in when it comes to Spinelessone. I can only assume that they just haven't followed the game at all over the last 2 years.

 

[Perm]

Strauss likes to pull and he can do it quite effectively to balls that are about that length.

 

[wpdavid]

Just off for work. I am surprised Strauss seems to have gotten a free ride here criticsim-wise after what I thought was an exceptionally ordinary shot. There was absolutely no percentage in playing the pull then, particularly to a ball that wasn't really short enough anyway.

Jaffas for Cook & Colly, which will happen with the quality of the bowling.

I gather that Strauss yet again tried to pull something that was too wide of off stump. Not the wisest course of action in the circumstances, and you do wonder about his cricketing brain sometimes, but they're were always going to be mentally & physically knackered after 5 sessions out there.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Just off for work. I am surprised Strauss seems to have gotten a free ride here criticsim-wise after what I thought was an exceptionally ordinary shot. There was absolutely no percentage in playing the pull then, particularly to a ball that wasn't really short enough anyway.

Jaffas for Cook & Colly, which will happen with the quality of the bowling.

Yeah, it was rash. After the start they had made, it was the last thing he should of played.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What's this rubbish about Bell being plum lbw? You couldn't say for certain that was going to hit the stumps, and if it was it would have only just clipped the top of the bail. Doubt about whether it hit him in line too - givable, but givable in the same way that Ponting's yesterday was givable. Not 'plum' by any stretch of the imagination.

And while we're on that decision, I see Warne was doing his usual over-appealling rubbish. Wonder if anyone will ever have the balls to fine him for that.

Haha what? Warne didn't appeal once. He only bowled one over and nothing of note happened in it.

Anyway, Bell was definitely out. It's nothing like the Ponting decision really. The Ponting one might have been hitting the stumps but in all probability wouldn't have, and there was no grounds for any certainty over it because he was so far forward. You'd almost never see an LBW like that given, to a slightly straightening ball on a bouncy wicket to a guy a few feet forward.

Bell on the other hand was hit in front of off to a ball that jagged back sharply when on the back foot. I can certainly see why it wasn't given out, which is because it wasn't exactly clear where it hit him at first glance because of how much the ball moved and the position of his bat. The first thing I thought was merely that it was close, while on the replay it's absolutely dead and the correct decision would certainly have been to give it out.

I don't really blame the umpire, but you'd see that given more often than not IMO.

 

[Craig]

As for Bell the fact he survived wouldn't that increase his confidence to stay in and do well?

 

[Great Birtannia]

I've given a bit of stick to Clark, and even though the pitch is again favourable for his bowling style, it is easy to appreciate the spell today after the efforts of the England seamers. Hopefully we can keep the workload up on Flintoff and get him in early tomorrow.

 

[Sir Redman]

Haha what? Warne didn't appeal once. He only bowled one over and nothing of note happened in it.

I meant on the Bell lbw appeal. The whole running towards the pitch and pointing as if it was already out. It's the kind of thing he's been doing for years but never gets in the slightest bit of trouble for it.

Anyway, Bell was definitely out. It's nothing like the Ponting decision really. The Ponting one might have been hitting the stumps but in all probability wouldn't have, and there was no grounds for any certainty over it because he was so far forward. You'd almost never see an LBW like that given, to a slightly straightening ball on a bouncy wicket to a guy a few feet forward.

Bell on the other hand was hit in front of off to a ball that jagged back sharply when on the back foot. I can certainly see why it wasn't given out, which is because it wasn't exactly clear where it hit him at first glance because of how much the ball moved and the position of his bat. The first thing I thought was merely that it was close, while on the replay it's absolutely dead and the correct decision would certainly have been to give it out.

I don't really blame the umpire, but you'd see that given more often than not IMO.

See, I don't agree that it was definately out. It could have been out, and it would have been understandable if it was given out, but there was enough doubt in it that you can't be absolutely certain that it was hitting the stumps. It hit him at the very top of the pad, and even though he was playing back it still looked quite high. I don't know why they didn't show a side-on replay, because when I saw it live I thought height was the only doubt about it. Was really close though.
Anyway, the point is that I just don't agree when you say things like You don't get more LBW than Bell was just then, because that's just simply not true. 'Plum' LBW for mine is where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it was out, and in this case there was a bit of doubt.

 

[Sir Redman]

Anyway, didn't see any of Lee's first spell but he didn't look too threatening at the end there. McGrath and Clark looked really dangerous though, hitting the seam and getting a bit of movement. Mind you, England's batsmen seem to have taken a leaf out of NZ's lineup in the way they poke so tentatively at the good length balls outside off-stump. So much riding on Pietersen, Bell (though he'll probably be caught behind before long) and Flintoff, because I doubt Jones, Giles et al will be able to put together more than 70.

 

[GIMH]

Just off for work. I am surprised Strauss seems to have gotten a free ride here criticsim-wise after what I thought was an exceptionally ordinary shot. There was absolutely no percentage in playing the pull then, particularly to a ball that wasn't really short enough anyway.

Jaffas for Cook & Colly, which will happen with the quality of the bowling.

I was furious. One of those occasions were you swear blindly at the TV. All I wanted off them today was to keep their wicket until close, even if it meant being 0-0 at stumps. Pathetic.

Not to take away from the bowling though, which was excellent. Had to leave for work before Colly got out, but was told at the station that he could have done better; obviously you disagree.

 

[GIMH]

Overall, very disappointing. Didn't have the energy to watch last night, so got up early instead so I could catch a fair bit before work.

Our only hope of a draw is to avoid the follow-on. There is no chance we will avoid the follow-on. Therefore, we have no hope.

Even this optimist here is now looking at all these 5-0 predictions and thinking...****

 

[Sir Redman]

I was furious. One of those occasions were you swear blindly at the TV. All I wanted off them today was to keep their wicket until close, even if it meant being 0-0 at stumps. Pathetic.

Not to take away from the bowling though, which was excellent. Had to leave for work before Colly got out, but was told at the station that he could have done better; obviously you disagree.

Collingwood's ball was good - it moved a fair bit off the seam. However, he closed the face on it and it looked like he was trying to hit it through mid-on when the ball was outside off-stump. If he'd kept the face open it could have taken a thicker edge and gone through gully a la Langer about five times yesterday. Didn't move his feet to it either.

And yeah, awful shot by Strauss.

 

[Laurrz]

hmmm..... i wonder if Australia will enforce the follow on if England don't make it

after that match in India they have been reluctant to not enforce the follow on

but i hope they do simply because i don't awnna watch on a Monday haha

 

[GIMH]

Did anyone see Flintoff's face when he came back from having a net, saw KP sitting there padded up and realised we were two down. Proper WTF?! moment for him, he was livid.

 

[Matt79]

What's this rubbish about Bell being plum lbw? You couldn't say for certain that was going to hit the stumps, and if it was it would have only just clipped the top of the bail. Doubt about whether it hit him in line too - givable, but givable in the same way that Ponting's yesterday was givable. Not 'plum' by any stretch of the imagination.

And while we're on that decision, I see Warne was doing his usual over-appealling rubbish. Wonder if anyone will ever have the balls to fine him for that.

Given he has been doing it for years without being told off, it obviously doesn't worry the umpires too much. In any case, it would be a bit unfair to turn around after 14 years of him doing it and suddenly tell him its not on without a warning - from a procedural fairness, consistency point of view.

 

[Laurrz]

Well Two McGrath's has worked well so far...very well...

i said it after the first day i'll say it again... after seeing how everyone said it was a batsmens paradise ... i agree, however i always thought Australias bowling attack was taylor made for this wicket

Englands bowlers are hit the deck bowlers and swing bowlers... and they couldn't get swing today... and with Aussies batsmen being very good against the bounce they cashed in
Aussie bowlers are seam bowlers who bowl from a steepling height, a 150+ kmh bowler and a champion spinner
very different i reckon and it didn't swing for Lee, and it showed, he didn't take a wicket... however McGrath can seam it on glass... and he uses his head better than any other bowler... and since ppl say Clrak is a mini McGrath well its no surprise he is seaming it as well and IMO bowling more accurately

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Anyway, didn't see any of Lee's first spell but he didn't look too threatening at the end there. McGrath and Clark looked really dangerous though, hitting the seam and getting a bit of movement. Mind you, England's batsmen seem to have taken a leaf out of NZ's lineup in the way they poke so tentatively at the good length balls outside off-stump. So much riding on Pietersen, Bell (though he'll probably be caught behind before long) and Flintoff, because I doubt Jones, Giles et al will be able to put together more than 70.

This isn't a great wicket for Lee I don't think. He might get a couple of wickets, but McGrath and Clark will be the most threatening seamers, or should be.

 

[Great Birtannia]

The follow on is a tightrope and is another aspect effected by Watson's absence. Unless we roll them for 200-250 odd I can't really seeing us enforcing it and giving up the advantage of Warne bowling on the last day.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

hmmm..... i wonder if Australia will enforce the follow on if England don't make it

after that match in India they have been reluctant to not enforce the follow on

but i hope they do simply because i don't awnna watch on a Monday haha

I don't think it has a huge amount to do with the match in India, it's more Ponting's style as a captain. He's relatively conservative, and likes to back his bowlers to win on the final day. If England get out for less than 300 he might enforce the follow-on, but it could go either way, and if they score 300+ he certainly won't. He'll bat again tomorrow and into day 4, declare late in the day with a lead of 500 odd and go for the win on day 5.