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

[Goughy]

You're using a specific example to counter a general point. As I said before, by all means change the personnel, but I personally prefer five bowlers as five are more likely to take 20 wickets than four in the same way as 7 batsmen are likely to score a higher total than six are.

I would point out that the chances of any team having 5 quality bowlers is slim. Therefore anytime you bowl your 5th bowler you are taking overs away from your better bowlers and reducing the chance of taking 20 wickets. All batsmen must bat so there is no real comparison.

Also if you win tests you generally have to role teams over. If you do that there are certainly not enough overs to justify 5 bowlers.

5 bowlers are only useful to avoid fatigue in high scoring draws and when the opposition are battering you. In either case a fill in bowler could do the job and you would still need the extra batsman to counter the opponents big totals.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I would point out that the chances of any team having 5 quality bowlers is slim. Therefore anytime you bowl your 5th bowler you are taking overs away from your better bowlers and reducing the chance of taking 20 wickets. All batsmen must bat so there is no real comparison.

Also if you win tests you generally have to role teams over. If you do that there are certainly not enough overs to justify 5 bowlers.

5 bowlers are only useful to avoid fatigue in high scoring draws and when the opposition are battering you. In either case a fill in bowler could do the job and you would still need the extra batsman to counter the opponents big totals.

Well clearly if things are going well 4 bowlers are fine & dandy; personally I'd seriously question the wisdom of any coach who only planned for the one eventuality. I would suggest that the ideal 11 has enough flexibility to cope with more than the one eventuality. Today, for example, I bet Australia would've liked another serious bowling option. McGrath was clearly not operating at full tilt due to his heel, which I'm sure was the reason he bowled only 12 of 80 overs sent down. Watson would've given them that. In all probability they'll get away with it because they have one SK Warne to wheel away at the other end. I wouldn't trust Giles or even Panesar to be able to do the same job.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Three words, ladies and gents....


Not. Over. Yet.

 

[Nate]

I have been saying a bit that the first few days don`t give an accurate representation of how the Ashes will go, I was very surprised at the people saying England are going to lose. They`ve shown they can apply themselves batting, though I do expect them to be out before lunch tomorrow tbh.

 

[Goughy]

Maybe the key to this discussion, that we can both agree on, is that the debate for either choice becomes less relevant if the keeper can bat.

If England had a Gilchrist or such then that would provide the batting depth to make 5 bowlers more palatable (sp?) to me.

Personally Id still want 4 bowlers and a specialist batsman that could bowl (eg Jayasuria, Gayle, Waugh, Astle, Cronje etc) but it would be less of a sticking point than if the keeper could not bat.

For this team it comes down to the fact that Flintoff at 6 and Jones at 7 with Giles as the 5th bowler doesnt look like the best team to me on paper.

 

[Johnners]

For those who were able to watch the game today (could only manage radio coverage myself) how was Gilly's captaincy? From the sounds of the ABC commentary he was a little to defensive at times. Also, what was the go of not having a slip in for Lee during his second spell? (again i'm only getting this from radio coverage so please correct me if i'm wrong) If this was the case it seems questionable for mine. Yes it was late in the day etc. but with so many runs on the board surely having a 1st or 2nd slip would beneficial as theres always a chance of a snick when Pietersens batting.

 

[BoyBrumby]

For those who were able to watch the game today (could only manage radio coverage myself) how was Gilly's captaincy? From the sounds of the ABC commentary he was a little to defensive at times. Also, what was the go of not having a slip in for Lee during his second spell? (again i'm only getting this from radio coverage so please correct me if i'm wrong) If this was the case it seems questionable for mine. Yes it was late in the day etc. but with so many runs on the board surely having a 1st or 2nd slip would beneficial as theres always a chance of a snick when Pietersens batting.

Extremely so. I watched the afternoon session & the first hour of the evening. For the most part he had only 2 slips & a gully to the seamers. With 600+ on the board & wickets the only real issue I think he could've afforded to be more attacking.

EDIT: two out on the hook for Colly too, which is a waste as he's hardly a compulsive player of that shot.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, I felt Australia missed Ponting a little. Gilchrist is usually a decent captain, but I assume the plan was to try and tie Pietersen down and frustrate him through the late overs in the day, hence Warne bowling around the wicket for so long etc. Didn't seem necessary with Lee at all.

 

[pasag]

Jaquestown says:
if gelman was a delivery, he'd be the first ball of a steve harmison spell

 

[Mister Wright]

It was amazing to be at the ground today. Love or hate Pietersen he is great to watch live. When he gets on top of an attack, there's hardly any stopping him. He played a few rash strokes at the end of the day, but you have to take that with him, I think, until he matures as a batsman, and realises that it's great to take an attack on, but you have to pick and choose your battles.

Collingwood, after an initial jitters, looked amazingly settled. He played Warne with command and he had so much time to play Lee. He played some wonderful shots, a stright drive and on drive were the highlights for me, and his pull to reach 50 was sensational.

Brett Lee was sintilating in the first innings, but was extremely poor in the second innings, bowling far too short and with too much width. Clark was the pick of the bowlers. Best day of cricket as a spectator so far.

The key point for me is that England will now have the momentum going into the 2nd test, no matter how quickly they are cleaned up tomorrow, and that is far from a given with storms predicted, which will give England even more confidence considering they should have lost the test. I just question Ponting's decision not to enforce the follow on. As a batsman it is a lot easier batting knowing where the end is either in runs or time, but if England were forced to follow on, not only would Australia have had more time to bowl them out, the batsman would have known even if they overhauled the target Australia could bat again. Not a major difference, but you are under a lot less pressure not having to follow on.

I think the bowlers would have been more drained bowling today then they would have enforcing the follow on yesterday. It was the hottest and most humid day of the test so far.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Its an absoloute miracle we made the 5th day, took us four days to arrive! If The Aussies come away from here without a win, which is by no means impossible, it will be an absoloute travesty. A very good one, though

I am still amazed by all the attacking shots that are being played. I agree with attacking a few but chasing wide ones, throwing your bat at it isnt going to save us. Not this time.

 

[albo97056]

So whats the chances of a storm tommorow? Anybody hear the weather forecast?

 

[grant28]

about your nathan bracken thing - hes a world class odi bowler

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hmm a draw is not completely out of the question, if KP and Geraint can just get through the 20 overs of a new ball, and survive until the storm, they could make Ponting look very, very stupid.

 

[silentstriker]

Wouldn't it be insane if they manage to score 355 runs?

No, I'm just kidding. 85% Aussie win, 15% Draw, 0% English Win

 

[BingLeeElectric]

So whats the chances of a storm tommorow? Anybody hear the weather forecast?

It's a possibility according to some sources but likely to be late afternoon/ evening if at all.

I've also seen a couple of forecasts which don't reckon on one.

 

[PhoenixFire]

That would be good. If we hadn't lost Bell, Strauss or Cook, and were chasing 350 odd, I'd say we are in with a chance. I wouldn't call it 0%, more like 0.1%

 

[silentstriker]

I think its just some English forecaster predicting rain to worry the Australians.

 

[Woodster]

I still think a storms the best chance England have of saving this Test. Was very impressed with some of the play on the fourth day (from Englands point of view).

Thought Cook looked very comfortable, played Warne fairly well, and as we know he plays pace very well. Colly, after he got over his rocky start where he was a little indecisive, looked in total control. Very strong through mid-wicket-mid on area ,and played some lovely shots off the back foot. One shot off Brett Lee, where he punched it through cover was vintage. KP is KP, extravagant, flambuoyant and thoroughly absorbing to watch.

I think England will do well to get to tea on the last day. Jones and KP the big wicket, they need to bat for the large majority of the day if England are somehow going to save this Test. A tall order.

Australia,imo, looked at ease, no urgency (and I suppose why should there be?), almost as though they were just happy to sit back and wait for it to happen. To say they didnt look up for it would be wrong, but they seemed to be happy to wait for Englands mistake, rather than make a wicket. Maybe if England hang around today and the stormclouds draw in, we may see a lot more urgency. And a lot of anxiety from Ponting after his decision!

 

[PhoenixFire]

I was surprised as to how well Collingwood played Warne, and Cook as well. This isn't going to be a 40 wicket series for him.