***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[SpeedKing]

Giles is starting to worry me for the first time in a whole year. The Aussies see him as a weak link in the England attack and relies to much on rhythm. The Auissies are not going to allow him to settle in to that rhythm like the Windies batsmen did last year. However that could work in his favour as Giles is not an enforcer, he likes it when the batters are going after him and that is when he gets wickets. I think he could be quite an important part of this summer. Whether he is going to manage to keep it tight or let the pressure off the batters when the quicks are taken off.

 

[greg]

Giles was bowling with a ridiculous field today, which contributed I think to it being exacerbated by him not bowling well.

Pietersen looks like he's replacing Thorpe in every way - one of England's best catchers for most of his career but consistently capable of dropping dollies.

 

[Scaly piscine]

England didn't bowl very well.

They didn't tend to put it in that spot.

That's why it didn't grub.

The point is that it isn't one small, millimeter square spot, it's an area of the pitch that's making it grub AND getting the batsman out, even if you say England weren't bowling that accurately they'd have still hit that spot on the odd occasion in 40 overs of bowling (even though the left handers faced the bulk of the new/newish ball). I still think the roller did something to the pitch on that first day and to me that's the most likely explanation for the difference in the frequency of grubbers.

 

[aussie]

Simon Hughes showed that it came from about the same spot that the 3 that McGrath bowled the middle order out with did.

Just need to hope he's forgotten where that spot is!

ahhhhh i thought i was the only one who observed Hughes analysis on Martos dismissal, that alone should tell you that this is going to be a though chase for England.

 

[marc71178]

Especially when the magic roller will turn it into a minefield

 

[superkingdave]

Indeed, but I wonder if the shot was strictly speaking necessary at that point.

come on Marc, with Jones and Harmison left at the other end you don't condone him hitting out? You really don't like Pietersen for some reason, i always thought it was because he and Bell were fighting for one place but that isn't the case now so why do you hate him?

 

[PY]

I agree with you Dave, I thought it was thoroughly necessary as the two batsmen left were nothing but hit or miss merchants and can't guarentee a single ball against them.

He was within one yard of being a hero. Although I would have liked more I'd take 57 in the situation that occurred. While I would have liked him to carry on, I'm happy that he needed to do what he did.

 

[JASON]

Pietersen scores 57 and costs 70 runs (and more) having dropped Michael Clarke at 21 .

One has to say he is in negative territory WRT his performance in this Test !

 

[howardj]

Giles is starting to worry me for the first time in a whole year. The Aussies see him as a weak link in the England attack and relies to much on rhythm. The Auissies are not going to allow him to settle in to that rhythm like the Windies batsmen did last year. However that could work in his favour as Giles is not an enforcer, he likes it when the batters are going after him and that is when he gets wickets. I think he could be quite an important part of this summer. Whether he is going to manage to keep it tight or let the pressure off the batters when the quicks are taken off.

Giles, as I noted before the series started, was never going to threaten Australia. As Ive said before, the blunder made by the England selectors was not in selecting Pietersen over Thorpe, but in selecting Giles over Thorpe.

 

[social]

im not sure what the 5 runs an over is supposed to prove, given that the aussies seemed hell bent on playing in ODI mode, as though they were playing on one of their rubbish flat tracks at home. i may like jones a lot more than most people around here do, but i think it was glaringly obvious that he bowled extremely well in that first inning, even though he was undoubtedly rubbish today and bar the over before lunch, kept sending tripe down the leg side. to say that flintoff bowled well in that first inning is even more ludicrous, given that he bowled a dozen no balls and kept throwing it down the leg side, and showed nowhere near the accuracy we're used to seeing from him.



nope, there was mcgrath and harmison, both of whom were in a class of their own, then there was jones who bowled easily as well as lee did. flintoff, hoggard & gillespie bowled poorly, and the latter 2 in particular were absolute garbage.



hayden had his weakness perfectly exposed
langer played a poor shot.
ponting got a good ball, and was softened by harmisons bowling previously
martyn played a poor shot against a very good ball, and would have been out as long as he'd played a shot against it.
clarke got a good delivery.
katich played a poor shot but batted well.
gilchrist had his flaws exposed.

you really seem to be the aussie version of SP, you dont seem to be able to acknowledge anything that the opposition does. if australia have a bad day, its because australia batted poorly, without even considering the fact that england may have actually bowled well.

Unfortunately, TEC, the problem continues to lies in your gross exaggeration.

Jones did not bowl either "exceedingly" or "extremely" well in the first innings.

He bowled a few good deliveries, many passable deliveries, and a number of downright poor deliveries which, surprise surprise, got hit for runs.

Gillespie did not bowl "tripe". He was OK but still short of his best and should have been replaced a couple of overs before he was.

Hayden and Gilchrist "exposed," give me a break.

Hayden played a lazy, flat-footed waft at a swinging delivery. He paid Hoggard and the conditions no respect and paid for it.

Gilchrist played the way he always does and edged it. The guy has probably faced more around the wicket bowling than almost any left hander in history and still averages 55 in tests. Obviously you didnt watch the final ODI last week because if you had you will see that he has good days and not so good days against this form of attack.

And BTW, Australia are now on top in this game because their batting in the second innings was test rather than ODI oriented, and have been aided hugely by poor English bowling (except Harmison), fielding and captaincy.

If that is biased, then called me "Scaly."

 

[social]

If england play there cards right they should really win this match. They have umpteen overs to get the runs and as was shown by clarke and martyn, its much easier to bat once the ball was lost its intial hardness and shine. The pitch doesnt seem to be spinning that much, albeit it is only the second day.

I still think the wicket is ordinary - England just didnt bowl particularly well.

 

[Zinzan]

well at least that clears up the "harmo can only bowl against WI and b'desh" rubbish

Indeed ....This test also clears up the "Lee's not a good test bowler rubbish also eh TEC

 

[social]

Giles is starting to worry me for the first time in a whole year. The Aussies see him as a weak link in the England attack and relies to much on rhythm. The Auissies are not going to allow him to settle in to that rhythm like the Windies batsmen did last year. However that could work in his favour as Giles is not an enforcer, he likes it when the batters are going after him and that is when he gets wickets. I think he could be quite an important part of this summer. Whether he is going to manage to keep it tight or let the pressure off the batters when the quicks are taken off.

It was interesting listening to the comments of Mark Waugh and Lehmann today as their recent playing experiences give you an insight into what the Aus team is thinking.

Both made the point that Aus do not rate Giles at all and would not let him simply bowl negative lines at leg-stump whilst the fast bowlers rest.

Mark Waugh went as far as to say that Giles should not have even been given a bowl today at all as Clarke, in particular, simply found form and confidence against him.

 

[tassietiger]

Indeed ....This test also clears up the "Lee's not a good test bowler rubbish also eh TEC

Hasn't sold me yet. Got Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles out, nothing to write home about (although knowing him he will anyway)

 

[tassietiger]

It was interesting listening to the comments of Mark Waugh and Lehmann today as their recent playing experiences give you an insight into what the Aus team is thinking.

Both made the point that Aus do not rate Giles at all and would not let him simply bowl negative lines at leg-stump whilst the fast bowlers rest.

Mark Waugh went as far as to say that Giles should not have even been given a bowl today at all as Clarke, in particular, simply found form and confidence against him.

Disagree with playing Giles. The Australian team isn't too bad against spin, and they do have the advantage of having an all-rounder who can bowl for as long as a full-time bowler. I'd have Thorpe ahead of Giles.

 

[honestbharani]

Looks like this one is in the bag for Australia. Shame England's weaker link (batting) had to let them down in this crucial game.

 

[King_Ponting]

Looks like this one is in the bag for Australia. Shame England's weaker link (batting) had to let them down in this crucial game.

I think there weaker link is there bowling to be perfectly honest. Its just that australias bowling attack just seem to be greater or stronger than the english batting line up, in compartitve terms

 

[honestbharani]

I don't know,mate...


Harmison
Hoggard
Flintoff
Jones
Giles


That bowling attack, to me, looks a lot better than this batting line up...


Tresco
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Pieterson
Flintoff
Jones


Too much inexperience there with two newcomers at 4 and 5..

 

[King_Ponting]

I don't know,mate...


Harmison
Hoggard
Flintoff
Jones
Giles


That bowling attack, to me, looks a lot better than this batting line up...


Tresco
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Pieterson
Flintoff
Jones


Too much inexperience there with two newcomers at 4 and 5..

I think the lack of a quality spinner and the presence of two relatively inexperienced bowlers, in jones and hoggard, makes it look like, to me, as if englands weakest link is bowling. I suppose its a matter of opinion

 

[BoyBrumby]

I agree with you Dave, I thought it was thoroughly necessary as the two batsmen left were nothing but hit or miss merchants and can't guarentee a single ball against them.

He was within one yard of being a hero. Although I would have liked more I'd take 57 in the situation that occurred. While I would have liked him to carry on, I'm happy that he needed to do what he did.

Very much so. Particularly when the rest of our top 6 contributed 15 runs between them!