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

[marc71178]

To me, he panics against Warne and has no real answer but to have a hit every now and again.

Yes, which is how he calmly played out the over before tea without any worries.

 

[greg]

He got away with ONE hook shot (off what was a very good bouncer). The rest have all gone for six.

 

[aussie]

The C4 commentators are saying it's not his fault, it's because there's nothing in the pitch.

Excuses, excuses I say - figures at tea of 11-1-72-0 say a lot.

I agree with the channel 4 commentators Marc

 

[King_Ponting]

The C4 commentators are saying it's not his fault, it's because there's nothing in the pitch.

Excuses, excuses I say - figures at tea of 11-1-72-0 say a lot.

Take into account the score of 289 for 4 after 54.... That in itself says a lot

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Almost like Gilchrist really...

Typical Gilly knock today by Fred, and that's his job. Fred's a very good bowler and a hit-or-miss batsman, Gill is a very good 'keeper and a hit-or-miss batsman (admittedly he's a better hit-or-miss batsman than Fred, the stats' say so).

We can go on for the rest of our lives saying how much Fred needs to play each ball on its merit, and how lucky Gilly is not to be facing Pidge/Warne et al, fact is yes both could play better for certain deliveries, but they're both attacking players and are indefatigable in that regard.

That 100 partneship before tea was great cricket and that's the end of it.

 

[greg]

You can't have it both ways - accuse Flintoff of playing irresponsible hook shots and Lee for allowing him to play them.

 

[Barney Rubble]

The C4 commentators are saying it's not his fault, it's because there's nothing in the pitch.

Excuses, excuses I say - figures at tea of 11-1-72-0 say a lot.

I think they do too. Brett Lee shall henceforth, in the style of Shahadat Hossain, only be known as Number 11-1-72-0.

 

[Linda]

Even as an Aussie, just quietly, Im kind of enjoying Freddie and KP.

Woop, woop.

 

[marc71178]

I agree with the channel 4 commentators Marc

Sorry, but if he was as good a bowler as people are making out, he wouldn't need the excuse of there being nothing in the wicket.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Not really. I quite like Flintoff and rate him very highly as a batsmen, excluding against spinners, but this particular innings hasn't really been up to his usual standard, and he's got away with doing silly things a lot of the time. Still, he's made the most of his opportunities and had a huge impact on the match already. Shutting his eyes midway through consecutive hook shots against Lee short balls was indicative. One landed an inch from Kasprowicz's hands, and the other went for six.

Gilchrist really isn't a "hit and hope" batsman in test matches at all, regardless of how fast he scores. He plays genuine cricket shots, he just happens to be blessed with amazing hand-eye co-ordination that allows him to hit the ball anywhere on the ground against practically any sort of bowling. Similar to Viv Richards, really. This is why he averaged over 60 for most of his career, and over 55 right now, rather than the 30-40 you'd expect from the hit and hope slogger you characterise him as.

Oh give over, the main difference between the two of them (aside from their technical differences etc.)is Gilchrist plays the percentages better (being somewhat brighter than Flintoff) and is better against spin. They both take plenty of risks and both need a bit of a luck.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The C4 commentators are saying it's not his fault, it's because there's nothing in the pitch.

Excuses, excuses I say - figures at tea of 11-1-72-0 say a lot.

Because you know, Warne never got hit for a run a ball for two sessions, did he? Or Harmison, or Gillespie, or Kasprowicz, or... yeah. I don't think anybody is going to claim he was anything other than terrible in the morning, but that hardly says a lot.

 

[Swervy]

Not really. I quite like Flintoff and rate him very highly as a batsmen, excluding against spinners, but this particular innings hasn't really been up to his usual standard, and he's got away with doing silly things a lot of the time. Still, he's made the most of his opportunities and had a huge impact on the match already. Shutting his eyes midway through consecutive hook shots against Lee short balls was indicative. One landed an inch from Kasprowicz's hands, and the other went for six.

I havent seen any of this innings yet, just got in from work..however one of the greatest innings of all time (Bothams 118 in 1981) was full of hooks off Lillee where Beefys eyes were shut
Sometimes, good hookers pick up a length (ahem) and line a lot earlier than most and judge the shot so well that they play the ball very late and it is reflex that no-one can get a way from that the eyes close on playing the hook.

 

[marc71178]

Because you know, Warne never got hit for a run a ball for two sessions, did he? Or Harmison, or Gillespie, or Kasprowicz, or... yeah. I don't think anybody is going to claim he was anything other than terrible in the morning, but that hardly says a lot.

Regardless of how unsuited his bowling is to the conditions, 72 runs from 11 overs is inexcusable.

I wonder if he'll get the same sort of stick Giles got after the first test?

 

[Shane Warne]

No, no he doesnt

Yes, yes he does.

I mainly see Gilchrist keep more of his shots on the ground on the average knock than I have seen from Flintoff in this knock.

About the only one's Flintoff has kept on the ground have been edges through the slips.

 

[aussie]

Sorry, but if he was as good a bowler as people are making out, he wouldn't need the excuse of there being nothing in the wicket.

well to me in the morning Lee was pitching it up and looking for swing and their was none and he was repeatedly banged throught the covers for 4, but he bowled a lot better this afternoon to Freddie and could have got him off. But i wont write him off he bowled very well at Lord's....

 

[Shane Warne]

Regardless of how unsuited his bowling is to the conditions, 72 runs from 11 overs is inexcusable.

I wonder if he'll get the same sort of stick Giles got after the first test?

Depends how his figures end up by the end of the match and whether he can get any runs.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Oh give over, the main difference between the two of them (aside from their technical differences etc.)is Gilchrist plays the percentages better (being somewhat brighter than Flintoff) and is better against spin. They both take plenty of risks and both need a bit of a luck.

Obviously you always need a bit of luck to score at a run a ball against good bowling with a defensive test field, but that doesn't alter the fact that the way Flintoff played today was really nothing like Gilchrist usually plays. A stock Gilchrist shot is a drive or a cut along the ground through the gap, not a massive slog to cow corner or a hook shot for 6 with his eyes shut. Regardless of how fast he scores, he's not a hit and hope slogger, simple as that. Neither is Flintoff at his best against pace bowling, but today quite a lot of the time he was exactly that.

 

[aussie]

I wonder if he'll get the same sort of stick Giles got after the first test?

not if Australia win...

 

[King_Ponting]

Yes, yes he does.

I mainly see Gilchrist keep more of his shots on the ground on the average knock than I have seen from Flintoff in this knock.

About the only one's Flintoff has kept on the ground have been edges through the slips.

Would you call this an average flintoff knock?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Even as an Aussie, just quietly, Im kind of enjoying Freddie and KP.

Woop, woop.

Quite right too. As an Englishman I quite enjoyed Clarke's effort at Lord's, and I always like watching Symonds bat. Why so sheepish? Do you think the Aussie Police are gonna come and get you for being objective?