With the poor form Gilly has shown, I dont think it would make that much of a difference. But Gilly may have one inning to redeem himself still.Demolition Man said:Imagine if the poms dropped gilly as often as that.
Still just a bit early for sour grapes...Demolition Man said:Quiz question, Which country has the most centurions in this test ?
Answer: 2 each to South Africa and Australia.
Given that a) this is his first series back, b) he has been forced to lead the attack in the absence of McGrath and Gillespie and c) he's been bowling on flat wickets first up every game against a batting lineup that has played him well, he's done very well. What about his second innings spell at Edgbaston? What about his second innings spell at Trent Bridge? What about his effort at Lords?Mister Wright said:When?
When he went for over 100 during the 2nd test, when he went for 97 in the first innings of this test, or at 6 an over in this innings.
He is a new ball bowler, and he is supposed to be a strike bowler, but last time I checked the series stats he was averaging in the mid 30s.
What do we want from him? To bowl one good spell every 3 tests or to be a consistent new ball bowler?
I have been going on about it all winter/summer don't see why I should stop now. I guess you expect these things with a south african coach.Scaly piscine said:Still just a bit early for sour grapes...
Cant remember which test but im sure we dropped him 2/3 times in a short space of time in one innings. Still got him out cheap thoughDemolition Man said:Imagine if the poms dropped gilly as often as that.
South African?Demolition Man said:I have been going on about it all winter/summer don't see why I should stop now. I guess you expect these things with a south african coach.
That's all very well and good, but isn't he supposed to be a wicket taker? When we really need him to take wickets he doesn't. The trend in this series is relative to his career - very, very inconsistent. If he's not taking wickets he should be keeping the runs down which he's not capable of doing. And when he isn't taking wickets he slips into stupid mode - bowling short ball after short ball.FaaipDeOiad said:Given that a) this is his first series back, b) he has been forced to lead the attack in the absence of McGrath and Gillespie and c) he's been bowling on flat wickets first up every game against a batting lineup that has played him well, he's done very well. What about his second innings spell at Edgbaston? What about his second innings spell at Trent Bridge? What about his effort at Lords?
He's carried Australia back into the contest bowling with Warne in the second innings twice (2nd and 4th tests), had a solid first test, and he took a few at Old Trafford as well. To suggest he's had a poor series is ridiculous. He's only been taken apart once.
I dont think anyone can forget his amazing efforts with the bat either, he's been monumental.FaaipDeOiad said:Given that a) this is his first series back, b) he has been forced to lead the attack in the absence of McGrath and Gillespie and c) he's been bowling on flat wickets first up every game against a batting lineup that has played him well, he's done very well. What about his second innings spell at Edgbaston? What about his second innings spell at Trent Bridge? What about his effort at Lords?
He's carried Australia back into the contest bowling with Warne in the second innings twice (2nd and 4th tests), had a solid first test, and he took a few at Old Trafford as well. To suggest he's had a poor series is ridiculous. He's only been taken apart once.
Well, he did very little wrong in the first test, and in the second test, he took 4 wickets in the second innings to limit Australia's chase, and then played a very good innings and showed great commitment with the bat to nearly steal the game. At OT he took 4 wickets in the first innings, and in the last match, while his first innings was poor, his second innings was extremely threatening, and with Warne, he threatened to steal the game again. Yes, this game has been a poor one.Mister Wright said:When?
When he went for over 100 during the 2nd test, when he went for 97 in the first innings of this test, or at 6 an over in this innings.
He is a new ball bowler, and he is supposed to be a strike bowler, but last time I checked the series stats he was averaging in the mid 30s.
What do we want from him? To bowl one good spell every 3 tests or to be a consistent new ball bowler?
He's a Zimbabwean.Demolition Man said:I have been going on about it all winter/summer don't see why I should stop now. I guess you expect these things with a south african coach.
Gilly should come in at 4 according to me. If the openers bat a long way, then maybe at 3.Demolition Man said:Changes to the aussie batting order ???
Personally only change would be the movement of gilchrist. IMHO I don't think they will open with him, they might but I just don't think he has been in good enough form. Although depending on the circumstances he will come in ahead of the Katipillar
The way he shook his head and pointed to the ground whilst saying not out?Slats4ever said:ummm how can u say rudi was sure. he went to bowden.
Slow Love™ said:Well, he did very little wrong in the first test, and in the second test, he took 4 wickets in the second innings to limit Australia's chase, and then played a very good innings and showed great commitment with the bat to nearly steal the game. At OT he took 4 wickets in the first innings, and in the last match, while his first innings was poor, his second innings was extremely threatening, and with Warne, he threatened to steal the game again. Yes, this game has been a poor one.
Arguing that he hasn't done "reasonably well" through the series doesn't make any sense.
For 200+ runs it is.Knopfler said:Eight an over being required is not an extreme scenario.