*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Jarquis]

I wasn't really complaining about dropped catches, so on your bike.

 

[benchmark00]

Marcusss, you're just sounding like Richard here. Australia dropped a lot of their catches as well, maybe we should just take their innings with a grain of salt as well?

tbf, Richard generally has at least some idea what he's talking about.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, incorrect lbws have no effect. Mea culpa.

 

[Spark]

Dropped catches have no effect.

Geez, that's cricket. You can't just keep on moaning about one bad decision and ignore that you didn't exactly bowl great for most of the day after that.

 

[Jarquis]

Dropped catches are the fault of players, that's your fault..Dar getting one wrong is not our fault.
How hard is that to understand? Really?

 

[Spark]

But the point remains you can't just discount two massive innings, and pretend that we didn't bat particularly well, because of one dodgy decision. At the end of the day, we scored 481 and that is a lot of runs.

 

[Jarquis]

Jeez, go back and read 3 pages or something because I cbf posting the same stuff again.

 

[morgieb]

I wasn't really complaining about dropped catches, so on your bike.

Not the point. You said that Australia did meh because Hussey was wrongly not given out. Whereas Murphy's point was that both batting sides did well but we showed better bowling form (in the first innings anyway). My (rather stupid) point was that you seem to think it's OK to bash Australia's innings for giving chances, but not England's.

Kthxbai.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nah, Strauss was a poor shot in the context. 3rd ball of the 1st overseas Ashes Test and you slap a cut shot throat high to gulley. Poor.
Trott was the definition of a loose shot. Could've bowled a basket ball through the gate.
Considering it was Prior's first ball he should hang his head in shame as well. Whipping across the line first up FTL.

Yes, but how loose was Trott's shot made to look by a good ball? It jagged back into him, not much he could do about it. Add to that call to make him drive on the off instead of been given freebies off his legs. Didn't look as strong in that area. Was the perfect ball to expose that.

Didn't think Prior tried to whip it across the line as much as drive down the ground myself.

Think there's a little bit of revisionism going on after the fact. Both got good balls, didn't see it as 'throwing their wickets away' myself. If they get a similar ball again in the series I'd back the result being the same.

Didn't say Strauss played a good shot given the circumstances, hence the 'he could have left it'.

 

[morgieb]

tbf, Richard generally has at least some idea what he's talking about.

Yeah, true. Was more talking about how he often bangs on about how (some) players are often merely lucky to score big.

 

[Jarquis]

Not the point. You said that Australia did meh because Hussey was wrongly not given out. Whereas Murphy's point was that both batting sides did well but we showed better bowling form (in the first innings anyway). My (rather stupid) point was that you seem to think it's OK to bash Australia's innings for giving chances, but not England's.

Kthxbai.

Yeah and my point was that had Hussey been given we would've had a shot at skittling you for less than 300 and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As for "your point" its wrong, I did no such thing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Biased my ass.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, true. Was more talking about how he often bangs on about how (some) players are often merely lucky to score big.

Again, I said no such thing

 

[Jarquis]

Yes, but how loose was Trott's shot made to look by a good ball? It jagged back into him, not much he could do about it. Add to that call to make him drive on the off instead of been given freebies off his legs. Didn't look as strong in that area. Was the perfect ball to expose that.

Didn't think Prior tried to whip it across the line as much as drive down the ground myself.

Think there's a little bit of revisionism going on after the fact. Both got good balls, didn't see it as 'throwing their wickets away' myself. If they get a similar ball again in the series I'd back the result being the same.

Didn't say Strauss played a good shot given the circumstances, hence the 'he could have left it'.

Well agree to disagree, my reaction to both was "what the **** was that?" Rather than "what a ball". To Trott's in particular, was a really, really loose one.

 

[Jarquis]

How's it biased
Check the scorecard, your innings reflected ours almost exactly with the exception of the huge partnership.
A partnership which never would have developed had Hussey been correctly given.
Ergo what I said in that post was correct... no?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well agree to disagree, my reaction to both was "what the **** was that?" Rather than "what a ball". To Trott's in particular, was a really, really loose one.

I think you're drastically over-estimating the ability of a batsman to deal with a ball that threatens to shape away and then jags back in then. As well as discounting the effect of a bowler bowling out-swingers for a while before one unexpectedly moves back in.

Don't think it was a loose shot at all. In saying so you're giving the batsman way too much credit and taking it all away from the bowler. It looked loose, but that was to the bowler's credit, it wasn't the batsman's fault.

In Prior's case it was a good ball to get first up.

Neither are 'throwing away your wicket' as far as I can see. It's a popular call these days though whenever anyone gets out. Mike Gatting threw his wicket away to Warne back in 1993 too apparently.

It's a great way of giving your players more credit than they deserve, whilst taking it away from the bowler.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How's it biased
Check the scorecard, your innings reflected ours almost exactly with the exception of the huge partnership.
A partnership which never would have developed had Hussey been correctly given.
Ergo what I said in that post was correct... no?

Was thinking more overall Marcuss...you're definitely not biased though...no.

Think it's a moot point to be honest. You can't say for sure what might have happened after if Hussey had been given. Maybe they would've been rolled cheaply. Maybe one of the tail would've gone better and they might've made a decent score similar to the one they got.

We can assume Anderson would've taken more wickets if Hussey had gone early, but it's only an assumption based on how he was bowling. He didn't get wickets in that spell, he mightn't have gotten any more if Hussey went.

 

[benchmark00]

Again, I said no such thing

You said Haddin and Hussey pulled their innings out of their arse, which clearly implies luck. You also then tried to say that take away their scores and Australia batted poorly so we were lucky, absolutely ridiculous.

I posted what I did in reply to someone saying that England were easily the better team in the game (or words to that effect).

It's true that England should be the happiest at the result, but that's because they were ****ed for most of the match.

Australia proved they could bowl out England cheaply, England, although I have no doubt they probably they can they haven't actually proved it yet. So proven performance > potential performance.

Couple this with the fact that England won the toss and elected to bat, I'd say Australia would've been more than happy with their early match work, despite it going poorer in the second bowling innings.

The fact that you refuse to give credit to Haddin for his innings, and acknowledge that he's a good bat shows you're bias. You're just saying he was lucky.

 

[Jarquis]

Was thinking more overall Marcuss...you're definitely not biased though...no

Heh, bit rich.

 

[Jarquis]

I think you're drastically over-estimating the ability of a batsman to deal with a ball that threatens to shape away and then jags back in then. As well as discounting the effect of a bowler bowling out-swingers for a while before one unexpectedly moves back in.

Don't think it was a loose shot at all. In saying so you're giving the batsman way too much credit and taking it all away from the bowler. It looked loose, but that was to the bowler's credit, it wasn't the batsman's fault.

In Prior's case it was a good ball to get first up.

Neither are 'throwing away your wicket' as far as I can see. It's a popular call these days though whenever anyone gets out. Mike Gatting threw his wicket away to Warne back in 1993 too apparently.

It's a great way of giving your players more credit than they deserve, whilst taking it away from the bowler.

I said agree to disagree, because frankly I disagree. Trott's shot was lose, it wasn't a bad ball by any means, bit of shape into the right Haider, hitting top of off. But its a dismissal Trott won't be happy with, and a ball he'd back himself to deal with 99 times out of 100. Comparing it to Gatting is ludicrous.
Just look at the gate Trott leaves, it was a poorly executed and loose drive