• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah I agree it's just, but it isn't "Very well, too good for them". Frankly could see Hauritz or Doherty performing just the same...
Wouldn't be able to keep the runs down as well as Swann did as they aren't in the same class.

Not everything about being too good is about getting wickets, they couldn't score off him apart from a couple of overs straight after tea.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
:laugh: surely verdict is a result of someone whos a little too accustomed to watching Warne wield his magic.

He was a vital cog in bowling out Australia in adelaide on the first day, which is fantastic. Couldn't have asked for more.
Warne himself was saying in the commentary that spinners are not expected to take wickets at Adelaide on day one, they're in the team for days 4/5 and that if he could pick up a couple of wickets, it would be a decent return
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Marginally better pitch, marginally lower total, who cares how the wickets came?
Well all these marginals begin to add up... that's the point.
as for.how the wickets came, I'd suggest you lost them more regularly than we did, least important part of the 3 though
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Wouldn't be able to keep the runs down as well as Swann did as they aren't in the same class.

Not everything about being too good is about getting wickets, they couldn't score off him apart from a couple of overs straight after tea.
Nah I disagree, if England were in the same position I could easily see Hauritz or Doherty producing similar results. He did a good job, but nothing outstanding. His economy was just the same as all the other bowlers. It was Anderson who was the chief destroyer today.
 

Ausage

Cricketer Of The Year
Well all these marginals begin to add up... that's the point.
as for.how the wickets came, I'd suggest you lost them more regularly than we did, least important part of the 3 though
Yeah, they add up to you being in a marginally better position in Brisbane than we are in here. Again the way the wickets fell matters exactly not at all.

Can't believe I'm actually arguing this ******** point. This is what CC does to you. :p
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, they add up to you being in a marginally better position in Brisbane than we are in here. Again the way the wickets fell matters exactly not at all.

Can't believe I'm actually arguing this ******** point. This is what CC does to you. :p
So the idea its a mirror image of Brisbane is wrong...
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Yeah, they add up to you being in a marginally better position in Brisbane than we are in here. Again the way the wickets fell matters exactly not at all.

Can't believe I'm actually arguing this ******** point. This is what CC does to you. :p
A very slight difference, in that Australia have an extra 11 runs and a few new-ball overs left. But it's essentially the same.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Oh fine, it's not a precise mirror image of Brisbane.

The comparison remains valid however.
England fell way short of a par score in Brisbane and Australia fell way short today, that is pretty much all you can say, tells us nothing about what will happen in the next 4 days.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The idea is it's pretty bloody close.
Meh, we were underpar by about 150 is guess, tops. You're looking at 200+
As for the hattrick point it was just trying to point out you're liable to losing wickets quite consistrntly throughout your innings. But so were we in Bris, as I said it was a throw away comment and less important than the fact you're significantly more.underpar than we were
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Meh, we were underpar by about 150 is guess, tops. You're looking at 200+
As for the hattrick point it was just trying to point out you're liable to losing wickets quite consistrntly throughout your innings. But so were we in Bris, as I said it was a throw away comment and less important than the fact you're significantly more.underpar than we were
England were 200+ under par because that's the lead they conceded. We'll see how under par this score is in a couple of days.
 

Top