*Official* Third Test at the WACA

[Faisal1985]

It was a good one! Very, very good!

lol...

Yea came out funny.

 

[Woodster]

Again, disagree with Prior being unlucky. Played the short ball terribly. Was a poor effort on top of previous poor efforts against the short ball where he managed not to get out. The way he was playing it, he deserved to go. If he ducked the short ball to begin with, instead of getting himself tied up, he would've still been there. Similarly, don't think Clarke was unlucky for edging it on. Was a poorly executed shot against a ball that did just enough to find the edge instead of the middle. He would've been extra-ordinarily lucky if it missed the stumps.

Agree about the verbals though, enjoy seeing a bit of a stoush in the middle.

Think he was still coming to terms with the best way to play the short ball strategy the Aussies were employing. He decided to go right across his stumps so he could ensure it sails through harmlessly to the keeper. Now I agree he didn't play the short ball well, but if you look at the actual dismissal, the ball came off his thigh pad and was travelling harmlessly back down the pitch till it hit the back of his gloves and rolled back onto his stumps. I know what you're saying, and while he didn't look confortable, it was still unfortunate in my eyes.

I also classed Ponting's dismissal as unfortunate but presumably you don't agree with that due to the awkwardness of how he was playing the short ball. Again he was using a similar theory to Prior by going right across his stumps, you could say a fine snick through to the keeper was inevitable, but I always think they're a little unlucky.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Think he was still coming to terms with the best way to play the short ball strategy the Aussies were employing. He decided to go right across his stumps so he could ensure it sails through harmlessly to the keeper. Now I agree he didn't play the short ball well, but if you look at the actual dismissal, the ball came off his thigh pad and was travelling harmlessly back down the pitch till it hit the back of his gloves and rolled back onto his stumps. I know what you're saying, and while he didn't look confortable, it was still unfortunate in my eyes.

I also classed Ponting's dismissal as unfortunate but presumably you don't agree with that due to the awkwardness of how he was playing the short ball. Again he was using a similar theory to Prior by going right across his stumps, you could say a fine snick through to the keeper was inevitable, but I always think they're a little unlucky.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I just think that if you play a certain delivery badly then it's not bad luck, it's bad technique. And yeah, I don't see Ponting as being unlucky either. In Ponting's case though I also don't think the bowler deserves too much credit, it was a poor ball and a worse shot. With Prior, however, given his efforts against the short ball earlier, I don't think it was a rubbish delivery (unlike some others on here )

The best way for either of them to play short deliveries would be to duck if they have no intention of playing a pull or hook, in my opinion. Ponting was in a horrible position for the leg-glance. And Prior was in a horrible position for the short-ball. Both of them might have been lucky enough to get way with it if they got a bit more on the ball, but they didn't really deserve to.

 

[Woodster]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I just think that if you play a certain delivery badly then it's not bad luck, it's bad technique. And yeah, I don't see Ponting as being unlucky either. In Ponting's case though I also don't think the bowler deserves too much credit, it was a poor ball and a worse shot. With Prior, however, given his efforts against the short ball earlier, I don't think it was a rubbish delivery (unlike some others on here )

The best way for either of them to play short deliveries would be to duck if they have no intention of playing a pull or hook, in my opinion. Ponting was in a horrible position for the leg-glance.

No I don't think Finn deserves to be praised too heavily for that delivery. Siddle had bowled a woeful over round the wicket to Prior where he was allowed to go across his stumps and let it go through harmlessly to Haddin, so don't really think Siddle had done anything too remarkable either.

Whether you duck or sway it's a personal preference, perhaps Prior could have been more willing to wear one or two deliveries, but regardless, imo, of how he played the short ball until then, it was still unfortunate for it to deflect off his gloves when the ball was going in the opposite direction to the stumps.

Think it's very well poised this game, providing England don't let them get too far ahead tomorrow, by that I mean a lead in excess of 400, which would be very difficult to chase down.

 

[Furball]

Turning point of the match was Johnson's 3rd over. 2nd ball he bowled a filthy long hop which Cook uppercutted over the slips for 4. Next ball was full, and tailed in slightly, and Cook got a leading edge when he was trying to clip it legside, obviously not anticipating any movement. Got quite worried at that point.

 

[Woodster]

Johnson is clearly a different bowler when he gets that swing into the right hander, but it happens so infrequently that Australia lost patience with him and dropped him for Adelaide. Will be interesting to see if he can back that performance up in the second innings.

 

[Jarquis]

According to Cricinfo, the moment an Australian win became the most likely result was when our 4th wicket fell.

 

[Prince EWS]

According to Cricinfo, the moment an Australian win became the most likely result was when our 4th wicket fell.

Hmm, personally I would've thought the next over when Collingwood fell.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No I don't think Finn deserves to be praised too heavily for that delivery. Siddle had bowled a woeful over round the wicket to Prior where he was allowed to go across his stumps and let it go through harmlessly to Haddin, so don't really think Siddle had done anything too remarkable either.

Siddle did bowl some poor deliveries (apparently, I tuned in just as he hit Prior and then he went next ball ). Think the idea was right to Prior though given how he was playing the shorter stuff. I guess one of the issues with guys who are willing to play the pull shot though is that they don't always have time to get out of the road if they decide not to.

Will be interesting tomorrow. Am hoping Watson continues on personally, although history suggests he'll get out sometime soon. Would like at least 400 lead. England within 300 would scare me given our inconsistency with the ball.

 

[Jarquis]

That was when a big gap opened up.

 

[Furball]

Wonder if Strauss might be regretting his decision to insert Australia, and whether it might have been more damaging if we'd batted first and put on about 450.

Can't really criticise his decision to insert given the way the game was poised after about an hour of play today, mind.

 

[Woodster]

No I think the decision to put them in was spot on, and we should, had we bowled better, rattled them out for a signicantly lesser total, but 268 all out is a decent effort from the bowlers, that have now been let down by the batsmen. The fact they have no real spinner in the side should mean batting fourth should not hold any great dangers, and hopefully we're going to be starting the fourth innings on the third day when in theory it should still be good for batting.

It's refershing to see a pitch like this after all the dull run-fest pitches we are treated to throughout the world, mainly in the sub-continent. Of course the fact it's unlikely to go the duration means the money men at the Western Australia aren't going to be best chuffed, but it has produced exciting cricket.

 

[Furball]

No I think the decision to put them in was spot on, and we should, had we bowled better, rattled them out for a signicantly lesser total, but 268 all out is a decent effort from the bowlers, that have now been let down by the batsmen. The fact they have no real spinner in the side should mean batting fourth should not hold any great dangers, and hopefully we're going to be starting the fourth innings on the third day when in theory it should still be good for batting.

It's refershing to see a pitch like this after all the dull run-fest pitches we are treated to throughout the world, mainly in the sub-continent. Of course the fact it's unlikely to go the duration means the money men at the Western Australia aren't going to be best chuffed, but it has produced exciting cricket.

Yeah, I'm not criticising Strauss' decision at the toss (bowling Australia out for 268 and then being 78/0 about an hour into the 2nd day IMO shows that Strauss' decision was the right one) - I'm just wondering whether the alternative would have been better.

 

[Woodster]

Yeah, I'm not criticising Strauss' decision at the toss (bowling Australia out for 268 and then being 78/0 about an hour into the 2nd day IMO shows that Strauss' decision was the right one) - I'm just wondering whether the alternative would have been better.

Not if we'd have got rolled out 180-odd it wouldn't. Would have given them just the boost they'd have needed at the start of this Test, of course had we put a score on the board that'd be different but we've no idea how it would have gone.

 

[vcs]

Still think England have no reason to be disheartened even if they find themselves chasing 400. It's a matter of putting one big partnership together (150-200), and considering the form of their batsmen and the inconsistency of the Aussie bowlers, it can never be ruled out.

 

[social]

They've bowled a lot of **** mate. A lot. England have played well, but I don't think it's any coincidence that the two times at least one person has got it around off-stump for a concerted amount of time there's been results. Today we bowled pretty well as a team for probably the first time all series. Johnson was the stand-out, but nobody bowled particularly poorly. In other matches there's been some absolute rubbish served up.

This

The Oz attack has been an undisciplined rabble for most of the first 2 tests

Let's not forget, Eng are a good, but hardly great batting lineup but still had 4 guys averaging above 100 after 2 tests

 

[social]

I did qualify it with Symonds-like luck. If he had to be dismissed three times every innings before the umpire would give him out and he was allowed to play his first ten Tests for an average of 20 odd and keep getting selected, then I'm sure Hodge's average would have been above 50.

You generally talk sense but that is absolute nonsense

People judge Symonds on a very controversial series against India and try to make out that it was the norm

The guy was an incredibly talented cricketer and should not be judged on a couple of innings where he got the benefit of the umpire's mistakes

After all, if we applied the same harsh judgement to others, then it wouldnt make for great reading e.g. Bill Lawry and Javed Miandad were never given out LBW in their home countries which are, at best, 2 of the most dubious "records" in history

 

[Woodster]

This

The Oz attack has been an undisciplined rabble for most of the first 2 tests

Let's not forget, Eng are a good, but hardly great batting lineup but still had 4 guys averaging above 100 after 2 tests

Yes I agree that the bowlers haven't been consistent enough, they haven't had the patience or the skills to maintain a decent line and length. Some of their bowling plans have been most questionable aswell. But England have batted excellently in good batting conditions. They have been troubled by the bounce here in Perth, and a bowler that managed to somehow found some inswing at useful pace. I don't expect our middle order to perform so tamely in the second dig, even if the Aussie attack maintains a degree of consistency.

We're not a great batting line-up, but we have a couple of players that look in exceptional form, and if they can get in on this WACA pitch it should ensure a good finish to this Test.

 

[tooextracool]

England didn't bat poorly, Johnson was just close to impossible to play because as I pointed out earlier there is absolutely nothing you can do if you cannot tell which ball is going to swing and which one isn't. Especially when some of them swing prodigiously, a la the one that got Pietersen.

Alternatively, Johnson bowling well has nothing to do with the rest of the attack, which quite honestly was about as poor as they have been all series. Harris is no more than a serviceable fast bowler at best, honestly a poor man's Michael Kasprowicz. Hilfenhaus was ordinary and Siddle was rank. So to use this performance as an argument that they have suddenly hit their straps is BS and a half, as is the fact that Australia don't have serious bowling and batting issues at this point in time (irrespective of the result of this series)

On our own bowling, there is no getting away from the fact that we bowled to short and let Australia back into the game when we could have so easily rolled them out for 150 odd. Finn was pathetic in the first dig and the conditions weren't exactly favorable for Swann/Anderson who were decent but nothing more. Tremlett started well I thought but then fell away and bowled a Finne-sque spell of short garbage later in the day.

 

[social]

England didn't bat poorly, Johnson was just close to impossible to play because as I pointed out earlier there is absolutely nothing you can do if you cannot tell which ball is going to swing and which one isn't. Especially when some of them swing prodigiously, a la the one that got Pietersen.

Alternatively, Johnson bowling well has nothing to do with the rest of the attack, which quite honestly was about as poor as they have been all series. Harris is no more than a serviceable fast bowler at best, honestly a poor man's Michael Kasprowicz. Hilfenhaus was ordinary and Siddle was rank. So to use this performance as an argument that they have suddenly hit their straps is BS and a half, as is the fact that Australia don't have serious bowling and batting issues at this point in time (irrespective of the result of this series)

On our own bowling, there is no getting away from the fact that we bowled to short and let Australia back into the game when we could have so easily rolled them out for 150 odd. Finn was pathetic in the first dig and the conditions weren't exactly favorable for Swann/Anderson who were decent but nothing more. Tremlett started well I thought but then fell away and bowled a Finne-sque spell of short garbage later in the day.

Johnson was unbelievable today and there is not much you can do against a guy that is bowling quickly, accurately and swinging it a long way (and late) other than to say "too good today."

But I reckon you're far off the mark with the others

Despite the fact that I disagreed with the tactics, Siddle made a very good and in-form player in Prior look like a total novice

He wasnt consistent but he made a massive statement with his pace and aggressiveness

Harris is simply a very good bowler

He should have had one of the best openers in the world out at least 3 times before getting him and deservedly got some wickets

Today was a MASSIVE step forward from what we've seen and if Oz had more than 3 reliable batsmen, we'd be looking quite good for the future

As for the conditions, how can they be favourable to Australia's bowlers and not the other when the latter had the best of them?