*Official* Zimbabwe in Australia Thread

[Craig]

My match report

Australia v Zimbabwe Day 2

Resuming at 8/256, Andy Blignaut and Ray Price resumed on 9* and 7* - showed some resistance in the first morning by putting on a further 40 more runs, until Andrew Bichel made the make through by dismissing Price for 20, who spooned a catch to Williams at cover. Another 12 more runs where added until Bichel dismissed Blessing Nahwire for 6.

Zimbabwe were all out for 308 - a reasonable total built on a day 1 Stuart Carlise century. For Australia, Lee, Williams and Hogg picked up two wickets each, while Bichel picked up 4 wickets while Brett Lee went off with injury.

Andy Blignaut made a early breakthrough dismissing Justin Langer for 2 with the score on 7. Coming off a massive 380 from the previous Test, Blighnaut made sure there was no repeat of that dismissing Matt Hayden for 20 with the score on 51.

Damien Martyn and Ricky Ponting came together and put on 97 runs for the forth wicket, before Ray Price trapped Martyn for 32 plumb LBW.

Ponting showed the sort of form that lead him to eight Test hundreds since the Cape Town Test against South Africa in 2002.

Captain Steve Waugh joined him at the crease displaying a like for the Zimbawe bowling. Waugh gave two chances in the 30s in two balls - each going to the boundary.

Ricky Ponting brought up his 18 Test ton - his ninth since the Cape Town Test and looking in full control.

At Stumps on day 2, Australia 3/245 with Ponting on 173* and Waugh on 43* off 56.5 overs when they went off for bad light.

http://www.cricketweb.net/articles/EpyyVFZAZFIuqaCFKn.shtml

First article for Cricket Web

 

[Mr. P]

From the mouth of Craig:

Australia v Zimbabwe Day 2

Resuming at 8/256, Andy Blignaut and Ray Price resumed on 9* and 7* - showed some resistance in the first morning by putting on a further 40 more runs, until Andrew Bichel made the make through by dismissing Price for 20, who spooned a catch to Williams at cover. Another 12 more runs where added until Bichel dismissed Blessing Nahwire for 6.

Zimbabwe were all out for 308 - a reasonable total built on a day 1 Stuart Carlise century. For Australia, Lee, Williams and Hogg picked up two wickets each, while Bichel picked up 4 wickets while Brett Lee went off with injury.

Andy Blignaut made a early breakthrough dismissing Justin Langer for 2 with the score on 7. Coming off a massive 380 from the previous Test, Blighnaut made sure there was no repeat of that dismissing Matt Hayden for 20 with the score on 51.

Damien Martyn and Ricky Ponting came together and put on 97 runs for the forth wicket, before Ray Price trapped Martyn for 32 plumb LBW.

Ponting showed the sort of form that lead him to eight Test hundreds since the Cape Town Test against South Africa in 2002.

Captain Steve Waugh joined him at the crease displaying a like for the Zimbawe bowling. Waugh gave two chances in the 30s in two balls - each going to the boundary.

Ricky Ponting brought up his 18 Test ton - his ninth since the Cape Town Test and looking in full control.

At Stumps on day 2, Australia 3/245 with Ponting on 173* and Waugh on 43* off 56.5 overs when they went off for bad light.

--------------------------------

 

[Mr. P]

Re: My match report

Ponting showed the sort of form that lead him to eight Test hundreds since the Cape Town Test against South Africa in 2002.

Oh, ok

Ricky Ponting brought up his 18 Test ton - his ninth since the Cape Town Test and looking in full control.

NO!:O

 

[Eclipse]

Who saw Streak's balls to get rid of Gilchrist? It was brilliant.

It was a great ball.
If Gilly Was not trying to smash it he would probably have keept it out problem is when you generate as much batspeed as Gilly does it's hard to make an ajustment to a ball like that.

 

[luckyeddie]

It was a great ball.
If Gilly Was not trying to smash it he would probably have keept it out problem is when you generate as much batspeed as Gilly does it's hard to make an ajustment to a ball like that.

You're not saying that it was a wild slog, are you?

 

[Richard]

So you're saying that Gilchrist has had good luck with his batting for the better part of 2-3 years? Sort of like Flintoff has been unlucky with the ball of late?

The only period where I can confirm that Gilchrist has had lots of luck (ie almost game-after-game) is in the series' from India 2001 (India) to South Africa 2002 (South Africa). As I say, he doesn't seem to have been that lucky in the last year, and I really can't comment on the first year of his Test-career as I didn't see any of it.

 

[Richard]

you are talking nonsense, hes played 46 tests and he averages over 61, with a SR of 83 and he makes his runs through luck, mate i think you need your head checked. those stats are phonomenel, there are NONE better, Adam Gilchrist is the best wicketkeeping batsman ever... and one of the most talented batsmen around. up there with the best. he is the only wicket keeper that would make his national team based on batting alone. he is the only wicket keeper around that would challenge for a spot in a World XI for batting alone

So now things that should result in dismissal and don't are not luck?
Because that is the only conclusion a thought-process like that can come to.
Going-on about all that worded stuff is simply avoiding the issue, as is quoting scorebook stats. The issue is, purely and simply, if Gilchrist had received less let-offs than he has he wouldn't be averaging 60, or even 50.
He's still easily the best batsman of wicketkeepers around today, but he's not as good as his average suggests, and he's certainly not the best batsman\keeper of all-time, as it's impossible to make comparisons between eras. There can be no realistic attempt to do that.
And Alec Stewart would always have made the England side on batting alone. Andy Flower would have made any side in The World on batting alone, so that is only true in the last 6 months.

 

[Chubb]

Really great effort from Zimbabwe today, especially from Price.
Mr. Mzyxptlk, I have seen Mbangwa's name in the Zimbabwe Cricket Union website's averages tables for this season, so he is still playing but he does do commentary for Sky, which has probably got up the selector's noses. John Ward, the Zimbabwe cricket journo, says in Mbangwa's biography that he lacks the pace the selectors want. I'd rather have a controlling medium pacer than ****wire.

 

[luckyeddie]

The only period where I can confirm that Gilchrist has had lots of luck (ie almost game-after-game) is in the series' from India 2001 (India) to South Africa 2002 (South Africa). As I say, he doesn't seem to have been that lucky in the last year, and I really can't comment on the first year of his Test-career as I didn't see any of it.

I spent HOURS going through the ball-by-ball commentaries of the games where he made big scores - and sure in some he was dropped a time or two (once about 4 or 5 times) - there were chanceless innings too.

It's a trade-off, IMO. You hit the ball that hard, you give more chances. You also get away with more because the chances are more difficult to take.

 

[Richard]

I really cant be botherd arguing on this anymore it's pretty obviouse that a man with over 3000 test runs at 60 has a little bit more going for him than luck.
He is not going to stop making runs I will tell you that wether you think it's luck or not.

I have never suggested that he has luck alone going for him. He is easily the best batsman of wicketkeepers today.
We will see if he stops getting runs against his name - you can't say for certain that he will, and I have never suggested that it is certain he won't.
All we can do is wait and see - I will hope his average comes down, but at 32 I don't think it's realistic to expect his career average to end under 50.

 

[Richard]

First article for Cricket Web

Well done, Craig.

 

[Richard]

I spent HOURS going through the ball-by-ball commentaries of the games where he made big scores - and sure in some he was dropped a time or two (once about 4 or 5 times) - there were chanceless innings too.

It's a trade-off, IMO. You hit the ball that hard, you give more chances. You also get away with more because the chances are more difficult to take.

The thing is, people look at Gilchrist's power and effectively talk as if they assume he gets away with every drop because he's smashed it in a reaslistically uncatchable way.
Most of Gilchrist's "chances" are regulation drops. I don't call something that I don't think should have been caught a "chance". You have to be realistic about what you call a chance, and I really don't think some people are.

 

[iamdavid]

The only period where I can confirm that Gilchrist has had lots of luck (ie almost game-after-game) is in the series' from India 2001 (India) to South Africa 2002 (South Africa). As I say, he doesn't seem to have been that lucky in the last year, and I really can't comment on the first year of his Test-career as I didn't see any of it.

Richard if you cant confirm half of it then why dont you shut up about it , I've watched every test he's ever played in bar the one at Hobart against New Zealand & I can tell you the only times he has had what I would classify as an excessive amount of luck were the 2001 ashes series (dropped 5 times in 1 session before lunch on day 3 at Lords) & the New Zealand series in 2000 where he copped a few generous decisions & more than a few dropped catches.

As for the India series he was actually extremely unlucky , he made a chanceless hundred in the first match (best innings he's ever played , the hundred actually came off 84 balls but what people forget is he didnt get off the mark until his 19th ball & after facing 38 balls he was on 8 , 92 runs from his next 46 balls).
He got a shocking decision from that idiot Bansal(the main reason India won that match was this idiots umpiring:!( )
and another dodgy one in the second innings at Chenai.

Richard I'm not accusing you of lying or anything but I get the impression that on this particular subject you write what you know & what you dont know you make up !

 

[iamdavid]

Well done, Craig.

Have you applied to join the team yet Richard?

So far I have 3 articles published-

A Shane Watson profile- http://www.cricketweb.net/australia/playerprofiles/shanewatson.shtml

A Nathan Hauritz profile-
http://www.cricketweb.net/australia/playerprofiles/nathanhauritz.shtml

And a Nathan Bracken profile-
http://www.cricketweb.net/australia/playerprofiles/nathanbracken.shtml

8D :P

 

[marc71178]

I do of couse only mean for this match , after Ervine is fit again I would bat him at 5 & move Streak back to 7 or 8.

Ervine at 5 is even more funny than Streak IMO!

 

[marc71178]

you are talking nonsense, hes played 46 tests and he averages over 61, with a SR of 83 and he makes his runs through luck, mate i think you need your head checked. those stats are phonomenel, there are NONE better, Adam Gilchrist is the best wicketkeeping batsman ever... and one of the most talented batsmen around. up there with the best. he is the only wicket keeper that would make his national team based on batting alone. he is the only wicket keeper around that would challenge for a spot in a World XI for batting alone

I wouldn't say he'd get in a World XI based purely on his batting, since he would have batted further up the order if a specialist player, and I don't think he'd be averaging quite so many if he did.

He may be the only keeper now who would make his side on batting alone, but that's only because Stewart, who I hazard to suggest more than rivals Gilly for that title of best wicket-keeping batsman ever, has retired.

 

[marc71178]

From the mouth of Craig:

Note to Craig - we have a spell check on the submission.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Note to Craig - we have a spell check on the submission.

Last check the spell checker doesn't work.

 

[Rik]

I really cant be botherd arguing on this anymore it's pretty obviouse that a man with over 3000 test runs at 60 has a little bit more going for him than luck.

Maybe, but if all those catches had been taken we wouldn't be looking at a guy with a Test average of 60 or 3000 Test runs, it would be quite a bit lower because, a catch is a dismissal, which means he can't bat any more and can't score any more runs. Makes sense.

 

[marc71178]

Maybe, but if all those catches had been taken we wouldn't be looking at a guy with a Test average of 60 or 3000 Test runs, it would be quite a bit lower because, a catch is a dismissal, which means he can't bat any more and can't score any more runs. Makes sense.

Damn you Rik, bringing logic into the equation - you should know the Aussies can't cope with logic!