-
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* First Test at the Gabba
- Thread starter James
- Start date
benchmark00
Well-known member
tbf, Richard generally has at least some idea what he's talking about.
morgieb
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
Yeah, true. Was more talking about how he often bangs on about how (some) players are often merely lucky to score big.
Marcuss
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
Marcuss
Well-known member
Again, I said no such thing
Marcuss
Well-known member
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.
Marcuss
Well-known member
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-known member
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
Well-known member
Was thinking more overall Marcuss...you're definitely not biased though...no.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?
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
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
Marcuss
Well-known member
Heh, bit rich.
Marcuss
Well-known member
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