-
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*** 2nd Test at the Adelaide Oval
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Son Of Coco
Well-known member
I think the result kind of highlights the ridiculousness of the approach really.Alysum said:
BingLeeElectric
Banned
Ignore the troll.Matt79 said:
BingLeeElectric
Banned
Ridiculous just about sums Collingwood up today.Son Of Coco said:
Son Of Coco
Well-known member
As someone said on radio this morning, if England had taken the game up to Australia in the first couple of hours instead of playing for a draw from the start they would have had too many runs for it to be anything other than a draw. Collingwood did well to stay around, but when you have a guy scoring no runs at one end it puts a bit of pressure on the guys at the other. You're basically in a situation where, if a couple of wickets fall, your team's under pressure becuase all of a sudden if you lose 10 wickets you don't have enough runs to defend.Matteh said:
Son Of Coco
Well-known member
After the first over he washowardj said:
FaaipDeOiad
Well-known member
Funniest moment of the day comes from Ian Healy.
"This Ashes series continues to twist and turn like a... giant python!"
Someone get him away from the microphone.
"This Ashes series continues to twist and turn like a... giant python!"
Someone get him away from the microphone.
Ponting > Collingwood
Paul Collingwood defended like Trevor Bailey and showed no interest in protecting his lower-order until the last-gasp arrival of James Anderson. The breakthrough of the first-innings 206 was replaced by a breakdown. He remained not out on 22 but in the context of the result who cared?
Making runs, any runs, was more valuable than eating up time, although the methods were magnificently complementary. Collingwood faced 119 balls, struck two fours and let his team down. A half-century, even some intent to attack or a desire to hit something loose - there were opportunities - would have ensured more fame and a draw. Block, leave, pad-up, defend. Take a single, leave the tail-ender exposed, watch them scatter like the ground's seagulls.
Paul Collingwood defended like Trevor Bailey and showed no interest in protecting his lower-order until the last-gasp arrival of James Anderson. The breakthrough of the first-innings 206 was replaced by a breakdown. He remained not out on 22 but in the context of the result who cared?
Making runs, any runs, was more valuable than eating up time, although the methods were magnificently complementary. Collingwood faced 119 balls, struck two fours and let his team down. A half-century, even some intent to attack or a desire to hit something loose - there were opportunities - would have ensured more fame and a draw. Block, leave, pad-up, defend. Take a single, leave the tail-ender exposed, watch them scatter like the ground's seagulls.
howardj
Well-known member
Has a team ever played and been captained (in terms of the choice of bowlers) so badly on a final day of a Test match? If I didn't know better, I'd say the game was fixed. Hoggard, Harmison and Flintoff should have bowled at least 25 of the 32 overs. Hoggard and Flintoff in the main.
Matteh
Well-known member
If you're going to have a pop at a member of the England team, Collingwood shouldn't be it tbh. The fact he hit a double century and then kept his wicket (even if you disagree with the methods) when everyone else was losing theirs means he's clearly not the one to question.Laurrz said:
BingLeeElectric
Banned
Superb post.Laurrz said:
Not the first time either. Your wisdom is not going unnoticed.
howardj
Well-known member
Half of it (at least) was plagiarised.BingLeeElectric said:Superb post.
Not the first time either. Your wisdom is not going unnoticed.
wpdavid
Well-known member
Unfortunately this game is being played towards the end of 2006, and we all know how poor Harmison' s been for the majority of the last 2 years.Craig said:
Really, it would just be nice to be proved wrong occasionally. The shortcomings of this side were evident to everyone except Duncan Fletcher, and they've all been shown up. Anderson & Giles' inadequacies & lack of cricket this year always meant that there were better alternatives. Fred was always going to struggle at 6, especially given the amount of cricket he's played since June. The idea of Jones being any sort of test batsman has long since been shown up as complete mythology, and, if Fletcher really doesn't rate Read then he should have taken Foster as backup. And Harmison's performances haven't surprised anyone who's actually watched him over the last 24 months, whatever some people will try to tell you.
The assumptions that we have to play as many of the 2005 side as possible, and that we have to play 5 bowlers, just ignores everything that has happened since. And much of what actually happened in 2005, tbh.
Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
I swear I just read a CricInfo article with that in it.BingLeeElectric said:Superb post.
Not the first time either. Your wisdom is not going unnoticed.
Can`t believe everyone is having a go at Collingwood. Why not have a go at Cook, Pietersen, Bell, Flintoff or Jones for not staying there? Collingwood wasn`t perfect, but a damn sight better than the majority of his team-mates. How embarassing for you.
