England v Australia - Second Ashes Test - Lord's
- Thread starter gaffs
- Start date
feck me, if winning a game at lunch by over 100 runs is "nearly ballsing it up" lets hope England nearly balls the rest of the series up.
It's you Jopub, trust me
Only a complete tosser who didn't know what they were on about would make such a remark
One word.
Flintoff.
Flintoff.
Great game of cricket and some big performances from Strauss, Cook, Anderson and Swann, but obviously, especially Freddie! Hopefully we'll get some impetus from this but we can certainly expect a reaction from the Aussies.
Quite so.
If not for Strauss and Cook our first innings would have been a shadow of what it became.
Swann had a somewhat underwhelming time in Cardiff, here at Lord's he was back to his earlier form. Good to see.
Broad and Bopara are the real concerns, and KP too although this is more a matter of injury right now than performances which is the case with the first two. Broad progressed a good deal in the Windies and on pitches which offered next to nothing. Bopara doesn't look like No 3 material to me or at least not presently.
The Aussies haven't whinged even a bit about the 3 bad decisions that went against them. Fair play.
Broad is rubbish, should be dropped for Harmison next match.
Broad is rubbish, should be dropped for Harmison next match.
Broad is not rubbish.
Well, you think he gets good pace and bounce but his line and length is almost never threatening. He didn't bowl against India in the tests, but played in the limited overs and I didn't find him impressive at all. He bowled much the same as he's doing right now against Australia. In both the tests, he's been average.
He can bowl over 90mph - which no Indian bowler can do. He'll improve and has already gained some pace. You'll see him mature into a decent bowler.
TMS were saying he started of as a batsman so hes still learning how to bowl. I'd keep him in the team.
Give over. He's medium fast. Ishant can, to be fair, when he bowls an effort bowl.
I would keep Broad in the team.
I would get Harmison in for Edgbaston for Onions.
I think if Flintoff suffers an injury midway though a test, then we don’t have a hostile bowler that can produce real pace and bounce of a good length.
Im not sure what the Edgbaston wicket is like this year, but in the past its has been a bit unpredictable which would suit Harmison.
I would get Harmison in for Edgbaston for Onions.
I think if Flintoff suffers an injury midway though a test, then we don’t have a hostile bowler that can produce real pace and bounce of a good length.
Im not sure what the Edgbaston wicket is like this year, but in the past its has been a bit unpredictable which would suit Harmison.
Zaheer Khan can definatly push them through at 90.
He has slowed down over the years, but he takes more wickets becasue hes swinging it more now.
No, he can't. I've never seen him touch 90mph - even during his youth. To be honest, I've always that found strange, because he's got the right build.
Bradley 'Bollocks' you're such a twat its hard not to split my sides
You have this habit of charging into threads, been quite a few in the last months, where you make some proclamation, people disagree and you start acting like a dipshit handing out abuse and then as usual you get it wrong spectacularly, just like this, as Spoony quite adequately proves.
It was so clearly a "rancid decision"
Not as good as "let's not be overating things because Pele did it"
- be difficult to top that completely insanity but I'll laugh as you keep giving it a goYou really are a fkn fool....funny one tho'
( o yeah srry - 'fecking fool' !)I can't find that thread since the restructuring of the cricket forum, but it was an area where everyone was arguing/laughing at my opinion that Hughes is not good enough for Australia.
Well, the Australian opener has scored 57 runs at an average of 19, just above Hauritz (and only Hauritz), and lower than Peter Siddle.
Don't tell me Australia can't find better players than him.
Well, the Australian opener has scored 57 runs at an average of 19, just above Hauritz (and only Hauritz), and lower than Peter Siddle.
Don't tell me Australia can't find better players than him.
Bradley 'Bollocks' you're such a twat its hard not to split my sides
You have this habit of charging into threads, been quite a few in the last months, where you make some proclamation, people disagree and you start acting like a dipshit handing out abuse and then as usual you get it wrong spectacularly, just like this, as Spoony quite adequately proves.
It was so clearly a "rancid decision"
Not as good as "let's not be overating things because Pele did it"
You really are a fkn fool....funny one tho'
You'll find plenty of others, including the likes of Ian Botham, what a clueless twat he is, who agrees with my opinion of the follow on decision. In the end the weather was clear rather than the forecast rain, and then of course the decision is fine with more half the test match still to play. Just a couple of washed out sessions and this test match, which England dominated, may well have been a draw. That's why I stand by my assertion is was a 'rancid decision'
As for Pele, we were talking about him rounding the keeper and then missing an empty net, and having a shot from the halfway line and missing with that too. So I think my comment quite nicely stands there too. Appreciate the lad for his moments of brilliance, the reasons he's considered one of the best players of all time, not bollocks like that and the 1000 goals thing
"WENGER OUT"
Allot of people criticized England for letting Hughes play county cricket here to get some form. I think it was a good decision they know how to bowl him. From what I saw of him he looked a good player in SA plus hes only 20.
To be fair, Botham is a clueless twat. And the decision was clearly right. Sometimes Brad, you have to use logic over emotion. Scoring runs on the last day is never an easy task. Anything around 200 would've been difficult - and you would've been asking, why did they enforce the follow on???
I really wouldn't
And I don't agree the decision was clearly right. Very easy to say that when the weather forecast, predicted to be heavy rain Sunday and showers Monday, actually stayed dry and allowed for full scheduled play
You can't have it both ways mate. You were saying the pitches are allowing sides to make larger and larger 4th innings scores before. I'd be delighted if we had 200 to knock off to beat Australia, with plenty of time in which to do it. If you can't do that you don't deserve to win the game
Dont rate Broad to be honest. Dont know why, just dont see him winning matches for us. Shame Freddie has to retire, but I can see Jimmy filling his bowling boots. Swann is awesome. And i would definately have Harmison back in.
And i agree with Brad, we should have enforced the follow on, 9/10 times its the best option.
Yes, and they got 400+ in their last innings. However as today proved batting on the last day is never easy - I don't think the overcast conditions made it any easier. If Straus enforced the follow on, England would've been chasing well over 200 on the fifth day.
Well you don't know what they'd have made in that situation. But if it had have been 200, with plenty of time left in the test at that point, England would have been heavy favourites. I'd take that situation all day long
But it worked out as it did, the weather was kind, and we polished them off anyway, so we're all delighted
England haven't beaten the Aussies at Lord's since 1934 (until today) - a fact we're all well aware of by now, I'm sure.
Hmm... the last time Lancashire won the County Championship outright was also in 1934. Could this be an omen?
Could it??
COULD IT!!?!?!?
err.. probably not
Hmm... the last time Lancashire won the County Championship outright was also in 1934. Could this be an omen?
Could it??
COULD IT!!?!?!?
err.. probably not
You're a fking idiot (oops - 'fecking')And now people see it, in most of the threads you're involved in
And, Utd fans or otherwise, now people know it ...what a fking plonker
...but keep going though, you're such a Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime, you're funny
No team in the history of test cricket chasing over 200+ on the last day has ever 'taken that situation all day long'.
None
Many have been forced too and a tiny few have succeeded as you get to the 300+ mark but the stats will show you how many failed when the ask got over 200
If you have followed test cricket you'd know that (you probably havent though have you) and if you have you probably started watching in the summer of 2005!
Pitches are a bit flatter now but they still degrade after three four days so its never an easy ask on day 5.
Knowing the Aussies are always likely to have one good innings Strauss calculated we'd be trying to get 200+ on the final day and was proved right to do what he did
So that makes you wrong Bradley Bollocks. That's nothing new but admitting it would of course break new ground for you
Depends who you're playing against and the circumstances. Its not just "lets throw them in again" ........as this proved
i'm not having that. some pitches are batting tracks through and through where even on days 4 and 5 there is nothing in it for the bowlers. ok there may be a few scratches on the surface and the odd foot hole, but then the heavy roller comes out and the track is back to near perfect.
there are plenty of test matches and first class games that have scores such as 520-4 d, 480, 310-6, 92-1 match drawn. in fact over recent years there has been much criticism for the fact that tracks have been prepared for games that there is nothing in it for the bowlers. this in turn makes a result less likely
Agreed that's been the trend.
However nobody wants to bat chasing 200+ on the final day - nobody
No-one be they a test player or sunday league standard would choose to do it- its not even debateable .
He’s in a similar situation to Bopara.
He averages over 50, he’s had a great start to his test and first class career and Australia probably want to stick by him as he obviously has real talent.
England have exposed a weakness in his technique and have the bowlers to expose it.
Yes they would.
If you told any test captain that he would need to chase 200 on the 5th day of a test with 10 wickets in hand, then he would take it.
200 has been exceeded hundreds of times in the 4th innings of a test.
I agree with that.
Wickets are now being prepared with the view of getting 5 days play out of them in order to make as much money as possible.
I think that either Clark or Watson will come in for the Third Test - for whom I've no idea, but we need to mix things up IMO. In saying that I hope Hughes is given another chance, he is a fantastic talent..
Sigh. I've been watching Test Cricket since I was a kid and was previously a Lancs season ticket holder, and travelled around the north west to watch them
You're not the first 'expert' in the last couple of days who see's fit to try and question someone's credibility to post their opinion, rather than just argue with good evidence why they think that opinion is wrong
So, you're utterly wrong. And plus many people agree with me, including genuine experts of the game like Botham. Well done, well done
I thought people had stop being this gay. I better go into the United forums and question folks right to post if they don't go to games or haven't supported the team for as long as me :wanker:
Exactly. And we were never talking about a turfed up Edgbaston pitch here, we were talking a pretty lifeless Lords one. Put it this way, would you rather have to knock 200 runs off to win a test, or defend 200 runs taking 20 wickets before the opposition make that target? Absolutely no fecking brainer, which shows how ridiculous Jopubs opinion on this is
Precisely. As Spoony said before, the pitches (and the run rate in my opinion) are making for more result matches, and larger 4th innings totals. In some cases it says something about the pitches that batsmen are going at 3.5 runs an over, and we're still playing 5 days and not getting a result!
And of course, it comes back to the weather. Only a prick who didn't really understand the situation would state the match result meant the follow on decision was spot on. Jopub being that prick on this (and most other) occasions. Had we lost just 2 sessions play from this game, and with heavy rain predicted Sunday and showers Monday that was very likely, a game England dominated and won by over a hundred runs may very well have been a draw. As it was the weather was much kinder than feared, and if you knew at the time there was virtually 3 full days of play left remaining, yes the follow on is a perfectly valid choice in that situation. But they didn't. So it wasn't
But credit England, they still produced the victory, and we're all bloody delighted about that
But credit England, they still produced the victory, and we're all bloody delighted about that
Come now, all this bickering on such a momentous occasion? tsk tsk
To be fair to Brad he is quite consistent on the issue of enforcing the follow-on, he has similar ...misgivings during the recent tour of the West Indies if i remember right. Similar disagreement too.
That said, the decision to bat again wasn't all things considered Strauss' one way ticket to the nut house, far from it. If there were errors they came afterward in fact [but it all worked out in the end].
Save your anger for when we make a proper balls up, or the umpires do.
Oh we're just oozing delight in this thread.
To be fair to Brad he is quite consistent on the issue of enforcing the follow-on, he has similar ...misgivings during the recent tour of the West Indies if i remember right. Similar disagreement too.
That said, the decision to bat again wasn't all things considered Strauss' one way ticket to the nut house, far from it. If there were errors they came afterward in fact [but it all worked out in the end].
Save your anger for when we make a proper balls up, or the umpires do.
Oh we're just oozing delight in this thread.
The word is that Brett Lee has told an Australian radio station that he will not be fit for the third test.