poms !! mentally they'd be ??????????
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:50 pmafter today they'd be mentally gone & i wouldn't think they could recover after that
Q: poms !! mentally they'd be ??????????
A: *****d
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:50 pmPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:00 pmPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:02 pmIts fair to say they would be gutted. Played well and were in control for 4 days really....
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:59 pmWe owed the Poms one of those. They stole several Tests from us in the past and it's about time we returned the favour.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:34 pmAdelaide Hawk wrote:We owed the Poms one of those. They stole several Tests from us in the past and it's about time we returned the favour.
We didn't steal that test, we just proved that we are a class above. If England had Shane Warne to bowl when Australia was chasing 168 they would have won. Instead they had Ashley Giles who would get taken apart by a local park cricket side. Seriously Warne was turning it the width of the pitch but Giles couldn't get it to move at all.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:48 pmI think the Poms have only got themselves to blame in the end for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
1. Scored 6/551 far too slowly.
2. Dropped Ponting on 35 and he went on to make 142.
3. Should have batted today as if it was day 3 of a Test match on the pitch known this year as "Les Burdett Rd".
4. Bell's run out and Pietersen's bowled were bad news and many other wickets came from get-out shots.
5. Didn't pick Panesar and no one was able to support Hoggard.
Re man of the match - I think Collingwood was pretty stiff not to get it. Scored a double century and spent 11hrs 54 mins at the crease for the match, plus took a few good catches. I think that even though the Poms lost, he should have got it.
1. Scored 6/551 far too slowly.
2. Dropped Ponting on 35 and he went on to make 142.
3. Should have batted today as if it was day 3 of a Test match on the pitch known this year as "Les Burdett Rd".
4. Bell's run out and Pietersen's bowled were bad news and many other wickets came from get-out shots.
5. Didn't pick Panesar and no one was able to support Hoggard.
Re man of the match - I think Collingwood was pretty stiff not to get it. Scored a double century and spent 11hrs 54 mins at the crease for the match, plus took a few good catches. I think that even though the Poms lost, he should have got it.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:04 pmDefinately scored too slowly in BOTH innings.
Despite scoring a bit slow in the first, the issue was in the second. Sure, bat to save the match but at least make runs at the same time. Time in the middle occupying the crease doesn't force a draw - it wastes time.
Now, if for some reason you slip up and get all out - the time means nothing if you haven't scored at the same time.
Going at one and a half runs at best per over and expecting to draw a match is a tad silly.
I never doubted Australia's ability to win this match. I actually doubted Englands lack there of, to lose it.
(why oh why bowl Giles when you have a guy in the field who took seven *quality* wickets in the first innings)
Despite scoring a bit slow in the first, the issue was in the second. Sure, bat to save the match but at least make runs at the same time. Time in the middle occupying the crease doesn't force a draw - it wastes time.
Now, if for some reason you slip up and get all out - the time means nothing if you haven't scored at the same time.
Going at one and a half runs at best per over and expecting to draw a match is a tad silly.
I never doubted Australia's ability to win this match. I actually doubted Englands lack there of, to lose it.
(why oh why bowl Giles when you have a guy in the field who took seven *quality* wickets in the first innings)
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:06 pmSquawk wrote:
Re man of the match - I think Collingwood was pretty stiff not to get it. Scored a double century and spent 11hrs 54 mins at the crease for the match, plus took a few good catches. I think that even though the Poms lost, he should have got it.
Who had the most influence on the result of the match though? You could argue Giles
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:07 pmSquawk wrote:I think the Poms have only got themselves to blame in the end for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
1. Scored 6/551 far too slowly.
2. Dropped Ponting on 35 and he went on to make 142.
3. Should have batted today as if it was day 3 of a Test match on the pitch known this year as "Les Burdett Rd".
4. Bell's run out and Pietersen's bowled were bad news and many other wickets came from get-out shots.
5. Didn't pick Panesar and no one was able to support Hoggard.
Re man of the match - I think Collingwood was pretty stiff not to get it. Scored a double century and spent 11hrs 54 mins at the crease for the match, plus took a few good catches. I think that even though the Poms lost, he should have got it.
If you declare at 6/551 in the first innings you'd think they would at LEAST have scored over 5 an over for, what, the last 5 - 10 overs? What a waste.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:11 pmDissident wrote:Definately scored too slowly in BOTH innings.
Despite scoring a bit slow in the first, the issue was in the second. Sure, bat to save the match but at least make runs at the same time. Time in the middle occupying the crease doesn't force a draw - it wastes time.
Now, if for some reason you slip up and get all out - the time means nothing if you haven't scored at the same time.
Going at one and a half runs at best per over and expecting to draw a match is a tad silly.
I never doubted Australia's ability to win this match. I actually doubted Englands lack there of, to lose it.
(why oh why bowl Giles when you have a guy in the field who took seven *quality* wickets in the first innings)
DISSIDENT you know nothing about cricket
FIRST INNINGS BOWLING
HOGGARD 42 OVERS 7/109
GILES.......42 OVERS 1/103
As you can see Hoggard + Giles bowled 42 overs each
As you can see Hoggard was more expensive
Well , I mean why else would Giles bowl 10 overs to Hoggards 4 overs in the 2nd dig
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:30 pmSquawk wrote:I think the Poms have only got themselves to blame in the end for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
1. Scored 6/551 far too slowly. Yes - could have has 630 in the same time and would not have lost
2. Dropped Ponting on 35 and he went on to make 142. Yes
3. Should have batted today as if it was day 3 of a Test match on the pitch known this year as "Les Burdett Rd". Yes, why be so negative? feeding into Aus hands
4. Bell's run out and Pietersen's bowled were bad news and many other wickets came from get-out shots. Warne too good and put presuure on all round
5. Didn't pick Panesar and no one was able to support Hoggard. Yes - why didnt Hoggard bowl more in the 2nd dig?
Re man of the match - I think Collingwood was pretty stiff not to get it. Scored a double century and spent 11hrs 54 mins at the crease for the match, plus took a few good catches. I think that even though the Poms lost, he should have got it.
Great post Squawk - Negative game plan from England never wanting to win the game, played into the hands of Aust, a quicker run rate in both innings would have seen a draw
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:45 pmDutchy wrote:Negative game plan from England never wanting to win the game, played into the hands of Aust, a quicker run rate in both innings would have seen a draw
Perfectly summed up. Negative tactics. Never tried to win the game whilst Australia never gave up hope of winning the game. Just result.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:48 pmIt's funny. because at the point when Australia were nigh on 50 behind I thought to myself:
"England can't win by trying to win"
"Australia can win by trying to win"
"England can only win if Australia try to win, and screw up"
That doesn't sound like much sense, but it is to me
"England can't win by trying to win"
"Australia can win by trying to win"
"England can only win if Australia try to win, and screw up"
That doesn't sound like much sense, but it is to me
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:08 pmDissident wrote:It's funny. because at the point when Australia were nigh on 50 behind I thought to myself:
"England can't win by trying to win"
"Australia can win by trying to win"
"England can only win if Australia try to win, and screw up"
That doesn't sound like much sense, but it is to me
Nah, makes perfect sense actually. England need to play as well as they can and Australia has to play well below their best for England to have any hope.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:14 pmrod_rooster wrote:Dissident wrote:It's funny. because at the point when Australia were nigh on 50 behind I thought to myself:
"England can't win by trying to win" - This isn't shield cricket, no sporting declarations in the Ashes. Hence, they can't "try" and win.
"Australia can win by trying to win" - Dismissing ENG for bugger all, and chasing down a smallish target
"England can only win if Australia try to win, and screw up" - If the second point happens, but Australia falter...
That doesn't sound like much sense, but it is to me
Nah, makes perfect sense actually. England need to play as well as they can and Australia has to play well below their best for England to have any hope.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:18 pmDissident wrote:rod_rooster wrote:Dissident wrote:It's funny. because at the point when Australia were nigh on 50 behind I thought to myself:
"England can't win by trying to win" - This isn't shield cricket, no sporting declarations in the Ashes. Hence, they can't "try" and win.
"Australia can win by trying to win" - Dismissing ENG for bugger all, and chasing down a smallish target
"England can only win if Australia try to win, and screw up" - If the second point happens, but Australia falter...
That doesn't sound like much sense, but it is to me
Nah, makes perfect sense actually. England need to play as well as they can and Australia has to play well below their best for England to have any hope.
Yep, spot on.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:22 pmDissident wrote:It's funny. because at the point when Australia were nigh on 50 behind I thought to myself:
"England can't win by trying to win"
"Australia can win by trying to win"
"England can only win if Australia try to win, and screw up"
That doesn't sound like much sense, but it is to me
I was thinking along those lines too Diss, to the point that we can't lose in this test as 20 wickets need to fall in 7 hours of play fat f***ing chance based on teh 1st four days....
In other words they can lose if can go through them (didn't think it was likely though 30 hours ago) or it is going to be a draw.
BAck to how they must be feeling.....
Anyone else notice the body language of giles when he was bowling to Hussey tonight? He had no idea, he was all flustered, rushing back to his mark, no composure.....
He was a shot duck with Hussey reverse sweeping him and then playing the conventional sweep stuffing up both his line and length. You could see Giles knew he had no answer on how to bowl to him.
I felt for Flintoff in the last few overs as he is a gun and gives his all but you could see he was stunned that they were actually going to lose this game. just kept on shaking his head....
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:25 pmI felt for Freddy too.
He does seem a geniunely nice guy.
Maybe a bit over-reated with the bat Not his fault though.
He toiled darn well this afternoon, with his team mates, and luck - deserting him.
(of course, bowling Hoggard might have helped...)
He does seem a geniunely nice guy.
Maybe a bit over-reated with the bat Not his fault though.
He toiled darn well this afternoon, with his team mates, and luck - deserting him.
(of course, bowling Hoggard might have helped...)
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:29 pmDissident wrote:I felt for Freddy too.
He does seem a geniunely nice guy.
Maybe a bit over-reated with the bat Not his fault though.
He toiled darn well this afternoon, with his team mates, and luck - deserting him.
(of course, bowling Hoggard might have helped...)
What do you know about cricket DISS
After all Hoggard got a whole 4 overs and only got one wicket
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:35 pmNot too sure about Freddy. I think his batting has been woeful and he's obviously not 100% 'bowling fit'.
He's been an overall disappointment in my view.
He's been an overall disappointment in my view.