Cricket thread

[StringerBellend]

Australia should have enforced the follow on, even if the Australian bowlers couldn’t swing the ball as much as Anderson and Woakes, just by virtue of Australia bowling means England wouldn’t be 

a couple more wickets to England and they would have been back in it

as it is won’t matter it’s too little too late for England 

Stokes would have made a big difference for England, probably the most suited bowler and batsman to Australian conditions 

 

[Smoggy]

England bowled well today and have done well to dismiss Australia for 138, all too little too late of course.

The game would be over now if Smith put England straight back in, fair chance this game could still end today I would think.

[Smoggy]

First up England will still lose tomorrow and Australia will go 2-0. But that was a ******* good session of test cricket, really enjoyed watching Smith squirm a bit lol, Agree with this from Vaughan

Michael Vaughan

Ex-England captain on BBC Test Match Special

This is down to James Anderson and the fact Steve Smith didn't enforce the follow-on. If Australia had bowled last night the game would have been done and dusted. Steve Smith has given England this chance.

 

 

[luisenrique]

Still don't think that was the wrong decision. The ball hooped around a lot yesterday, but there was no reason to lose 6 wickets for nothing this morning. Plus, if England chase 350 down in the 4th innings (about 60:40 in our favour now imo), then they've batted really well, we've bowled poorly, and they've had a lot of luck. You can't say it's the wrong decision when even though we were rolled for 120 or whatever, the opposition still has to break their own all time record to win the game.

Cummins & Lyon are key, they will create plenty of chances again tomorrow, just depends how they fall. New ball about an hour into the first session. I would have Lyon & Starc (because he has been shite) bowl until then, then let Cummins & Hazlewood have the new ball.

The second half of these big chases are always a lot harder to get, suddenly when the target is a real possibility batsmen start to doubt every drive, etc. So all still in our favour, but England definitely a chance.

[btron3000]

7 minutes ago, luisenrique said:

about 60:40 in our favour now imo

80:20.

They're halfway and they've lost 4 wickets.

Australia will ask for the extra half hour at tea (and by that I mean the first break) and it'll be over. 

[btron3000]

19 minutes ago, luisenrique said:

 there was no reason to lose 6 wickets for nothing this morning.

Some terrible terrible shots. Marsh - what was he doing? Paine - horrible. Starc - ****, but that's expected.

Some players have really let their captains down in this test.  Root bowls first and his two main guys can't even pitch it up. Smith bats again and some of the dismissals were horrid.

[luisenrique]

31 minutes ago, btron3000 said:

80:20.

They're halfway and they've lost 4 wickets.

Australia will ask for the extra half hour at tea (and by that I mean the first break) and it'll be over. 

Well in our favour is that the second half of these big chases is always much harder. It's easier to play a flowing cover drive when there are still 300 runs to get, but when it's 150 and your wicket could decide the game doubts start to creep in.

Why I'm giving them more than a 20 % chance is that in Ali and Bairstow they have two attacking batsmen to come who have the potential to hit some quick runs and get the target down to a much more manageable total. I'm willing to compromise and say 70:30. 

And we have no reviews left.

[luisenrique]

30 minutes ago, btron3000 said:

Some terrible terrible shots. Marsh - what was he doing? Paine - horrible. Starc - ****, but that's expected.

Some players have really let their captains down in this test.  Root bowls first and his two main guys can't even pitch it up. Smith bats again and some of the dismissals were horrid.

They batted as though we were already 400 ahead. Needed to just bat till around halway through the day and the game would have been at the very least safe, plus we would have had a newish ball at night.

[Smoggy]

6 hours ago, luisenrique said:

Still don't think that was the wrong decision. The ball hooped around a lot yesterday, but there was no reason to lose 6 wickets for nothing this morning. Plus, if England chase 350 down in the 4th innings (about 60:40 in our favour now imo), then they've batted really well, we've bowled poorly, and they've had a lot of luck. You can't say it's the wrong decision when even though we were rolled for 120 or whatever, the opposition still has to break their own all time record to win the game.

Cummins & Lyon are key, they will create plenty of chances again tomorrow, just depends how they fall. New ball about an hour into the first session. I would have Lyon & Starc (because he has been shite) bowl until then, then let Cummins & Hazlewood have the new ball.

The second half of these big chases are always a lot harder to get, suddenly when the target is a real possibility batsmen start to doubt every drive, etc. So all still in our favour, but England definitely a chance.

At the time Smith could have put England back in future record targets were a thing of the future. The Aussie camp, this it was the bowling coach, was interviewed last night and admitted they made a mistake not enforcing the follow on. I really do believe that England were there for the taking that night. They would have been at last 3 or 4 down and well behind with another innings up Australia's sleeves.

From all the forums i am a member of i think this is the only one that people dont think Smith has ****ed up. But then he has really only ****ed up if they get beaten, which they wont, but Australia made it all much harder for themselves.

England to add just 40 runs today and be an anticlimax is my punt anyway.

[Smoggy]

5 hours ago, luisenrique said:

They batted as though we were already 400 ahead. Needed to just bat till around halway through the day and the game would have been at the very least safe, plus we would have had a newish ball at night.

England bowled well. They finally got the line and length right and there were a couple of beauties in there. A few three it away also, but some good stuff.

[luisenrique]

It's easy to say he's ****ed up now, but the question is at the time was it a bad decision? I don't think so for the reasons I've said. 

England bowled well yesterday for sure, but it was far from the unplayable stuff from the night before. Pretty sure every wicket was lost playing an attacking shot. 

[Smoggy]

21 minutes ago, luisenrique said:

It's easy to say he's ****ed up now, but the question is at the time was it a bad decision? I don't think so for the reasons I've said. 

England bowled well yesterday for sure, but it was far from the unplayable stuff from the night before. Pretty sure every wicket was lost playing an attacking shot. 

It was a bad decision at the time. TMS couldnt believe they didnt put England back in? Glen McGrath wantex England back in, Smith never sought the bowlers opinions, not that he has to as captain mind. Making a mistake generally means you nake a bad decision at the point it started. 

Anyway, all will be forgotten when Australia go 2 up today.

[btron3000]

There's only really 3 people's opinions that I listen to when it comes to things like tactics and declarations - Taylor, Clarke and especially Ian Chappell.

The reason why I mainly take notice of them is because a) they are former Test captains known for their tactical thinking, b) there are no real politics in their comments (maybe a tiny bit with Clarke as he has seems to like to try and prove he is not biased towards Australia, but I think his desire to show his knowledge of the game overrides that), and c) they generally explain it in a way that gives the viewer more info than we already know.

People like Warne, Healy etc just give you the cliches - put them in at night, keep them under pressure blah blah. Michael Vaughan is pretty good, but I think he likes to make himself look smarter than the captain making the decision and is overly critical because of this. I'd say he'd be 4th on the list.

Both Taylor and Clarke were saying they'd enforce the follow-on BEFORE the resistance from the tail. I didn't hear what they said later. Once England got near to 200 behind Chappell was changing his mind. That's what I was thinking too - about an hour before England got out it was an easy decision. By the time England got out it wasn't. 

The Aussie bowlers had just struggled to ge the tail out, so I don't think it was clear-cut that they'd carve up the top order with the new ball.  They were tired, and if they hadn't used the night conditions as well as they could have, it's possible England would have been on about the same score as they are now (but obviously earlier!) and we'd be looking at England only being behind by 50 with 6 wickets in hand. 

It's also possible that Smith and the Aussie brains trust are still concerned about the bowlers, all 3 of whom have had injury riddled pasts. I think Smith will probably change his tune the more he plays with Cummins, who seems to have an uncanny knack for picking up wickets even if he's been bowling all day. His stamina is ridiculous (as is pretty much all of his game).

All in all, I think it was 50-50. As was Root's decision at the toss. Both have been unfairly criticised in my opinion.

[Smoggy]

Lol the fact that it was a mistake not to enforce the follow on came out of the Australian team management last night, self admitted. Whilst the Aussie bowling numbers are down 1 they did not get through that much work in comparison to a usual test match. Under lights that night Australia would have taken 3 or 4 wickets as they did yesterday and England would have still been well behind, they would have done very well to make Australia bat again and even if they did Australia would have been chasing 50 or 60 max I think.

It is great that this has gotten under the skin a little bit and it has set the series alight which was needed. But when all is said and done it will still be 2-0 which is not great for England.

Edited December 5, 2017 by WSWBoro

[sonar]

28 minutes ago, WSWBoro said:

Lol the fact that it was a mistake not to enforce the follow on came out of the Australian team management last night, self admitted. Whilst the Aussie bowling numbers are down 1 they did not get through that much work in comparison to a usual test match. Under lights that night Australia would have taken 3 or 4 wickets as they did yesterday and England would have still been well behind, they would have done very well to make Australia bat again and even if they did Australia would have been chasing 50 or 60 max I think.

It is great that this has gotten under the skin a little bit and it has set the series alight which was needed. But when all is said and done it will still be 2-0 which is not great for England.

England bowled brilliant under lights. Could of skittled Aus for 75 or less. The Aussies have to get Root out early. If they do that they should win. But you never know.

Having played competitive cricket, if the ball is hooping around and seaming, as a batsmen you're on a hiding to nothing. Most of the time you're only guessing how far it will swing.One of my favourite innings was a 38*no  in a team total of 61-9 after we had bowled the opposition out for 60. It was like playing banana ball. Both teams were actually laughing at some of the dismissals and how far the ball was swinging.

Edited December 5, 2017 by sonar

[Smoggy]

1 minute ago, sonar said:

England bowled brilliant under lights. Could of skittled Aus for 75 or less. The Aussies have to get Root out early. If they do that they should win. But you never know.

Having played competitive cricket, if the ball is hooping around and seaming, as a batsmen you're on a hiding to nothing. Most of the time you're only guessing how far it will swing.One of my favourite innings was a 38*no  in a team toal of 61-9 after we had bowled the opposition out for 60. It was like playing banana ball. Both teams were actually laughing at some of the dismissals and how far the ball was swinging.

Mate, you are discussing with someone who played North Yorkshire league village cricket with wickets on the slopes of hills and cow and sheep shite all over the place, a bit of cow shite does get a nice shine on it though and gets some spin and swing. The number of times I have had to fish a cricket ball out of a ******* cow pat.....or stinging nettles.  

[sonar]

6 minutes ago, WSWBoro said:

Mate, you are discussing with someone who played North Yorkshire league village cricket with wickets on the slopes of hills and cow and sheep shite all over the place, a bit of cow shite does get a nice shine on it though and gets some spin and swing. The number of times I have had to fish a cricket ball out of a ******* cow pat.....or stinging nettles.  

We were playing a game at Rance Oval ,Werrington when the ball got hit over the fence into the backyard of one of the houses adjoing the ground. The old lady who owned the house came outside and took the ball inside after telling us to eff off when we asked for it back. We only got it back because a member of the opposition was a copper and he threatened to arrest her for foul language,,,,lol

[Prydzopolis]

I disagree with you all: I think it was the right decision to bat again:

- The amount of movement that the English quicks got could not have been predicted. Was it the ball? Was it the conditions? All we know is that nobody was able to exploit the conditions like the English quicks did at the end of Day 3 but you couldn’t have predicted it.

- Workload of the Australian quicks, in the modern day with the amount of cricket the players get through it is rare to see them enforce the follow on. If it was back in the day when they don’t play cricket in the winter then sure but now they’re playing all year round. Tactically if we had fresh quicks this match (two fresh quicks and two we could bring in for Perth) then sure but more & more we see less teams enforcing the follow on.

Tactically the wrong decision but ends up being best for the team for the rest of the series. Had we ended the day with root out and the English 5 down, it would look a lot different proposition.

[Smoggy]

2 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

I disagree with you all: I think it was the right decision to bat again:

- The amount of movement that the English quicks got could not have been predicted. Was it the ball? Was it the conditions? All we know is that nobody was able to exploit the conditions like the English quicks did at the end of Day 3 but you couldn’t have predicted it.

- Workload of the Australian quicks, in the modern day with the amount of cricket the players get through it is rare to see them enforce the follow on. If it was back in the day when they don’t play cricket in the winter then sure but now they’re playing all year round. Tactically if we had fresh quicks this match (two fresh quicks and two we could bring in for Perth) then sure but more & more we see less teams enforcing the follow on.

Tactically the wrong decision but ends up being best for the team for the rest of the series. Had we ended the day with root out and the English 5 down, it would look a lot different proposition.

Your wrong <end of thread> 

 

Anyway, entertaining period of cricket coming up, one wicket falls I suspect the others will tumble pretty quick and this could be done and dusted within an hour, 2 - 0 and on to Perth.

Edited December 6, 2017 by WSWBoro

[Prydzopolis]

2 minutes ago, WSWBoro said:

one wicket falls I suspect the others will tumble pretty quick and this could be done and dusted within an hour.

Root stays at the crease and it’s a different proposition. Remember the night watchman probably won’t hang around long

[Smoggy]

Told ya, Root out, 2 gone already, will be over within the hour. You guys know **** all about cricket lol 

 

If Australia had put England back in it would have cut short all this bullshyte by now.

Edited December 6, 2017 by WSWBoro

[pseudonym]

 

Root is out

[Prydzopolis]

Well that’s the worse case for England, to lose Root at the third over of the day is a big big loss. Now 6 down and 177 to get, the game swings in Australia’s favor 

[Smoggy]

2 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

Well that’s the worse case for England, to lose Root at the third over of the day is a big big loss. Now 6 down and 177 to get, the game swings in Australia’s favor 

lol game over mate.

[Prydzopolis]

1 minute ago, WSWBoro said:

Told ya, Root out, 2 gone already, will be over within the hour. You guys know **** all about cricket lol 

 Let’s be honest, 4 wickets to get and two decent batsmen still at the crease.

[Smoggy]

2 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

 Let’s be honest, 4 wickets to get and two decent batsmen still at the crease.

lol even the most hardened barmy army chunt is folding their flags up and heading down the pub in Adelaide.

[StringerBellend]

Pathetic 

[luisenrique]

Never in doubt, decision to bat vindicated! 

And as if England didn't have enough problems, the mighty Mitchell Marsh is in the squad for the next test.

I wouldn't be changing anything, Handscomb is the only player they could consider dropping for him, but at least he's making 30s, I can't see Marsh doing that. I get the value of his bowling though.

[Smoggy]

Meh........series over. England have not won in Perth since 1978 and nothing will change here.

I wasnt here in 2010 as was overseas, never known a close and competitive ashes series in Australia, always massively one sided.

When it is not the ashes i go to the SCG test each year regardless and watch Australia, but just yearning for a really competitive one someday.

Flying overseas tomorrow anyway, my interest in this series is over, going the way of just about every other ashes series i have seen here, predictable to the max.

[btron3000]

And in 78 we were ridiculously depleted by WSC.

Yeah I’m not sure why people were concerned overnight. A couple of good sessions does not a summer make.

Now the series is all but over I’m hoping it’s 5-0.