Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About btron3000

  • Rank
    World Cup Winner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Supported Teams

  • AL Team

Recent Profile Visitors

2,037 profile views
  1. Terrible bowling with the new ball. England on top now. Credit to Bairstow. He's never done anything of note against Australia, and to be blunt his Test career is pretty **** except for a one/one and a half year period a few years ago, but he has shifted momentum here. The Aussie quicks went away from line and length and it cost them. Pattinson was way too pumped up, he was bolwing 4-5 mph quicker and loses his accuracy. They need to turn it around and soon.
  2. Exactly. It's amazing how far they'll go to stop a few 20-something males from celebrating too much. Surely their resources can be better used somewhere else.
  3. ^^ I also really enjoyed them being knocked over for 67! Hahaha
  4. Me too actually. Part of me wanted England to win this - a small part, granted! - so the the series was really set up for a grand finale. But ultimately England have not been good enough. And are not good enough. Test cricket stats don’t lie - they have too many batsman averaging in the 30s.
  5. Told you. Root batted for twice as long this innings as his last.
  6. Roy is so predictable. As soon as he hit that four and then the drive that Hazlewood stopped, you just knew that he would go after one he shouldn't. With the sun out it looks like it's gonna be an easier batting day. If they survive the new ball, could be a long day for Australia.
  7. Australia lucky early - quite a few plays and misses by Warner in particular - but unlucky late. Cummins didn't hit his, Paine's lb was marginal, and Labuschagne would not have got out the way he did if he was batting in bright sunlight. Hopefully the predicted cloud cover stays around for England's innings today. If it does, it's going to be interesting to see how well Australia bowl on it and how good or bad a total of 179 is. I think Ussie and Wade are battling for one spot in the second innings, and Australia's batting lineup is going to start to look good when Smith and LBS are in the middle order together, especially if Warner's innings wasn't a one-off.
  8. Agree about Roy, but where can you put him in the order? If he's gonna succeed in Tests, he's gonna do it at 6. But Buttler and Stokes are in the right spots. You don't want to screw with that. So the only option really is 4. Not sure about that, but swapping him and Denly is the simplest option (unless they bring in another opener of course!). I think that the Aussies love having Root come in at 3. Get someone early and you're into him. And he clearly prefers 4. But it does start getting complicated to sort that out. Could bring in a 3 and move him down, and possibly move Denly to opener. Could just swap him and Denly, but having Denly bat at 3 is what they were trying to avoid in the first place. Actually, thinking about this potential batting order, there is an argument for bringing in Pattinson for Siddle. That would mean that Cummins could move to first change, and potentially be coming in to bowl to numbers 3 and 4 (hopefully 5!). Having Cummins come in after initial inroads are made gives Australia a much better chance of getting through the middle order cheaply. Man this (English) summer of cricket has been soooo good. Can't wait for Thursday.
  9. It's clearly not finished because they are essentially reviewing what went wrong, but they are saying it's not a review of the sacking. LOL that is exactly what it is a review of. What is the point of announcing a review of processes and explicitly saying it is not a review of the sacking? Who cares about internal processes? What are they gonna say at the end of it - "we found a few process improvements"? Wow. Then what? People will ask "was that what led to Stajcic being sacked?" and they'll say that they didn't review the sacking just the processes. So just do it, no-one wants to hear about a process review where they've already basically told us that they won't tell us anything of note. Or if you want to communcate it, say you are doing it but don't say anything expicitly about the sacking. Just say you are reviewing processes and if there is anything of note to come from that, you will communicate it. That way, a) you're not bullshitting the public that this isn't about the sacking, and b) if something of note comes out about the sacking, and you think you can communiate that in a reasonable way to the public, you can - you haven't closed yourself off to talking about the sacking. By saying "it's not about the sacking" when IT CLEARLY IS, they just look again like they are dodging stuff.
  10. Not sure where we are gonna get enugh runs. Somebody - probably two people - have to stand up. Gonna have to bowl well so be interesting to see who gets picked. Pattinson will come back, Cummins will be there, and then you have to decide between Siddle and Hazlewood to miss out. Siddle has been so consistent and so unlucky, but Hazlewood got us off to the good start. However, Hazlewood did nothing in the second innings and he's been a bit like that his whole career - real good and then not much. I think they can get from Pattinson what they get from him. England really only have to work out the top order. They've sorted 5 - 11. Does Roy keep his spot? Does Root move back down to 4?
  11. Good point, except people wanted a review into the Stajcic sacking, not a review that says they are looking into processes but specifically NOT the Stajcic sacking. I mean, talk about a toothless tiger. What are they going to do if it is established that Stajcic sacking was because the senior management hid issues, or the Board didn't have the appropriate processes in place to be certain that a big decision like this is made for the right reasons? Sack them? Step down? I mean, didn't Staj already get a payout which assumedly contains a clause that he can't get more cash from them? So who are they protecting by not looking into it?
  12. Smith out of third Test. Well, there is one positive from this. Labuschagne clearly put his hand up but most people were struggling to work out how bringing him in to the team might work. Do they drop an opener and push Khawaja up? Or drop Khawaja? They'd probably have preferred to drop Wade but he got that hundred. And is one innings from Marnus enough to make any of those decisions? Now, it's simple and they have just one question to answer around the batting lineup - does Bancroft go for Harris? I think yes, but I reckon they'll give him one more chance. The positive is that everyone is playing for their spot, except probably Head, he's been consistent enough, and by the fourth Test we'll know who put their hand up and should have the best 6 playing.
  13. Are they serious? How many external reviews do they need to do in order to have policies and processes that could be set up by a senior staff member? Have they ever had a Chief Operating Officer? If they had hired one competent ******* person over the last 5 years they would have all this **** in place. Instead they spent their time fighting everyone in football and paying lawyers.
  14. I hope all your Kopite calling is a joke. Because you call the smurfs the Kopites when they claim to be the Man U of Australia. Doesn't quite work, does it.
  • Create New...