Westside
3:41 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
whats Steve Finn up to these days?
Went home injured.
|
goose
3:36 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
whats Steve Finn up to these days?
|
Sven Roeder
3:22 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Philander destroyed Australia on a Hobart greentop with the ball that Faf DuPlicity was suspended for doctoring handed him.
The crucial win was at Perth where Rabada (the 90mph plus bloke) was the difference
You need a range of bowlers but stewie is right that England’s batsmen are the problem
Too many got starts at Brisbane and got out around 40 to 50.
Obviously Cook needs to contribute as he tends to hold the innings together so the likes of Root, Ali & Bairstow can attack. Along with the absent Ginger Fugitive
|
Eerie Descent
1:42 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Anderson there's no problem with, he's bowling well, and if he was backed up by someone with real pace with the new ball that's fine. Broad has been inconsistent throughout his career, but you could accept it because he'd win you 1 test in 5. He hasn't done that for too long now, we need better to open the bowling.
You used Philander as an example, he's been number 1 bowler in the world (or close to) for years, because he's consistent, and that's why he gets away with lack of pace. Broad doesn't anymore.
|
Eerie Descent
1:35 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
"They were 76/4 And 206/7"
And? What did they end up with?
And what did they make in their 2nd innings? It's frightening to think what they would've scored had they needed to.
If Philander did so well, maybe he's much better than our vaunted pair, because as tight as they are bowling, they are not threatening enough.
|
Sniper
12:49 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
We do have a really poor tail now. I always fancied broad to pop up and bag 30 or somfeom nowhere, but he just looks terrified now since getting that blow - even boycott was saying he desperately needs some kind of counselling to help him get over it. When his bowling isn't on form he doesn't offer much now.
Without stokes as well, it means we're into a weak tail sooner which gives Ali and bairstow less leeway to play their shots right. Normally having an extra batsmen in stokes gives us one more tough wicket for the opposition to take but with ball/woakes in instead, once you get down to bairstow he has to start goon 20/20 style because you know whoever is at the other end won't last long and it s a last chance to get some runs on the board
The next test is the only one I really fancy our chances in because the attack should find the conditions more suitable - it'll certainly be the best test for Anderson. But, as others have stated, unless Australia are bowled out for a ludicrously low score, the bowlers can try as hard as they like, if the batsmen don't put the runs on the board then is all for nothing
It also looks strangely similar to last time - it may have been a whitewash but we got in good positions in more or less every innings and didn't take advantage. Swann pointed out on the Beeb the other day that everyone talks about the brilliance of Johnson but it was actually haddon that rescued them every time usually from a score around 150/5 (although Swann can do one as I'm fairly certain he must have grossly exaggerated his injury after the event of the last ashes, because if he genuinely couldn't feel his fingers at all there surely wouldn't have been any selector who would have chosen him). We offer no reistence like that so I don't expect any test to be a draw unless there's some very bizarre weather
|
Grumpster
12:29 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Hardly a wonder as well that there's a big difference between Lyon and Ali.
One is a bowler and one is a batsman who we've desperately tried to mould into something else.
Judging by the lack of runs we always get we may as well get a proper fucking spinner in there, as our need to get wickets is pretty important with the shite runs we stick on the board.
|
Grumpster
12:26 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
The only place Stokes is going is to New Zealand to play for Canterbury!
|
Northern Sold
12:24 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Ha Ha ha... or Dave `I've fenced for Cambridge' Ackfield....
|
Takashi Miike
12:08 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
best spinner the world has ever seen? he never played with peter such
|
Northern Sold
12:05 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Thing is McGrath was balanced out with 99mph Brett Lee or 95mph Jason Gillespie and the best spinner the world has ever seen... it was always pretty balanced attack that Aussie one... very rare you get 4 x 90mph merchants like the Windies had for a decade or 2
|
East Auckland Hammer
2:32 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
I agree with stewie...you could have Marshall, Holding, Hadlee and Lillee as your pace attack and it wouldn't be worth shit if you don't score any runs.
|
stewie griffin
2:26 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
They were 76/4 And 206/7. So that's plainly and obviously incorrect. The bowlers performed well in the first innings. Maybe you think we should be bowling them out for 100 on that?
This PACE obsession seems to be born out of nothing other than that bellend Johnson having one good series 4 years ago.
Vernon PHILANDER won man of the series last year in a series win in Australia and he's slower than both our opening bowlers. In 2010/11, Jimmy ANDERSON took the most wickets by an England seamer since 1948. Meanwhile, England were winning 3 tests by an innings against the PACE of Mitchell Johnson and co.
I'm pretty sure Glen McGrath did ok in Australia as well.
Last year Pakistan scored 450 on days 4&5 chasing 480 against Australia.. year before Australia had a 250 rum opening stand on day 4 against a very decent new Zealand attack... it gets flatter and flatter... wasnt that long ago we got 517/1 on it on days 4&5.
We got bowled out for 196. That's the problem. And we were 100 runs short first time as well.
To be honest I can't believe it's even up for debate. Well it isn't anywhere else other than here. It was an even game for 3 days, we lost the match on day 4. The end
|
Takashi Miike
1:06 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Plunkett should have been picked. his batting ability and wicket taking would be a great asset, instead we have Ball and a over the hill Broad :.(
|
Eerie Descent
12:48 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
No one is crying about the bowling, Stewie, but you can't go to Australia with your 2 opening bowlers bowling at 80mph. The other bowlers are getting the pelters, but the opening pair aren't doing enough damage with the shiny new nut, they are bowling tight but that's not enough with the new ball. By the time the others come on, the batters are set having faced 80mph good line but not very threatening bowling, and they go after the others who are then fodder.
Yes, our batting is also not good enough, but it's not the only thing to 'cry' about. We need more pace in our attack.
|
Ronald_antly
12:36 Tue Nov 28
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Will Mr Ben Stokes please report to Adelaide IMMEDIATELY.
|
lowermarshhammer
11:25 Mon Nov 27
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Off to see his mum and have some fush and chups.
|
East Auckland Hammer
11:12 Mon Nov 27
Re: Australia V England first test
|
"Do you have any criminal convictions Mr Stokes?"
"I didn't know I still needed them to get in"
|
Sven Roeder
11:10 Mon Nov 27
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Quick ! Alert Heathrow to detain the fleeing FUGITIVE
|
Mr. Burns
11:08 Mon Nov 27
Re: Australia V England first test
|
Stokes on his way OUT there apparently
|
stewie griffin
10:10 Mon Nov 27
Re: Australia V England first test
|
You can bowl them after a break with the opposition 7 down. WOAKES will be fine. I don't get BALL, same as WOOD - just looks completely unthreatening.
|
| 
