too early for an ashes thread??

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:50 pm

Batman wrote:They'd rather piss around with bloody Ballroom dancing than the national sport.

Why blame something that takes 90 minutes on a Saturday evening, and gives pleasure to millions, for none of the terrestial channels showing sport, when it gets massive coverage on them? Lots of thing you like that I might not. Why keep taking swipes at something just because you personally don't like it?

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:07 am

communistworkethic wrote:Yes great batting, loads of runs but do we have the attack to actually take all 10 aussies wickets twice over? I'm concerned Freddy is our only real strike bowler.

hmmm oh look what happens when you don't put an attacking bowling line up in.

FaninOz · Post by **FaninOz** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:29 am

The Aussies should have declared at 400 and then seen what the Brits did! It may have got a result in the game, as it is bound to be a draw unless England collapses in the morning. Well anything is possible with our lot batting.

keveh · Post by **keveh** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:37 am

This match is heading for a draw all the way, from such a promising position as well.

The Aussies did well to comeback from that.

We need Monty in to mix up the bowling a bit.

David Lee's Hair · Post by **David Lee's Hair** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:47 am

Good batting wicket though Kev, and you just cannot drop Ponting - so much for picking giles ahead of Panesar for his batting and fielding!!

I'm just happy we've managed to compete after the trouncing lasst week.

We need to pick monty though as with Freddie being a worry with his ankle, Harmison out of sorts I just cannot see us taking the wickets. Monty can, he maybe expensive with the aussies going after him, but he'll get wickets.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:55 am

David Lee's Hair wrote:Good batting wicket though Kev.

Have you seen how much spin there is in it??

Negative tactics from the managment again in leaving Monty out.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:57 am

Warne was spinning the ball MILES last night.

David Lee's Hair · Post by **David Lee's Hair** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:06 pm

I agree commie its negative leaving Monty out. For me he should be playing, wickets win matches.

It was still a good batting wicket early in the match, but warne will be able to spin no matter what wicket he plays on. He was first innings too, although not as much as yesterday, but its going to spin when you've got the rough to aim for on any wicket.

Its a good wicket if England score well, as IMO the batting has been the weakest link in the team for a while now - even in the last Ashes. Ok there were a few big scores, but rarely more than one per innings, what won the ashes was the wicket taking and form of Freddie, Harmy, Hoggard and Jones.

With the lack of form and injury worries, andf more importantly Fletchers refusal top play monty as he doesn't fiit the criteria of having ability in two of the three aspects I don't feel we have a bowling attack that can bowl a team out - not one as good as Australia at home anyway

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:44 pm

Batman wrote:Warne was spinning the ball MILES last night.

I wish we had played Monty too - but I doubt he would have won the game for us. True enough the ball is spinning - but not with the pace needed to make a massive threat...

maybe I'll have to eat my words tomorrow - but I'll be surprised if Warne runs through our top order very easily on this pitch...

Dujon · Post by **Dujon** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:26 pm

Yesterday I was having a bit of a shot at the England batsmen for being slow in run gathering. Today it's Australia's turn. Their innings proved even slower. Maybe we should revert to the old system (and I do mean old) where tests are open ended and the teams battle on until such time as a result is achieved. I jest, of course.

Again Flintoff bowled little (4 overs I think) and there are rumours that he's injured in some manner or other, though I've seen nothing concrete on the subject to date. Gilchrist was allowed to get away again and Clarke of course made a great come back from his woes of yesteryear. I guess you could say that those two batsmen (ignoring Ponting's contribution) saved the match for Australia.

The tactics from here on in are simple. England play out the game for a draw (assuming they don't lose wickets willy-nilly) or they pile on a few runs and tease Australia with an outside chance of taking the game by declaring their innings. Should Flintoff go for that path and give Australia a reasonable sniff of victory it would be akin to Damocles' sword. Lose and you're down 2-0 in the series, win and you're back on level terms, draw and you're still down 1-0. Decisions, decisions. I think I'd be happy with a draw and look to the next three tests to redress the Brisbane loss. Then again, the spoils go to the brave . . . perhaps.

keveh · Post by **keveh** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:23 am

well done england

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:24 am

We're conspiring to throw it away here - good running there, Bell...

FaninOz · Post by **FaninOz** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:21 am

5 for 80

Only England could throw a game away with such inept batting and running between the wickets, although Strouse never touched the ball for which he was give out caught. Australia always call for everything and often get wickets in this way, bad sportsmanship in my view putting too much pressure on umpires. A win at any costs approach that just isn't cricket.

Dujon · Post by **Dujon** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:56 am

Just popped in to find out the score (I do work sometimes you know) and it's 7-100.

Talk about snatch defeat from the jaws of victory . . . In the words of the venerable Victor Meldrew: I can't belieeeeeve it.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:40 am

fantastic display by the boys, 129 all out and I've just witnessed us concede a 7. A fecking 7.

Who said a draw? Underestimating England's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of parity.
Who said it was a nothing pitch? Warne 4-49.

FaninOz · Post by **FaninOz** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:51 am

communistworkethic wrote: Who said it was a nothing pitch? Warne 4-49.

England batsmen are frightened of him, so when it counts they just capitulate.

That 7 was down right stupid, Flintoff should give Pieterson a roasting for that throw. Totally unbelievable and unnecessary.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:02 am

11 runs required from 6 overs

edit: game over with 3.2 overs remaining.Bollocks.

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:26 am

thebish wrote:
Batman wrote:Warne was spinning the ball MILES last night.
I wish we had played Monty too - but I doubt he would have won the game for us. True enough the ball is spinning - but not with the pace needed to make a massive threat...

maybe I'll have to eat my words tomorrow - but I'll be surprised if Warne runs through our top order very easily on this pitch...

Arse!!!!!

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:20 pm

Woeful collapse. Where's the fighting spirit gone? 2-0 down after two. Those ashes are going to urn a season in Oz unless a miracle happens.

Enzo Gambaro · Post by **Enzo Gambaro** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:51 pm

To quote 10CC...

"I don't like cricket"

FULL STOP

Connect with your social network account

too early for an ashes thread??

Who is online