Title: 2nd Test
sir matchstickmen - December 1, 2006 09:13 AM (GMT)
Cracking first day for England, Collingwood and Pietersen coming to the fore again! :D
England 266-3
We need to push to 500 tomorrow to get the Aussies under pressure for the first time! :D
ElHuegi - December 2, 2006 11:44 AM (GMT)
Excellent! England take it to 551 - 6!
Score card here sir matchstickmen - December 2, 2006 12:46 PM (GMT)
And they got langer out!!
28-1 Australia at the close!
petalp - December 3, 2006 12:01 AM (GMT)
Just watched the highlights (after following most of the first session on the radio last night and then studiously ignoring the scores all day!)
Terrific performance by Colly and KP! The first time that England have racked up 500+ runs in an innings against Australia for 50-odd tests (20 years or so?).
And Fred gettign Langer out was a bonus.. great stuff..
Have to say that I envy the people at the match. I was at the Adelaide test match in 2002.. lovely ground.. watching the highlights brought back some nice memories.. :)
Now do I stay up late to follow some of day 3? :whistle:
ElHuegi - December 3, 2006 04:48 PM (GMT)
Australia 312 for 5 at the close
sir matchstickmen - December 3, 2006 07:06 PM (GMT)
England can still win this, but they need early wickets this morning.
If they can knock Australia over for around 400 i'll be happy - England can then have a furious blast with the bat and we might have a whole day to try and Bowl the Aussies out on a deteriorating pitch! :)
sir matchstickmen - December 4, 2006 08:41 AM (GMT)
well Englands chances of winning the test have gone this morning I feel - Australia all out for 513 despite a great haul of 7 wickets for Hoggard.
England 59/1 in response - in truth this looks like it was a test match that England couldn't possibly win because of the hopeless wicket
ark_28 - December 4, 2006 06:35 PM (GMT)
Great knock by Clarkey has pretty much ensured this game should be a draw, although If Warne gets on a roll up front tommorow then an Australian victory isnt totally out of the equation
sir matchstickmen - December 4, 2006 07:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ark_28 @ Dec 4 2006, 06:35 PM) |
| Great knock by Clarkey has pretty much ensured this game should be a draw, although If Warne gets on a roll up front tommorow then an Australian victory isnt totally out of the equation |
it's a draw - The Aussies would realistically have to get 9 England wickets in the first session, because the pitch is too slow to get quick runs.
The English aren't scared of warne any more - Pietersen has shown them how to play him
ark_28 - December 4, 2006 10:47 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (sir matchstickmen @ Dec 4 2006, 07:45 PM) |
| QUOTE (ark_28 @ Dec 4 2006, 06:35 PM) | | Great knock by Clarkey has pretty much ensured this game should be a draw, although If Warne gets on a roll up front tommorow then an Australian victory isnt totally out of the equation |
it's a draw - The Aussies would realistically have to get 9 England wickets in the first session, because the pitch is too slow to get quick runs.
The English aren't scared of warne any more - Pietersen has shown them how to play him
|
Maybe, but Wanrey when there is some help is still not something that England have shown they can handle and there were real signs of him getting dramatic turn last night odds are on a draw but England need to bat well first couple of hours to ensure that.
Andy1073 - December 5, 2006 01:33 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ark_28 @ Dec 4 2006, 10:47 PM) |
| QUOTE (sir matchstickmen @ Dec 4 2006, 07:45 PM) | | QUOTE (ark_28 @ Dec 4 2006, 06:35 PM) | | Great knock by Clarkey has pretty much ensured this game should be a draw, although If Warne gets on a roll up front tommorow then an Australian victory isnt totally out of the equation |
it's a draw - The Aussies would realistically have to get 9 England wickets in the first session, because the pitch is too slow to get quick runs.
The English aren't scared of warne any more - Pietersen has shown them how to play him
|
Maybe, but Wanrey when there is some help is still not something that England have shown they can handle and there were real signs of him getting dramatic turn last night odds are on a draw but England need to bat well first couple of hours to ensure that.
|
England 73-3 after 14 overs.
Fairly soporific stuff so far - only 14 runs added so far in an hours play. Strauss wrongly given out to Warne, and Bell stupidly run out (again by Warne)
But as I write, Warne has just bowled Pietersen for 2 and suddenly it's 73-4 and things starting to look ever so slightly dodgy for England...
Andy1073 - December 5, 2006 02:02 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Andy1073 @ Dec 5 2006, 01:33 AM) |
| QUOTE (ark_28 @ Dec 4 2006, 10:47 PM) | | QUOTE (sir matchstickmen @ Dec 4 2006, 07:45 PM) | | QUOTE (ark_28 @ Dec 4 2006, 06:35 PM) | | Great knock by Clarkey has pretty much ensured this game should be a draw, although If Warne gets on a roll up front tommorow then an Australian victory isnt totally out of the equation |
it's a draw - The Aussies would realistically have to get 9 England wickets in the first session, because the pitch is too slow to get quick runs.
The English aren't scared of warne any more - Pietersen has shown them how to play him
|
Maybe, but Wanrey when there is some help is still not something that England have shown they can handle and there were real signs of him getting dramatic turn last night odds are on a draw but England need to bat well first couple of hours to ensure that.
|
England 73-3 after 14 overs.
Fairly soporific stuff so far - only 14 runs added so far in an hours play. Strauss wrongly given out to Warne, and Bell stupidly run out (again by Warne)
But as I write, Warne has just bowled Pietersen for 2 and suddenly it's 73-4 and things starting to look ever so slightly dodgy for England...
|
Update - Flintoff out to Brett Lee for 2 and it's 77-5
Andy1073 - December 5, 2006 08:45 AM (GMT)
England bowled out for a shambolic 129 in the second innings.
Australia made 168-4 to win the match and go 2-0 up in the series.
sir matchstickmen - December 5, 2006 09:18 AM (GMT)
men against boys :(
the difference between the teams is that England can be bowled out for a low score while it never happens to australia
ark_28 - December 5, 2006 11:03 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (sir matchstickmen @ Dec 5 2006, 09:18 AM) |
men against boys :(
the difference between the teams is that England can be bowled out for a low score while it never happens to australia |
Give me some credit ;) I did call this last night and say I felt with Warney it was a distinct possiblity, that said the draw was the favourite today so thats a bad result for England
Ace - December 5, 2006 10:54 PM (GMT)
Well that was a rather patehtic performance by England...The nation who founded the sport ..lol.
I knew people who were hyping up them to do well this time and how they were gonna compete were wrong.
Nice knock by Collingwood in the first innings.
The collapse reminds me of when i was watching the windies against south africa and they had like 2 runs to make in the last over....and the bowler took a hatrick.
sir matchstickmen - December 6, 2006 02:24 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ark_28 @ Dec 5 2006, 11:03 AM) |
| QUOTE (sir matchstickmen @ Dec 5 2006, 09:18 AM) | men against boys :(
the difference between the teams is that England can be bowled out for a low score while it never happens to australia |
Give me some credit ;) I did call this last night and say I felt with Warney it was a distinct possiblity, that said the draw was the favourite today so thats a bad result for England
|
I knew of the possibility, but England had batted so well in the first innings it wasn't really on, except for the fact that they were so ridiculously negative in their approach that they were asking for Australia to beat them.
They scored 30 runs in the whole morning session - way too negative
petalp - December 9, 2006 10:16 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 5 2006, 10:54 PM) |
Well that was a rather patehtic performance by England...The nation who founded the sport ..lol.
I knew people who were hyping up them to do well this time and how they were gonna compete were wrong.
Nice knock by Collingwood in the first innings.
The collapse reminds me of when i was watching the windies against south africa and they had like 2 runs to make in the last over....and the bowler took a hatrick. |
Firstly, what does the fact that England founded the sport have anything to do with this??
That was a long time ago.
Secondly re: pathetic performance.
Test matches last over 5 days. England had one really bad session and it cost them the match. A poor performance for one part of 5 days does not a "pathetic performance" make over 5 days.
And re: hype. Everything with even the vaguest possiblity of being a big event will be hyped by the media. Or have you not followed any semi-major sporting event? Such hyping happens in all countries. Go online and check other papers and you will see what I mean.
No point in comparing the WIndies to England. WIndies are the poorest of the major side sin the world at maintaining any semblance of discipline over a 5 day match,
In order to compete with Australia, England needed their best team, as well as a bit of luck. No Trescothick, no Vaughan (captaincy missed more than anything), no Simon Jones. All of that didn't help. Have been lucky to have Collingwood in form, and Hoggard bowling well.
Also, Australia are stronger than last year. Hussey has made a big difference. Clark too.
I hope that the other tests in this series are as competitive as 5 of the last 7 tests between these sides have been.
Nick Cica - December 9, 2006 10:19 AM (GMT)
The voice of reason! Thanks Petalp
petalp - December 9, 2006 10:53 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Nick Cica @ Dec 9 2006, 10:19 AM) |
| The voice of reason! Thanks Petalp |
Thanks Nick!! :ok:
There is also another thing that springs to mind.
England scoring 500 plus in a first innings.
Australia scoring more or less the same in their innings.
England get skittled out cheaply, when a draw was on the cards.
Australia secure an improbably victory.
It happens to England and never Australia? Oh really? :whistle:
Ok, here's another scenario.
Australia score 556 in their first innings.
Opposition score 523 in their first innings.
A draw beckons. Oh, but hold on..
Australia skittled out for 196!!! Woeful!!
Opposition score 233 to win by 4 wickets
When did it happen? 2003, i.e. this current Australia side.
Where did it happen? Oh.. at the Adelaide Oval!
The opposition in question was India.. And when Australia "collapsed" for 196 they did so in just 56 overs, giving India over a day to score the winning runs on a pitch that was stil playing well. And Ajit Agarkar (India's equivalent of James Anderson, an ok-ish bowler but very hittable) got 6 for 41. Many very loose shots from the Austrlian batsmen to get out..
Ponting scored a double hundred in the first innings and still lost.
Full details here:
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04...-16DEC2003.htmlSo, never happens to Australia, right? Some so-called "fans" are just as bad as the media at their "heroes to zeros and back again" rubbish..
sir matchstickmen - December 13, 2006 10:10 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (petalp @ Dec 9 2006, 10:53 AM) |
| QUOTE (Nick Cica @ Dec 9 2006, 10:19 AM) | | The voice of reason! Thanks Petalp |
Thanks Nick!! :ok: There is also another thing that springs to mind. England scoring 500 plus in a first innings. Australia scoring more or less the same in their innings. England get skittled out cheaply, when a draw was on the cards. Australia secure an improbably victory. It happens to England and never Australia? Oh really? :whistle: Ok, here's another scenario. Australia score 556 in their first innings. Opposition score 523 in their first innings. A draw beckons. Oh, but hold on.. Australia skittled out for 196!!! Woeful!! Opposition score 233 to win by 4 wickets When did it happen? 2003, i.e. this current Australia side. Where did it happen? Oh.. at the Adelaide Oval! The opposition in question was India.. And when Australia "collapsed" for 196 they did so in just 56 overs, giving India over a day to score the winning runs on a pitch that was stil playing well. And Ajit Agarkar (India's equivalent of James Anderson, an ok-ish bowler but very hittable) got 6 for 41. Many very loose shots from the Austrlian batsmen to get out.. Ponting scored a double hundred in the first innings and still lost. Full details here: http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04...-16DEC2003.htmlSo, never happens to Australia, right? Some so-called "fans" are just as bad as the media at their "heroes to zeros and back again" rubbish.. |
petalp, that's one counter-example - I remember that series, India were fantastic, really rose to the occassion and were unlucky not to win the series.
England look like they could be bowled out for less than 200 far more often than the solid Aussies, especially with Ponting in such fantastic form
petalp - December 13, 2006 10:16 PM (GMT)
Well, a counter example is exactly what it is Sam..
And regardless of how well india played, and whether you remember it or not, it still happened, right?
And it could happen again, and probably will in the not too distant future. Cricket can be a great leveller like that.
And what does Ponting's form have to do with england being bowled out for under 200? He's a batsman.
Why not back your side rather than getting on their backs? i recall you being particularly bullish when they were doing well after the first day or so of the last test, and now you're getting on their case.
sir matchstickmen - December 13, 2006 10:21 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (petalp @ Dec 13 2006, 10:16 PM) |
Well, a counter example is exactly what it is Sam..
And regardless of how well india played, and whether you remember it or not, it still happened, right?
And it could happen again, and probably will in the not too distant future. Cricket can be a great leveller like that.
And what does Ponting's form have to do with england being bowled out for under 200? He's a batsman.
Why not back your side rather than getting on their backs? i recall you being particularly bullish when they were doing well after the first day or so of the last test, and now you're getting on their case. |
I'm not getting on their case, but let's be honest, the attitude went horribly wrong on the 5th day didn't it?
you have to be constantly positive in this sort of series - England were for 4 days then went negative when there was just a draw to play for!
What my point is is that This current Australia batting lineup looks impossible to get out for less than 200-250 - you can't say the same of England, and even in the 05 Ashes England had some shocking innings scores (though fortunately the Aussies never managed to get any huge totals)
I want England to win as much as the next man, just as i a fiercely patriotic in supporting Leicester City and Leicester Tigers - but you have to be a realist at times too, painful as it is :)
petalp - December 13, 2006 10:31 PM (GMT)
Well, the difference this time is that imo they are actually prepared for a test match!!
In the warmup match, Cook managed to get some runs, as did Strauss, which is great.
Some of the bowlers got wickets too, incl Monty (I'm hoping he'll play).
Also, they were negative for just a short period in the last test match and it cost them. They are a youngish side and they will learn.
I don't know if they can bowl Oz out for under 300.. but I'd back them if the bowlers can gel as a unit and do good work in pairs.
Anyway, the 2nd test is done and dusted.. I'll make future postings on the 3rd test thread.
sir matchstickmen - December 13, 2006 10:33 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (petalp @ Dec 13 2006, 10:31 PM) |
Well, the difference this time is that imo they are actually prepared for a test match!!
In the warmup match, Cook managed to get some runs, as did Strauss, which is great.
Some of the bowlers got wickets too, incl Monty (I'm hoping he'll play).
Also, they were negative for just a short period in the last test match and it cost them. They are a youngish side and they will learn.
I don't know if they can bowl Oz out for under 300.. but I'd back them if the bowlers can gel as a unit and do good work in pairs.
Anyway, the 2nd test is done and dusted.. I'll make future postings on the 3rd test thread. |
We need to get the Aussies on the back foot properly somehow - i just hope we haven't missed the boat in the early stages of the 2nd test, where, in hindsight, Panear should have played, either instead of giles OR expensive Anderson