1st Test: England v Australia

[Gilly Fan]

The spinners are terrible. Hauritz is better than them. Maybe not Panesar but definitely Swann.

 

[irottev]

Swann is having an off game I feel. He's a better bowler than Hauritz and Panesar. The problem with Panesar is that he lacks variation. If the pitch isn't spinning and bouncing he's got nothing. This game's given him a little of both at times and his bowling's still been very average - though it is top opposition.

Swann and Hauritz seem better in different conditions. I personally think Hauritz is average, though he's the best Aus has atm.

 

[Howsie]

Eughh, this game is pretty much over. It's ment to rain today which pretty much stops England having any chance of pulling of an upset. Australia only has a small lead so they would have to score pretty fast to get anything out of this game.

 

[sifter132]

Missed the days play so I got a few questions:

I saw Anderson swung the ball when he got Katich out, did the ball swing anymore apart from that?

From the highlights it looked as if Clarke punished the spinners, did they actually bowl any good though?

And how is the pitch holding up?

I'll miss tonight's play as well.

Anderson couldn't get much after his first spell - pretty straight. When compared with Hilfy it was poor. Hilfy was getting at least some shape ALL the time during the England innings. In this match, the only advantage Anderson has had is that he's got an inswinger, but that only works well for the first 10-20 overs.

Clarke used good footwork against the spinners as usual and Monty/Swann struggled with their length a bit. That is great for Clarke since his forward press and jump back routine is great to exploit bad length. Swann might be OK if he gets it right. Monty seemed more dangerous actually, but he did have a nice rough patch outside the lefties off stump. But both of them seemed to bowl a bad ball every over. Clarke wasn't quite as efficient as Ponting as punishing those errors, but his good foot movement made for more bad balls.

If Swann/Monty ever get it right for long periods, it's going to be hard going. And when Hauritz bowls I'd like to see more guys in from the boundary, he bowled pretty accurately in the first innings, but there were so many gaps he was milked pretty easily. Ponting should be more aggressive in the second innings.

And the pitch seems to be holding up OK. A few balls went through the surface and moved a LOT, but it is nowhere near the minefield that the 'experts' thought it might be by this time.


Hopefully it doesn't rain, Aussies get a lead of 150+ and then throw the Poms back in.

 

[mattfb]

Thanks man. Good to see Clarke in some good form. When I saw the delivery Jimmy got Katich out with I thought it might have started swinging a lot but obviously he couldn't get that to happen.

 

[aditya123]

There's somehting about Michael Clarke that annoys me and i'm just not sure what.

Actually there is a lot about him and even Iam not sure what.

 

[spaga1994]

There's somehting about Michael Clarke that annoys me and i'm just not sure what.

His confidence? :P

 

[angryangy]

Take your pick of Old Trafford or Trent Bridge, but I think the biggest regret in this series will be the track at Headingley, if recent Test history is reliable.

 

[Owzat]

The difference between these two sides is that once an Aussie is in he cashes in. All of our batsmen got in and then threw it away.

There is absolutely nothing in this pitch but I guarantee that our batsmen will make it look like an absolute minefield when it's our turn to bat again. Shoddy, shoddy England.

Precisely. And yet some defended Pietersen as top scorer, fair enough if he gets to 100+ and throws his wicket away, but 69 is at best a supporting batsman score.

I know Cook made slight amends with a couple of hundreds against West Indies recently, but that doesn't make much difference in my book to his problem because they were either on a flat track or at home against a side we beat easily. He still has a horrible tendancy to get out even when he reaches 50. He's scored nine hundreds, but four of those against the West Indies so just five hundreds in 60 innings against everyone else (1 in 12)

Since his hundred in Galle, he has scored two hundreds against West Indies. He's scored 1361 runs at an average of 43.90, that seems good on face value, but his breakdown of scores tells a different story

00-09 : 7
10-19 : 7
20-29 : 2
30-39 : 4
40-49 : 1
50-67 : 9
68+ : 4 (includes 2x 100 and 1x 94 vs West Indies)

So in his last 34 innings he has reached 50 but failed to reach 70 on NINE occaisions. He has four scores over 67, three against West Indies (160, 139no and 94) and one against South Africa of 76. He really needs to make more of starts, and not just against rubbish bowling to maintain a good average. I think even Vaughan himself said England have a problem scoring 100s, I don't think that has changed much. Problem is we play sides like West Indies and New Zealand too often and it glosses over problems in the batting, bowling and with our sides shortcomings ie losing to the better sides.

Owzat added 2 Minutes and 7 Seconds later...

If Jerome Taylor can beat England in 1 session then Oz can probably do it in 2 or 3 overs.

I'm afraid we're not due another pathetic collapse for another 12 months, we had one in 06/07 vs Sri Lanka and then again earlier this year against West Indies.

 

[Sureshot]

Boycs was spot on about the pitch. He said all this talk about a spinning wicket was nonsense, as soon as they had sold out the first 4 days the groundsman were going to make sure it lasted all 5 days

There is a way of finding a medium between a disaster of a 3-day finish and a final day finish. Fact is, the biggest factor is likely to be the weather, we'll be lucky to get an hours play.

Having worked for a cricket club (max attendance is about 40% of Cardiff's) I don't blame them for wanting to generate as much money as possible, you can't blame a business for wanting to make money. Should that be at the expense of a result? Well, we could have got 550-600 if we'd batted properly and not thrown wickets away, and we were completely flat on Thursday in the field.

I think this could be a result pitch if we'd applied ourselves better with the bat and in the field.

A 3-day finish could result in a loss of about ?300,000+ revenue. I don't know how that splits up between ECB/Glamorgan, but I know that would be 7-8% of turnover for the most successful CCC.

 

[King Cricket]

Here's what Scyld Berry had to say:

After just two days’ play at the newest ground in Test cricket, the England and Wales Cricket Board must be wondering what they have let themselves in for.

Four-day Tests are a solution to the game’s ills which has just been floated by the International Cricket Council. A four-day Test match? That would help England escape from Cardiff with a draw, but it is not a good idea for Test cricket as a whole.

We need to quicken up pitches not shorten the matches. Unless England bat horribly in their second innings, the only winner of this opening Ashes Test will be the pitch.

A draw, one has to accept, is an integral part of Test. But lifeless pitches should not be accepted. Edges have to carry to slip; more than 11 wickets should fall in the first two days to keep everyone interested. Draws, yes. Stalemates, no.

I agree totally.

 

[King Pietersen]

Australia going to get to 400 you reckon King Cricket? Could do with some more wisdom!

 

[Simbazz]

How hard is it, spinner at one end! I like Strauss, I think he's a decent captain, but for the love of God! Get Broad off, and Swanny on.

 

[Howsie]

How bad is this lol. Sky Tv in NZ is showing the USA under 19 vs Croatia Under 19 basketball game instead of the ashes. WTF?

 

[angryangy]

lol at Neighbours' theme.