1st Test: England v Australia

[angryangy]

Good dive for the fifty.

 

[King Pietersen]

Question for the English fans, do you think Monty is worth another game? In my brief exposure to both of them, they seem fairly defensive in their line and flight, and not likely to be consistent wicket-taking threats.

Definitely not. He shouldn't have played in this game, I've said that since the outset. He's had a rubbish season, where he didn't get any wickets on this same ground against a poor side. He picked up the tail against Warwickshire in the warm-up and that seems to have secured his place for this game. Rubbish selection, and a rubbish bowler. Send him back to County Cricket.

 

[Cricketdude]

Australia have won every session in this test match.

 

[angryangy]

I read on another forum that England are supposedly wasting time to reduce the damage. After watching nearly an hour of play, this is noticeable. Pretty unethical if you ask me.

I guess that's a plausible theory; 27 overs for the session is not a good rate when it includes 10 overs of spin.

 

[spaga1994]

no we havent we lost the second session day 1 and the first session day 2

 

[Skater]

Australia have won every session in this test match.

No way. The morning sessions on days 2 and 3 were England's.

 

[angryangy]

Australia have won every session in this test match.

There's at least one that they clearly didn't, if not two or three that were questionable.

 

[Cricketdude]

Day 3 session 1 was even

 

[King Cricket]

It's lunch. And North scores another ton. He deserved it. Well played! Will England ever get a wicket? Come on, English bowlers!! Atleast try!

 

[Skater]

Day 3 session 1 was even

No way, we removed both centurions and Hussey. That was England's.

 

[bowser]

I'm sorry but that's crap. England are the only country in the world who consistently produce home pitches that suit the opposition and not them. The only people this pitch suits are the ones running Glamorgan Cricket Club.

But that's because you do have trouble beating time with a stick. You would never play on this pitch against against Australia with Warne or Sri Lanka with Murali or India with Harbie.

This ground is new, it is untried at test level and yet you play the first game of what has been the jewel of test cricket there, why? For money but mainly because England had, what has proved to be, the mistaken belief that you could spin Australia out with Swan and Monty on a track that had the reputation of spinning like a top!

 

[Cricketdude]

No way, we removed both centurions and Hussey. That was England's.

I meant day 2 sorry.

 

[barmyarmy]

But that's because you do have trouble beating time with a stick. You would never play on this pitch against against Australia with Warne or Sri Lanka with Murali or India with Harbie.

I remember various wickets where we've prepared strips that suited Murali and Warne when we had rubbish spinners ourselves. It's always been a gripe of mine.

This ground is new, it is untried at test level and yet you play the first game of what has been the jewel of test cricket there, why? For money but mainly because England had, what has proved to be, the mistaken belief that you could spin Australia out with Swan and Monty.

You're right about money but wrong about spin. Most England fans were totally aghast at the fact Cardiff was given the first game not Lords and, with the way Monty has played in recent series, bowling Aus out with two spinners was never really a serious option. Cardiff paid lots of money, Cardiff usually turns, ergo play two spinners. This wicket however is designed to recoup lots of money by offering no assistance to seamers or spinners and lasting 5 days.

 

[Skater]

I meant day 2 sorry.

Still England's, 99 runs scored by the last 3 wickets.

 

[Cricketdude]

Australia got to bat in that session didn't they?