Australia in England

[m_vaughan]

Will someone tell the Aussies that the Ashes has started. Disappointing stuff from the World Champions.

Or...maybe...England are just awesome!!

 

[JamesyJames3]

The latter of those two vaughny!

 

[jonah]

Poor, perhaps arrogant batting from Australia. Langer, Ponting and Martyn practically threw their wickets away.

. The way I saw it, Langer went to a fantastic catch from Bell at short leg, Ponting got one that bounced higher on him than expected off Jones, And Martyn was undone by a gem of a ball from Gilo; if it was bowled by Warne you'd be saying it was a fantastic piece of bowling.
Who else? Hayden possibly unlucky to be given out, Katich totally outfoxed by Flintoff (the previous 3 balls from Freddie to Katich prior to the drinks break reverse swung away from Katich; he obviously thought the ball that got him was going to do the same but Freddie swung it the other way to catch off stump), and Gilchrist edged a fullish ball from Jones classically bowled across the left hander. The only one who threw his wicket away was Clarke, bad back or no bad back.
The way I see it, it was more a case of good bowling and fielding from England rather than poor Oz batting. It obviously galls some of you Aussies so much that England are on top that you just can't bring yourselves to give credit where it's due.

That reminds me, where's Jarryd? Gone very quiet of late. The fair weather supporter will no doubt be back when (if) Aus get back on top : .

 

[m_vaughan]

That reminds me, where's Jarryd? Gone very quiet of late. The fair weather supporter will no doubt be back when (if) Aus get back on top : .

In that case he will never come back mate!

 

[LancashireTom]

Yes cant wait for tmmorow, second row next to the barmy army. Cmon England

 

[JamesyJames3]

Dam im in the 10th! look out for me, ill be dressed as fred flintstone!

 

[m_vaughan]

I wish I went to England this year. Have never been to an Ashes game.
I went last year and saw two of the champions trophy games including the big win over the Aussies in the semi-final.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Dam im in the 10th! look out for me, ill be dressed as fred flintstone!

Will do...

Gilo was brilliant. Wonderful delivery to Martyn. England are on top. No-England are on a spaceship to the Moon and Australia are below the scum in the Pacific Ocean.

 

[aussie1st]

Not great batting by the Aussie batsmen. Once again the tail has to rescue them.

 

[Sureshot]

Again a great days play, why was Boycott saying Warne had guts? if Warne had guts he would have used a trainin schedule to lose weight and not cheat.

Jones has bowled really well.

stupid rainy country

That sounded so like something Homer Simpson would say. The North is much colder than the South. We have a hosepipe ban

 

[angryangy]

. The way I saw it, Langer went to a fantastic catch from Bell at short leg, Ponting got one that bounced higher on him than expected off Jones, And Martyn was undone by a gem of a ball from Gilo; if it was bowled by Warne you'd be saying it was a fantastic piece of bowling.
Who else? Hayden possibly unlucky to be given out, Katich totally outfoxed by Flintoff (the previous 3 balls from Freddie to Katich prior to the drinks break reverse swung away from Katich; he obviously thought the ball that got him was going to do the same but Freddie swung it the other way to catch off stump), and Gilchrist edged a fullish ball from Jones classically bowled across the left hander. The only one who threw his wicket away was Clarke, bad back or no bad back.
The way I see it, it was more a case of good bowling and fielding from England rather than poor Oz batting. It obviously galls some of you Aussies so much that England are on top that you just can't bring yourselves to give credit where it's due.

Giles' delivery to Martyn is being over-rated, it pitched well outside leg stump (Giles bowling from over the wicket) and while it was clearly on target and well bowled, a good batsman should expect to be able to defend such a ball more often than not. Even if he had have simply moved to pad it away he couldn't have been give lbw. If one pays attention, they find a number of deliveries are bowled on a good length at the stumps. This response is hardly any different to that against the "Strauss ball", I still believe Strauss plays with poor technique against Warne.
Ponting tricked by the bounce? Considering he played back to the ball, he clearly wasn't expecting it to hit the stumps. In my eyes it was a completely unnecessary, he should have just got out of the way. His was the kind of wicket you see no. 10 get out to, not no. 3. They appear incapable of playing sensible cricket. Where is the Damien Martyn that batted dourly for hours to victory in India? These players are famously accomplished, yet they scarcely resemble players who could score 50, much less average 50.

Suppose England's innings was around 320, were Vaughan to have been stopped early when the chance was presented. Well, Australia will be lucky to come anywhere near that figure. You can not argue that Warne, Lee and McGrath are not bowlers of the calibre of the English bowlers and you can not argue that these bowlers are out of form or over the hill. Can you, then, argue that England's batsmen are skilled to a far greater degree than Australia's?

I mean, the argument being presented is that England's bowlers are far better than Australia's. So much so that they have effortlessly dominated Australia's batsmen. I think the records of Warne and McGrath show that they are elite and bowlers far greater certainly haven't existed in the past. Thus, while England's bowling has been excellent, a large responsibility must still lie with the Australian batting line-up. If this is a team which has batted admirably against players such as Shoaib Akhtar, Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Muralitharan or Kumble, why is it beyond them to score 250 against this England side? I say the answer should lie with they themselves more than with their opponents.

As for credit, where credit is due, I'd like to give credit to any English supporters who realise I haven't ever been unduly biased against opposing teams. I just think it's a completely unfair statement, it suggests that Australia; Dizzy and fielding aside; are playing as best as they possibly can.

 

[Yorkie Lion]

Giles' delivery to Martyn is being over-rated, it pitched well outside leg stump (Giles bowling from over the wicket) and while it was clearly on target and well bowled, a good batsman should expect to be able to defend such a ball more often than not. Even if he had have simply moved to pad it away he couldn't have been give lbw. If one pays attention, they find a number of deliveries are bowled on a good length at the stumps. This response is hardly any different to that against the "Strauss ball", I still believe Strauss plays with poor technique against Warne.
Ponting tricked by the bounce? Considering he played back to the ball, he clearly wasn't expecting it to hit the stumps. In my eyes it was a completely unnecessary, he should have just got out of the way. His was the kind of wicket you see no. 10 get out to, not no. 3. They appear incapable of playing sensible cricket. Where is the Damien Martyn that batted dourly for hours to victory in India? These players are famously accomplished, yet they scarcely resemble players who could score 50, much less average 50.

Suppose England's innings was around 320, were Vaughan to have been stopped early when the chance was presented. Well, Australia will be lucky to come anywhere near that figure. You can not argue that Warne, Lee and McGrath are not bowlers of the calibre of the English bowlers and you can not argue that these bowlers are out of form or over the hill. Can you, then, argue that England's batsmen are skilled to a far greater degree than Australia's?

I mean, the argument being presented is that England's bowlers are far better than Australia's. So much so that they have effortlessly dominated Australia's batsmen. I think the records of Warne and McGrath show that they are elite and bowlers far greater certainly haven't existed in the past. Thus, while England's bowling has been excellent, a large responsibility must still lie with the Australian batting line-up. If this is a team which has batted admirably against players such as Shoaib Akhtar, Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Muralitharan or Kumble, why is it beyond them to score 250 against this England side? I say the answer should lie with they themselves more than with their opponents.

As for credit, where credit is due, I'd like to give credit to any English supporters who realise I haven't ever been unduly biased against opposing teams. I just think it's a completely unfair statement, it suggests that Australia; Dizzy and fielding aside; are playing as best as they possibly can.

Ill say it for you mate England are a pretty decent team, there it wasnt so bad now was it

 

[Sureshot]

Giles' delivery to Martyn is being over-rated, it pitched well outside leg stump (Giles bowling from over the wicket) and while it was clearly on target and well bowled, a good batsman should expect to be able to defend such a ball more often than not. Even if he had have simply moved to pad it away he couldn't have been give lbw. If one pays attention, they find a number of deliveries are bowled on a good length at the stumps. This response is hardly any different to that against the "Strauss ball", I still believe Strauss plays with poor technique against Warne.
Ponting tricked by the bounce? Considering he played back to the ball, he clearly wasn't expecting it to hit the stumps. In my eyes it was a completely unnecessary, he should have just got out of the way. His was the kind of wicket you see no. 10 get out to, not no. 3. They appear incapable of playing sensible cricket. Where is the Damien Martyn that batted dourly for hours to victory in India? These players are famously accomplished, yet they scarcely resemble players who could score 50, much less average 50.

Suppose England's innings was around 320, were Vaughan to have been stopped early when the chance was presented. Well, Australia will be lucky to come anywhere near that figure. You can not argue that Warne, Lee and McGrath are not bowlers of the calibre of the English bowlers and you can not argue that these bowlers are out of form or over the hill. Can you, then, argue that England's batsmen are skilled to a far greater degree than Australia's?

I mean, the argument being presented is that England's bowlers are far better than Australia's. So much so that they have effortlessly dominated Australia's batsmen. I think the records of Warne and McGrath show that they are elite and bowlers far greater certainly haven't existed in the past. Thus, while England's bowling has been excellent, a large responsibility must still lie with the Australian batting line-up. If this is a team which has batted admirably against players such as Shoaib Akhtar, Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Muralitharan or Kumble, why is it beyond them to score 250 against this England side? I say the answer should lie with they themselves more than with their opponents.

As for credit, where credit is due, I'd like to give credit to any English supporters who realise I haven't ever been unduly biased against opposing teams. I just think it's a completely unfair statement, it suggests that Australia; Dizzy and fielding aside; are playing as best as they possibly can.

Nice post man.

Anyone who thinks Australia are playing to their best bar Gillespie and fielding hasn't seen much cricket lately (10years).

I think the difference in bowlers is, the depth we have. Because with Gillespie going at 6 an over and not taking wickets it's efffectively 3 and a 1/2 bowlers. whereas we have 5 bowlers. Warne is always reliable, but England do socre off of him. Flintoff has been absolutely stunning with the ball as has Lee. But the English bowlers do swing it more, This series has been just amazing.

 

[jonah]

Giles' delivery to Martyn is being over-rated, it pitched well outside leg stump (Giles bowling from over the wicket) and while it was clearly on target and well bowled, a good batsman should expect to be able to defend such a ball more often than not. Even if he had have simply moved to pad it away he couldn't have been give lbw. If one pays attention, they find a number of deliveries are bowled on a good length at the stumps. This response is hardly any different to that against the "Strauss ball", I still believe Strauss plays with poor technique against Warne.
Ponting tricked by the bounce? Considering he played back to the ball, he clearly wasn't expecting it to hit the stumps. In my eyes it was a completely unnecessary, he should have just got out of the way. His was the kind of wicket you see no. 10 get out to, not no. 3. They appear incapable of playing sensible cricket. Where is the Damien Martyn that batted dourly for hours to victory in India? These players are famously accomplished, yet they scarcely resemble players who could score 50, much less average 50.

Suppose England's innings was around 320, were Vaughan to have been stopped early when the chance was presented. Well, Australia will be lucky to come anywhere near that figure. You can not argue that Warne, Lee and McGrath are not bowlers of the calibre of the English bowlers and you can not argue that these bowlers are out of form or over the hill. Can you, then, argue that England's batsmen are skilled to a far greater degree than Australia's?

I mean, the argument being presented is that England's bowlers are far better than Australia's. So much so that they have effortlessly dominated Australia's batsmen. I think the records of Warne and McGrath show that they are elite and bowlers far greater certainly haven't existed in the past. Thus, while England's bowling has been excellent, a large responsibility must still lie with the Australian batting line-up. If this is a team which has batted admirably against players such as Shoaib Akhtar, Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Muralitharan or Kumble, why is it beyond them to score 250 against this England side? I say the answer should lie with they themselves more than with their opponents.

As for credit, where credit is due, I'd like to give credit to any English supporters who realise I haven't ever been unduly biased against opposing teams. I just think it's a completely unfair statement, it suggests that Australia; Dizzy and fielding aside; are playing as best as they possibly can.

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, it's because England's bowling has been excellent (as you put it, and, by the way, thanks for the credit ) that the Oz batsmen have been put under pressure. I still maintain that Ponting's dismissal was caused by a ball that lifted more than he expected (backed up by Simon Jones saying exactly that), and if you're saying that Giles' delivery to Martyn is over-rated, does the same apply to many of Warnies? The ball pitched outside leg, and hit off. Quite a delivery, I'd say.

 

[aussie1st]

Aus would dearly love to have a 5 man bowling attack but they can't find that all rounder to give them that balance. If they were to bring in Tait they probably would need an all rounder to go with him so that if Tait goes wrong they do have another player to turn to.