Ashes 2009.

Exar Kun · Post by **Exar Kun** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:39 am

England already two down although Bopara clearly wasn't out. Great work by Haddin & North in the first session. Haven't seen an Aussie total that big in a long time.

Johnny X · Post by **Johnny X** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:02 am

Exar Kun wrote:England already two down

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:38 am

well they just keep proving me wrong... the rains now saving England from a loss. If they get a full day tomorrow, they might have a chance at getting the win.

pixelboy · Post by **pixelboy** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:43 am

Yeah I was wrong also.. the aussie batsmen have done nothing up till now

go son!

Nigel · Post by **Nigel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:41 am

Johnny X wrote:
Exar Kun wrote:England already two down

I blame the welsh.

Jiminee · Post by **Jiminee** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:04 pm

Very bad sitution, Wales was probably chosen primarily to help them with their supposed spin advantage but Monty and Swan took 1(?) wicket between them? Funny how they never played there when Australia had Warne.......
Just terrible body language and effort levels from the Poms yesterday, a real insult to their fans. Ponting may have "the technical nouse of Homer Simpson" according to Kerry O'Keefe but I have never seen his team quit on him like Pietersen and co quit on Strauss yesterday.

Exar Kun · Post by **Exar Kun** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:09 pm

The actual oval is horrible by the way - it's a rugby field with slightly rounded off corners! At least play on an oval shaped oval...

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:14 pm

Its not fit for test cricket in my opinion.... Im very surprised they could bat on that wicket as long as they did. It seems to be falling apart but its not affecting the bating that much :S The spin advantage is the only reason i can figure that they would play there.. the ground only holds 16,000 as well..

Johnny X · Post by **Johnny X** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:37 pm

Nigel wrote:
Johnny X wrote:
Exar Kun wrote:England already two down

I blame the welsh.

Glamorgan have been part of the TCCB for some time, I guess they had to run a test match there at some time or other but why they have chosen an Ashes series test is beyond me. I was s urprised the Old Trafford wasn't included in the venues this year... its a classic Ashes venue and home of Lancs, my home county.

The weather aint looking too good today, we may survive

Post by **Bauer** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:28 pm

rain needs to hurry then

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:01 am

was just speaking to my old man... who was born in 1936.. and with his brother played state cricket in their day... and mentioned that a lot of people seem to think Ponting is a bad captain... he said "well they are a bunch of dills" .... he agreed hes not the best captain he's seen, but agreed this anti ponting thing is a load of rubbish.

Basically i take his life experience over anything you lot have to say... sorry... and re confirms to me that no, hes not that bad.... infact quite good as a captain.

Montey · Post by **Montey** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:53 am

I have just watched the close of play for the 1st test, and it has completely confirmed for my mind that Ponting is a shit captain.

Here we had an England team that was just playing for the draw, had no intention of playing run scoring shots, just intending to maintain discipline and defend.

So, what does Ponting decide to do for bowlers:

Johnson: Almost never bowls at the stumps (certainly never on purpose). Sprays balls all over the place and hardly ever (never on purpose) forces the batsman to play a shot to defend their wicket. Whilst Johnson is giving away dot-balls and runs all over the place Ponting just keeps on bowling him. Nice choice there Ricky.

Hilfenhaus: Displays some great bowling. Is accurate, makes the batsman play a shot almost every time, gets a wicket. Ponting decides to take him off right after he gets a wicket and has been bowling great. Another nice choice.

Hauritz: Not bad bowling, but never really threatens to get a wicket. Bowling leg-spin/breaks mostly to left-handers (so in effect doing off-spin/cutters) meaning the ball is almost always bouncing outside off stump and spinning away from the batsman. With batsman not even making an effort to play shots Hauritz was never really going to be a threat.

Siddle: Not bad bowling, gets a wicket, forces the batsman to defend. Probably the only bowling decision Ricky gets right.

North: WTF?!?!?!?!?!?

With Panesar & Anderson at the crease, two guys who just can't bat (especially Panesar), Ricky should have been bowling Hilfenhouse & Siddle. Those two would have bowled at off stump, forcing the batsman to defend nearly every ball. Australia would have had a chance to win the game then.

Australia's inability to close out this game is -entirely- down to Ricky's captaincy!

Post by **norbs** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:45 am

DexterPunk wrote:was just speaking to my old man... who was born in 1936.. and with his brother played state cricket in their day... and mentioned that a lot of people seem to think Ponting is a bad captain... he said "well they are a bunch of dills" .... he agreed hes not the best captain he's seen, but agreed this anti ponting thing is a load of rubbish.

Basically i take his life experience over anything you lot have to say... sorry... and re confirms to me that no, hes not that bad.... infact quite good as a captain.

Montey makes a pretty compelling case in the post above. And having watched cricket all my life, I would argue the point til I dropped that Ponting is a poor captain. Life experience or not, if your old man couldn't see last night that Ponting wasted an opportunity, then he is a pretty poor judge of a cricket captain, and I make no apologies for saying that.

Ponting is an outstanding batsman, but will go down in history as one of our most inept leaders on the cricket field. 11 overs to knock over a guy with a test average if 5!

Jiminee · Post by **Jiminee** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:18 am

No that would be 11 overs to not knock over a guy with a test average of 5!
Disgraceful, utterly disgraceful.

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:29 am

that is poor form... i don't debate that.

i fell asleep/passed out after the F1 and didnt get to see the rest of the cricket.

Post by **norbs** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:04 am

Jiminee wrote:No that would be 11 overs to not knock over a guy with a test average of 5!
Disgraceful, utterly disgraceful.

Yep. Sorry. 3 hours sleep makes norbs a silly boy.

Jiminee · Post by **Jiminee** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:32 am

Our two new puppies got up and went to the other end of the house with 3 overs to go, I think they sensed that things were not going to end well and getting out of the firing line was a good idea!

Nigel · Post by **Nigel** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:04 am

Phew! Doesn't bode well for the rest of the series though.

Exar Kun · Post by **Exar Kun** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:25 am

Anything can happen - 2005 started off with a win for the Aussies.

Jiminee · Post by **Jiminee** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:45 am

Did the Aussies miss Brett Lee? His style seems to suit knocking over tail enders and in both innings Australia struggled with doing that.
If the key to getting tail enders out is hitting the stumps then Mitchell Johnson is not going to work, Hilfenhaus might but is probably lacking a little pace and if it is swinging then he may be bowling too well for the likes of Monty to get a nick! Siddle’s natural length seems to take most balls over off stump while Brett Lee is either really full or really short which is ideal.
I am no fan of his recent form by any means and of course he was injured for this match but something to consider going forward

Post by **Bauer** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:47 am

forgetting for a moment who the captain is

Wouldnt you expect that any bowler should be able to clean up a tail?

And it wasnt that long ago that Ponting threw the ball to M.Clarke to take 3 wickets in 20 minutes. Looked like a hero that day. Had Clarke not done the job we would have had this conversation before. On that day his bowler did the job. Last night they didnt.

Having said all that, England getting 400+ in the first innings. We did well to get a draw (even though it should have been a win)

Jiminee · Post by **Jiminee** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:11 pm

It was not like they dropped catches or fielded badly though, they just did not generate enough chances. It's not the worst result in the world of course given that England chose this ground to suit themselves and got nothing from it but what a waste of some great batting.

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:34 pm

yeah indeed... although a draw is really worse for England than it is for us. Just a shame that when i went to bed it looked as though it was all wrapped up. I spoke too soon re: the Ponting being an ok captain

Yes, you can all blame me for jinxing it.

Bauer makes a good point though, any full time bowler should be able to knock over the tail end.... still, you dont take the ball away from a bowler when they are getting wickets, thats just crazy.

Post by **norbs** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:10 pm

I agree Stud, a good bowler should be able to knock over the bunnies. But is North a good bowler? He was bowling darts. Siddle had people ducking and weaving, he should have given him a crack.

Ah well, it is done now. bring on the 2nd test.

One thing that has bothered me for a while, the pitches. I know seeing a million runs a test is entertaining, but I think there are just too many flat tracks these days. Obviously it is designed to make the test go the 5 days to keep the gate takings up, but really, how about the occasional greentop for the quicks. I was watching a series about cricketing empires the other day and it really bought it home. Opening batsmen used to really have to graft on the 1st morning, and even the 1st day. There was something in it for the quicks. It seems these days the norm is for the 1st team to bat to be 100 at lunch day 1.

I remember hearing Richard Hadlee (I think it was him, it was definitely someone of that era.) talking about it a while ago. He was saying he didn't think the pitches, or the grounds with their shorter boundaries, encouraged the fast bowlers. He may have a point.

Is it too easy for the batsmen?

Jiminee · Post by **Jiminee** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:40 pm

I wouldn't say easy, Pakistan got knocked over for 97 the other day right? But the game is skewed in their favour. How many 3s did we see this week? Probably as many in the summer over here! Was good seeing some longer boundaries again.
Better bats, better protective gear and instant feedback (being able to watch your mistakes in real time on the big screen) have all made massive differences and its very hard to even things up again. Maybe a new ball every 70 overs? The new ball just seems so critical these days that maybe even 60 overs would work? Spinners seem to enjoy a harder ball so they wouldn't mind. So many times the 70-80 over period now seems to drag a bit, the bowlers want the help of a new cherry and batsmen just plod along not wanting to expose a new guy so it ends up being a drag.
The standard of lower order batting has also improved remarkably as we saw last night. Monty may have an average of 5 but he actually looked to have a really solid technique and to give him the credit he deserves he showed a boat load of guts and commitment.
An adjustment in the LBW rule to give the bowler the benefit of the doubt on the padding up/playing a genuine shot issue outside off stump?
They would not make instant huge changes but might help a little bit.
There is also way too little variation between grounds now, English conditions? The WACA, the SCG? That pitch could of been anywhere in the world and that is a real shame.

A.R.S.E.

Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.

Re: Ashes 2009.