4th. Ashes Test. Manchester.
-
watt price tully
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
Well, England finally sorted out how to stop Smith making hundreds without concussing him - apparently, the strategy is to put him in to bat on a deteriorating wicket, let him make 82 from 92 chasing quick runs to set up a target and then just kind of wait until he gives himself up. That’s 9 successive 50s for Smith. The Australians set England 383 to win. Take out Smith’s towering contribution and the target would have been 90.
Anyway, Burns and Root batted it out in harsh conditions and they really showed how to blunt Cummins. Between them, they kept him at bay until the third and fourth balls of his first over. 2/18 at Stumps, a further 365 required if England are going to beat Australia with Smith.
Anyway, Burns and Root batted it out in harsh conditions and they really showed how to blunt Cummins. Between them, they kept him at bay until the third and fourth balls of his first over. 2/18 at Stumps, a further 365 required if England are going to beat Australia with Smith.
^ I guessed correctly the author before clicking. I haven't read it yet, but Baum's articles are becoming frequently silly, especially when he talks about sports he knows nothing about (e.g. baseball), but even when he talks about cricket or being a Collingwood supporter.
In his previous article, he seriously praised Smith for making Leach bowl a no ball to him. (Yeah, he didn't put it quite that way, but that was the clear claim he made.)
In his previous article, he seriously praised Smith for making Leach bowl a no ball to him. (Yeah, he didn't put it quite that way, but that was the clear claim he made.)
The Leach non-dismissal and Harris dismissal were almost identical. How Erasmus can give one not out and the other out I don't know.Pies4shaw wrote:Quoted for accuracy - just missed Leach because he was given not out when clearly lbw. Just amateurish stuff - from the Australians and from the umpire concerned.Pies4shaw wrote:They’ve got to get better at that.K wrote:Big appeal for LBW. No shot played to Lyon. Not out. They talk. They review.
Still not out. It always looked too high. Last review burnt.
The Australians need to practise this. (I don't know how.) They are incompetent. There was an article (too painful for me to read at the time) saying that since Paine has taken over the captaincy full time, Australia has been the worst side in the world for making review decisions. Indians claim M.S. Dhoni used to be almost always right.
There were wolf whistles from the crowd during the Buttler LBW review, because they were rocking and rolling the video of the ball hitting his buttocks. How can that possibly look out to the fielders?
If Australia retain the Ashes, they will do so because of Smith. He is our only Test-standard batsman and he also happens to be one of the couple of greatest players of all time.K wrote:^ I guessed correctly the author before clicking. I haven't read it yet, but Baum's articles are becoming frequently silly, especially when he talks about sports he knows nothing about (e.g. baseball), but even when he talks about cricket or being a Collingwood supporter.
In his previous article, he seriously praised Smith for making Leach bowl a no ball to him. (Yeah, he didn't put it quite that way, but that was the clear claim he made.)
Oz definitely need Smith's runs. They also need to do something about Warner. Drop him or at least drop him down the order.
But Smith definitely did not cause Leach to bowl the no ball that reprieved him. And the incompetence of batsmen the world over has led to dreadfully flat pitches that are an existential threat to the game. When there's a pitch with any help for the bowlers, sides just collapse. And after collapsing they whinge that the pitch is not good.
Arguably the second-best batsman in this series is a bloke who averages 38 (plus change) in first-class cricket. Thirty-eight!! That tells us a lot about all the batsmen performing worse than he is.
It's interesting that Holding is fairly muted when he talks about Smith. None of the fanboy stuff you hear from other commentators. I wonder if he's always thinking about how Smith would fare against him and the other WIndies fast bowlers of his time.
But Smith definitely did not cause Leach to bowl the no ball that reprieved him. And the incompetence of batsmen the world over has led to dreadfully flat pitches that are an existential threat to the game. When there's a pitch with any help for the bowlers, sides just collapse. And after collapsing they whinge that the pitch is not good.
Arguably the second-best batsman in this series is a bloke who averages 38 (plus change) in first-class cricket. Thirty-eight!! That tells us a lot about all the batsmen performing worse than he is.
It's interesting that Holding is fairly muted when he talks about Smith. None of the fanboy stuff you hear from other commentators. I wonder if he's always thinking about how Smith would fare against him and the other WIndies fast bowlers of his time.
At stumps on day 4, England were 2/18 (7) in their second innings.
England require another 365 runs on day 5.
Earlier they were bowled out for 301 in their first innings.
Hazlewood 4/57 (25), Cummins 3/60 (24), Starc 3/80 (22), Lyon 0/89 (36).
Australia in their second innings made 6/186d (42.5), setting a target of 383.
Smith 82 (92), Wade 34 (76), Paine 23* (18 ).
Archer 3/45 (14), Broad 2/54 (14), Leach 1/58 (9).
England require another 365 runs on day 5.
Earlier they were bowled out for 301 in their first innings.
Hazlewood 4/57 (25), Cummins 3/60 (24), Starc 3/80 (22), Lyon 0/89 (36).
Australia in their second innings made 6/186d (42.5), setting a target of 383.
Smith 82 (92), Wade 34 (76), Paine 23* (18 ).
Archer 3/45 (14), Broad 2/54 (14), Leach 1/58 (9).
Ponting, cricket.com.au:
"I was extremely surprised at England's tactics after tea. To not start with one of Archer or Broad for me was staggering.
"I think the most important phase of play for England was the first hour after tea and they decided to go with Overton and Leach, and I know Overton only bowled three overs but it just seemed to quieten the whole crowd down and it gave Smith a chance to get in and get settled and start again.
"They'll have their reasons, but it seemed as though they wanted Archer and Broad to bowl late in the session and slow the game down.
"I think they bowled six overs in 40 minutes. You'd have to say it's unacceptable to bowl seven-minute overs.
...
"It's a completely different set of circumstances.
"Headingley, that wicket actually got better and better. It finished middle of day four, didn't even get into the fifth day. This pitch has got worse and worse as the days have gone on.
"Australia don't need to be spooked about anything there; one for the fact they should have won, but two it's not going to be easy for anyone starting on that pitch against Australia's attack."
"I was extremely surprised at England's tactics after tea. To not start with one of Archer or Broad for me was staggering.
"I think the most important phase of play for England was the first hour after tea and they decided to go with Overton and Leach, and I know Overton only bowled three overs but it just seemed to quieten the whole crowd down and it gave Smith a chance to get in and get settled and start again.
"They'll have their reasons, but it seemed as though they wanted Archer and Broad to bowl late in the session and slow the game down.
"I think they bowled six overs in 40 minutes. You'd have to say it's unacceptable to bowl seven-minute overs.
...
"It's a completely different set of circumstances.
"Headingley, that wicket actually got better and better. It finished middle of day four, didn't even get into the fifth day. This pitch has got worse and worse as the days have gone on.
"Australia don't need to be spooked about anything there; one for the fact they should have won, but two it's not going to be easy for anyone starting on that pitch against Australia's attack."
Miller, cricinfo:
"For let's be realistic - for all that England hunted down 359 to complete the miracle of Headingley, this Old Trafford pitch is a different beast entirely, offering stump-threatening skid and late movement to those who pitch it up, not least the lesser-spotted Mitchell Starc, whose three wickets in the morning session had been a harbinger of the dramas to come."
We're told Bairstow has now been bowled 32 times.
"For let's be realistic - for all that England hunted down 359 to complete the miracle of Headingley, this Old Trafford pitch is a different beast entirely, offering stump-threatening skid and late movement to those who pitch it up, not least the lesser-spotted Mitchell Starc, whose three wickets in the morning session had been a harbinger of the dramas to come."
We're told Bairstow has now been bowled 32 times.
You are allowed to bowl bouncers. There would have been nothing to talk about if the bouncers had been played properly. The Oz bowlers were rightly criticised for not bowling bouncers to Broad in the first Test, and he's a tailender who got his jaw broken a few years ago by a bouncer.Pies4shaw wrote:Well, England finally sorted out how to stop Smith making hundreds without concussing him - ... just kind of wait until he gives himself up. ...
Not that his innings was bad, on a pitch that is no longer easy, but this was one of those situations where cleaner hitting powers would have been helpful.