Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Good post. No batting line up could have coped with Johnson?

Haynes/Greenidge/Richards/Richardson/Lloyd/Gomes/Dujon?

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Good post. No batting line up could have coped with Johnson?

Haynes/Greenidge/Richards/Richardson/Lloyd/Gomes/Dujon?

Maybe hyperbole from me. We'll never know. I never had the pleasure of seeing them bat. I guess if that line-up batted in the nets against the likes of Holding, Garner, Marshall et al they may have been able to, but having the world's best fast bowlers on your team, did they ever face really high quality pace from other teams? After all, when that line-up toured Australia, they faced the likes of Alderman, Hogg and Lawson - all ok, but hardly regarded in the pantheon of Australia's great fast bowlers:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1689 ... a-1984-85/

Fair enough, but history tells you that the Aussies haven’t won the Ashes in England since before 2005 and we’ve won once on their turf, although the losses have been heavier. At least we’ve not been bundled out for 60 before lunch!

The climate and pitches are so different, it’s hardly surprising that home advantage counts for so much.

I don’t disagree with the assessment of England’s overall and individual performances, but a sense of perspective of the reality of the task wouldn’t come amiss.

KipperJohn wrote:I don’t disagree with the assessment of England’s overall and individual performances, but a sense of perspective of the reality of the task wouldn’t come amiss.

England showing a bit of heart, probably wouldn't come amiss either. Not too much to ask, surely?

Durhamfootman wrote:

KipperJohn wrote:I don’t disagree with the assessment of England’s overall and individual performances, but a sense of perspective of the reality of the task wouldn’t come amiss.

England showing a bit of heart, probably wouldn't come amiss either. Not too much to ask, surely?

Agree. It's not necessarily the defeats (which were expected), it's the manner of them. The gulf between the two sides is proving here to be larger than expected, and it's about 10% talent and 90% application (or lack thereof).

Durhamfootman wrote:

KipperJohn wrote:I don’t disagree with the assessment of England’s overall and individual performances, but a sense of perspective of the reality of the task wouldn’t come amiss.

England showing a bit of heart, probably wouldn't come amiss either. Not too much to ask, surely?

Don’t really agree with that from what I’ve read - pretty sure they’ve tried hard - they’ve competed at times but lost the key battles - i’d be surprised if it was down to any lack of desire or effort.

I agree with Fluffy, KJ. There showed spells of determination to succeed when things were going not so well, but way less consistency with toughing things out than they should, imo, less so than the Australians - which is a major difference between the teams. That, and the bowling.

I reckon England might be off the hook here.

from_the_stands wrote:I reckon England might be off the hook here.

what a kerfuffle.

I thought they were looking inexperienced and amateurish when they were putting the covers on - in almost a squall, admittedly - last night.

They're obviously not used to it. This is more rain than Perth sees in months.

TMS is saying there's almost no chance of a resumption until after lunch at least. If the pitch is as badly damaged as it sounds, they could have to abandon play altogether. I don't think it likely, but it sounds pretty awful.

Play due to start at 12pm local time (4am UK, 3pm Eastern Aus). Still 75 overs possible, although that involves play running until 6pm local time, so light could be an issue. If the game lasts that long even.

Vaughan reckons that it's still not fit to play on, and that England will have every right to call foul. But taking a broader perspective, if they've got into this position, they can't complain if they're asked to play cricket and go on to lose, as long as it's not actually dangerous. It's not as if this is likely to change the result.

England's first aim is simply to score the 130 runs or so needed to make Australia bat again.

Delay until 4.40. But it looks as if the rain is going to clear.

Somehow despite the loss of two hours of play, only 23 overs have been lost. Perhaps they've finally adjusted their over rate expectations to something close to what teams actually bowl?

Nonetheless, Malan and Bairstow will have to bat at least 40 of those overs, maybe more, if England are going to have any chance. Let's face it, that won't happen. We need a miracle.

Seems like rain will bat out the time for England.

bigfluffylemon wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Good post. No batting line up could have coped with Johnson?

Haynes/Greenidge/Richards/Richardson/Lloyd/Gomes/Dujon?

Maybe hyperbole from me. We'll never know. I never had the pleasure of seeing them bat. I guess if that line-up batted in the nets against the likes of Holding, Garner, Marshall et al they may have been able to, but having the world's best fast bowlers on your team, did they ever face really high quality pace from other teams? After all, when that line-up toured Australia, they faced the likes of Alderman, Hogg and Lawson - all ok, but hardly regarded in the pantheon of Australia's great fast bowlers:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1689 ... a-1984-85/

Also, Dennis Lillee destroyed the West Indies once...
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1702 ... a-1981-82/

KipperJohn wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:

KipperJohn wrote:I don’t disagree with the assessment of England’s overall and individual performances, but a sense of perspective of the reality of the task wouldn’t come amiss.

England showing a bit of heart, probably wouldn't come amiss either. Not too much to ask, surely?

Don’t really agree with that from what I’ve read - pretty sure they’ve tried hard - they’ve competed at times but lost the key battles - i’d be surprised if it was down to any lack of desire or effort.

I'm with you kipper. I very much doubt a team of international cricketers haven't given it their best. From what I've seen and read, the Aussies have been better for the majority, and hence are two up.