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

Aussies have an old ball to bowl with for the next 16 overs. Maybe Pakistan can still get close.

Bouncing out the tail, again.

Why don't the umpires enforce the laws about intimidatory bowling?

Closer than most Boxing Day Tests.

bigfluffylemon wrote:Bouncing out the tail, again.

Why don't the umpires enforce the laws about intimidatory bowling?

do you really think that this was anything other than the norm?

I sure don't.

Australia 262 all out

Marsh 96
Carey 53
Smith 50

Hamza 4-32
Afridi 4-76

Target 317

bigfluffylemon wrote:Bouncing out the tail, again.

in fact, the only tail end wicket to fall to a bouncer was the very last.

Jamal and Afridi's wickets were short, but neither was head high in the slightest.

I do think it was normal. Hence the 'again'. Doesn't mean I think it's fair play. Never have.

The stats they had up indicated that 70% of Cummins' last spell was short of a length, with 40% being bouncer length. That's not appropriate against 9-11. It looked deliberately intimidatory to me. Shaheel got hit on the head more than once. The ball that got him out wasn't a bouncer, but it followed a few and he was obviously trying to get out the way.

And yes, both sides did it I the Ashes, and I didn't like it then either. Short pitched bowling is part of the game, sure. Deliberately bowling bouncer after bouncer at tailenders shouldn't be.

Pakistan 237 all out

Masood 60
Salman 50
Babar 41

Cummins 5-49
Starc 4-55

Someone's nicked Warner's baggy green ahead of his last test.

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving w@nker.

bigfluffylemon wrote:Couldn't have happened to a more deserving w@nker.

I got a laugh out of this.

As I did at Schapelle Corby's tweet to Warner/about the bag.

Pakistan 313 all out

Rizwan 88
Jamal 82
Salman 53

Cummins 5-61

I missed Corby's response, also raised a giggle.

Reasonable effort by Pakistan to recover after being 0/2 and 40/4. Last wicket stand put on nearly 100. They've competed at times but lacked the consistency to be a threat to Australia in their backyard.

Wait, where have I heard that before?

I remember Wee Davie first being picked for the Test side after a good run in ODIs, and it seemed far from certain he would succeed in the longer game. But he managed a lengthy, successful Test career, so he deserves some acclaim. I presume his success at home means Aussie crowds have seen him make an awful lot of runs, which is going to make him a popular favourite.

But as an outsider, he was too hard to like and actually ended up doing the old game quite a bit of harm. So he's not like a Lillee or a Border, who will be remembered respectfully by the neutral. Still, an Aussie great.

even as an insider, Warner has been hard to like, Arthur. Way too brash and 'in your face' for me - and this was way before the sandpaper bullsht.

Yes, he has played some phenomenal innings over the year, often these innings either setting Aus up for a win, or being the difference between winning and losing. Excellent fielder too. He also has that glaring issue of not being very good outside of Aus in tests. It's a big but. Not so bad in white ball.

On the subject of the ever present elephant in the room though - many Australians seem to have gone with the "done the crime, done the time" line. A lesser group, I think, are not prepare to forgive or forget. I am one of those. I am fine with him playing test cricket again, but his name is mentally written with an asterisk.

Smith too, but to a lesser degree. Even less so with Bancroft.

Yes, I don't know too many people here that like Warner, despite the runs.