| #1 | |
|
|
At last!
Was just thinking we have to really get the wickets ...
|
| #2 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:36:43 +0100, "elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com>
wrote: >Was just thinking we have to really get the wickets ... Where the hell did that over come from? He looks fairly unthreatening at 86-88mph most of the day then he comes on with 92mph thunderbolts on the chin, wonderful over even if a couple of the bouncers were called wides, lets hope that when they go back on he will continue in the same vane. -- ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned! Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect ! (Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode) |
| #3 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
Thank goodness for that 2nd wicket. We are still in big trouble though..
need some very quick wickets tomorrow. An Aussie lead of 50-80+ and we are toast on that pitch against Warne. I dont hold out any great hope for us unless the weather intervenes. Jim. "Luke Curtis" <mfll78@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:s0p5i1tjfq6ku27qor03lcqivabvqhq0ii@4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:36:43 +0100, "elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>Was just thinking we have to really get the wickets ... > > Where the hell did that over come from? > > He looks fairly unthreatening at 86-88mph most of the day then he > comes on with 92mph thunderbolts on the chin, wonderful over even if a > couple of the bouncers were called wides, lets hope that when they go > back on he will continue in the same vane. > -- > ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity > systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned! > Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect ! > (Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode) |
| #4 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
In article <4323171b$0$3624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
Jim Smith <g0ofe@gmx.co.uk> writes: >Thank goodness for that 2nd wicket. We are still in big trouble though.. >need some very quick wickets tomorrow. An Aussie lead of 50-80+ and we are >toast on that pitch against Warne. They aren't going to get that lead before mid-afternoon at the earliest. Even against Warne, England ought to be able to secure a draw from there. This is by no means a terror pitch. They will need to bat rather better than they did in the second innings at Trent Bridge though. -- John Hall "Home is heaven and orgies are vile, But you *need* an orgy, once in a while." Ogden Nash (1902-1971) |
| #5 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
Thats just the point. We didnt bat well under pressure at Lords or at Trent
Bridge.. and although it's not a terror track with 'normal' bowlers, it's a different matter when it comes to Warne.. look what he got out of the pitch first innings, getting the first four men out. Without him, we'd have got 500+. Having to bat under pressure, against Warney, for a minimum of a day, I dont give us a prayer. Jim. "John Hall" <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message news:b7h3sfBosxIDFwn9@jhall.demon.co.uk... > In article <4323171b$0$3624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, > Jim Smith <g0ofe@gmx.co.uk> writes: >>Thank goodness for that 2nd wicket. We are still in big trouble though.. >>need some very quick wickets tomorrow. An Aussie lead of 50-80+ and we are >>toast on that pitch against Warne. > > They aren't going to get that lead before mid-afternoon at the earliest. > Even against Warne, England ought to be able to secure a draw from > there. This is by no means a terror pitch. They will need to bat rather > better than they did in the second innings at Trent Bridge though. > -- > John Hall > "Home is heaven and orgies are vile, > But you *need* an orgy, once in a while." > Ogden Nash (1902-1971) |
| #6 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
"Jim Smith" <g0ofe@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message news:432321b2$0$3611$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com. .. > Thats just the point. We didnt bat well under pressure at Lords or at > Trent Bridge.. and although it's not a terror track with 'normal' bowlers, > it's a different matter when it comes to Warne.. look what he got out of > the pitch first innings, getting the first four men out. > Without him, we'd have got 500+. > > Having to bat under pressure, against Warney, for a minimum of a day, I > dont give us a prayer. > > Jim. > England batted poorly in the first innings and look at the facts they scored 373 in 105 overs. The same again would give them a massive advantage - if they batted well then just think. Come on you guys England are the better side by miles. Rio |
| #7 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
"John Hall" <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message news:b7h3sfBosxIDFwn9@jhall.demon.co.uk... > In article <4323171b$0$3624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, > Jim Smith <g0ofe@gmx.co.uk> writes: >>Thank goodness for that 2nd wicket. We are still in big trouble though.. >>need some very quick wickets tomorrow. An Aussie lead of 50-80+ and we are >>toast on that pitch against Warne. > > They aren't going to get that lead before mid-afternoon at the earliest. > Even against Warne, England ought to be able to secure a draw from > there. This is by no means a terror pitch. They will need to bat rather > better than they did in the second innings at Trent Bridge though. > -- > John Hall If the England batsmen play better against him then all should be well.Let's take a closer look at the first innings.IMO Tres,Vaughan and Pieterson gave their wickets to Warne.None of those balls should have been wicket taking deliveries.Giles was clearly sawn off so 4 of his 6 were handed to him on a plate. I'm not trying to say he isn't a great bowler,I just don't think there's as much for him in this pitch as some people think. As it is,I think England have bowled quite well so far.If it wasn't for intimidated umpires Aus would be in a much worse position than they are now.All that pissing in the umps ears from Ponting and co seems to have paid off in this innings. A good new ball spell from England in the morning and things can change very quickly. United Road |
| #8 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
In uk.sport.cricket on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 at 18:25:06, Jim Smith wrote :
>Thank goodness for that 2nd wicket. We are still in big trouble though.. >need some very quick wickets tomorrow. An Aussie lead of 50-80+ and we are >toast on that pitch against Warne. No chance - if the Aussie openers who've been crap all series can bat like that, we'll have no problems batting through Monday. -- Paul Hyett, Cheltenham |
| #9 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
"Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iEtinmA6q8IDFwzB@activist.demon.co.uk... > In uk.sport.cricket on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 at 18:25:06, Jim Smith wrote : > >>Thank goodness for that 2nd wicket. We are still in big trouble though.. >>need some very quick wickets tomorrow. An Aussie lead of 50-80+ and we are >>toast on that pitch against Warne. > > No chance - if the Aussie openers who've been crap all series can bat > like that, we'll have no problems batting through Monday. 1. Langer hasn't exactly been crap; moderate maybe. His average before this Test was higher than that of Strauss or Vaughan. 2. IMHO, Hayden has been crap partly because he refused to change his bullying approach and work hard for his runs. Having finally made the change (possibly due to realising that he was in danger of losing his place), it has paid off. (Kevin Pietersen, take note.) 3. They didn't have to bat against Warne, who averages 15.35 in second innings in the earlier Tests on pitches that were hardly dustbowls. -- David North Email to this address will be deleted as spam Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk |
| #10 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
Jim Smith wrote:
> Thank goodness for that 2nd wicket. We are still in big trouble > though.. need some very quick wickets tomorrow. An Aussie lead of > 50-80+ and we are toast on that pitch against Warne. > > I dont hold out any great hope for us unless the weather intervenes. > > Jim. Oh ye of little faith !!!!! |
| #11 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
The weather did intervene.. and has made a draw more likely. If we bat till
tea, or for 65 of the 98 overs due tomorrow we should be safe. The quick wickets were a real bonus.. Freddie and Hoggard bowled brilliantly. But for that, we would not have lost half the day to bad light - the Aussies would happily batted on with miners hats on if they had to!! In that event, they probably would have had a lead of maybe 200 some time after tea - runs they will now need to get in the 2nd innings if they are to win. What Freddie and Matthew Hoggard did to Australia this morning, Warne/Lee/McGrath can do to us tomorrow, so there is a long way to go. If we are still batting after 65 overs tomorrow, I will really start to believe. "Tids" <carroll@REMOVETOREPLYwaihi.co.uk> wrote in message news:4324714b$0$17467$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net... > Jim Smith wrote: >> Thank goodness for that 2nd wicket. We are still in big trouble >> though.. need some very quick wickets tomorrow. An Aussie lead of >> 50-80+ and we are toast on that pitch against Warne. >> >> I dont hold out any great hope for us unless the weather intervenes. >> >> Jim. > > > Oh ye of little faith !!!!! > |
| #12 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
Jim Smith wrote: > The weather did intervene.. and has made a draw more likely. If we bat till > tea, or for 65 of the 98 overs due tomorrow we should be safe. > > The quick wickets were a real bonus.. Freddie and Hoggard bowled > brilliantly. But for that, we would not have lost half the day to bad > light - the Aussies would happily batted on with miners hats on if they had > to!! In that event, they probably would have had a lead of maybe 200 some > time after tea - runs they will now need to get in the 2nd innings if they > are to win. > > What Freddie and Matthew Hoggard did to Australia this morning, > Warne/Lee/McGrath can do to us tomorrow, so there is a long way to go. If we > are still batting after 65 overs tomorrow, I will really start to believe. It's worth considering that if there were 2 full days to play, England would probably be favourites (although their chances of losing would also be higher than it is now). The lost time has perhaps even done Australia a favour so far - England have absolutely no chance of winning, but ample of time to lose, if they really set their minds to it. But in fact, as for the last 3 tests, they had a first innings lead, and at an effective 40-1 in the second, can hardly be considered to be losing now. By the time they have added even 100 today (which will probably be shortly after lunch), the Australians will already be wondering how they could hope to get the runs against a fresh Flintoff, Harmison and Hoggard in the fading light on a knackered pitch... I expect a creditable draw, not a struggle. They might even declare with an hour to go just for the fun of hitting Langer a few more times :-) It would be nice to round off the series with Australia 30-4 say chasing 250+, to stave off the inevitable "saved by rain" gloom-mongers. And as for those who are saying that Vaughan was "unsporting" for taking the offer of the light....good grief. The Aussies had already done the same twice, while well-set and (supposedly) going for the win. In doing so, they cynically eliminated England's chance of victory. James |
| #13 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
In uk.sport.cricket on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 at 18:44:25, wrote :
>But in fact, as for the last 3 tests, they had a first innings >lead, and at an effective 40-1 in the second, can hardly be considered >to be losing now. Pretty level pegging, I'd say. >By the time they have added even 100 today (which >will probably be shortly after lunch), the Australians will already be >wondering how they could hope to get the runs against a fresh Flintoff, >Harmison and Hoggard in the fading light on a knackered pitch... > >I expect a creditable draw, not a struggle. They might even declare >with an hour to go just for the fun of hitting Langer a few more times >:-) Even if the Aussies were to need, say 10 an over from 25 overs, they'd go for it since they'd have nothing to lose. Fortunately though, unlike a limited-overs run-chase, there'd not be the hassle of bowling/fielding restrictions. > >And as for those who are saying that Vaughan was "unsporting" for >taking the offer of the light....good grief. The Aussies had already >done the same twice, while well-set and (supposedly) going for the win. >In doing so, they cynically eliminated England's chance of victory. Yes, the Aussies can't complain about it, because they know damned well they'd do the same in our situation. -- Paul Hyett, Cheltenham |
| #14 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
Paul Hyett wrote:
>> >>I expect a creditable draw, not a struggle. They might even declare >>with an hour to go just for the fun of hitting Langer a few more times >>:-) > > > Even if the Aussies were to need, say 10 an over from 25 overs, they'd > go for it since they'd have nothing to lose. I suppose. But 280 in 15-20 overs would be out of the question. Anyway, things look pretty good so far. Bizarre to not bowl Warne straight through - that's 2 fewer overs to face in the day, and more chance that Tait is needed. I reckon 120-3 at lunch and 200-6 at tea is about the minimum requirement for a draw. Any better, it will be comfortable. Worse, and they'll struggle. James -- James Annan see web pages for email http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/ |
| #15 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
James Annan wrote:
> > I reckon 120-3 at lunch and 200-6 at tea is about the minimum > requirement for a draw. Any better, it will be comfortable. Worse, and > they'll struggle. > If England are 200-6 at tea, do you think Vaughan will give them a shot? |
| #16 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
"Tids" <carroll@REMOVETOREPLYwaihi.co.uk> wrote in message news:43255487$0$97108$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net... > James Annan wrote: > > >> I reckon 120-3 at lunch and 200-6 at tea is about the minimum >> requirement for a draw. Any better, it will be comfortable. Worse, and >> they'll struggle. >> > > > If England are 200-6 at tea, do you think Vaughan will give them a shot? > > One would hope not, nothing to gain all to lose. All it needs is one of the aussies to go mad with the bat and we are sweating. Boring draw would do us fine!! |
| #17 | |
|
|
Re: At last!
Tids wrote:
> James Annan wrote: > > > >>I reckon 120-3 at lunch and 200-6 at tea is about the minimum >>requirement for a draw. Any better, it will be comfortable. Worse, and >>they'll struggle. >> > > > > If England are 200-6 at tea, do you think Vaughan will give them a shot? > Not with 40 overs remaining. Doesn't look like he'll have the chance now with Flintoff out as I type...:-( James -- James Annan see web pages for email http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/ |
