If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
It's not really what I asked but anyway to answer the question no it isn't but that really isn't my point.
If there was one cricketer in the side that could sky a shot in the air only to have it dropped by one fieldsman but picked up and have the stumps thrown down by another it would have to be Watson.
He isn't getting done by great deliveries or brilliant acts by the opposition it's more than often enough poor shot selection or in this instance a lack of application of completing a simple run.
He gives up too easily.
Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"
It's not really what I asked but anyway to answer the question no it isn't but that really isn't my point.
If there was one cricketer in the side that could sky a shot in the air only to have it dropped by one fieldsman but picked up and have the stumps thrown down by another it would have to be Watson.
He isn't getting done by great deliveries or brilliant acts by the opposition it's more than often enough poor shot selection or in this instance a lack of application of completing a simple run.
He gives up too easily.
It was simply yet another brain fade, every ton is a great knock but as we know Watson has a history of doing dumb things.
Reckon the Poms have found a genuine talent in Stokes (of course they had to poach him from another country).
For a 22yo relative novice, he shows plenty of promise with the bat and he's more than sharp enough with the cherry in his hand. Very good tools to work with.
It's not really what I asked but anyway to answer the question no it isn't but that really isn't my point.
If there was one cricketer in the side that could sky a shot in the air only to have it dropped by one fieldsman but picked up and have the stumps thrown down by another it would have to be Watson.
He isn't getting done by great deliveries or brilliant acts by the opposition it's more than often enough poor shot selection or in this instance a lack of application of completing a simple run.
He gives up too easily.
I can only assume that he didnt see the wicket to describe it as "going for quick runs"
Reckon the Poms have found a genuine talent in Stokes (of course they had to poach him from another country).
For a 22yo relative novice, he shows plenty of promise with the bat and he's more than sharp enough with the cherry in his hand. Very good tools to work with.
Correctamundo.
The major thing they'll take away from this test is the fact they've found themselves an all rounder able to score under pressure.
TF is this?.........Obviously you're not a golfer.
Another import for England .
Great performance and totally unexpected to be honest.
Outsourcing.
Seriously, the Poms are the best. They'll get passionate about the British Lions, they'll steadfastly cheer imported cricketers without batting an eyelid. All the while they'll tell you how poorly spirited your nation is when it comes to being a gentleman cricketer, and cricket supporters, whilst threatening to boycott cricket venues in the process.
These guys have had their arses handed to them, and good for them. I really hope (but I'm not confident) we don't carry on like they did after the 2005 series, or even come close to that relative to the time we've not had the urn.
They have shown themselves to be once again, as hard as a poo sandwich.
TF is this?.........Obviously you're not a golfer.
These guys have had their arses handed to them, and good for them. I really hope (but I'm not confident) we don't carry on like they did after the 2005 series, or even come close to that relative to the time we've not had the urn.
Knighthoods for all.
OR
Knighthoods for some, miniature Australian flags for others.
I am surprised to read criticism of the WACA pitch. In my view it was a good Test wicket, one of the few in the world which offers pace and bounce. Yes it cracked up as I would expect. No wickets were lost as a direct result of the cracks which for the most part were more threatening than reality.
The charm of Test cricket is how the pitch rings changes to the nature of the game by at various times favouring fast bowlers, batting and slow bowlers. The Perth pitch did precisely that and it was fitting that Lyon removed the one batsman who was threatening to change the game.
Slow dusty turners as served up in England do no one any favours nor do roadways which kill bowlers of all types. The man of the match was a batsman and England got 350+ in the last innings. Nothing wrong with that pitch.
I am surprised to read criticism of the WACA pitch. In my view it was a good Test wicket, one of the few in the world which offers pace and bounce. Yes it cracked up as I would expect. No wickets were lost as a direct result of the cracks which for the most part were more threatening than reality.
The charm of Test cricket is how the pitch rings changes to the nature of the game by at various times favouring fast bowlers, batting and slow bowlers. The Perth pitch did precisely that and it was fitting that Lyon removed the one batsman who was threatening to change the game.
Slow dusty turners as served up in England do no one any favours nor do roadways which kill bowlers of all types. The man of the match was a batsman and England got 350+ in the last innings. Nothing wrong with that pitch.
The fact the Poms made 350 in the fourth innings showed that pitch had a heap of cricket left in it. Those cracks looked dangerous but they ended up terrorising the 'keepers more than the batsmen.
They say Burt Lancaster has one, but I don't believe them.
Yeah a good cricket pitch is not one that is still flat as a road on day 5. Wickets are the main source of excitement in test matches and we should be seeing 15-20 per match depending on declarations.
Comment