Anyone for cricket?

[titan_uranus 25,014]

as what wyl said

plus why would you assume that if they batted first they would still make the same score as they did batting second?

Why would you assume otherwise?

Day 1 was the cloudiest, the pitch was the greenest. It was the best day to bowl. They said on radio and TV that Day 2 was better (and that today is better again).

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Good work from Haddin (what a star) and Lyon to get us up to 200, but assuming we do our job with the ball as we've done all series and end up with a target of 300-350, we're going to need an enormous improvement with the bat to get close. You'd favour England from here, after that awful batting display.

Psychological what?

We go first. We made 200 (probably closer to 150 given the conditions on Day 1 were even worse for batting). They come out and make 250. We're then behind.

How does England fare worse psychologically? They come out to bowl in the third innings knowing they'd already knocked us over easily in the first dig, and with us 100-odd runs behind. No difference, aside from the order of the innings.

For god sake man

I would prefer to have Johnson Siddle & Lyon bowling on a fading pitch in the 4 innings.

Stop throwing up these flimsy arguements. The pitch is playable. It is not green grass.

We now have to field all day during a stinking hot day and bowl really well & then chase down a score to win.

Clarke stuffed up.

[titan_uranus 25,014]

For god sake man

I would prefer to have Johnson Siddle & Lyon bowling on a fading pitch in the 4 innings.

Stop throwing up these flimsy arguements. The pitch is playable. It is not green grass.

We now have to field all day during a stinking hot day and bowl really well & then chase down a score to win.

Clarke stuffed up.

But what's the point of bowling in the fourth innings if we don't have a target to defend? On the batting performance we displayed yesterday, we'd have set them something like 200. Not enough.

You're right. The pitch is playable. We scored 200 on it. Not enough.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

But what's the point of bowling in the fourth innings if we don't have a target to defend? On the batting performance we displayed yesterday, we'd have set them something like 200. Not enough.

You're right. The pitch is playable. We scored 200 on it. Not enough.

why did we thrash England in the first 3 Tests Titan.

What was the common thread?

Gonna be a long day in the field by the looks of the present score.

Wish we were batting right now.

Had the chance but Clarke was cocky.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Why do you keep repeating that the scores would be merely mirrored if we had batted first Titan.

Strange logic.

[titan_uranus 25,014]

why did we thrash England in the first 3 Tests Titan.

What was the common thread?

Gonna be a long day in the field by the looks of the present score.

Wish we were batting right now.

Had the chance but Clarke was cocky.

Why do you keep repeating that the scores would be merely mirrored if we had batted first Titan.

Strange logic.

What was the common thread?

We made runs.

This time, we've been bowled out for 200, clearly our worst first innings score. If we'd made 300+ like we should have, we'd have a lead in this Test.

We put England in on a pitch you agree is not that bad for batting on, and bowled them out for 255. That's a great result for a first innings. We then came out with our tails up and threw our wickets away (see Warner, Watson, Rogers, Smith and Bailey). That's bad batting. Not bad captaincy.

Why do you keep insisting that if we'd batted first we'd have made more runs?

[Nasher 33,613]

why did we thrash England in the first 3 Tests Titan.

What was the common thread?

Gonna be a long day in the field by the looks of the present score.

Wish we were batting right now.

Had the chance but Clarke was cocky.

The common thread was that we batted well and scored a shit tonne of runs. The link between that and batting first is tenuous and based on nothing but circumstantial evidence.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

What was the common thread?

We made runs.

This time, we've been bowled out for 200, clearly our worst first innings score. If we'd made 300+ like we should have, we'd have a lead in this Test.

We put England in on a pitch you agree is not that bad for batting on, and bowled them out for 255. That's a great result for a first innings. We then came out with our tails up and threw our wickets away (see Warner, Watson, Rogers, Smith and Bailey). That's bad batting. Not bad captaincy.

Why do you keep insisting that if we'd batted first we'd have made more runs?

i have not insisted we would have made more runs in the first innings. But i always believe it is harder to chase.

The Australians will be knackered after today and then we will be chasing a big score.

Why give your opponent a sniff. That's what Clarke did & i bet he is kicking himself now.

[titan_uranus 25,014]

i have not insisted we would have made more runs in the first innings. But i always believe it is harder to chase.

The Australians will be knackered after today and then we will be chasing a big score.

Why give your opponent a sniff. That's what Clarke did & i bet he is kicking himself now.

But none of that applies if we'd done our job with the bat and made, say, 350. Then, we'd have a 100 run lead, we'd have kept their bowlers in the field longer, tiring them out, we'd have rested our bowlers more, and we'd then set out to only have to chase down a target of around 150.

In other words, we didn't make enough runs in our first innings.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

But none of that applies if we'd done our job with the bat and made, say, 350. Then, we'd have a 100 run lead, we'd have kept their bowlers in the field longer, tiring them out, we'd have rested our bowlers more, and we'd then set out to only have to chase down a target of around 150.

In other words, we didn't make enough runs in our first innings.

I still would have batted first.

Pure and simple.

You are not taking in to account the psychological advantage that Clarke surrendered.

[titan_uranus 25,014]

I still would have batted first.

Pure and simple.

You are not taking in to account the psychological advantage that Clarke surrendered.

I know you would have batted first. You always would. That's the real issue - you're a traditionalist who believes in batting first no matter what, which means that any poor performance is a result of the toss, not of the actual performance.

Again, there would not have been any psychological advantage to us batting first and folding as we did for 200.

[45HG 1,539]

The reality is that 200 is not good enough. That has nothing to do with the toss. In fact, we should have had a psychological advantage having knocked them over cheaply. As I posted earlier, I thought 250 would be competitive and that the pitch was getting easier to bat on.

Watson and Harris' injury concerns are a real worry and a shame for the match as it looks like England should be able to pull away easily now.

The toss is not the reason half our batsman folded like a lawn chair. That is the real issue.

[Macca 16,963]

From the lips of Ryan Harris (14 minutes into this BBC podcast)

When he left us (Clarke), he was gonna bat.

But obviously, I think the coaches out in the middle, they had a bit of a chat and decided to bowl.

We could assume from the above that the decision to bowl was not Clarke's alone (regardless of your view on what we should have done when we won the toss)

My view is we should have batted first but that view is based more on not batting last. My view is also not a hard and fast one either - after the completion of day 1, it looked like it was a good decision! We can't have it both ways.

Most 4th and 5th day wickets play up to varying degrees but sometimes they don't play up. It depends on whether you want to bank on the "sometimes". Another argument is that sometimes a first day wicket helps the bowlers more than what was initially thought.

England would have learned a lot about how to bowl on the wicket when they batted in the 1st innings. However, we batted appallingly badly all the same. Both sides of the argument have merit.

It may not be a bad thing to get a kick in the pants anyway. South Africa looms.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

I know you would have batted first. You always would. That's the real issue - you're a traditionalist who believes in batting first no matter what, which means that any poor performance is a result of the toss, not of the actual performance.

Again, there would not have been any psychological advantage to us batting first and folding as we did for 200.

I bat first unless the pitch is a nursery. Traditional cricket follower has nothing to do with it.

Physics Mathematics and Psychology are what i base opinions on with Test Cricket.

Of course 200 was not enough.

Day 1 with a Home crowd if 91,000 i am thinking we would do better than that.

And we would be batting right now resting the bowlers.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

From the lips of Ryan Harris (14 minutes into this BBC podcast)

We could assume from the above that the decision to bowl was not Clarke's alone (regardless of your view on what we should have done when we won the toss)

My view is we should have batted first but that view is based more on not batting last. My view is also not a hard and fast one either - after the completion of day 1, it looked like it was a good decision! We can't have it both ways.

Most 4th and 5th day wickets play up to varying degrees but sometimes they don't play up. It depends on whether you want to bank on the "sometimes". Another argument is that sometimes a first day wicket helps the bowlers more than what was initially thought.

England would have learned a lot about how to bowl on the wicket when they batted in the 1st innings. However, we batted appallingly badly all the same. Both sides of the argument have merit.

It may not be a bad thing to get a kick in the pants anyway. South Africa looms.

your last point here Macca is poignant.

Having won the Ashes Clarke and the coaches may have decided to throw the team in the deep end to see how they measure up before going to South Africa.

That was my second thought after choking on my coffee at 10.15 Boxing day morning!!

[titan_uranus 25,014]

It may not be a bad thing to get a kick in the pants anyway. South Africa looms.

I think this could be a small blessing in disguise.

By sucking in Melbourne, and with Sydney a second dead rubber, we may see changes to the side. Specifically, we may get to see someone in the place of Watson and/or Bailey, the two biggest problem players in our side.

Faulkner may get a game at 6, though I'm not sure if his batting is good enough for 6 (and I don't like seeing us push the keeper up to 6). We may also see a new batsman, potentially.

Either way, it may well mean we get something more important than we otherwise would have out of Sydney.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

I think this could be a small blessing in disguise.

By sucking in Melbourne, and with Sydney a second dead rubber, we may see changes to the side. Specifically, we may get to see someone in the place of Watson and/or Bailey, the two biggest problem players in our side.

Faulkner may get a game at 6, though I'm not sure if his batting is good enough for 6 (and I don't like seeing us push the keeper up to 6). We may also see a new batsman, potentially.

Either way, it may well mean we get something more important than we otherwise would have out of Sydney.

I can see some merit in this. Because it gives England a sniff.

How mentally tough is the team?

[Macca 16,963]

your last point here Macca is poignant.

Having won the Ashes Clarke and the coaches may have decided to throw the team in the deep end to see how they measure up before going to South Africa.

That was my second thought after choking on my coffee at 10.15 Boxing day morning!!

Yeah, if ever you're going to do something like that, it's when you've won a series. I've heard that suggestion bandied about a bit during this Test and it has merit, Wyl. Or ... see the last bit of this post below for an alternative explanation.

We need to find a way of winning the series against South Africa and lets face it, it's all about winning series. Big series margins are just the cream on the top - we're now doing it tough in this Test but that's a good thing IMO. We defeated England 5 nil in 2006/07 but that margin was not really a pointer to the future.

Steyn, Philander and Morkel are gonna test our blokes and we could do with the team remaining really hungry. Cruising to a 5 nil series win could cover up a few notable weaknesses (specifically, our batting)

We may still win this Test and it wouldn't surprise if the pitch doesn't deteriorate all that much. The 3 Shield games played at the MCG this year might indicate that batting later in those games wasn't all that difficult. Time will tell with this Test.

Vic vs WA Oct 30 - Nov 2

Vic vs NSW Nov 6 - Nov 9

Vic vs SA Nov 29 - Dec 2

Edited December 28, 2013 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Yeah, if ever you're going to do something like that, it's when you've won a series. I've heard that suggestion bandied about a bit during this Test and it has merit, Wyl. Or ... see the last bit of this post below for an alternative explanation.

We need to find a way of winning the series against South Africa and lets face it, it's all about winning series. Big series margins are just the cream on the top - we're now doing it tough in this Test but that's a good thing IMO. We defeated England 5 nil in 2006/07 but that margin was not really a pointer to the future.

Steyn, Philander and Morkel are gonna test our blokes and we could do with the team remaining really hungry. Cruising to a 5 nil series win could cover up a few notable weaknesses (specifically, our batting)

We may still win this Test and it wouldn't surprise if the pitch doesn't deteriorate all that much. The 3 Shield games would indicate that batting later in those games wasn't all that difficult. Time will tell with this Test.

Vic vs WA Oct 30 - Nov 2

Vic vs NSW Nov 6 - Nov 9

Vic vs SA Nov 29 - Dec 2

Sure. Todays weather will dry whatever moisture is left. Unless the ground floods tonight!!

It can be the only answer if Harris's tweet was legit. The Aussies were psyched to bat and didn't. No wonder they were flat.

Poms would have been stoked immediately

[jazza 1,323]

maybe clarkes back was playing up and he had to bowl first

petersons shot in the first dig was pitiful for a first class player

our top four is still weak as puppys water

Edited December 28, 2013 by jazza

[Macca 16,963]

Sure. Todays weather will dry whatever moisture is left. Unless the ground floods tonight!!

It can be the only answer if Harris's tweet was legit. The Aussies were psyched to bat and didn't. No wonder they were flat.

Poms would have been stoked immediately

Another wicket! Johnno can do no wrong! This could turn out to be a great finish.

Game on!

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Another wicket! Johnno can do no wrong! This could turn out to be a great finish.

Game on!

4/87. Lyon is becoming a very handy cricketer.

Johnson is just having an amazing series.

[Whispering_Jack 30,036]

Whatever the result this is riveting stuff and a reminder as to why test cricket is far superior to anything the white ball game can throw up.

[Macca 16,963]

4/87. Lyon is becoming a very handy cricketer.

Johnson is just having an amazing series.

Lyon has complemented our quicks nicely. Clarke uses him very intelligently. He gets good bounce and he can turn 'em. He's getting better and better - but not in a dramatic way.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Lyon has complemented our quicks nicely. Clarke uses him very intelligently. He gets good bounce and he can turn 'em. He's getting better and better - but not in a dramatic way.

this last 3 hours of today will be the real test. The bowlers and fielders are getting tired..how tired???