On 24/11/2010 at 22:05, Whispering_Jack said:

According to Twitter, Alex Keath scored 191 not out for Victoria's Under 23 team and could be in the Sheffield Shield team very soon.

Good on him.

Hodge makes 'another' century against the Bulls last night. What else is new.....

  On 24/11/2010 at 23:32, why you little said:

The Convicts are Bowling...

England won the toss and elected to bat.

The Empire 1-0

Strauss.GAWN.

The Empire 2 Down...

Trott gets the Trotts.. B)

Poms 4/125

Pieterson out to Peter Siddle and just now Collingwood gone too. Siddle most economical bowler to date - two wickets ! Hilfy & Johnson been hit for a bit. Hilfenhaus has a wicket so too Watson. MJ relatively expensive. Cook & Bell would be big scalps. Cook occupying crease for Poms.

Happy birthday, Peter Siddle

Peter Siddle. Peter Siddle. Peter Siddle.

Hat trick ~! 7/197. What an over. Aussies right on top of proceedings. The Birthday boy has turned the Ashes on it's head in the first Test. 5 wickets for Siddle and won't the selectors feel happy.

Victoria ruling....! B)

And again....6 for!!!

  On 25/11/2010 at 06:16, why you little said:

And again....6 for!!!

Could have had 7 ! Dropped by Haddin, should have taken that on Brad.

I must say, I'm a little surprised at Ponting's field set for Bell. At 8/227 it should be a far more attacking field. It's no wonder he faces criticism now and again. Siddle 6/44.

  On 25/11/2010 at 06:20, High Tower said:

Could have had 7 ! Dropped by Haddin, should have taken that on Brad.

I must say, I'm a little surprised at Ponting's field set for Bell. At 8/227 it should be a far more attacking field. It's no wonder he faces criticism now and again. Siddle 6/44.

Yes Haddin's drop was a real shame. Was Tough but a test keeper should have caught it.

But a hat trick on ya birthday against the Enemy...how cool.

I have no understanding of Ponting in the field. He is a great cover fieldsman, but Tactics are not his high point.

  On 25/11/2010 at 07:20, why you little said:

I have no understanding of Ponting in the field. He is a great cover fieldsman, but Tactics are not his high point.

Its lucky he didn't win the toss.

Ponting would have to get a big tick for bringing Siddle into the attack at 4/197. Could be one of the decisions that might influence the series. Up to then, Siddle aside and Hilfy's first over the bowling was nothing to write home about and I am not sure how you can knock the field when the bowlers generally bowled poorly. And I am glad you know more about tactics than a professional with 20 years first class experience. Its reassuring.

And when a Captain has the oppposition out for 260 and his side 0/25 on the first day of the 1st Test in an Ashes Series, its fair to say he has won this round of the fight. Particularly when his opposite went for a 3rd ball duck. Telling blow. Ponting will have tougher days in the office and may deserve fair criticism for it. However he has landed a telling blow on England today (even with an ordinary Johnson) and should be given recognition for it

Tomorrow is Round 2 and we will see what happens but if Australia can still be there are stumps then this is going to be a most difficult game for England.

Any recognition for the selectors for backing Siddle over Bollinger? Hmmmm. Brave call for which they will never get due credit for.

Keath to make Shield debut and wonder how Dougie is feeling, finally selectors did something right

  On 25/11/2010 at 10:46, Rhino Richards said:

Its lucky he didn't win the toss.

Ponting would have to get a big tick for bringing Siddle into the attack at 4/197. Could be one of the decisions that might influence the series. Up to then, Siddle aside and Hilfy's first over the bowling was nothing to write home about and I am not sure how you can knock the field when the bowlers generally bowled poorly. And I am glad you know more about tactics than a professional with 20 years first class experience. Its reassuring.

And when a Captain has the oppposition out for 260 and his side 0/25 on the first day of the 1st Test in an Ashes Series, its fair to say he has won this round of the fight. Particularly when his opposite went for a 3rd ball duck. Telling blow. Ponting will have tougher days in the office and may deserve fair criticism for it. However he has landed a telling blow on England today (even with an ordinary Johnson) and should be given recognition for it

Tomorrow is Round 2 and we will see what happens but if Australia can still be there are stumps then this is going to be a most difficult game for England.

Any recognition for the selectors for backing Siddle over Bollinger? Hmmmm. Brave call for which they will never get due credit for.

Was a good day for the bowlers, so lets hope that the Batsmen pull their weight. Strange weather up there from what i could tell. Big Clouds/sunlight-it was all there.

Selectors will get credit for Siddle, i am worried about Clarke though-4 days of Test cricket to go with a dodgy back?? Hmmm i don't know. Bollinger still had the side strain apparently, so he wouldn't have lasted.

Day 2 will be most interesting. Will the Poms crack?

The radio said repeatedly that Bollinger was declared fit for the game and that he has been replaced by Khawaja at the Test to allow Bollinger to play a shield game.

  On 25/11/2010 at 10:46, Rhino Richards said:

Ponting would have to get a big tick for bringing Siddle into the attack at 4/197. Could be one of the decisions that might influence the series.

To be honest Siddle was due for his second spell having only bowled 6 overs up until then. Ricky had limited choices. It was Siddle's line and length and consistency which unsettled the Englishmen and all due credit should go to Siddle himself for bowling so well by steaming in and of course the selectors for having shown faith in him.

  Quote

Up to then, Siddle aside and Hilfy's first over the bowling was nothing to write home about and I am not sure how you can knock the field when the bowlers generally bowled poorly.

I give Punter a knock only when they had the Poms at 8 for and attacked the tail but when Bell faced they eased the pressure by having some men out. I understand maybe the temptation for a run to get the tail back on strike, but some of the fieldsmen positioned - as mentioned on 774 - was perplexing to say the least.

All in all a good day for the Australians on Day 1 and let's hope the run continues by the Aussies with the bat in Day 2 by occupying the crease and milking some runs in the first session.

  Quote

And when a Captain has the oppposition out for 260 and his side 0/25 on the first day of the 1st Test in an Ashes Series, its fair to say he has won this round of the fight.

Absolutely.

  Quote

Any recognition for the selectors for backing Siddle over Bollinger? Hmmmm. Brave call for which they will never get due credit for.

Of course, I've said just as much previously (previous page) by stating the selectors would be feeling quite happy after day 1 and they should feel vindicated to date with the changes made.

I can't help but think Chappell may have had an influence in such a brave call.

  On 25/11/2010 at 22:39, High Tower said:

To be honest Siddle was due for his second spell having only bowled 6 overs up until then. Ricky had limited choices. It was Siddle's line and length and consistency which unsettled the Englishmen and all due credit should go to Siddle himself for bowling so well by steaming in and of course the selectors for having shown faith in him.

I give Punter a knock only when they had the Poms at 8 for and attacked the tail but when Bell faced they eased the pressure by having some men out. I understand maybe the temptation for a run to get the tail back on strike, but some of the fieldsmen positioned - as mentioned on 774 - was perplexing to say the least.

All in all a good day for the Australians on Day 1 and let's hope the run continues by the Aussies with the bat in Day 2 by occupying the crease and milking some runs in the first session.

Absolutely.

Of course, I've said just as much previously (previous page) by stating the selectors would be feeling quite happy after day 1 and they should feel vindicated to date with the changes made.

I can't help but think Chappell may have had an influence in such a brave call.

The Captain is responsible for the use of his bowlers. He is responsible for over/underbowling his charges and should be recognised for his decisions when they go right as well. As you have agreed the 1st day was Australia's. Ponting deserves any more merit considering Johnson was poor and he had a first gamer in Doherty who did not let the side down.

I was certainly not critical of your comments on the specific issue. I was not watching then. It more the tedious "experts" with their broadbrush criticism of tactics when they have shown they have neither the pedigree nor the knowledge to make a plausible judgement. Get my drift. B)

And I blame Greg Chappell for this mess too.

  On 25/11/2010 at 22:52, Rhino Richards said:

I was certainly not critical of your comments on the specific issue. I was not watching then. It more the tedious "experts" with their broadbrush criticism of tactics when they have shown they have neither the pedigree nor the knowledge to make a plausible judgement. Get my drift. B)

And I blame Greg Chappell for this mess too.

Yeah, I get your drift.

Fwiw, I thought the wicket played okay all considered. 4/197 was an indication of that. The way Strauss played was unlike Strauss - although he does have a poor record in Australia. The other batsmen in Trott, Cook, Pieterson, Bell all got starts, so they'd be confident of turning things around. This Test is not over by a longshot.

At least Punter can feel confident throwing the ball to Siddle anytime, but he may want to 'start to reconsider' the level of faith he has in Mitchell. Even though he has been a bit of a go-to man for the Skipper on numerous occassions and has delivered on occassions. He can be a dangerous bowler - for that is granted when on song. However, when he's not the opposition batsmen love him and he creates alot of work for scoreboard attendants.

  On 25/11/2010 at 20:19, Rhino Richards said:

The radio said repeatedly that Bollinger was declared fit for the game and that he has been replaced by Khawaja at the Test to allow Bollinger to play a shield game.

Well i am just going on what i was told via the ABC TV dept. The rug still was troubled by the side strain, had not trained much and the selectors were worried he wouldn't make 5 days.

Peter Siddle. What a legend. Deserved his spot over Bollinger based on fitness. I wasn't impressed with Hilfenhaus yesterday. He's in there for swing, but Watson swings it more. Bollinger is better than him, so he needs wickets or I'd drop him. Johnson was crap too but I rate him as a match winner more so than Hilfenhaus. Plus we get the biggest tail since the dinosaurs if we drop Johnson for Bolly.

Watson and Katich doing well at the moment. I don't rate Anderson or Finn outside of England and playing against the crappier teams, but Broad looks good and Swann is superb so the danger is still there.

A good Test so far, shows why Test cricket is still the best form of the game.

  On 25/11/2010 at 23:44, why you little said:

Well i am just going on what i was told via the ABC TV dept. The rug still was troubled by the side strain, had not trained much and the selectors were worried he wouldn't make 5 days.

Clearly he is untroubled by the side strain, hence free to play for NSW in the Shield. The selectors were concerned he hadn't had enough cricket (23 overs total) prior to the first Test - that is why they were concerned he wasn't ready for the Test. Siddle on the other hand had played 3 games. Now you can tell the ABC TV dept why.

  On 26/11/2010 at 00:59, titan_uranus said:

A good Test so far, shows why Test cricket is still the best form of the game.

Absolutely. Breath of fresh air and what a day to start the series. Most memorable.

On Johnson - he's form with the bat whilst a bonus shouldn't necessarily be considered when weighing up strike bowlers in my opinion. I know he occassionally contributes but it's the bowling that is the essential ingredient when selection is considered.

What a shocking shot from Clarke.

The selectors deserve credit for going with Siddle, I believe some of that credit diminshes because of the selection of North.

  On 26/11/2010 at 04:12, 45HG16 said:

What a shocking shot from Clarke.

The selectors deserve credit for going with Siddle, I believe some of that credit diminshes because of the selection of North.

I heard the ABC Commentators talking about Clarke yesterday not moving or walking properly on at least two occasions. He should not have been picked.

Any sort of Back injury is not going to get any better over 5 days. As you said credit for Siddle but minus credit for Clarke. This Test is going to be a struggle now, the middle order Batsmen continually fail to back up the bowlers.

Edited November 26, 201014 yr by why you little

  On 26/11/2010 at 04:12, 45HG16 said:

What a shocking shot from Clarke.

The selectors deserve credit for going with Siddle, I believe some of that credit diminshes because of the selection of North.

I missed Clarke's innings but whilst out I did hear Skulls (Kerry O'Keefe) on 774 say that Clarke didn't look good, very stiff. (He went on to say that Clarke's inclusion within the team demanded scrutiny as he clearly hasn't been close to 100% despite players previously playing injured for Australia). He'll have to pull through this Test and hopefully contribute. When he was put at mid-on/mid-off yesterday that was a telling sign, rather than mid-wicket or cover.

Agree on North. He was the only change I had in my team a few weeks back (North for McDonald); of course until McDonald got injured that is.

  On 26/11/2010 at 05:45, High Tower said:

I missed Clarke's innings but whilst out I did hear Skulls on 774 say that Clarke didn't look good, very stiff. He'll have to pull through this Test and hopefully contribute. When he was put at mid-on/mid-off yesterday that was a telling sign, rather than mid-wicket or cover.

I couldn't believe what I read in the paper on Tuesday in regards to Clarke talking about how he would play regardless.

Never got to post it here, but I found it to be very self indulgent and not team-focussed at all.