-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The New and Improved Cricket Thread© - Now Roadblock Free!
- Thread starter Grug
- Start date
Tim the Wiz
Banned
The axeman cometh! Siddle with the tenacious breakthrough that could spell a soul-destroying loss for England.
Gotta feel for Collingwood - and Stuart Clark. :lol
Gotta feel for Collingwood - and Stuart Clark. :lol
This was funny:
"Siddle to Panesar, no run, short and angled into the left-hander who defended on the back foot out to the off side. Monty wants a run! Oh good grief man, what are you doing? Anderson sends him back, Monty gives him the thumbs up, Strauss puts his head in his hands and mutters "for God's sake.""
Heh.
England now lead. Double heh.
"Siddle to Panesar, no run, short and angled into the left-hander who defended on the back foot out to the off side. Monty wants a run! Oh good grief man, what are you doing? Anderson sends him back, Monty gives him the thumbs up, Strauss puts his head in his hands and mutters "for God's sake.""
Heh.
England now lead. Double heh.
liquid_gears
Banned
Grug said:
You're far too kind
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Marcus North? Where is Hilfy?!
liquid_gears
Banned
Not cool.
Sorry to drag this back up, but people quite often take hope out of snathcing a draw from the jaws of defeat. Consider WW2, Dunkirk. The English got smashed, but staged a very successful retreat, and took heart from that. I wouldn't be surprised if a draw here gave them extra morale.Grug said:
Tim the Wiz
Banned
The time wasting was unnecessary, but a good battling stand from England's lower order and Paul Collingwood. (He earned his MBE today )
:lol Thing is, though, this was probably England's best chance to win. Also, wars between nations are a much more dynamic and fluid situation than cricket - where the resources probably aren't going to change as dramatically within one series. I think the comparison is unrealistic.
)idahoblue said:
:lol Thing is, though, this was probably England's best chance to win. Also, wars between nations are a much more dynamic and fluid situation than cricket - where the resources probably aren't going to change as dramatically within one series. I think the comparison is unrealistic.
We can't run controlled scientific tests to see what would have happened had Ponting bowled Hilfenhaus. But if he did and it didn't work, I guarantee people would be screaming "everyone knows Panesar is weak against spin bowling, you blew it Ricky!".
In the emotion of a dissapointing result, its easy to look back at a few captaincy decisions and say they were the difference in the end, but its a bit unfair really.
If I had to pinpoint the most dissapointing moment of the match it would be the 100 runs that we let the English tail get at the end of their first innings. Some extremely ill disciplined bowling by Hauritz and Siddle in particular. I'd say that was far more decisive that Ponting's decisions on the last few overs.
In the emotion of a dissapointing result, its easy to look back at a few captaincy decisions and say they were the difference in the end, but its a bit unfair really.
If I had to pinpoint the most dissapointing moment of the match it would be the 100 runs that we let the English tail get at the end of their first innings. Some extremely ill disciplined bowling by Hauritz and Siddle in particular. I'd say that was far more decisive that Ponting's decisions on the last few overs.