The Friendly Monster said:We got took four times as many wickets as Australia, and scored more runs!
its a brave new world
The Friendly Monster said:We got took four times as many wickets as Australia, and scored more runs!
Empty said:no katich along with the morale shift from this result is going to make it difficult for australia in the next game. really nice position we're in now.
And who are replacing the rest of the team?Salazar said:Supposedly (quoth the Grauniad) Phil Hughes is in line to replace Katich. I have no strong feelings about it.
legend166 said:My Aussie team for Perth:
Hughes
Hussey
Clarke
Ponting
Watson
Smith
Haddin
Harris
Siddle
Copeland
Bollinger
Depending on whether the pitch is a typical WACA pitch or more like what they've served up in the last few years, swap Bollinger out for O'Keefe and then O'Keefe plays at number 8.
matt404au said:We only had to make it to lunch and it would've been a draw.
smh
Wanted to make wine, I think.guidop said:good article in the Age about our spin situation - Link
We're pretty stuffed for spin options now that Doherty has failed, I don't think Smith and White have the bowling chops the team needs.
Edit: btw what was MacGill's reason for retiring?
Dead Man said:Wanted to make wine, I think.
Has Botham had some surgery? He looks weird in that picture.Salazar said:http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-legends-come-to-blows-at-ashes-20101207-18o28.html
Botham would have knocked him over. Silly boys.
Juicy Bob said:...and it is now absolutely chucking it down here in Adelaide.
mclem said:Out of interest, how long did England actually have left, then, based on the weather?
Salazar said:http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-legends-come-to-blows-at-ashes-20101207-18o28.html
Botham would have knocked him over. Silly boys.
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy said:Hauritz into the team to replace Katich :lol
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy said:Nah not serious. He is the highest scorer in the NSW Vs SA game going on at the moment, 66 not out.
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy said:We need a bigger pool. I demand Chinese-esque selection, if you got talent we take you away from your family and train you to be UBER!
jambo said:I miss Hayden, Symonds, Gilchrist, McGrath, Warne and the Waugh brothers.
Any other Aussie want to help me build a time machine?
Salazar said:Hilarious that Taylor thinks Johnson would bring "aggro" to the attack. Is that another word for sundries ?
The players themselves can take some of the blame for this. Michael Clarke, perhaps through abject disappointment or the act of a drowning man clutching at a serpent, saw a glimmer of hope when the umpire missed a blatant inside edge and forced England to refer a short-leg catch that was obvious for everybody to see. Well, obvious to everybody except the man in the best position - the umpire! Now, let me state upfront that I have no issue whatsoever with Clarke (or any other cricketer from any country) standing their ground and waiting for the umpire's decision if they are also prepared to abrogate ALL decision-making responsibilities to the umpire. It's when we have this "duality of morality" (as I call it) that major problems emerge and tensions can flare.
Let's consider the last two Tests in Brisbane and Adelaide; Australia (Ricky Ponting) claims a low catch off Alastair Cook on the 5th day at the Gabba. His indignant response to the decision being referred to the 3rd umpire might be understandable if Australia (in this example) were always prepared to play the game on the basis of 'player honesty'. But, as Clarke proved a few days later in Adelaide, that honour code is totally dispensable when you snick the ball, either to the wicketkeeper, short leg, silly mid-off etc. It's almost as if a catch when youre batting has a totally different moral obligation, to a catch you claim as a fielder. Why is that? I simply don't see why there is such a difference in ethics. If you knew you nicked it, why is that fundamentally different to claiming a catch that bounced before you caught it?
Likewise, wicketkeepers are prone to appealing vociferously for a catch that they knew missed the edge of the bat, but are bound by some sort of moral code that apparently can be relied upon to kick in if the nick doesn't quite carry to them. Fielders will appeal for an lbw that clearly got an inside edge. Sometimes the initial appeal is instinctive but you know a fraction of a second later that the batsman smashed it, but I have yet to see a batsman being called back if after an umpire gives him out lbw. Again, I have no issue with accepting the umpire's verdict, good or bad, because you know that over a lifetime, things even themselves out. For that argument to hold true though, cricketers who subscribe to that theory need to accept the umpire's decision on all verdicts. Insisting that you are so honest that you'd never claim a bump ball whilst happily admitting that you would appeal for a dismissal that you knew was not out or stand your ground when you knew you nicked one to the keeper just doesn't make sense.
:lolAnd when you make a goose of yourself like Clarke did the other evening, full marks for the apology and the plausible explanation but for goodness sake, don't hide behind Twitter!