Geez Harris was stiff there. Blatantly hit that.
But somehow the 3rd umpire still gave it out. Poor work.
But somehow the 3rd umpire still gave it out. Poor work.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
This match shoiuld go the same way as Brisbane IMO.
Draw is still by far the most likely result.
Draw is still by far the most likely result.
Navy Days said:
Wasn't it. Although I just watched the World Series Classic on Fox from 87/88. Two runouts were out by over a foot and the umpire gave them not out. This system is better but not perfect.
They fought back at times the Aussies but 245 is about 150 short of par. Going to be 36 tomorrow so the conditions aren't going to be fun for the Aussie bowlers. The wicket did not get any out today, just good balls in the right spot. That is all the quicks can do over the next two days. Put the pressure on the batsmen over long periods of time. 30 overs for only 80 runs. Build the pressure and batsmen get themselves out.
craig said:
Starting with Ponting, Clarke, North. You could tell Ponting was in trouble when pundits were lauding his quick 50 in the second dig in Brisbane. It was nice to see us get a positive 1-for, but the bottom line is it was junk time. The real guns perform when it matters.
I wrote it here somewhere the other day but there are still too many people overestimating this team, coaches, officials, media, even some fans. In the years since the greats' retirements, the players have played above themselves on the reputation of the team. Mediocre cricketers playing better than their ability. Now the rot is setting in. Mediocre cricketers playing mediocre cricket. 3 for 2. Two run outs including a diamond duck in the first over!
Well, after the poms have shafted us 3-0, the fertilizer will hit the fan and the badly needed clean out will begin. Australia 2010-11 is the nadir that Richmond had in 2009.
And I still think Watson should be the next captain, if for no other reason than he is now the one with the most guaranteed spot in the side, including Ponting!
Players and team as a whole living off past glories. A distinct lack of steel in this side. Our past 3 days of test cricket are some of the worst I can remember.
Shane Watson's innings proves again he is not really an opener. He is a mature senior player, there are no excuses for his inability to convert his starts at the top of the order. It's not an aberration or bad form, it's simply Watson. He is much part of the reason Australia got such a low score as the other batsman who unambiguously failed. People might say 'well think how bad we'd be if he wasn't there', but we're still not winning. The sooner we get Hughes into the opening slot (especially with Katich near the end) the sooner the rebuild can start in earnest. Play Watson in the late middle order - this simply isn't working.
Clarke should not be in the team get him out now. I will not be a happy camper when he is appointed captain.
I think we should bring in Cam White to replace North at six, better bat, fielder and leader. Also has taken more wickets then North in 1st class than North ever will.
As much as I agree with the change of bowlers in our selected team due to form, why are batters that have not proved themselves been given so many chances?
I think we should bring in Cam White to replace North at six, better bat, fielder and leader. Also has taken more wickets then North in 1st class than North ever will.
As much as I agree with the change of bowlers in our selected team due to form, why are batters that have not proved themselves been given so many chances?
mld said:
So have we suddenly become New Zealand? 'A fifty to Watson, is a hundred to a real opener, not just to Hayden and Langer, but think Taylor, Slater, Boon (even Geoff Marsh had a better conversion rate). That's the last two decades of cricket right there. That's the reasonable minimum standard we have come to expect. Accepting an opener who is simply 'good for a consistent fifty' isn't going to win us too many matches (as yet again this test is illustrating), let alone give the opener himself too many credits in the bank if he goes through a bad patch. It's a losers mentality and in the long run it can't be sustained. It's just avoiding the inevitable rebuild.
Tygrys said:
lol at the internet critics who lash out at the only player who consistently does his job. Did you know that Watson and Katich have the highest opening partnership average for us? Including all the players you have listed? It is more a case of people having unrealistic expectations and lashing out like children when those expectations aren't met.
If you want to lash out like an idiot, you would do best to target it at the players who aren't doing their jobs first.