Rovers_4_life Posted September 1, 2005 Posted September 1, 2005 Richie Benaud hanging up his microphone for the last time in England at the Oval. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4202394.stm one of the greats... 343886[/snapback] Shame Geoff Boycott didn't think of that years ago!
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
Timmy Posted September 2, 2005 Author Posted September 2, 2005 the tactic for this test match will be very interesting. from our perspective i would say taht vaughny if he wins the toss would not to even think about a declaration.....in the first inning. on the other hand and depending on what the pitch is normally like at the oval, it wouldn't be all that bad if australia batted first...cause it is they whom have to get us out as quickly as possible. if we do win the toss, then i wouldn't be surprised to see micahel vaughn put them in. 344095[/snapback] If England wins the toss there is no question that Engalnd will bat first. We could knock up a big score (say 400-500) over a day or 2 and bat the aussies out of the series. Heard McGill might be played. Who would make way for him?
Bazzanotsogreat Posted September 2, 2005 Posted September 2, 2005 heard Mcgill may play with either martyn / hayden been dropped with watson coming in at 6. and dropping kaspa and tait. Big risk for me If england bat first the leggies will be nulified on a very very flat oval wicket ( the flatest wicket in england ) it all depends on the toss
Rovers_4_life Posted September 2, 2005 Posted September 2, 2005 Hopefully there will be some rain forcast too annoy the Aussies a bit more!
Paul Posted September 2, 2005 Posted September 2, 2005 Freddie has been awarded the Freedom of the City by Preston!
Blueboy Downunder Posted September 2, 2005 Posted September 2, 2005 if we win the toss then we must put them in because by doing this it is making them use up there own time, whereas we couldn't give a stuff how long they stay at the crease for.....then say after 1 and half days...we bat and then bat for 2 days or at least try to....if you see where i'm going with this.
1864roverite Posted September 2, 2005 Posted September 2, 2005 not much interesting in Preston apart from the road out of it
blue phil Posted September 2, 2005 Posted September 2, 2005 if we win the toss then we must put them in because by doing this it is making them use up there own time, whereas we couldn't give a stuff how long they stay at the crease for.....then say after 1 and half days...we bat and then bat for 2 days or at least try to....if you see where i'm going with this. 344404[/snapback] If we put them in , BB , and they get a decent score (350 plus) then the pressure on us will be immense . Better for us to get in first and put the pressure on them . Plus these days both teams are capable of scoring quick - unless rain's forecast time isn't really an issue . I'm getting nervous about this already
Blueboy Downunder Posted September 2, 2005 Posted September 2, 2005 i see your point phil. obvious that we are gonna try and bat as long as possible without declaring, so we might as well do it at the start of the test match. i too am getting very nervous....come on lads!!!!
Manchester Blue Posted September 3, 2005 Posted September 3, 2005 Heard McGill might be played. Who would make way for him? 344310[/snapback] Let's hope MacGill is playing if today is anything to go by. He's just got his hundred up, that's runs conceded, against Essex who are 357-1. Glad to see the Aussie bowlers are back on form.
Neil Weaver Posted September 3, 2005 Posted September 3, 2005 Maybe this should go in that schaudenfreude thread............ Australia humbled by Essex. The lad who got a double hundred is 19 I think. McGrath not playing cos his elbow's still not up to it. There'll be dancing in the streets of Chelmsford tonight. Of SE11 next weekend?
modes98 Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 essex should have kept batting and totally wrecked the aussies. Whereas now they have given them a chance to get some batting form and hayden has got a big 100!
Manchester Blue Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 They couldn't keep batting, the rules were they could bat either for a day or 120 overs whichever happened first. As for Hayden getting a hundred, I hope he gets 300. His ability to amass big scores is not in doubt, he has done it in most of these games against county sides. His ability to adjust his game against better bowling has been his downfall. A big score to increase his confidence, if that's possible, could play into England's hands.
Timmy Posted September 4, 2005 Author Posted September 4, 2005 before the last test Hayden made a 100 but didn't pull many trees up in the test by the looks of things I could have made a tonne on that Essex track and with that attack
Manchester Blue Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 Just look at Hayden's scores this summer not counting one dayers:- 75 against Leicestershire 79 against Worcestershire 136 against Northants all good scores but then look at what he has scored in the tests 1st Test 12 & 34 2nd Test 0 & 31 3rd Test 34 & 36 4th Test 7 & 26 He's had plenty of starts but it appears his arrogance is such that he refuses to alter his playing style against superior bowlers and is paying the price. Long may it continue.
modes98 Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 They couldn't keep batting, the rules were they could bat either for a day or 120 overs whichever happened first. 344667[/snapback] They still only batted for 105! but as brad hodge outscored hayden, langer, katich, gilchrist maybe it'll give them something to think about! Interesting selection of anderson for the back up bowler for the last test! But i think a good one, i would have thought gough but only because of geoff boycott's opinion on saturday's C&G!
pg Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 MacGill's efforts against Essex would be a worry. Here is what I said in another forum about MacGill : The last time he bowled against England in 2002-03 at home : Melbourne test : 1st innings : 36 overs, 2 for 108 (wickets of Hussian and Dawson) 2nd innings : 48 overs, 5 for 152 (wickets of Trescothick, Vaughn, White, Foster and Caddick). Sydney test : 1st innings : 44 overs, 2 for 106 (the wickets of Caddick and Hoggard) 2nd innings : 41 overs, 3 for 120 (Butcher, Caddick and Hoggard). Overall : 169 overs 36 maidens 486 run 12 wickets 40.50 average best figures of 5-152 In 169 overs he only claimed four batsman. The English aren't afraid of MacGill, and considering that the Oval is now one of the fastest pitches in the world I don't think he'll be playing.
Manchester Blue Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 They still only batted for 105! Because the end of a day happened first.
Blueboy Downunder Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 this is probably the most important test match for england in the last 100 years. we are now at a level of world cricket that we deserve and to take it to the next level....this is the one that if we win then we can be truely called a great test country.....and rightfully too be crowned as (if we win or draw this test match) the best test playing nation in world cricket.....it is there for the taking michael vaughn...so lets have the bottle to take it.
neekoy Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Oh my god, truely called a great test country? IF you win the series it will be the first one in close to 20 years, give me a break, remain on top for the next ten years then call yourself a great test nation. At the moment you haven't even gone past flash in the pan in reputation stakes Australia has done everything there is to do in Cricket, we have won world cups, we have beaten every country on their own turf, we have been recognised at the highest level as the greatest SPORTING team (not just cricket but all sports) in the world and hold the record for the longest winning streak by a long shot. Good series England but don't count those chickens yet
Flopsy Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 but the old sphincters starting to flutter aint it Neekoy? Beaten in the Rugby, your cricket teams looking vulnerable all you have to fall back on is that 3-1 win in a football friendly. Must be upsetting. That being said I fully expect Austrailia to win at the test thanks to two people - Lee and Warne
pg Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Flopys - you can't win everything all of the time can you? Besides, we have to let you guys win every now and then just to keep you interested
Flopsy Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Thats it isnt it - you havent been outplayed in 3 of the 4 tests, its becuase you're letting us win. That'll explain Ponting letting us bat first at Edgebaston, keeping gillespie on for Old Trafford. Neekoy, im just enjoyinh winding you Aussies up - No true english cricket fan (bar Jim whos just an arse) begrudges the fact that Austrailia have been great, almost perfect, for a long time, however your mantel's slipping what ever happens at the Oval. It means that we now have three or four teams that are near each other in quality, and long may i continue. Im looking forward to the christmas tour now
pg Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Thats it isnt it - you havent been outplayed in 3 of the 4 tests, its becuase you're letting us win. That'll explain Ponting letting us bat first at Edgebaston, keeping gillespie on for Old Trafford. Now you're getting it
Recommended Posts