RibbleValleyRover Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Most of the cricket to be played will be Australia batting. Its looking that way! If Australia get a big lead when they bat then i can't see us succeeding in trying to bat out for a draw, don't think these players have the temperament to do so.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
RibbleValleyRover Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Fracking hell another gone to Clark. Cook gone.
AussieinUk Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Clark gets Cook with a well placed ball. Well done Clarky.. welcome back son
RibbleValleyRover Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Clark's figures so far: 6 overs, 2 maidens, 11 runs, 2 wickets And they didn't pick him until the fourth test...
Iceman Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 If Australia bat for 2 days, with a lead of say 500 then England will have to bat 2 days to save the test. England are far to confident it seems, esp against an Australian team hurting deep down. Australia will always keep fighting to the bitter end. Clark's figures so far: 6 overs, 2 maidens, 11 runs, 2 wickets And they didn't pick him until the fourth test... Has Clarke not been injured, which is why they didnt pick him?
RibbleValleyRover Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 If Australia bat for 2 days, with a lead of say 500 then England will have to bat 2 days to save the test. England are far to confident it seems, esp against an Australian team hurting deep down. Australia will always keep fighting to the bitter end. Don't think this current England team could bat out 2 days for a draw... Like Jim said I don't think they have the patience nor the application to do it. Has Clark not been injured, which is why they didnt pick him? I don't think he has been injured, i might be wrong though.
den Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 and still Strauss laughs. Can't imagine any other England captain taking this situation so well.
Iceman Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I'm just learning the game, but even to me this doesn't look good for England... Cricket is much like baseball, except you only bat twice in test matches instead of having 9 innings. The idea is to get as much runs as possible, and bowl the opposition out for less than the other team.
pg Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Clarke was injured for the 1st test. After Cardiff the Aussie bowlers didn't need changing. He was fit for the 3rd test and should have played IMO. Anyway, the Accrington that Warnie and David Lloyed are talking about, is that Accrington Stanley?
Exiled_Rover Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Wow, how to lose a match in a session. Congratulations fellas, done yourselves proud there.
RibbleValleyRover Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Anyway, the Accrington that Warnie and David Lloyed are talking about, is that Accrington Stanley? Warne played for Accrington cricket club in 1991 as their professional. http://accringtoncc.tuxsports.com/pros/warne_shane.html
DeadlyDirk Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Just a prediction: Anderson to finally get his first test match duck..... Just seems to be the way it's going.
AussieinUk Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Clark's figures so far: 6 overs, 2 maidens, 11 runs, 2 wickets And they didn't pick him until the fourth test... Many have disagreed with the non-selection of Clark since the announcement of the Aust line-up at the first test.. With the way that Siddle and Johnson bowled in SA, they were sure to be picked. Hilfenhaus is in the attack due to his outswing bowling.. The last slot would normally go to the spinner (Hauritz).. Remember, Clark hasn't played a test since Nov 08, due to injury and rehab.. Btw - Clark has his 3rd wicket!! Go son! Broad out..
Iceman Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Cricket is a funny ol game though. England could easily get 150, bowl Australia out for 10 then score 200. A lead of 340, then bowl out Australia for 200. No, this game is pretty much Australia's to win.
brfcshabba Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Cricket is a funny ol game though. England could easily get 150, bowl Australia out for 10 then score 200. A lead of 340, then bowl out Australia for 200. No, this game is pretty much Australia's to win. yea, but not that funny. We may as well say the series is 1-1. I hope I am wrong
DeadlyDirk Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 The chat about Atherton holding the record for most ducks for England above the likes of Harmison, Hoggard, Caddick and Malcom has been the most entertaining thing so far today, much better than the cricket. Hussain's comment that he had to stand at square leg when Athers opened was brilliant. EDIT: Ah well at least Athers has Harmison for company on 20 ducks now at the top of the pile. Come on Jimmy!!!!!
Exiled_Rover Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 What are the chances it doesn't rain now. Sods law.
AussieinUk Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Siddle gets Swann out for a duck.. Siddle gets Harmy for a duck too
Nate Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I like Harmy. Shame he has to share that dubious record with Atherton.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.