[Walddk]

nickf, on Oct 30 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

Australia didnt prepare themselves properly for this series.

I like this much better than Sean's lame excuses about "inexperience" and "turning wickets". You are the world's number 1 ranked team and should therefore be able to adjust to all surfaces. Losing by 300+ runs in the second Test and now hoplelessly behind at Delhi, that's rather embarrassing.

Australia lost the Ashes in 2005, a big shock, but that was soon forgotten (at least in Australia) because the team went from strength to strength thereafter. Complacency springs to mind, and that is always dangerous. The Aussies should have been warned from previous experiences in India.

For example, Australia are the only country to lose a Test after asking the opposition to follow-on. They lost by 10 runs at Sydney in 1894-95 and at Leeds by 18 runs in 1981 – both times to England, and then to India at Kolkata in 2000-01 by 171 runs.

With the team Australia has at the moment they are no longer hot favourites against nations like India, South Africa and England. It takes time to develop new stars, and that is why I give England a fair chance of regaining the Ashes in about 10 months.

Australia have a weaker team now than they had when they lost in 2005, and additionally it's always harder to get results on foreign soil. The English rain will perhaps be your next excuse, Sean?

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Losing after enforcing a follow on is not necessarily a bad thing (nor is losing after a declaration). It's a bit like conceding the odd doubled partial, if you don't do that you aren't doubling enough.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 31 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

Losing after enforcing a follow on is not necessarily a bad thing (nor is losing after a declaration).  It's a bit like conceding the odd doubled partial, if you don't do that you aren't doubling enough.

Depends on the situation and time remaining. If you must win a match, a declaration, even a generous one, is fine, but enforcing a follow-on is not. Your chances of winning is bigger if you set the opposition a target; then there is a good chance that they will go for it .... and often lose as a result.

However, when enforced to follow on, all you can do (in practice) is to defend and try to salvage a draw. Then the leading team would have been better off if they had batted again and declared when appropriate.

Roland

[jikl]

In some ways the Ashes will depend on how England do against India.

In England it will also depend on reverse swing since we can't handle it, as proven in 2005 and whenever we play in humid conditions or conditions we are not used to.

If the English bowlers have it, then it will be tougher. However our batsmen are far more used to English conditions than Indian ones. Also, spin is less of a factor there. Which is important since we have noone that can turn a ball at the moment apart from Katich who is supposed to open the batting

The one positive we have in the fast bowling department before then is that Shaun Tait is back and bowling decently. It is VERY clear we are short on quality bowlers at the moment, as would any team without Warne and McGrath. Hopefully Clark will be over his injuries by then so he can maintain that niggling line and nip a few in for an lbw or bowled, or nip one away for a catch behind the wicket as he has done in the past.

It will be an intersting Australian summer of cricket considering who we have. New Zealand always grow about 4-5 extra arms and legs whenever they play against us and then we have the dual South African series.

And Roland, whilst I was mildly insulted by your insinuations that I was making excuses, I was actually explaining our domestic cricket stocksthat you may or may not have been aware of. And the only reason I would think of using rain as an excuse is if it changed our win from 3-x 4-x to another result and I had a bet on the outcome

Sean

[jikl]

Congrats to the Windies, I am far more pleased they won than the English team. Not for English hatred or anything, but it is money going to young cricket players who would not normally see that sort of cash.

Sean

[nickf]

jikl, on Nov 2 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

Congrats to the Windies, I am far more pleased they won than the English team. Not for English hatred or anything, but it is money going to young cricket players who would not normally see that sort of cash.

Sean

Not me.

Hate the Poms.

nickf
sydney

[the saint]

Glad we lost it too actually. Would have divided the team ahead of the one that matters. Sending the Convicts back home with their tails behind their legs.

We have the better bowling attack. They have the better batting line up. Whichever one prevails will win the series.

[jikl]

I have no idea what to say about the debacle that was the 4th test. There are so many things to say.

Sean

[Walddk]

Sad day for cricket. I must have been naive, but I never thought this would happen in 'our' sport. I fear that international cricket in Pakistan has no future after this. No team wants to go there any more. I don't blame the players.

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/7921430.stm

In retrospect, was it a wise decision for England to go back to India after Mumbai?

Roland

[mycroft]

I was just reading this person's answer to that question yesterday, looking for information on how referrals currently work. It's the fifth topic (headed "Pakistan: cut off and hung out to dry").

After yesterday's attack, I think it's the only hope for the PCB for the forseeable future. And the PCB and its cricketers are much much better than the ZCB (not that that takes much) and its cricketers (which would take more, if it weren't for the ZCB). The world can do without Zimbabwe test cricket (at least until the politics resolves, if it ever does); I do not think it can do without Pakistan.

On a happier (but still frustrating) note, what do people think of the "amusing" conditions we've had in the West Indies, between Antigua's sandtrap and relocation to a decommissioned ground, and Barbados, where the pitch was forgiving enough that it would have been difficult to bowl out Canada twice, never mind a Test team?

[Walddk]

I don't want to cut off Pakistan from international cricket, but Pakistan as a venue has no future as I see it. Pakistan's home matches must be played in 'neutral' places.

Roland

[Gerben42]

HUP HOLLAND!

Maybe I should start to pay attention to cricket, now that we have beaten England.

[Aberlour10]

Gerben42, on Jun 8 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

HUP HOLLAND!

Maybe I should start to pay attention to cricket, now that we have beaten England.

At last one sport where a Dutchman can sing :"Ohne Deutschland fahren wir zur WM...."

Robert

[Cascade]

Go Australia!!!!

I mean

Go home Australia

[nickf]

I can't ignore this incredibly provocative comment and believe it warrants a typical aussie response:

1) Piss off Kiwi.

oh wait, no what I meant to say was:

"20/20 cricket, it's not real cricket of course (well not real cricket until Australia wins a substantial trophy)."

nickf
sydney

[Cascade]

LOL

You'll wait

I heard on the radio that defeat was imminent so went and turned on the television but only in time for Billy Bowden (NZ) to signal a wide down the leg side as the winning run.

[nickf]

A NZ umpire officiating an Australian game?

Since when did they toss the notion of impartial umpires out the window?

nickf
sydney

[Dwingo]

Sad to see the Aussies make an early exit.

They missed Haydo and Gilly and booting Symonds did not help their cause.

If only the top Aussie players had 2 weeks of IPL practice in South Africa, it would have done them a world of good. The Islanders can vouch for that.

20-20 is a different ball game. Waiting to see, who in this World Championship will be able to read Mendis and take him ON.

Fake IPL Player continues his blogging even after IPL is over. Have fun reading.

http://fakeiplplayer.blogspot.com/

[mohitz]

Who's your favorite to win the cup? I would be supporting India of course, but i think Sri lanka, New Zealand and South Africa make for strong contenders..

[EricK]

As someone with a passing interest in statistics (and cricket) I hate to see people make judgements based on a tiny staitstical sample.

Imagine a team has a 70% chance of winning an individual game againt any other side in a tournament. That is a huge edge to have. But if they are in the quarterfinals there would still be less than a 50% chance that they got to the final. And if that happened, it would be siad to be a "shock result" and people would be looking to lay the blame somewhere and so on. But since when is and odds-on occurence a "shock result"?!