Joined: Jul 19 2007 Posts: 5671 Location: home of Lord Ted. kogarah sydney australia
Lord_Percy wrote:We had the chances to win 2 tests in that series, but the bowlers couldn't get their job done. The batsmen scored 9 centuries, shared amongst 6 of them, but the one time they failed it cost us the match. Not exactly the preperation we were after with the Ashes coming up and I don't see it improving much in the short space of time left. Once again, we lack the killer instinct.
poor england maybe you could rise too the occasion like before
winning like never before. decoys. mouse traps. chicken wings. lollie pops. shepperds. the crusher. grapples. big league. In 1935 The Dragon Slayers as they were known defeated Canterbury bulldogs 91-6, which is still the biggest win in the Club's History. In 1907, the St George district had a club in the Sydney rugby union competition. Interestingly, the team's area was referred to as the 'Illawarra suburbs'. A resolution to form a St George rugby league club was made at a local meeting held in early 1908, but the movement faltered and collapsed. St George, wearing the district colours of red and white, played in the NSWRL's Third Grade competition in 1910, and formed a President's Cup team in 1911. References were found at the time to district teams being called 'The Saints'.the perfect 11
Joined: Feb 21 2002 Posts: 31779 Location: The commentary box
Lord_Percy wrote:St Johns, where we couldn't get the last man out in something like 10 overs? I'd look at the bowlers, rather than Strauss.
Still batted on for far too long, though the problems with the bowlers are clearly evident. You have to give yourself the best chance in those circumstances and Strauss simply didn't.
John_D wrote:Still batted on for far too long, though the problems with the bowlers are clearly evident. You have to give yourself the best chance in those circumstances and Strauss simply didn't.
Sorry to repeat myself, but test match quality bowlers should not need more than 10 overs to dismiss the last pair. I agree we batted too long, but even then we had more than enough of an opportunity.
Please Allow Me to Introduce Myself I'm a Man of Wealth and Taste
Oh, and the back to back, having a laugh, RL Fans Predictions League Champion
Joined: Oct 15 2003 Posts: 53839 Location: North Yorkshire
John_D wrote:Still batted on for far too long, though the problems with the bowlers are clearly evident. You have to give yourself the best chance in those circumstances and Strauss simply didn't.
The first time is forgiveable but to do it again smacks of incompetency. KP was out in the middle and he looked confused as to what is going on.
Joined: Mar 05 2003 Posts: 4787 Location: Everywhere
PAUL M wrote:The first time is forgiveable but to do it again smacks of incompetency. KP was out in the middle and he looked confused as to what is going on.
The first time was absolutely forgiveable. I don't think he batted too long in the first place, he gave the bowlers ample time to do what they get paid for and they failed him. Plus to leave yourself vulnerable to defeat when already 1 down in a 4 match series would've been suicide.
As for the last test, he had absolutely nothing to lose. He could've declared earlier giving his bowlers more time and also give the Windies a sniff of victory. If the Windies had chased the total and won then so what?? We lose the series 2 v 0 instead of 1 v 0. A loss is a loss is a loss.
Joined: Oct 15 2003 Posts: 53839 Location: North Yorkshire
airliebird9 wrote:The first time was absolutely forgiveable. I don't think he batted too long in the first place, he gave the bowlers ample time to do what they get paid for and they failed him. Plus to leave yourself vulnerable to defeat when already 1 down in a 4 match series would've been suicide.
As for the last test, he had absolutely nothing to lose. He could've declared earlier giving his bowlers more time and also give the Windies a sniff of victory. If the Windies had chased the total and won then so what?? We lose the series 2 v 0 instead of 1 v 0. A loss is a loss is a loss.
The first one I agree to an extent but why the hell Anderson came in as a nightwatchmen in that situtation is beyond belief and then why we had to persist to the 500 mark when wickets were tumbling is also very strange.
The last match I felt we had to offer something a little more tempting and we should have had them in before lunch.
Joined: Feb 21 2002 Posts: 31779 Location: The commentary box
Lord_Percy wrote:Sorry to repeat myself, but test match quality bowlers should not need more than 10 overs to dismiss the last pair. I agree we batted too long, but even then we had more than enough of an opportunity.
Yes, but if you know the standard of your bowlers maybe isn't all that, then plan accordingly, oui?
Anderson bowled fairly well in this series and still couldn't get us a result.
Khan I think looks okay, with a bit of experience his stump to stump bowling and reverse swing could be beneficial.
Broad needs to figure his bowling out, too inconsistent, really he should be able to hit the same spot over and over with his action.
Harmison, Sidebottom etc I would leave out in future.
We have no chance in the Ashes, our seam attack with the exception of Flintoff is not capable enough. No extreme pace, no consistent line and length and no good swing bowling. Unless Monty can get himself a googly (which is highly unlikely) we have no chance.
getdownmonkeyman wrote:You need to move on from here. SS has replaced you, he gets this debating/conversing lark far, far better.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
maybe you could rise too the occasion 
like before 
