Brummie-FOX Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 As far as I know we have to get about 300-400 runs. If Australia basically had the 1st test rapped up and won. England has the 2nd test basically rapped up but lost. So, Australia basically have the 3rd test in the bag, what are the chances that they'll slip-up
dandannieldanok Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Am I right when I say; If England are still batting at the end of tomorrow's play, the 3rd test will be adraw? For England to win tomorrow they need to score about 290-odd runs For the match to finish as a draw England must still be batting at the end of the day having but not scored the 290 or so runs For Austrailia to win they need to take the remaining five wickets <<SAFE BET
Brummie-FOX Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 I think we can do this. I know the media are claiming the test was over on the 2nd day, but all it takes is for Kevin Pietersen, maybe Freddie Flintoff to perform with the bat. Think about it, 290 runs isn't a lot in Proffesional Cricket ( well it is for England on most occasions ). Hopefully Australia have an ' off day ' and England can take advantage. Some rain wouldn't be too bad either
dandannieldanok Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 I think we can do this. I know the media are claiming the test was over on the 2nd day, but all it takes is for Kevin Pietersen, maybe Freddie Flintoff to perform with the bat. Think about it, 290 runs isn't a lot in Proffesional Cricket ( well it is for England on most occasions ). Hopefully Australia have an ' off day ' and England can take advantage. Some rain wouldn't be too bad either Very optimistic. If we won it would be a minor miracle. 290 is a huge amount against Australia in any circumstances. Flintoff has been dreadful all series and Pietersen is either brilliant or strangely erratic. Behind them we have little substance with Geraint Jones (who has scored just 2 half centuries in his last 26 tests) and the tailenders. First session will be crucial.
Milky Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 I think we can do this. I know the media are claiming the test was over on the 2nd day, but all it takes is for Kevin Pietersen, maybe Freddie Flintoff to perform with the bat. Think about it, 290 runs isn't a lot in Proffesional Cricket ( well it is for England on most occasions ). Hopefully Australia have an ' off day ' and England can take advantage. Some rain wouldn't be too bad either 290 is a lot of runs to score when you've got 90 overs on a fifth day pitch, facing the legendary shane warne all day, and have only 5 wickets remaining. This would be the greatest win of all time. We need KP to score a double hundred, which he is capable of cus he's a truely remarkable player.
Brummie-FOX Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Very optimistic. If we won it would be a minor miracle. 290 is a huge amount against Australia in any circumstances. Flintoff has been dreadful all series and Pietersen is either brilliant or strangely erratic. Behind them we have little substance with Geraint Jones (who has scored just 2 half centuries in his last 26 tests) and the tailenders. First session will be crucial. Yeah, if we lose a wicket early on, we've lost, especially if its Pietersen. Lets hope that Harmison, Ponty Manesar, Mahmood can perform a miracle.
Sparky Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 monty to hit winning runs with 2 balls to spare to produce the finest 4th innings run chase in history !!!! or mcgrath , lee , clark and warne to wrap it up before lunch 2nd option seems more likely
Brummie-FOX Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 How annoying was that? I turned the Ashes on at 7:20 and saw England 306/5. I thought ' We're doing quite well here! ' I thought it was a bit odd though when they had apprently played 1 hour. Then I noticed the ' R E P L A Y ' under the Sky Sports sign!
SydneyFC Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 We've done it! We've won it back! Before they played a test in Sydney too.
surrifox Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 we thought we'd destroyed all the dinosaurs in 2005 but they came back to beat us
Daggers Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 We've done it! We've won it back! Before they played a test in Sydney too. <_< We thought you all needed a boost seeing as how badly you took to losing them last time You'll not be hearing a load of crap excuses from us, oh no!
Manwell Pablo Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 We don't really like cricket any way. We like....err horse jumping or whatever it is that bird who's related to the queen does.
Nationwider Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 Full credit to the Strynes. They played this series like their lives depended on it. Unlike England, they've also replaced their weakest links from 2005 with vastly superior players (Hussey for Katich, Clark for Gillespie). They are still a fantastic cricket team - Gilchrist's innings on day 3 at Perth was one of the most brilliant I've ever seen. They've not even really needed Warne too much this time... It's difficult to know where to start with England.... 1 - Awful preparation. Too many players were undercooked going into the series - Harmison was the prime example. They should have played three proper 4-day games against state sides in Aus/NZ to get fully match-ready. 2 - The management/selection structure. WTF? Who picks the team exactly? Fletcher? Flintoff? Graveney? Geraint Jones? I find it incredible that Geraint Jones is actually on the management committee when his place in the team has been hanging by a thread for a year now. 3 - Team selection. Too many favourites and pals given the nod over the best players. Hopefully Perth will (eventually) mean "hello" to Panesar, Read and Broad, and "goodbye and thanks" to Giles, Jones and Anderson - in the 5-day game, at least. 4 - The Michael Vaughan sideshow. Why was he there, if he was wasn't going to play? A big distraction. 5 - The captaincy. Freddie has done a good job, but his main role is all-rounder and general team inspiration. The captaincy has to be a distraction - especially while he's not fully fit. I'd like to see Andrew Strauss take over until Michael Vaughan returns. 6 - Injuries. You can't beat the Strynes without your main men. We've missed Vaughan and Simon Jones, and without a fully-fit Freddie, we've been unlucky in this respect. 7 - Monty Panesar. He has to play. Period. What this series has shown is that we have some world-class talent developing (in particular; Pietersen, Panesar and Cook) that can form the nucleus of a sqaud that will hopefully regain the Ashes in 2009.
The People's Hero Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 Agree. On every point. I think a lot of people will. No offence to Freddie - but you're not the man for the job mate. Straussy is.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 I agree. I thought at the time us winning the Ashes had a lot more to do with Kasprowicz and Gillespie than us, and if they filled their places with more effective bowlers they'd be ok.
The People's Hero Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 I agree. I thought at the time us winning the Ashes had a lot more to do with Kasprowicz and Gillespie than us, and if they filled their places with more effective bowlers they'd be ok. Also Giles is semi-effective on our pitches playing for a team which has the upper hand. Taken out of that situation, he's usually taken apart.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 Also Giles is semi-effective on our pitches playing for a team which has the upper hand. Taken out of that situation, he's usually taken apart. The Aussie batsmen were like dyslexic Scousers... Just waiting for Gilo.
Sparky Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 Full credit to the Strynes. They played this series like their lives depended on it. Unlike England, they've also replaced their weakest links from 2005 with vastly superior players (Hussey for Katich, Clark for Gillespie). They are still a fantastic cricket team - Gilchrist's innings on day 3 at Perth was one of the most brilliant I've ever seen. They've not even really needed Warne too much this time... It's difficult to know where to start with England.... 1 - Awful preparation. Too many players were undercooked going into the series - Harmison was the prime example. They should have played three proper 4-day games against state sides in Aus/NZ to get fully match-ready. 2 - The management/selection structure. WTF? Who picks the team exactly? Fletcher? Flintoff? Graveney? Geraint Jones? I find it incredible that Geraint Jones is actually on the management committee when his place in the team has been hanging by a thread for a year now. 3 - Team selection. Too many favourites and pals given the nod over the best players. Hopefully Perth will (eventually) mean "hello" to Panesar, Read and Broad, and "goodbye and thanks" to Giles, Jones and Anderson - in the 5-day game, at least. 4 - The Michael Vaughan sideshow. Why was he there, if he was wasn't going to play? A big distraction. 5 - The captaincy. Freddie has done a good job, but his main role is all-rounder and general team inspiration. The captaincy has to be a distraction - especially while he's not fully fit. I'd like to see Andrew Strauss take over until Michael Vaughan returns. 6 - Injuries. You can't beat the Strynes without your main men. We've missed Vaughan and Simon Jones, and without a fully-fit Freddie, we've been unlucky in this respect. 7 - Monty Panesar. He has to play. Period. What this series has shown is that we have some world-class talent developing (in particular; Pietersen, Panesar and Cook) that can form the nucleus of a sqaud that will hopefully regain the Ashes in 2009. pretty much spot on nationwider . so disapointing to think that after 3 tests we still havnt played our best possible team , read had to play , panesar was a must and strauss shud have had the captaincy
Brummie-FOX Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 So, the question is Were England that bad? Or Were Australia that good?
Ultra Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 So, the question is Were England that bad? Or Were Australia that good? Probably a mixture of both. Even if we'd been at full strength we may still have struggled in this series.
dhermon Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 just got this email not sure where to put it .......here or in the jokes thread In light of recent Ashes perfomances................ > > Q. What do Geraint Jones and Michael Jackson have in common? > A. They both wear gloves for no apparent reason > > Q. What is the height of optimism? > A. An English batsman applying sunscreen. > > Q. What does Ashley Giles put in his hands to make sure the next ball > almost always takes a wicket? > A. A bat. > > Q. What would Glen McGrath be if he was an Englishman? > A. An allrounder. > > Q. What advantage do Kevin Pieterson, Andrew Strauss and Geraint Jones > have over the rest of their team-mates? > A. At least they can say they're not really English. > > Q. What is the English version of a hat-trick? > A. Three runs in three balls. > > Q. What do you call an Englishman with 100 runs against his name? > A. A bowler. > > Q. What is the most proficient form of footwork displayed by English > batsmen? > A. The walk back to the pavilion. > > Q. Who has the easiest job in the English squad? > A. The guy who removes the red ball marks from the bats. > > Q. Why is Andrew Flintoff the unluckiest English player? > A. Because he was born in England. > > Q. What does "Ashes" stand for? > A. Another Sad Horrific English Series. > > Q. What's the English version of LBW? > A. Lost, Beaten, Walloped. > > Q. Who spends the most time on the crease of anyone in the English team? > A. > The person who ironed the cricket whites just wish i didnt spend $120 for tickets to the first 2 days of the boxing day test now channel 9 will be showing it live on melbourne tv for the whole test pricks never do that normally get the last 2 hours of the days play
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.