Was our last Test really as long ago as Sydney in January? It seems like only 44 weeks.
DAY ONE
Naturally, most speculation has centered on our attack, with the emphasis on our ability to replace Warne and McGrath. Can we pinch a wicket when things are starting to dawdle? We all remember Sydney 2004 when the Indians spanked us for 705, and none of us want a repeat. That! was gruesome. Stuey Clark is an admirable McGrath clone, but Lee worries me. Johnson was good in India with the white ball, but has he got what it takes in proper cricket with a red agate? MacGill can bowl, but despite being a wicket taker, he's never really been able to take control like Warne. Would Magilla have been able to turn Adelaide last year the way Warne did? And I've seen bugger all of Hillfenhaus, but as long as he can put it on the spot, I'll be reasonably happy.
The batting isn't too different. Hayden, Ponting, Clark, Hussey and Gilchrist still comprise an impressive line-up and while Gnome B.N. is gone, his technique is no better or worse than Jaques' so it will come down to Hungry's application, and probably a little luck in his first few Tests to get his career going. For me Sideshow Roy is still a worry; being good in one-dayers is no guarantee that he can become a solid middle order Test batsman. How will he go against Murali?
Lots of people have been talking up the Shrees. Certainly Murali and his controversial action can present a threat and take wickets, Chaminda Vaas is a good bowler, and Fernando has a good reputation. Slinga is the odd one. Can he threaten often enough? He looked a good thing when he first started playing, but I'm of the opinion he's been slightly off the pace in the last twelve months. And that action... it seems to lack the repeatability necessary at Test level. A bit like Larry Tait. Your best Test bowlers just keep trundling in an plonking it on the spot. I guess the Shrees will use him in short(er) spells.
The Shrees' batting is not great, and they'll definitely miss Kumar At No.3. Still, if Jayasuriya, Jayawardene and Attapatu can hold up, they could be hard to roll. There's been talk that Marvin's selection was wrong, but it's odd how often someone will come in via those circs and make a good fist of things. However! If the Aussie bowlers get among them early, they could be skittled quick sticks.
Should Straya win? Probably. Am I nervous about our prospects post Warne & Pidge? Definitely. It could all come down to dropped catches and tosses... and the Shrees just won the toss and will bowl. Given Ponting will never again win a toss and bowl, it was probably a good toss to lose.
The Slinga is out, too, Maharoof is in.
DAY TWO
Putting on my best Tim Lane -> Bruce sums up proceedings thus far:
Australia resumes at 3/242 after a solid first day.
Comprehensive stuff.
Still...
Hungry's hundred reminded me of Hayden's dreadful century against the Windies in 1997. Numerous lives; sloppy footwork; dodgy bottom hand; slappy through the off side; unconvincing on the pull; shit shot to get out. Still, a ton's a ton, so he's got that going for him. But if he goes on to have a long and fruit-filled career I'll eat Murali's arm brace.
My brother texted me last night: "dud." I don't necessarily concur. Rain delays aside, it was an interesting enough day's play. You never got the feeling Straya were comfortable, except when Ponting was out there. But because the Shrees really only had Murali as a threat, they couldn't crash through. Their crap catching didn't help.
May I be so bold? The commentary on both rayjo & telly wasn't too bad. Yes, the TV ads are still shit; they even make me pine for the days of the Mojos' Whack Whack Whack-a-Doo. But if you switch between the two outlets and pick the bones from the chaff or the wheat from the fish or the... ahem, there are lots of good bits. Possibly one of the reasons Straya has great cricket depth is because viewers get so many handy pointers from the commentators; even from the idiots. Yes! I know! They can be unbearable, but an example of what I'm on about was Damian Fleming's succinct and informative explanation of a good run-up. More please.
And here's a question: who are Greg Buckle, Jim Morton and Drew Cratchley? No, they are not mechanics on the Holden Dealer Team; they are, in fact, the blokes filling in at the Herald Sun for Ben Dorries and Jim, sorry, Jon Pierik. Crash Craddock has two shots at CricAussie. There's plenty of "biting the hand that feeds you" and "cricket, not for the first time, could be the loser" and according to Helen Coonan it's "unAustralian." But really, if no one mentioned the dispute, would the readers notice? And anyway, who doesn't love the picture of the standoff with Stakeholders Sutherland?
Unca Rod makes some fair points.
Even on replay this looked like an average day of test cricket, so still 4 times better than the average day of cricket out of South Africa.
While The Atheist is typically upbeat:
God, it's so depressing when Australia win.
TELL TALE SINE
Stolen from Yobbo who expands: "Cheating Cheater Muricheateran."
Mark is star quality.
DAY THREE
Probably have to resort to a Bruce Report here:
First Test Day 3
Shrees resume at 2/30 after being belted.
I mean, what can you say? The Herald Sun doesn't muck around: "Aussies deliver Lankan Spankin".
Strange, at the start of play I figured a couple of quick wickets and we might be wobbly, but once the Shrees failed to break through after a tight start, they were in big trouble in little Gabba. When Straya had gone to lunch without losing a wicket, it was only a matter of time before they started to go the tonk with an eye on a declaration.
Now the Shrees are two wickets down and already playing for the draw with the key question being, can Australia bowl them out twice? Despite only a few over having been bowled, the Hun is confident the answer is yes:
Maybe the Hun hacks are a little light-headed - being back at work, and all - because it doesn't stop with just the postcard.
Ben Dorries:
The new-look Australian team yesterday served notice it was set to prolong its world domination as the Test match against Sri Lanka turned into a public flogging.
Again Ben:
BRETT Lee returned to the scene of his greatest triumph to send a strong message to the Australian selectors and give himself a belated birthday present.
At leash Dorries & Crash sought out Terry Jenner and Hoggy for reality checks:
TERRY JENNER
THAT'S a huge question. You work on the basis no one is irreplaceable, but there is a case for Warne with 708 wickets, 3000 runs and 125 catches.
Just replacing a bowler or a batsman is one thing, but to replace all of those qualities is difficult. Stuart MacGill could not replace Warne with the batting and fielding, and not necessarily with the bowling, either.
Stuart Clark has a bit going for him as he attempts to replace Glenn McGrath, even though he might never be as good as McGrath. I think Australia will continue to dominate. They probably just need to bat better. McGrath and Warne bailed out Australia so many times. That will be harder now.
RODNEY HOGG
IT'S the end of an era. We are replacing 1271 Test wickets. We need a new star. We can't be as good as we were because MacGill is near the end of his career. We are not going to be the side we were because we won't be able to take 20 wickets in a Test like we did. We've been spoilt. The rest of the world is not as bad at batting as we made them look.
Yep, it remains to be seen whether we can roll the Shrees twice...
Clark just got Jayawardene caught behind.
... or any Test side, for that matter, despite the lack of depth in world cricket. Or, as Hoggy alludes to, is cricket actually stronger than recent appearances might indicate?
DAY FOUR
Just like the Day 2 and Day 3 reports, I figured there's be bugger all to write about. That was until I read today's papers and saw that Marvan Atapattu said the Shree selectors were muppets.
And read that Terry Jenner has been reading the AGB:
Jenner demands Murali match assessment
SHANE Warne's long-time mentor, Terry Jenner, has called for the ICC to scrutinise Muthiah Muralidaran like never before - by forcing him to prove his action in a Test match.
With Muralidaran seven wickets shy of passing Warne's record 708 scalps, Jenner warned the Sri Lankan risked being branded a chucker for life unless the ICC tested him in cricket's most demanding cauldron.
Regarding yesterday's play. Well, we rolled them fairly comfortably, not easily, just fairly comfortably and sent them back in again on a good pitch. We're all on the record here: following-on in rubbish, just grind the opposition out of the game; and DON'T give them a chance at winning. Apropos, so far today it looks as if the Shrees will take some getting out. In fact, it's around now, or even a little earlier, that we could do with a hint of Warne & McGrath.
DAY FIVE
Well, if Days One, Two and Three were less interesting for what happened on the field, Day Five is especially less interesting: the Shrees digging in, the Aussies toiling away, rain and light.
Apropos the light, or lack of it, I'm still not sure what kind of scientific guesswork is employed to get the players on and off the field. Reading between the commentary lines: the umpires make a judgment call, record what the current reading is on their light-meter, then all subsequent judgments are related to that datum. Fair enough, I suppose, but it seems to work better in theory than practice, with interruptions appearing to come via an ICC style haphazard array of readings. Like "who won the toss and did what in Brisbane" in the comments, this issue requires further detailed analysis.
The main talking point from Day Four would have to be Stewie Griffin's Warne-ball to get rid of Van Dot. Those of us pining for the G.O. days - "Come back, Shaaaaaane!" - will take some comfort from this ball; especially in that it got rid of a dug-in batsman. Picking up Sammy not long after was a bonus.
Today? As Wicky says, if we can't roll 'em now they're five down, we're kidding ourselves. Fingers crossed.
IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM CLONE 'EM
Nick's already linked to Kerry O'Keefe's article in today's Herald Sun in which he says we ought to copy Murali.
Kerry O'Keefe's call to clone Murali's action
SPIN guru Kerry O'Keeffe has urged cricket officials to "clone" Muthiah Muralidaran in a bid to help Australia find a match-winning finger spinner.
Muralidaran's controversial bowling action has divided the cricket world. But former Test leg-spinner O'Keeffe says it's time to follow the Sri Lankan's lead and allow youngsters to use a bent arm.
Cynical me says it's a good idea; after all, it's not as if the other sides aren't going to flaunt the laws and "push the boundaries" now that the ICC have opened the floodgates with their Hmmm-Was-That-14-Degrees-Or-16? Law.
Pragmatic me says the new set up is a pandora's can of worms.
Cynical me nags on. He says off-field interference in a sport is a lawyer's paradise.
Pipe-dream me - not to be confused with Melbourne Cup jockey, Vlad Duric's "realistic pipe dream" - says that all Murali's wickets taken before the 15 Degree Law was incorporated in the rules, sorry, Laws O' The Game, should be expunged from the records. After all, it's scientifically been proven that his bent action wasn't, in fact, the optical illusion espoused by the Shrees, other chuckanistas and various other vested interests, and WAS indeed the chuck we, and Daryl Hair, said it was.
Killer Fact! Five of the Shree players whose names end in vowels are batsmen, one is the wicketkeeper and only one is a bowler. Only one.
Steve Bucknor and Aleem Dar, the expected umpires for this Test, did not get their visas processed in time, so the ICC was forced to send an SOS to Rudi Koertzen and Tony Hill to make an emergency dash to Brisbane.
Bugger.
Posted by: nick | 08 November 2007 at 11:09
I just moved that comment over here, Nick.
I have no idea who are the best, or worst, two out of Rudi, Morgan, Aleem and Hill. It's a close run thing.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 11:17
Rudi needs a shave. Those stupid beards make blokes look stupid.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 11:22
Get Taufel in blackface. He'd be booked for every Australian Test.
Posted by: nick | 08 November 2007 at 11:25
When Dick says "That is a lot of chicken and chips" I can't help wonder whether he's ever actually eaten any.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 11:29
Hmmmm. Already this summer is less exciting than last summer.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 11:33
Goody. "The wonders of television are going to bring us National Nine News."
I want a replay of Straya/Windies First One-Day Final 1985.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 11:35
Haven't those Ponting and Hayden catches already been used in a previous K.F.C.C.C?
Calling them classics is a bit of a stretch too.
I'll go on record now and say that the Aussie middle order (Clarke - Gilchrist) will have a big, big summer. But our bowlers will struggle, making things a little more interesting than they previously have, and leading to more draws.
Posted by: Adsy | 08 November 2007 at 11:49
Because the K.F.C.C.C. classic catches are now a match-to-match presentation, sometimes the pickings are decidedly slim. I'm hanging out for the day when the ONLY catch taken was a soft dolly-lob straight back to the bowler and then see how they talk it up.
I hope you're right about our middle order, and I fear you're right about our bowling.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 11:56
My annoyingly intermittent 3 subscription has gone back to the 91-92 India series. It's interesting to note that the Australian team of that vintage really was as good as their results (my youthful memories are a little more friendly). When they are on a roll they were fantastic, but there is a lot of poor shot selection and loose bowling when things aren't.
For me, keeping Sideshow depends on whether Gilchrist is on form. In past Symonds incarnations Gilchrist hasn't been going well and that made the whole lower-middle order a bit brittle. If at least one makes a score then that ability to turn the game around in a session is really worthwhile.
Johnson could be a potential superstar, but like you I'll be happy if he can keep it on the spot and apply the pressure. The worry is if the opposition gets a run-on, Lee and MacGill lose their line, and Ponting has to search around for Symonds or Hussey to get the clamps on.
Sri Lanka are like that old Australian side. Good, but brittle, and Sangakarra is a massive loss. Pity we have to bat. Vaas can be a handful in these conditions. Might have to grind the runs out for the first session or two.
Posted by: Russ | 08 November 2007 at 12:21
The Edgbaston Protocol: Bat first if you win the toss.
After 2005 Ponting will never bowl first again, so I'm glad we lost the toss in awkward conditions. But I would have liked the Shrees to make the same pre-considered mistake England made in Melbourne last year when they batted first on a swing/damp day.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 12:37
Who let Uptalk Glenn Mitchell out OF PERTH?!?
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 12:43
Christ, everyone involved with that man-cans Solo ad needs a good smacking.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 12:45
0 off 30 - it's Langer's reincarnation (circa pre-recall).
Posted by: nick | 08 November 2007 at 12:51
And with Chappelli and Tony doing what they do best: relentlessly, remorselessly, making sure we get the (admittedly fair) point about the Shrees allowing Hungry to get off the mark.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 12:53
Super session, that.
Super soaker session, that is.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 13:02
Sri Lanka are doing themselves in here. Fernando has seen some bounce and lost his head. Why they don't have Vaas on is beyond me?
Bowling first in Brisbane always looks like a good idea, but there has hardly been a first innings collapse in the past 20 years. All the Lankies have probably achieved is the wrecking of their ball. At least until their incessant complaining gets them another.
Posted by: Russ | 08 November 2007 at 14:19
Wow - commercial TV is crap. Who didn't get a little worried when Haydos cracked that comment in the Ford ad, 'Maybe your fake tan will run, R..Pup.'. I cringed. And three commentators at once? Overkill. And Slats - we know you went to the 20/20 tournament.
Posted by: nick | 08 November 2007 at 14:30
Can both the telly and the rayjo curb their enthusiasm. Both were raving about Murali's catch, when in fact if he'd have put it down they would have said he dropped a sitter. Sure, he had to run a little way, but come on!
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 14:35
Ooooh, Tony. They are giving Murali's arm the slow-mo treatment at the moment, in between comments on how they can't pick the doosra. A bit of a throw, but he's looked worse.
Posted by: Russ | 08 November 2007 at 16:15
Bugger! Missed it. Was it the full-view treatment?
And that "we can't pick the doosra" business doesn't wash with me. Even in Murali's first over, the one before lunch, TG correctly called the doosra as it was being bowled; and what's more, I picked it, too. So they must be doing it for the hype, the entertainment value or simply because they've run out of anything interesting to get excited about.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 16:30
Drew, Mitchell:
Moo rally
Moo rully
Chappell, Greig:
Moo rally doo run
Moo rally duh ran
Moo rully doo run
Spanky:
Muh rilly
Tubby:
Mew (as in Chris Mew) rully
Dick, Slogger Slatts,
Mew-rah-lith-a-run
Any chance the commentators will agree on one pronunciation, or are they making an in-joke?
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 16:36
Bugger! Good stumping.
Jesus, Russ. That doosra certainly wasn't bend free.
Key phase: "Murali really went for the extra turn there."
Very dodgy.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 17:01
Grieg: "That's out! ... No it's not!"
Chappell: "Pretty easy decision for Koertzen."
Grieg: "Yes, a big gap there."
Lucky for Hungry, Tone's not the umpire.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 17:18
Hungry's dropped chance at 2nd slip was significantly more difficult than Murali's catch of 'Dos.
Richie: "That should have been caught."
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 17:31
Yes, the full arm and torso from over his left shoulder. I've never had an issue picking the doosra from behind, though perhaps the batsmen have more trouble. He bends his arm much more when he wants to, but I didn't see the arm bend on Ponting's dismissal - strictly speaking I am working so I am in and out.
Murali is always hyped. Either because they feel sorry for him, or they want to talk up the Lankies. That catch before is just another example.
Posted by: Russ | 08 November 2007 at 17:36
Late wickets hurt. Good knock from Hungry, but an ugly dismissal
Posted by: Russ | 08 November 2007 at 17:57
Crap way for Hungry to get out. He must have been listening to Slogger Slatts who said "Now he's got 100 he can relax and enjoy himself."
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 17:57
Just on winning the toss - the notion of "win the toss and bat" has been out-dated since the mid-90's, probably due to better pitches. The percentage of Test wins going to the team batting first used to be high - almost 60% before World War II. But it decreased steadily after the War, and since 1995, it's down to about 42%. Even in India and Sri Lanka, since 1999 the team batting second has done better.
Captains get criticised for bowling first and conceding 450, but not for batting first, making 350 and then conceding a first innings lead of 100.
Posted by: David Barry | 08 November 2007 at 20:16
I thought Kumar was at No.42.
Not quite as brutal as previous Gabba first days but still the points are well and truly baggy green so far. The long hop outside off to Hungry while on 96 probably sums up the day for mine. Good work being undone quickly with sloppy cricket.
Posted by: Bruce | 08 November 2007 at 20:19
And Tone - I expect this place to be the usual hive of discussion now that matches have started. Perhaps a thread for each day at the very least to save the usual piling on to any old post for our cricket commentary.
Posted by: Bruce | 08 November 2007 at 20:20
http://yobbo.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/trigonometry-is-fun/ <---- This
Posted by: Yobbo | 08 November 2007 at 20:26
This!
Posted by: Yobbo | 08 November 2007 at 20:26
Dave: Pretty fair point, but with most tracks being most dangerous towards the ends of matches, rather than at the start, it's often best to get in, get some runs, and make a side chase last on a wearing pitch. Of course, the question now is whether MacGill's up to replacing Warne for the last innings heroics.
Bruce: For this series I'm going to try something a little different. This will be the post for the whole first Test. I'll put up a small day 2, day 3, etc comment underneath what's already up there at the top, then the comments can carry on here. This is for two reasons; 1) It's quite difficult and time consuming for me to come up with day-after-day posts; and 2) It's a better way for me to cattle-dog my cricket archives.
Yob: Brilliant! You realise, of course, that I'm going to steal it for my Chucking Archive.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 21:52
I don't think you need to do that much in order for us to bang on in the comments. Something like:
There you go - done.
Posted by: Bruce | 08 November 2007 at 21:59
Superb. Sorted.
Posted by: Tony T. | 08 November 2007 at 22:00
Concur with Tone's comment about Yobbo's pic. Outstanding.
I was squirming with embarrassment at Auntie's commentators lauding the "generous applause" for the Google Eyed One from the Brisbane crowd as I watched this alleged bowler throwing the ball at batsmen on the Channel Nein coverage.
This is beyond parody. How that "doosra" can be called a fair ball is unbelievable.
Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant | 09 November 2007 at 01:06
Ah, Test cricket is back on. All's well with the world.
I still think the SL's made a mistake by not batting first. Murali would have been a real handful darting the ball in on day five. Perhaps they are really brittle with the bat- they did get rolled by Queensland, so it's possible.
Hungry would have got an arsekicking from Punter for that awful shot he got out on. What on earth was he thinking?
Well done Yobbo!
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 09 November 2007 at 01:43
I enjoyed the first day, but was on the brink of slapping around the head the customer I had at the second the first ball was about to be bowled. By the time he'd gone, the players were walking off the field. How bad luck is it to miss that first ball?
Posted by: David | 09 November 2007 at 10:07
Bloody Jim MAXWELL!!! Why is he getting so excited about Hussey LEAVING THE BALL!!!?
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 11:18
"I had to pinch myself! It was so exciting! When Murali was bowling it was just... ohh!"
Shut up, Drew!
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 11:30
Maybe Jim is warming up for the drinks cart TT? Good bowling so far today. Credit to Sri Lanka, the pacemen generally keep things tight while Murali does his stuff, though Fernando was a dead weight yesterday.
Jesus, I am sick of that backyard cricket ad.
Posted by: Russ | 09 November 2007 at 11:33
Yeah the bowling is tight - 36 in an hour - and Drew and Kerry are currently doing their level best to get a wicket.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 11:39
Make sure the "X axis" is correct there, sizzlechest. Doesn't quite match up with the humerus IMO.
/Murali is still a chucker.
Posted by: big.ramifications | 09 November 2007 at 11:52
The chucks axis.
Not to be confused with the Chux axis, which relates to the angle between arm and surface when wiping off spills.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 11:59
Gee, that Malinga fellow would have been useful before lunch. Sri Lanka have copied Australia - but they've copied Australia and Ponting in 2005 - get their best bowler out of the side, dud their gun spinner out of bowling last, and put the opposition in. Bravo.
Clarke - don't think because you're doing one Lara, you can bat like another.
Posted by: nick | 09 November 2007 at 13:01
Love your work, Mr T. That gave me a chuckle.
Y'see, if I don't say it some annoying-as-fuck racist curry munching Murali apologist will say it to obfuscate and, erm, cromulate matters.
......was it Professor Bruce Elliot who once went the "optical illusion" tack?
Posted by: big.ramifications | 09 November 2007 at 13:04
If anything, the X-axis in my picture is doing Murali a favour. Look where his shoulder is in relation to his elbow.
Posted by: Yobbo | 09 November 2007 at 13:17
Nick: I dispute your "their best bowler", although I concede he might have been handy, but the rest is spot on.
Biggy Shizzle: Not sure Bruce made the illusion allusions. I think that spin came mainly out of Shree Lunka.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 13:19
Haven't we just all been talking about the fact that Sri Lanka's greatest wicket taker doesn't not, in fact, bowl? I suspect that even though Vaas would be unhappy at being rated below Malinga, Hungry was happier facing Vaas than the alternative.
Just saw Hungry's dismissal after reading your comments on him. Dancing with the Stars 2010?? He's in.
Posted by: nick | 09 November 2007 at 13:24
You're correct there. I wasn't referring to Murali. Chaminda is a better bowler than Laslinga.
Hungry's stupid dismissal reminded me of another NSW "batsman" - Stewey MacGill.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 13:31
Quality batting this morning. The nightmare was Symonds and Gilchrist coming out to a new ball and a dominant Murali to see Straya rolled for 320-370. Am feeling much better about the situation now.
Oh, and is there a better sight in world cricket than someone coming down the pitch to Murali to hit him for six?
Posted by: Russ | 09 November 2007 at 13:36
Russ:
1) 3/240 at the start of play was indeed dicey. Then Gilly & Roy coming straight in would have taken it from semi-precarious to wobbly, but a wicketless 100-plus session was top work by Hussey & Clark.
2) No.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 13:41
2) On second thoughts.
Third thoughts? Oink.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 13:49
Shameless: 100.
Some folks have been suggesting Hussey was "out of form", or "in some kind of slump". I, on the other hand, don't confuse either with "not getting much of a bat".
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 14:14
Good call on all the above Tony.
This is getting ugly now. The gate is open and swinging on its hinges. Given who is in next, even a wicket doesn't necessarily help Sri Lanka.
Posted by: Russ | 09 November 2007 at 14:22
Good to see two guys who weren't in the team during the 16 in a row taking it to the opposition. Symonds has got some life in him yet as well. Can't wait to see the bowlers.
Posted by: nick | 09 November 2007 at 14:50
"If you put Australia in to bat at the GABBA then you better hold on to your chances." That is a well known saying according to Mark Nicholas. Jesus Louise-us.
Here is "expert" Professor Elliot's quote.
Elliott said Muralitharan was very relaxed but adamant that he did not chuck. "He fervently believes that he doesn't extend his arm," Elliott said. "He has such rotational ability with his wrist, his strange elbow and in his shoulder that is quite possible that it is an optical illusion."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/01/1080544634043.html
And you are quite possibly a fucktard. Here he goes again.
Professor Elliott believes Shoaib's flexibility results in an optical illusion that he is bending his arm at the point of delivery.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/1233920.stm
And from the same article.
Australian professor Bruce Elliott is confident his department can prove Pakistan fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar is not a 'chucker'.
WHAT. THE. EFF? Way to keep an open, scientific mind, dipshit.
(Maybe I should GMOFB?)
Posted by: big.ramifications | 09 November 2007 at 15:02
"If you put Australia in to bat at the GABBA then you are a fucking moron."
That's what Nicholas really means, but can't say on TV.
Posted by: Yobbo | 09 November 2007 at 15:55
551 - that's a good declaration.
Cheers
Hic!
Posted by: Andrew Flintoff | 09 November 2007 at 16:50
Oh hell yeah, now let them go off for bad light. Not sure what Ricky's thinking is there. Might as well have batted on till stumps, piled up 650 and then gone after them tomorrow.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 09 November 2007 at 16:52
I hate nearly all declarations; especially with Sidey Roy and Gilly set for some carnage. Grind 'em, I say.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 16:59
There is something disconcerting about declaring on 551 after Adelaide last year. Moment of truth for the new McG-Warne-less attack. Actually, probably 6 hours of truth. Here's hoping it isn't closer to 12.
Yobbo, what Nicholas really means is that trying to compete with Australia at the Gabba at all makes you a moron. It hasn't mattered much when they've batted or bowled in the past 15 years.
Posted by: Russ | 09 November 2007 at 17:01
Biggy Shnizzlewhatsit: I ought to read my own blog.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 17:06
Oi, that's an ugly shot an hour before stumps.
Posted by: Russ | 09 November 2007 at 17:10
Not a very pretty decision, either. Although there was certainly some sort of noise simultaneous to the ball passing the swipe of the bat.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 17:16
Oh I miss Shane Warne already and MacGill has only bowled three overs.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 09 November 2007 at 18:02
Russ: The commentators are saying the last 6 touring captains have put Australia in at the Gabba, and they've all lost.
You'd think they'd learn.
Posted by: Yobbo | 09 November 2007 at 18:05
Yobbo: Those commentators were wrong then. Ganguly sent Australia in in 2003/4, and India drew that game.
In any case, it doesn't matter what opposition captains do, ro the Australian captain does, for that matter. Australia hasn't lost at the Gabba since 1988/9. (And Australia batted first in that game!)
The last time an opposition captain won the toss and batted, and then won the game, was in 1968/9. Australia won the toss and fielded, and lost, in 1986/7 against England.
Posted by: David Barry | 09 November 2007 at 18:30
Yobbo, easy enough to look up.
Since 88-89, Australia have won and fielded 4 times for 4 wins (3 by 10 wickets, 1 by an innings). The opposition have won and fielded 8* times for 4 losses - mostly big and 3 draws - no wins). Of Australia's decisions they had a first innings lead on the last 3 occasions, of the opposition, only two (Sri Lanka and India last time they played at the Gabba).
Australia have also won and batted 5 times for 3 wins, 2 draws. Only NZ has tried it in return (twice) and lost both by an innings. After 92-93 Australia has led on first innings when the toss winner has batted first. the leads were: 374/6 (NZ first), 359, 356, 110, 232 (NZ first) and 445.
The Aussies average 442 batting first, and 463 batting second. Obviously letting Australia bat first is a bad idea, but then the alternative isn't better. The Gabba is a pummeling stone regardless.
Posted by: Russ | 09 November 2007 at 18:40
This debate sounds like too much fun to miss.
According to Yobbo the commentators said "the last 6 touring captains have put Australia in at the Gabba."
At first pass that sounds absurd, especially in light of the fuss made about Nasser Insane's 2002 decision to put Straya in.
In fact, they aren't too far off the money.
Out of the last eight touring teams to win the toss at the Gabba, SEVEN put Straya in. Only India in 2003 chose to bat. (Correction: Only New Zealand in 2004, actually.)
I hope that clears up whatever it is we're trying to clear up.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 20:50
Incidentally...
India led that 2003 match on the first innings, but more than a day was lost due to rain, forcing Steve Waugh to make a "sporting declaration" when Straya were 3/300-odd.
There was some criticism that a declaration which left India about 20 overs to get about 200 was too steep, but guess who was batting at the time.
Still, I don't blame Waugh; we know how hard India was to get out in 2003, given both their batting strength and our bowling weaknesses. Couple that with Waugh's over-generous sporting declaration against New Zealand at the Gabba in 2001, and you can see why he might have been reluctant to offer India too much bait.
(In both cases rain reduced play by so much that the pitch stayed in good nick and difficult batting on Day 5 was more like easy batting on Day 3.)
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 21:14
Minor correction Tony: New Zealand was the lone team out of those eight to bat first. They wasted some money of mine in that game - I went to the Gabba on day four, expecting some solid batting as NZ headed for a loss. Instead they folded for 76. The only memory I have of that day now is Gillespie doing that horse riding thing when he reached his 50.
Posted by: David Barry | 09 November 2007 at 21:22
Sorry, you're right.
How the fuck did I get that arse-about with India?!? After all, I was looking right at the stats as I wrote it.
I'll make the appropriate correction to my comment.
Fortunately it doesn't change my overall thrust (7 out of 8)* or I would look like a bigger goose than normal.
* Notice I wrote "7 out of 8" and not "7 of 8". I'm not a dead-shit, you see.
Posted by: Tony T. | 09 November 2007 at 21:33
There's life in the old blog yet!
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 09 November 2007 at 22:13
15 per cent my arse.
To save time, why not simply award Australia the Brisbane Test and start the series itself at another venue with the Green Caps up 1 nil.
Posted by: Mark | 10 November 2007 at 04:49
I dunno much about this, right. But I reckon that protractor shows his arm bent at 45 degrees. And unless I'm mistaken, his arm is locked at 32 degrees. That means that if he straightens it, he's done so by no more than 13 degrees. Is it then that they should ban blokes with bent arms?
Posted by: Tom | 10 November 2007 at 09:30
Surely Bill's taking the piss, but he sounded serious. To paraphrase:
Dick: "What players would you watch before all others?"
Bill: "Tony Grieg."
Richie: "Dennis Lillee, Keith Miller."
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 10:54
Stuey Clark: gun.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 11:02
A snub? I just realised that post card wasn't addressed to Damian Martyn.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 12:57
Good session, except for the 10 overs when Silva was out there swinging. Johnson needs to be more patient. MacGill too, but he is too old to learn now. Clark seems to inspire the other bowlers to keep things tight. It's good to see.
Attapattu is dangerous and the tail has a bit but you can't complain. Fair chance there'll be another round of articles on the perils of not enforcing the follow-on to appear tomorrow.
Posted by: Russ | 10 November 2007 at 13:12
Can I just be the first to say...
"Hungry swallowed that."
Thank you.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 14:57
Spot on, Russ, they're already talking follow-on tactics on the radios.
Tiredness - Check.
Crammed fixtures - check.
Headingly '81 - check.
Calcutta '01 - check.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 15:02
Wait till they're 8 down before worrying about the follow on I reckon.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 10 November 2007 at 15:25
No worrying.
You heard it here twenty-first: we won't enforce the follow-on.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 15:37
Sidey Roy, he's our boy.
In fact, he's bowled really well and could have picked up two or three "poles" by now.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 16:10
Gilly's been sloppy in this innings.
Wonder if Darren Berry touched wood when he wrote:
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 16:16
Who are you and what have you done with Brett Lee?
*B Lee (rf) 16.3 9 17 3
Alright, Murali's exuberance wrecked them a bit. But still, good stuff.
Posted by: Russ | 10 November 2007 at 16:35
Lee, 4 for 26.
Well, I'd enforce the follow on. This is Brisbane, not some exotic overseas locale.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 10 November 2007 at 16:42
Hmm, Ricky agrees with me. Wise fellow. People won't go too far wrong if they agree with me.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 10 November 2007 at 16:45
I'm always nervous about the follow-on. Why enforce it here when the strip is at its best for batting?
If they get more than 100 lead, I'll be officially worried.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 16:56
I agree with Tony, though I'm not too concerned about losing the current Test.
The only reason you should enforce the follow-on is if there's a chance you'll run out of time. Teams that don't enforce the follow-on when they have the option to win a higher percentage of Tests (in the last 30 years) than those who enforce, and don't lose. And you run the risk of tiring the bowlers out for the next game.
The notion that enforcing the follow-on is somehow a more attacking option is pure psychology. Batting again doesn't give the opposition a better chance to save the game.
Posted by: David Barry | 10 November 2007 at 17:15
Maybe there's a concern it might rain again up there in Briz-Bane.
Still, as a fully paid up member of the Grind 'Em Club, I say never give a sucker an even break. Never give a side a chance to deploy its strongest weapon; in this case, Murali on a last day.
Thanks be to Sidey Roy and his shit-gets-wickets ball.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 17:57
You're a pack of worryworts. The only reason we lost at Calcutta and Egbastan 81 was that Sideshow Roy wasn't in the side.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 10 November 2007 at 17:59
No worries here.
Tubby just courteously invited me to enjoy the National Nine News.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 18:03
Good of him. Here in Adelaide we just saw Ricky Ponting take a good catch to get rid of Jayasuriya. Lee was well chuffed too. 2 for 65.
Still 14 minutes before we get to watch the news as well. Yippee!
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 10 November 2007 at 18:16
My phone decided to go to a replay of the cricket show before changing its mind just before the wicket - very nice catch. Lee is on fire, reminiscent of his one-day form for the past four years.
Also, I agree with David and Tony - though you all knew that - not that it will matter even if Sri Lankans seem to have a penchant for big double tons. Might I add again, that Sangakarra is a big loss for them. He and Jayawardene carry this side.
Oh, and why do nine spell it Jayawardena and Muralidaran? Its a character set conversion so there is no right answer, but surely the convention is well set as something different?
Posted by: Russ | 10 November 2007 at 18:28
Russ, while I concede that the convention is well established, I really like it when names are transliterated properly, or at least as close to properly as you can get. If it makes people pronounce the name more accurately, that's good.
An Indian Tamil friend of mine tells me that it should be 'Muralidharan', but I don't know what difference the 'h' makes.
Posted by: David Barry | 10 November 2007 at 18:43
Is there some kind of pronounciation guide we can look up? I have no idea how we're supposed to pronounce foreign names, and I get no help from the Channel Nine commentators. Dave, I'm tipping your Indian Tamil doesn't say Murrah-Lee or Mewrallee-Doorun.
Posted by: Tony T. | 10 November 2007 at 19:06
CricketWeb seems to have pronunciations on some of its player profiles, eg, here.
Now that I've tried to Google this stuff, it looks like the 'h' isn't supposed to be in Muttiah's surname, even though it is common in 'Murali's from South India.
Posted by: David Barry | 10 November 2007 at 19:22