Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Cook cooked.

Mr Z

Bell told.


Strauss waltzed.


Pietersen dropped. That certainly doesn't ease the quease.

Scott Wickstein

I might put a Tenner on England winning if KP and Colly are together at stumps.

The cash would console my tears, at any rate.

Scott Wickstein



You swine, Wicky! I was out and had just turned on the computer to go with the Collywobbles call.

Nice gesture by Flinty to give his wicket away like he did.

Scott Wickstein

I never had a girlfriend that gave me anything so generous as what Flinty just gave Warne.


What's the bet Vaughan will play in Adelaide.

Scott Wickstein

Even if it's on crutches too...


Who is Vaughan going to replace? The guy who just made 96? The 'improving' Bell? Maybe they could just drop Giles and Harmison, and go in with pace from Anderson and Hoggard, wobblers from Vaughan and Collingwood, and spin from Monty and KP? (please?)


If he's good to go, Nick, I'm sure they'll squezze him in. Mind you, how good to go can you be whan you haven't played for yonks?

Mr Z

Tone, I think Pigeon set the bar quite high on that.

I like Nick's idea but don't forget about Freddy ... it's not a crap attack by any means.




You are being foolish Tone, show some faith in the lads!

I'm just hoping Punter hasn't done anything too serious with his back, another ton in Adelaide would be Mmmmarvelous in getting us up 2-0.

Take it from me, 6:30 tomorrow night you'll be wondering what you were stressing about.

Paul B

It would take an Act of God (e.g. rain of diluvian proportions) for England to save this test, especially now the only real batter we have left is 'hoik it and see' Pietersen. Quit worrying, Tony. Although it would be hilarious if Ponting's captaincy carried the can against England once again.

And I don't think Vaughan will play in this series, he's nowhere near 100% fit yet and won't be test-match-fit for a good three months.

PS: I see what you mean about the Channel 9 coverage - just been watching some of the highlights from it online. It takes a lot to make one pine for our Channel 4's inept coverage, but after about five minutes I found I was.


Pieterson out in the first over. They won't make it to lunch.


Good prediction Bruce.


"Take it from me, 6:30 tomorrow night you'll be wondering what you were stressing about."



This post is one of the most transparent reverse-mozzes I have seen. Good work Tone.


Thanks, Gaz. I was beginning to think my fame was waning.

Tom H

Worried for nothing. But I had a slight queeze too. Visions of handing England a draw & siezing defeat from the jaws of victory.

What's with not following on? Is Ponting quite possibly Australia's worst captain ever? Great batsman, but looking more & more uninspiring as captain.

Scott Wickstein

Blimey, Tom... you must be a young un. Us old farts can remember the musty horrors of Kim Hughes, Graham Yallop and Greg Chappell all being captain.

Mr Z

Oh. My. God.

Thanks for invoking those nightmares Scott.


A stupid declaration. If England had followed and got thrashed by an innings they could have taken nothing away from the game, and Punter would have got his extra rest for the old farts. Instead, our bowlers got a bit more practice and the match lasted to the last day. We even won a session.

Ponting is a shit captain.


"the match lasted to the last day"

There you have it, Flutius. Cricket Straya were obviously in Ponting's ear trying to get him to drag the match into the fifth day.


And if England had followed-on, batted 30 overs more than they did, and set Australia a few score runs to chase on the fifth morning, what then Flute? The bowlers would be more tired, England would have taken even more from the game, and Australia would have had to negotiate a potentially tricky target.

It is nothing more than idle speculation to say enforcing the follow-on was the best option. Moreover, both past results and the match conditions support the opposite view. Teams bat better (significantly better) when they've followed-on compared to when they should have and didn't; Australia retained best use of the pitch by batting again; and there was more than sufficient time to force a result without a follow-on.

Ponting isn't a great captain, but I think we can wait until he actually does something inept before pointing it out.


"potentially tricky target"

Please don't used such vile language here, Russ. I get distinctly uneasy when I see such phrases.


Russ, I reckon the follow on can be a bit suss sometimes, but not when you're 450 in front on day 3.

As for Ponting being inept, how about when he did the same cock up as Nasser did in Brisbane four years ago and put the other team into bat after winning the toss? Or having Tait in the side as a bowler and not bowling him?


Sorry Tone.

Flute, granted, those were inept decisions. But they were also last year. Not enforcing the follow-on last week was not inept. Unless you are pressed for time, there really is no advantage in sending the opposition back in. The stats back this up, but I'll post them on my blog.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)