The Ashes 2006/07: The Brisbane Test Thread - Day Four

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by south beds mikey

A couple of my mates in Oz tell me the opinion of the public there is that they didn't want to refund ticket money if it didn't get to day 5.

Cricket Australia doesn't refund tickets for unplayed days due to early finishes anyway. I know that from last time out when the first three games yielded only thirteen days' play. In fact, I think only the English authorities routinely offer refunds for lost days due to match results/weather. Elsewhere, every ticket you buy has an element of financial risk.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by greg

I think the follow on decision is a little clearer now we know about McGrath's heel,they were obviously trying to protect him and give him a night's rest.

I understand what you are saying, but grandpa-Glenn would have had a good night's rest anyway, unless he was planning on some nocturnal activity! Cricket is only played for six hours of the day, so I am not sure the Australians really needed that extra rest by not enforcing the follow-on; they had only been in the field for 61 overs in the English first innings, so it was very strange not to fancy another bite at the English. I can only assume that McGrath's injury could have been quite serious and hence there was no way he could have taken the field. Not sure what good the extra 45 overs rest did him though, he still seems to be in pain.

[Occasional Fan]

Can't find any details about McGrath's injury in this thread, other than the odd mention of something wrong with his heel. Any further information anyone?

Incidentally, I've got a box of four dozen balls which I'll be rolling out just in front of the pavilion steps before the Aussies take the field at Adelaide next Friday. They've stopped the touch rugby part of their training and warm up sessions, I understand.

[greg]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Can't find any details about McGrath's injury in this thread, other than the odd mention of something wrong with his heel. Any further information anyone?

Bumble was going on about it in commentary.McGrath kept going off the field and he has only bowled 12 overs.That in itself tells you there could be a problem.

[Occasional Fan]

Well, here it is - doesn't sound life threatening for either Ponting or McGrath:

From Cricinfo.

[greg]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Well, here it is - doesn't sound life threatening for either Ponting or McGrath:

Not life threatening but with the next test only a few days away it might give them a headache as to whether they will get through that or not.

[Mike]

This was the best day's cricket so far with a magnificent partnership between Collingwood and Pietersen. The partnership was worth 153 runs made at 4.47 runs an over. Very similar scoring rate to the partnership between Ponting and Langer in the Australian second innings.

[Maranello]

Runs per over are irrelevant though Mike, as is the comparison with the Aussie second innings! The Aussies had 500 plus on the board and were looking to set a target - the English were looking to bat 5 and a bit sessions! Yes, KP and Colly's efforts might have been entertaining, but the partnership still leaves England with a mountain to climb. Collingwood lasted for only 155 balls, and Pietersen so far has been there for 152; both of these contributions are significantly less than the time spent on the crease by Ponting and Hussey in the first innings, or for that matter, Bell's vigil in the first innings.

Once set, each of the English top six should have been looking to face and blunt at least 250-300 deliveries - however, they just didn't seem to be in Test match-saving mode! England should look at Pakistan's efforts just a few days ago on how to save a Test. The Pakistani team batted for almost 150 overs, with even the likes of Imran Farhat curbing his natural instincts and hanging in there for 231 balls; Yousaf faced 344 and the #7, Razzaq, managed 117 - that is how Test matches are saved and I was hoping for England to back themselves and attempt to grit it out. The 'crash, bang' approach they attempted today might have been entertaining, and was a big improvement on their limp performances of the previous three days, but was still far from ideal.

[Occasional Fan]

Unfortunately, Maranello is right. I'm still feeling pretty good this morning knowing that England have forced what seemed like a hopeless situation into a fifth day. But none of the top order batsmen was able to hang around long enough. Survival was the only thing that mattered at the beginning of the innings, and the top bats just didn't do that. Collingwood was two yards outside his crease when he was stumped, and just didn't have any reason to be there; Flintoff played a horrible shot at a ball which didn't need touching; Pietersen has had a couple of mighty slog-and-miss efforts in the last hour of the day, any of which could have been edged to the heavens to fall to Earth only Langer knows where. It may not make for pretty cricket, but all of these blokes and the three before them (whose wickets I didn't see, so I won't be too critical) should have been digging in and just waiting around for as long as possible. I would much rather have seen some centuries being recorded in the minutes column than being almost recorded in the runs column. Sadly, England don't seem to know at the moment how to defend. I hope they might find out soon, because I think they are going to need to.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Mike

Chappell also believes Collingwood is not a true number 4 and would serve England more by batting at 6. He would like to see Pieterson batting at 4.

Vaughan is England's long-term number 4... and Pietersen's perfect at number 5... and once Flintoff is fully fit again (especially on home soil) I'm sure we'll see Collingwood revert to 6/7 and the same balance of attack that England played last summer - with Flintoff replacing Mahmood alongside Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar.

The question is... how do you get through a series (or at least the start of a series) with your number 4 out and with question marks about Flintoff's ability to handle a full workload: the answer to the latter conundrum has been playing the extra bowler... and I think it's swings-and-roundabouts when it comes to whether you displace both Pietersen AND Collingwood (potentially exposing the explosive number 5 to the new-ish ball) or play Collingwood in a sacrificial role and hope he can get through the hard-ball spell despite being so bottom-hand dominant and leg-side oriented.

Originally Posted by Mike

Bell misread Warne's straight delivery and deserved to be given out despite being forward. He was expecting some turn. I think he should play Warne like Pieterson and get his bat well in front of his pads and play the ball on its merits rather than trying to second guess the type of delivery.

Why not just abolish the sport? What's the point in cricket existing as a sport if players chicken out of backing themselves to play properly? The joy of playing cricket, as a batsman, is taking on the challenge of playing properly: once one backs down from that (in cricket or in anything else) one might as well go fishing!

Originally Posted by Mike 120086

CH 9 just did a side-by-side comparison of Cook and Strauss playing the pull shot and Strauss has a technical fault in that his bat is too low starting the backswing so that it has an upward trajectory when meeting the ball and causing it to fly in the air. Cook does try to play the shot with a higher backswing to meet the ball with a horizontal bat and give himself a chance to play it down.

Nothing new in that analysis... but it's not really a major flaw: it just means he hooks in the air rather than rolling his wrists to play the ball down.

Strauss actually swivels beautifully through the shot and in any ground smaller than the Gabba he'll almost always clear the rope. He's perhaps playing the shot earlier in his innings than he should be (before he's really got used to the bounce) and even to the wrong ball (a selection rather than execution issue) but let's not criticise him for looking to dominate without knowing what his instructions are: he may have been told to try and unsettle McGrath and co, to take risks, to try riding his luck (as Langer did against Harmison, with a stack of equally air-borne shots square of the wicket).

Originally Posted by Irish Left Armer 120106

50 for Collingwood, although he's been very very unconvincing. Doesn't appear to be playing the ball outside the off stump at all well.

He's bottom hand dominant... likes to play with low hands... and likes to score mostly through the leg-side: not a recipe for thriving against McGrath or Clark with a new-ish ball on a bouncy wicket! By the time I caught the commentary this morning he appeared to be through all that though... and was doing fine - though I'm not sure quite why he suddlenly decide to play Warne through the off-side when on 96!

Picking the wrong ball when in the nervous 90s is understandbale enough with any batsman who ain't got that much experience of Test cricket under their belt.... but I would have thought he'd at least resort to his stronger side!