The Ashes 2006/07: The Melbourne Test Thread - Day Two

[south beds mikey]

Gilly out now but again when it doesn't matter. The only time he was under any pressure he delivered. Must be the best aussie allrounder of all time.

[Mr Hutt]

Well yet again England take the advantage with early wickets only to give it up to Symonds and Hayden although i thought Symonds was clearly LBW

[SixandOut]

England will be hurting given that Hayden was clearly out about 6 times yesterday but Koertzen failed to give them. But that's cricket... this is another result match, and it's looking like 4-0.

[Seamer]

It is ironic that the two umpires that helped sink the Aussies in 2005 are the same two that are sinking England in 2006. Hoggard definately had Hayden early - no doubt and that cost England dearly. Flintoff also had Ponting early when it was not given out, but fortunately he fell soon after. There was also a 50/50 on Symonds by Panasar when Symonds was in the 80's. All in all, at least 2 or 3 should have been given and it does cheapen the spectacle somewhat.

But just as Ponting was rightly criticised in 2005 for terrible tactical decisions resulting in Aussie losses, the same criticism should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Flintoff. The lack of faith he placed on Panasar, Mamood and Harmison, both in overs bowled and the mind-boggling defesive fields set for them, ensured England would lose any initiative they may have gained from a fine first session.

Yes the umpiring decisions were disgraceful, and there should be repurcussions for the umpires. But that should not take away from the fact that it was Flintoff who blew it. I said as much about Ponting in 2005 and i say it now for Flintoff.

[Tendlya]

Well..Aleem dar is an umpire who provides the benefit of doubt to the batsman,especially in cases where HAWKEYE shows the ball brushing the wickets OR cliping the bails. Ponting's LBW was one such case. I dont blame the umpire for not giving that out.Having said that, some umpires might have given that out

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Tendlya

I dont blame the umpire for not giving that out.Having said that, some umpires might have given that out

This is a commendable atitude, Tendlya - I wish we could hear more like this! I'm afraid at the WACA there was far too much booing of Rudi Koertzen for my liking. He had a rotten match, I think, but the bloke was doing the best he could at the time he did it and I don't think the booing is helpful at all. And I won't even comment on the clown who was sat behind me who openly accused Koertzen of cheating, other than to say that he got a right gobful from me for it and I was the one who got the applause from the people around me.

[south beds mikey]

There have without question been some very ordinary umpiring decisions but it should be pointed out that with straight down the middle umpiring England would still be 3-0 down and looking at 4-0. Frustrating though they were I really don't believe they have changed any results. As seamer said we have been well beaten by a better side and as he also points out in the same way Vaughan out captained Ponting last time the Aussie has returned the favour over flintoff now. It is an indication as to the strength of the 2 sides that Vaughan's ascendancy won a very close series and Ponting's has resulted in a one sided no contest.

[Tendlya]

Reasons for current English plight unlike the last ashes occasion( not necessarily in order) :

1) Hussey
2) Exclusion of Monty at Adelaide.Monty is a surprise secret weapon AUS were unaware of. After Monty took 5 wickets in first innings, i did not expect him to do the same n second innings as AUS had an idea by then. what i mean is having a score of 550+ would have been the perfect platform for Monty to debut
3) Absence of Vaughan. ENG were missing a captain and batsman too

Note : Warnen not included as it was expected that he would rock english team.Ponting not included for the same reasons.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Seamer

I agree that this tactic of setting the fielders deep and allowing the easy single is quite rediculous considering the situation of the match. Typical Flintoff - no wonder every bowler in the English team has an inferiority complex due to Flintoff continual lack of faith shown in them.

Really Seamer this is not right - the situation in the match at the time England set their players deep for Monty was the right thing to do.

Symonds is not thee best Test player, but is different with one day shots, couple that with the way Haydon bashes the ball, and Flintoff was correct to set the field deep.

If I remember Hayden took on these deep fielders, got a 6 from one booming drive, to set a close field to save singles would have been silly, it would have been better not to have bowled Panesar at all.

But if he was bowling over the wicket leg stump, he should have been able to bowl to that field, Giles would have been able to do so.
Flintoff and Panesar was right with those tactics - being Symonds and Hayden were batting together.

To blame Flintoff for not having faith in his bowlers is ludicrous, with the batsmen capitulating to 150 odd all out, it was a matter of fiddling with the attack to try and repair the damage.

Englands bowlers have not lost the Ashes for England, it the batting - the Ashes where lost at Adelaide when the England batsemn crumbled in their second innings like they did in Multan during the England/Pakistan series, and Flintoff was not captain then.

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Symonds is not thee best Test player, but is different with one day shots, couple that with the way Haydon bashes the ball, and Flintoff was correct to set the field deep.

If I remember Hayden took on these deep fielders, got a 6 from one booming drive, to set a close field to save singles would have been silly, it would have been better not to have bowled Panesar at all.

I think having the field deep for Hayden was fine (Hayden had just reached his half century so he was well set). However, having fielders set deep for a guy who is only on 9 runs and is under pressure for his place given his previous test form and the possibilty of MacGill playing and Watson in the future. How Flintoff (and possibly Monty) could think Symonds is going to be such a threat that they can't keep mid on and mid off up just for a few overs is beyond me. It's not like Symonds had come out and was smashing the ball to all parts with super aggressive intent; if anything he looked quite the contrary playing some very circumspect shots and missing the ball on a few attemped shouts outside off.