England capitulate againTest cricket England by Peter Scrivener - BBC Sport (U1644486) 28 December 2006 So England took Matthew Hoggard's advice from yesterday and bowled Australia out without them adding too many runs to their overnight score. Latest 10 commentsRead members' comments or add your own
comment by
mrnoneofyourbusiness (U6797360) posted Dec 28, 2006 australianpride23. Australia have been able to risk a player of McGrath's limited batting ability because they've had other tailenders, like Warne and Lee, who can bat. When Simon Jones is fit he won't be able to play in the same team as Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar because none of them can bat. We need a batsman of Warne's ability at eight, which is why Giles played in the first two Tests and Mahmood has played since. Like Warne they are primarily bowlers but they can bat a bit.
comment by
villaglosman (U6985127) posted Dec 28, 2006 I really don't know what to say. Utterly outplayed, made ot look right plonkers and what's more I support Aston Villa!!!
comment by
marbleheadfan (U5366019) posted Dec 28, 2006 Cray165 - the only other thing to add, is that 8 Aussies managed 54 runs! Extras was a high scorer.
comment by
mrnoneofyourbusiness (U6797360) posted Dec 28, 2006 burghboy13. What on earth is the point of playing Vaughan in Sydney? He's not fully fit and the Ashes are already lost. And you don't say who he should replace, unless you think we should play twelve against eleven.
comment by
francesc_fabregas (U2166688) posted Dec 28, 2006 " you think we should play twelve against eleven."
comment by
mrnoneofyourbusiness (U6797360) posted Dec 28, 2006 Before England fans get too carried away I would just like to suggest we cast our minds back to September 2005 when we won the Ashes.
comment by
pjmathew (U3394861) posted Dec 28, 2006 "Yes, not bad for a team of geriatrics, But to be realistic, take out Hayden and Symonds and all bar Warne failed with the bat."
comment by
followon (U1987528) posted Dec 28, 2006 There is no doubt that just as the biggest observable edge in the 2005 series was the qualities of generalship on the part of the two captains Vaughan and Ponting, so in this series Ponting has made Flintoff look amateurish. However it is also true that England's current batting line-up is inadequate compared to the Aussies, especially in the lower order. Glichrist vs Read is the most obvious, but Warne vs Mahmood at 8 and Lee vs Harmison/Hoggard at 9 is also striking. Hence this has been the sad old tale of the sad old tail -- get 5 England wickets and it's innings over. The most vital search for England remains to find a wicket keeper of genuine Test class as a batsman. Steve Davies may be the man, but it would be foolish to assume it. The other gap is a genuine test class wrist-spinner. Yes, Warne is a genius, but I suspect that MacGill would also have posed the England batsmen serious problems. Yes, Panesar is a terrific bowler, but like most finger spinners he has only two deliveries, the orthodox spun one and the arm ball: this is not enough to cause confusion in the minds of the best batsmen. When there were genuinely quick wickets in Test grounds around the world, then you could win series after series by pace alone. But those days are gone. Broad for Harmison, or S Jones for Mahmood comes nowhere near solving England's problems.
comment by
CycloneArmageddon (U6455759) posted Dec 28, 2006 craigsmith,
comment by
dobebrief (U6788831) posted Dec 30, 2006 I am still on to win the pot at work through an Australian whitewash. Perhaps something miraculous will happen before 2007 world cup but I seriously doubt it...is there any way to duck out of the one day series as further humiliation will surely be affecting us next year, and probably in 2009? It is not a question of talent but of belief and balls, the Aussies have it in spades and we have none. Sad sad sad Comment on this article
Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.
MY RELATED LINKSThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites |