View Full Version : Australia vs England 5th Test
The New Year's test starts in Sydney today, will Australia be able to sweep the series 5-0 or will England fight back and win the final test with no McGrath or Warne in the Australian team?
Will be interesting to see if Australia will play the two spinners. In the Australia A game on the SCG a few weeks back the English batsman had no idea against Hogg's Chinamen.
Vaughan didn't last long.Out for a duck after being caught behind off Lee.
Richie Benaud
2 Jan 2003, 09:41
Welcome back to the SCG and welcome to BigFooty members for the first time today. We are currently seeing a marvellous opening spell of fast bowling from Brett Lee and Jason Gillespie to have England 1 for 16.
I'll be back later on this afternoon with another update and I look forward to your company then.
Originally posted by Richie Benaud
Welcome back to the SCG and welcome to BigFooty members for the first time today. We are currently seeing a marvellous opening spell of fast bowling from Brett Lee and Jason Gillespie to have England 1 for 16.
I'll be back later on this afternoon with another update and I look forward to your company then.
Careful Richie, all the Brett Lee haters on this forum will be right on you for saying something nice about him. ;)
dogboy23
2 Jan 2003, 10:22
Lee has bowled much better today.Getting it up a little bit more instead of bowling too short where they are just not going to nick it.If he can maintain that length and keep his pace down like he did in that first spell he should be alright.
Just been out at the ground and Brett Lee looks much improved with the new ball and pitching it up. Swung the ball miles, and Vaughan's dimissal must've been the finest of fine edges.
Also how was Butcher's lbw first ball??? must've been close. they dont show replays at the ground so i haven't seen it closely.
In general, very close session which is good for a change. MacGills dropped catch was a shocker and could cost Australia dearly.
red+black
2 Jan 2003, 12:42
australia won't win this test match, and not only because ooh aah and baked beans aren't playing.
ScouseCat
2 Jan 2003, 13:33
Originally posted by red+black
australia won't win this test match, and not only because ooh aah and baked beans aren't playing.
I disagree...
The pitch looks to be an absolute belter to bat on. We just need to work away and make it hard for England to score. Our batting line up is pretty good you know and they do score fast making it possible for a result.
England: 2 for 143
Lee bounces Hussain and trys to sledge him after the ball hit him.
Next ball Hussain smacks Lee to the boundary.
Beautiful test match cricket atm between Hussain and Lee!
I also have a slight feeling that England will win this test match with OOH AAH and Warny being out
red+black
2 Jan 2003, 14:02
Originally posted by shiva25
I also have a slight feeling that England will win this test match with OOH AAH and Warny being out
i never said england would win, just that we won't
i think our bowlers are just stuffed at the moment. doesn't help by steve enforcing follow-ons at every opportunity he gets :rolleyes:
Originally posted by red+black
i never said england would win, just that we won't
i think our bowlers are just stuffed at the moment. doesn't help by steve enforcing follow-ons at every opportunity he gets :rolleyes:
Totally agree. I thought it was insane enforcing the follow on with the 5th Test only days away. Added to this, the conditions were hot, England had gathered the momentum with good late order batting from Craig White, and fitness clouds over McGrath and Gillespie. Also ...no Shane Warne.
That's the major problem I have with Australia at the moment, this neurotic compulsion to end a Test in under 4 days.
red+black
2 Jan 2003, 15:03
Originally posted by Becker
That's the major problem I have with Australia at the moment, this neurotic compulsion to end a Test in under 4 days.
Exactly
I don't see the point in always enforcing the follow-on to finish tests early. There are many reasons to not enforce it:
* the weather if it's hot
* the toil of the bowlers
* possible back to back tests
* momentum the batting side may have gained
* the fact we can't bat in the 4th innings (hobart excluded)
Surely steve could occasionally take the pressure of the bowlers that have given him such a good captaincy record by sending himself and the other batsmen in for a quick dig. If I was an Aussie bowler, on more than 1 occasion I would have been muttering "Thanks for nothing Steve".
Originally posted by red+black
Exactly
I don't see the point in always enforcing the follow-on to finish tests early.
I'm glad to hear someone say this, I thought it was only me who thinks that sometimes the follow on isn't a great idea. The Indian experience obviously didn't hurt enough.
The problem with that match was we gave them too much time to play themselves back into the game. Follow-ons, like declarations, are more about time remaining rather than runs.
It always grinds my gears when you are watching or listening to a Test Match, Australia gets about 200 runs ahead in the 3rd Innings half way through the third day, and all these former players start spouting off about already having enough runs and maybe they should declare. All I can say is I am glad some of them never captained Australia.
red+black
2 Jan 2003, 15:58
if steve had have bowled the occasional over in the last few years (2 wickets in 2 tests now), and seeing as he likes stats and history and his beer soaked baggy, he could have ensured his place in history as the only player with 10000 runs and 100 wickets.
he may not get either now.
i did notice that he needs 69 runs. hopefully his batting won't suck and he licks the runs off :D
red+black
2 Jan 2003, 16:10
brett lee now on 99 test wickets
Originally posted by Becker
I'm glad to hear someone say this, I thought it was only me who thinks that sometimes the follow on isn't a great idea. The Indian experience obviously didn't hurt enough.
follow on should just about always be enforced unless
a - the batting side has been batting for more than 2 sessions (maybe a bit more if your bowlers haven't been worked too hard)
b - one of your bowlers has an injury
aside from that, you enforce the follow-on 99 times out of 100.
Theres just no point not doing it as you can put major pressure on.
But if a team has batted for a day, then why put the pressure on your own bowlers and make the bowl again. ie, you guys get 560, and the opposition gets 330. In that case you HAVE to bat again.
In the 4th test i reckon we shoulda batted again and that we got away with murder. We were in the field a full day and still made them follow on. Not a good decision that and it nearly cost us the test.
IMHO, Australia would not have won the fourth test had they not enforced the follow-on.
Bomber Spirit
3 Jan 2003, 07:02
Originally posted by red+black
i did notice that he needs 69 runs. hopefully his batting won't suck and he licks the runs off :D A weird statistical quirk:
In the last Test in 1983/84 at the SCG, in what was widely predicted (and turned out to be) Greg Chappell's last Test, he needed 69 runs to achieve a career milestone. He went on to get those runs, and to get a big century to go out in style.
And how many runs does Steve Waugh need? Uncanny isn't it.
Originally posted by DaveW
IMHO, Australia would not have won the fourth test had they not enforced the follow-on.
Thats exactly right. I cant believe all the negative comments going around at present about Australia sending England in to bat again in the 4th test.
What the hell is wrong with ending a test in 3 or 4 days if you have the oppurtunity to do so
That is the reward for being such a dominant team and if England are not good enough to score enough runs to make us bat again then thats their problem.
Having a go at Steve Waugh for not batting again is absolutely ridiculous as he had enough runs in the bag to push for a victory
im surprised all these commentators weren't the best captains/players of all time. they always seem to know the right time to declare, the right field settings and the right areas to bowl.
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 09:53
Originally posted by nicko18
im surprised all these commentators weren't the best captains/players of all time. they always seem to know the right time to declare, the right field settings and the right areas to bowl.
troll
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 09:54
Originally posted by hourn
you enforce the follow-on 99 times out of 100.
strongly disagree with your figures
Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
A weird statistical quirk:
In the last Test in 1983/84 at the SCG, in what was widely predicted (and turned out to be) Greg Chappell's last Test, he needed 69 runs to achieve a career milestone. He went on to get those runs, and to get a big century to go out in style.
And how many runs does Steve Waugh need? Uncanny isn't it.
double century wasnt it?
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 10:20
Originally posted by nicko18
double century wasnt it?
182
http://statserver.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1980S/1983-84/PAK_IN_AUS/PAK_AUS_T5_02-06JAN1984.html
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 10:21
Originally posted by red+black
australia won't win this test match, and not only because ooh aah and baked beans aren't playing.
still don't think we'll win it. 5/309 and john crawley proving what a classy batsmen he truly is.
Originally posted by red+black
troll
what are you on. have you got a problem with my comment?? please explain why the commentators are always the 'experts' on these matters, and why you have a better idea of when to declare or follow on than the australian captain.
another series like this and Gilchrist will need to make the side on batting ability alone.
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 10:49
Gilly just dropped Dawson first ball. The bloke's having a terrible time behind the stumps, and no chance to prove himself with the bat.
Not good with the world cup approaching.
Originally posted by bluechampion
Gilly just dropped Dawson first ball. The bloke's having a terrible time behind the stumps, and no chance to prove himself with the bat.
Not good with the world cup approaching.
i cant remember an easier wicketkeepers catch being dropped. It was straight in the breadbasket, the faintest of edges, very simple chance.
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 10:52
At least he just made up for it.
larrikin
3 Jan 2003, 11:07
Originally posted by nicko18
i cant remember an easier wicketkeepers catch being dropped. It was straight in the breadbasket, the faintest of edges, very simple chance.
Only problem was Dawson didn't hit it.
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 11:09
Well, i've only got the radio, so i don't know. But, he duffed one earlier too.
knuckles
3 Jan 2003, 11:36
Therein lies the conundrum of Gilchrist. Jack of all trades, master of none. Better bat IMO. Keeping is so important, but he is not as clean with his takes behind the stumps, as Healy was. Who is the up and coming keeper after him?
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 11:48
Originally posted by knuckles
Therein lies the conundrum of Gilchrist. Jack of all trades, master of none. Better bat IMO. Keeping is so important, but he is not as clean with his takes behind the stumps, as Healy was. Who is the up and coming keeper after him?
That's the problem. No one really stands out as a test-keeper in waiting. Who is there? Campbell, Haddin, Seccombe, Berry, Kremeskothen... the SA dude?
Who is the one?
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 11:54
Originally posted by nicko18
what are you on. have you got a problem with my comment?? please explain why the commentators are always the 'experts' on these matters, and why you have a better idea of when to declare or follow on than the australian captain.
sorry mate, i thought you were having a go at us in the thread, calling us commentators yada yada yada. sorry mate, my bad.
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 12:23
Originally posted by bluechampion
That's the problem. No one really stands out as a test-keeper in waiting. Who is there? Campbell, Haddin, Seccombe, Berry, Kremeskothen... the SA dude?
Who is the one?
You would think Haddin at this stage, but surely no-one is seriously suggesting we drop Gilchrist???
larrikin
3 Jan 2003, 12:42
Originally posted by CharlieG
You would think Haddin at this stage, but surely no-one is seriously suggesting we drop Gilchrist???
Apparently the selectors really rate the Tassie bloke (Kremeskothen?) but there's no way anyone's gonna displace Gilchrist in the test team.
IMO Campbell looks the goods, especially off the quicks.
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 12:43
Not suggesting we drop him, as he is the best option. He is a devsestating batsman, but his keeping is a minor weakness in the side.
it's just a hell of a time for him to having keeping issues.
Kane McGoodwin
3 Jan 2003, 12:58
Originally posted by bluechampion
Not suggesting we drop him, as he is the best option. He is a devsestating batsman, but his keeping is a minor weakness in the side.
it's just a hell of a time for him to having keeping issues. Over his career, Gilly's keeping has been fine. It's more of late where he is struggling with injuries & it has affected his form.
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 13:03
Hayden back in the sheds for 15.... 1/32. Not a great start.
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 13:05
Originally posted by CharlieG
Hayden back in the sheds for 15.... 1/32. Not a great start.
Here's hoping the form bubble hasn't burst.
Originally posted by CharlieG
Hayden back in the sheds for 15.... 1/32. Not a great start.
Quickly to 32..
About 15 times the speed that Crawley got there.
Ponting just on his way 2/45
The South Australian keeper is either Graham Manou or Shane Dietz.
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 13:07
Ahh! Punter's gone! It's 45/2 or so.
Steve Waugh's licking his lips.
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 13:07
Uh oh.... 2/45. This isn't good. Who's next? Martyn?
Originally posted by CharlieG
Uh oh.... 2/45. This isn't good. Who's next? Martyn?
Steve Waugh to make a save the day century?
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 13:14
i seem to recall early yesterday saying we wouldn't win. i'll go this far, if we win, send steve to the caribbean.
hell if they could send carl rackemann there in 95 when i was there, then steve should be worth a shot this time round
Originally posted by red+black
i seem to recall early yesterday saying we wouldn't win. i'll go this far, if we win, send steve to the caribbean.
hell if they could send carl rackemann there in 95 when i was there, then steve should be worth a shot this time round
Steve Waugh will need to double century to get to the caribbean.
Anything else will be quickly forgotten during the WC.
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 13:26
Langer gone, 3/56.
Here's your chance Tugga. Show us why you're right and we're wrong.
Charlie
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 13:27
STEVEN WAUGH NEARLY SPRINTS TO THE MIDDLE.
THIS IS HIS TIME.
Originally posted by CharlieG
Langer gone, 3/56.
Here's your chance Tugga. Show us why you're right and we're wrong.
Charlie
Someone mentioned one of these 3-68 type of situations yesterday.
Come on Tugga, show 'em you still have it.
Originally posted by DaveW
IMHO, Australia would not have won the fourth test had they not enforced the follow-on.
I disagree with that, I think Australia would have won easily had they elected to bat again. One thing is certain in mind, we will definitely lose the 5th Test because of the follow on.
bluechampion
3 Jan 2003, 14:08
I agree. Our bowlers are stuffed, and the only change we made is Bichel. Gillespie is a champ, but he's sore as buggery.
This is when we need a quality all-rounder to relieve some pressure on the bowlers.
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 14:26
He's doing everything right so far!!! I hope he keeps it up. I still think he's finished, but I'm more than willing to be proved wrong by him. Go Tugga!!!
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 14:34
i'm liking steve's boundary attitude. i hope he gets to 69, then 100, then 119, then 169, then who knows, maybe 201. and takes 9 second innings wickets for 10 in the match, 100 in his career, 10,000 plus runs in his career, average of 50+ ....
rally roun' the west indies ...
Originally posted by CharlieG
He's doing everything right so far!!! I hope he keeps it up. I still think he's finished, but I'm more than willing to be proved wrong by him. Go Tugga!!!
He is killing them at the moment
39 from 43 balls!!
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 14:36
Needs 119* or 169 out for an average of 50. 29 runs for 10,000.
I think Martin must have taken a leaf out of Crawleys batting display!!
5 from 38 balls!
And that includes 1 boundary!!
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 14:45
I think he might be trying to anchor the innings while Waugh lives or dies by the sword. It could be Martyn's job to stick around and be there for Love and Gilchrist.
Originally posted by CharlieG
I think he might be trying to anchor the innings while Waugh lives or dies by the sword. It could be Martyn's job to stick around and be there for Love and Gilchrist.
Maybe
Although it seems he was asleep. He just realised he was at the cricket. Is onto 13 from 45 now!
Originally posted by TheMase
I think Martin must have taken a leaf out of Crawleys batting display!!
5 from 38 balls!
And that includes 1 boundary!!
he doesn't need to score quick.
Steve Waugh is doing that. he is batting brilliantly.
When I'm batting and the other guy is going berserk i dont try and do the same as if i get it often its the innings over because i bat 11 more often :P, but when i'm batting higher if i get out it can disrupt him and just screw things around abit. There is no need to play attacking when the other guy is doing it.
btw, how crap is Steve Harmison bowling. This is one of the worst displays of quick bowling i've seen for a long time.
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 15:27
Martyn gone for 26.
All's fair in Love and Waugh.
Charlie
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 15:36
Love for a duck.
We're gonna lose this match. Damn!
Charlie
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 15:37
Originally posted by CharlieG
Love for a duck.
We're gonna lose this match. Damn!
Charlie
will we be forced to follow-on?
oh the shame :(
and steve will probably go out for 68, then like bradman, make a duck in his last innings :(
Originally posted by red+black
will we be forced to follow-on?
I hope so, it will be our best chance of winning. Making 400 plus and giving England 200 to make in the 4th Innings.
Just pushing a point from earlier. :D
knuckles
3 Jan 2003, 16:43
Australia will win this and only need to bat once. They will finish 150 - 180 ahead, which will be enough. 4.53 per over....ffs.
This English team is the most insipid team ever to grace our shores. They were in a perfect position to grind our noses in it and have blown it. Bowling and batting are weak. Captain is a dweeb, and has LOSER written all over his body language.He should have had fielders close in from the start sledging Waugh non-stop. What a dreadful side. No wonder the game is frigged in their country. What role models.
CharlieG
3 Jan 2003, 17:13
My statement before was a little premature. Both Tugga and Gilly look like continuing their merry dance for a while yet. We're still in this.
Charlie
Bomber Spirit
3 Jan 2003, 19:09
I've just got home from the SCG - what a great day. And a slice of history for Steve Waugh, getting the magic 5-figure career runs.
Steve Waugh's always loved a challenge, and playing for his place in the team while they're 5/150 is just the sort of challenge he's always enjoyed.
But those last few overs, when Steve Waugh was closing in on the century, that was exciting stuff. I thought he'd lost his chance when he took that single and gave Gilchrist the strike, but for Gilly to get another single and then Waugh hitting the last ball of the day for 4 to bring up his century - who wrote that script?
Beautiful day, great atmosphere - sensational stuff.
Originally posted by knuckles
Australia will win this and only need to bat once. They will finish 150 - 180 ahead, which will be enough. 4.53 per over....ffs.
This English team is the most insipid team ever to grace our shores. They were in a perfect position to grind our noses in it and have blown it. Bowling and batting are weak. Captain is a dweeb, and has LOSER written all over his body language.He should have had fielders close in from the start sledging Waugh non-stop. What a dreadful side. No wonder the game is frigged in their country. What role models.
you'd love that. infact i get the feeling you'd rather england win than steve waugh get runs. bitter, twisted man:rolleyes:
never mind the fact that england have had a great game, just look at the scorebook with waugh removed. it is only because of a sensational knock in the most pressure circumstance that englands grip has weakened.
knuckles
4 Jan 2003, 08:52
Whatever. England apply pressure? Your land of delusion serves you well. Switch off the TV volume. England are a dreadful cricket side. Two lazy shots from some tired batsmen meant Waugh needed to make runs. Watch the game without the hype. Far more entertaining.
Easily excitable dweeb :rolleyes: ^many
easily excitable?? heart of stone, you are surely a bitter and twisted man. england not applying pressure so far?? you know nothing about cricket.
i'll bet you're one of those "the grass was greener in my day" types, or are just suffering from the acutest case of tall poppy sydnrome.
Joe Mama
4 Jan 2003, 09:28
Originally posted by knuckles
Whatever. England apply pressure? Your land of delusion serves you well. Switch off the TV volume. England are a dreadful cricket side. Two lazy shots from some tired batsmen meant Waugh needed to make runs. Watch the game without the hype. Far more entertaining.
Easily excitable dweeb :rolleyes: ^many
You're obviously feeling a little pre-menstural right now, knuckles since that awful man Steve Waugh made that century to SPITE YOU.:rolleyes: .
But, it's going to be O.K, our team can't win forever, sooner or later, we're going to lose (probably in the World Cup, where South Africa should win), just wait 'til the end of March and all of your anger will subside, in the meantime give me a hug:D .
Forgetting about the way this thread has deteriorted, this test is brilliant. So much fun to watch. How good is it to have a real test match to watch for a change. Gilly and dizzy were fanstastic.
Australia don't want to be chasing too many more than 180-200 on the last day. The next hour is going to be sensational.
Originally posted by knuckles
Australia will win this and only need to bat once. They will finish 150 - 180 ahead, which will be enough. 4.53 per over....ffs.
This English team is the most insipid team ever to grace our shores. They were in a perfect position to grind our noses in it and have blown it. Bowling and batting are weak. Captain is a dweeb, and has LOSER written all over his body language.He should have had fielders close in from the start sledging Waugh non-stop. What a dreadful side. No wonder the game is frigged in their country. What role models.
Would you like to rephrase that statement?
knuckles
4 Jan 2003, 15:06
No. McGraths "rest" is still interesting. Though the series could do with some competition.
Nicko, come up with a rational point rather than a brain dead "you know nothing....blah". England are crud. All commentators say they are crud...Botham, Gower, Croft..there are more. Excite if you want. Watch Australia field (not when they are in yippey mode), then watch England. Phark, if I need to explain the difference. Gilly showed how hard it was.Off to wave your boxing Kangaroo flag.
its a shame, but its quite obvious reeking jealousy is clouding your judgement.
oh yeah and knuckles, speaking about rational points "land of delusion", "all players on big $ are selfish", "brain dead", "England are crud", "easily excitable dweeb", "english are the most insipid team to grace our shores", "captain is a dweeb who has loser written all over his body", "dreadful side" "game is frigged in their country"
abandoned as a child hey? about time you gave Wade that big hug.
Simon_Nesbit
4 Jan 2003, 18:08
Originally posted by larrikin
Apparently the selectors really rate the Tassie bloke (Kremeskothen?) but there's no way anyone's gonna displace Gilchrist in the test team.
IMO Campbell looks the goods, especially off the quicks.
Kremer is an all-rounder, who (believe it or not), is usually very aggressive, run-a-ball type player who gives the ball a real whack. Bowls relatively lively medium pace, with some good swing in suitable conditions.
The guy your thinking of is Sean Clingeleffer, who is probably the 2nd or 3rd best keeper (from my observations anyway, not sure about his ability to quality spin though) in the country, and for most of last season led the batting averages.
He's the bipolar opposite to Gilchrist though, a very defensive batsman who works the ball around very well, but scores quite slowly.
I think he would be the obvious replacement for Gilchrist (presuming Gilchrist plays as a batsman at #6).
Gilly will probably play for Australia for another 7-8 years, so by the time he retires Clingeleffer will be the only current keeper still playing.
By the way do you think Kremerskothen will play Test Match Cricket for Australia?
Bomber Spirit
4 Jan 2003, 20:34
Originally posted by lamby29
By the way do you think Kremerskothen will play Test Match Cricket for Australia? Very unlikely. He's done OK, but you need to be a standout over many years to even be considered.