The Ashes 2009
- Thread starter Santino
- Start date
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
Collingwood is not a test match number 4. Collingwood and Bell batting is just grim..
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Haven't found it grim myself.
mattie
missing in inaction
I reckon that and a five-for.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
has to be 100. Just to show he can mentally go on and possibly help us win the match rather than playing a good innings in a hopeless match.
I wouldn't say that the decision-making in the round has been that far below average. Certainly the umpiring has been better than on England's tour of the Windies where the likes of Messrs Harper and Tiffin really did make a mess of things. I think what's really changed is the number of tools available to scrutinise the umpiring with the advent of things like Hotspot, Snicko, Hawkeye, etc. (although I'd submit that decision-making for lbws is a lot better than it used to be).
So if he's out for 75, say, he's still more deserving of head-shaking than the other batsman? Even if he top scores?
This is a one hell of a metaphor for supporting England.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
He needs to score a lot of runs for a couple of years (I know he can't do this right now) against all the teams, which means making hundreds. It's not hate, just frustration.. watching Bell and Collingwood bat is not as much fun (for me) as watching Bopara and KP..
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
75 would be decent though, but he has a good chance to score big here. Which could mean the difference between us winning losing or drawing this.
Bopara? The guy who just scored 20-something after 20-something?
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Bopara/KP can be even more frustrating.
It has to be said that for the sake of his self-respect if nothing else, he should certainly be looking to get a big score in this situation.
Right, well, that's what I'm asking. What is "a big score". From where I'm sitting, 95 is a big score. So is 80, for that matter. There is nothing magical that happens as 99 ticks over to 100.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Need to pick up the scoring abit here, i must say...
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
For real and long lasting justification of his selection at 3 he needs to score a score that has a big influence on England winning the game. What that will be is impossible to say. That's what test 3s and 4s should be doing. That's their job. So far he's doing well, but we don't know the context of the entire game so can't judge the relative merit of his runs thus far yet.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
oh ffs i jinxed them. well, hopefully we can pick up the run rate now.
From here it's probably got to be 110-120+.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
Why do we need to pick up the run rate? It's not 20/20. Scoring 450 slowly is better than 350 quickly.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
C'mon Trotters, show us a century!
You're joking, right? Australia 190-6, Symonds 30 odd with a huge nick, not given and go one to make 450+, Symonds 160 odd? Australia go on to win with Clarke getting a hat trick (including another dodgy decision, whaddya know) just in the nick of time (ETA: Nick of time being a whole two overs. Of course a player getting 130 runs they don't deserve had no effect there!)? You think those decisions had no effect?
You're either mad or just really stupid.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
especially has to be over 100 cause its the oval.
Basically, whatever score he happens to be on, he has to get 60% more.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Just worried about how much time we'll have to bowl out the aussies. probs too nervous,mind.
