I believe the line is 'convict colony' rather than fucking colonies, but never mind you face palm all you like.
I see your lot have reverted to type in the one dayers, they were trully dreadful the other day.
The Ashes 2010/11
- Thread starter strung out
- Start date
I believe the line is 'convict colony' rather than fucking colonies, but never mind you face palm all you like.
I see your lot have reverted to type in the one dayers, they were trully dreadful the other day.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The convicts are a total bastard to kill off.
Idaho
blah blah blah
It hasn't taken you anything at all. You have been supporting Australia as long as you have been posting on this board!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
please O Deities, let it not rain, and let us get an early breakthrough. We've really got the bastards on the rack
mattie
missing in inaction
As mentioned above, it's 'convict colony'. Which is strictly true, at least when their ancestors arrived there.
To which the shackle-draggers retort:
"we all live in a sunny paradise"
Which is strictly true, at least before their ancestors arrived there.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, I thought that too. Really to the point, direct questions from Healy. Really to the point, direct answers from Ponting. I've always liked the cut of Ricky Ponting's jib.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
This is like some kind of proper Test match and not the hilarious, one-sided farce I had been promised.
Aye,lol, fairplay to Strauss, reckon batting for abit was the right thing to do given the situation now! Only 6 wickets to go, and we've won the test.
Gonna be a furstrating day though, fuckin bet ya. 
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, I agree. I thought they should have declared overnight, but I think the decision to bat on has been vindicated.
Four more balls of Pietersen and it's the second new ball tomorrow, with nice fresh bowlers to take it.
Four more balls of Pietersen and it's the second new ball tomorrow, with nice fresh bowlers to take it.
Yeah I think so as well, also a couple more of Pieterson. Two left handers both having to start from fresh could be a very interesting first few overs.
I imagine the selectors would favour Bresnan for his batting, although I would go with Tremlett, especially on a fast wicket.
Although at this stage, the Broad news seems to consist of Michael Vaughan saying 'I reckon he's out for the series'. He's still not given up captaining from the commentary box.
Although at this stage, the Broad news seems to consist of Michael Vaughan saying 'I reckon he's out for the series'. He's still not given up captaining from the commentary box.
mattie
missing in inaction
Have I missed something - is Colly injured or are you just not convinced they'll stick with him? I would change the absolute bare minimum at present.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Collingwood is fine, and if we could field 12 players, an essential part of the team.
The point is that we are struggling on these flat wickets, and we need more bowling firepower. Whilst at the same time, Collingwood is looking decidedly odd in the batting order between Pietersen and Bell.
The point is that we are struggling on these flat wickets, and we need more bowling firepower. Whilst at the same time, Collingwood is looking decidedly odd in the batting order between Pietersen and Bell.
as has been pointed out, it's 'convict colony'. There's also 'we came with our backpacks, you with ball and chain' and a host of others.
It's taken in good spirit and they're having a giggle you po faced idiot
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Except at Adelaide four years ago, when I didn't understand the first innings declaration. I didn't think they'd lose, I just didn't see the value of declaring when the batsmen were making hay, and the follow-on target could have been made larger.
Well that was Flintoff, he's a moron
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Shahzad actually has a higher first class batting average than Bresnan playing for the same team. I sincerely hope they do not go for Bresnan – he fails Richie Benaud's test for an all-rounder: he must be good enough to justify his place in the team on the back of one of the disciplines alone. Otherwise you end up with Derek Pringle.
If Broad is out there is no way they'll weaken the batting further by dropping Collingwood. I also don't think they'll bring in Bresnan for Broad, it'll be Shazad or Tremlett.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So you drop him down to no. 6.
I've called for Collingwood's head in the past, but he looked in reasonable touch in his little cameo this match and he is a good man for a crisis, as he's proved as recently as last winter in SA. He's an ugly batsman, even when playing well but so what – another no.5, a certain S Waugh, was never easy on the eye either, but he scored a lot more runs than his more gifted twin.
Idaho
blah blah blah
You're probably right that they won't abandon the 4 bowler attack. I think it's daft of them. The reason they went for it was because our top order was very fragile. It's shown it's backbone in the last couple of games, time to show some flex. Batsmen can make it so you can't lose, it's bowlers who actually win games.
Don't get me wrong, I like Collingwood. He's a team man. Everyone likes him, and he can offer a bit of everything. I just think that we should be aiming for a 6 batsmen, 5 bowler England team.
Don't get me wrong, I like Collingwood. He's a team man. Everyone likes him, and he can offer a bit of everything. I just think that we should be aiming for a 6 batsmen, 5 bowler England team.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I agree, but there's no way they'll do it, and I wouldn't bring in a fifth bowler for the sake of it – Bresnan, for instance, offers little more than a willing stock bowler. It's a shame they didn't blood Shahzad more in the summer – a 789 of Shahzad, Broad and Swann would be perfectly fine, imo: three very capable number eights, basically. Then again, if they win here, they don't need to go chasing victories.
I know where you're coming from, but its hard to think of any team in the modern era that has gone for this set up without having a world class all rounder.
You'd think the aussies who are having real trouble bowling England out, and have a w/k who is as good if not better then Prior, should be looking at this. I bet they don't though, its just not the done thing.
Idaho
blah blah blah
I've never thought much of Bresnan. He's one of those bowlers who are flattered by the short formats of the game. He's not Test standard. He's an English Bollinger 
Shazad was excellent in the one match I saw him in. And also he was one of those excitable types, like Swann, who are great for keeping up morale.
Shazad was excellent in the one match I saw him in. And also he was one of those excitable types, like Swann, who are great for keeping up morale.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Much as it pains me to say this, what England really need is a Shane Watson or a Jacques Kallis. TBH Australia's problem in the bowling department is quality, not quantity.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The one test I saw live this year – Bangladesh at Lords – Finn looked very dangerous and Bresnan looked totally innocuous. He isn't test standard and never will be – good batsmen will be very disappointed to get out to him.
