The Cricket Society III

Original post by Asklepios

No, I would say Australia only have a 30% chance really.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I would say at 0-0, it was even lower than that.

Reply 3982

KingMessi

Original post by Asklepios

No, I would say Australia only have a 30% chance really.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Still?

Reply 3983

one2three_abc

15

And there is a classic case of Australia wasting a review...

Reply 3984

Asklepios

Original post by KingMessi

Still?

Now, it is probably 50/50. This is what makes test cricket so exciting :biggrin:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3985

Nice platform for Australia at the top, 111-2 at tea. If they can build and reach around 200 for the loss of 3/4 wickets only, this could be a very compelling and competitive 1st Test. A sign of things to come for the remainder of the year between these two sides?

Reply 3986

cant_think_of_name

15

Australia are not going to win this. Fourth innings, 2 down. Weather is clouding over, and a weak batting line up. The only thing in their favour is that Clarke is still to come but I don't think they have enough.

Reply 3987

Original post by cant_think_of_name

Australia are not going to win this. Fourth innings, 2 down. Weather is clouding over, and a weak batting line up. The only thing in their favour is that Clarke is still to come but I don't think they have enough.

I would not completely rule out Australia yet. That said, I believe Clarke is the key man now - as long as he's out in the middle, Australia's chances of winning the match will always be greater than 0%

Reply 3988

cant_think_of_name

15

Original post by Krish4791

I would not completely rule out Australia yet. That said, I believe Clarke is the key man now - as long as he's out in the middle, Australia's chances of winning the match will always be greater than 0%

Yeah. Now I've said that Australia will run away with it :tongue:

I just think that probably four times out of five in this position England would win. So maybe 20% for Australia.

Reply 3989

Original post by cant_think_of_name

Yeah. Now I've said that Australia will run away with it :tongue:

I just think that probably four times out of five in this position England would win. So maybe 20% for Australia.

Yep, I'd agree with that :biggrin:

Reply 3990

WOW. How important was that? 162-3 now becomes 162-5!

EDIT: In fact, 164-6 now; Clarke goes and the rest of the order is starting to fall like a house of cards. Only another solid 10th wicket stand can give some respectability to the inevitable defeat

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3991

JRP95

2

Original post by cant_think_of_name

Australia are not going to win this. Fourth innings, 2 down. Weather is clouding over, and a weak batting line up. The only thing in their favour is that Clarke is still to come but I don't think they have enough.

Well predicted, Aussie line up just isn't good enough, too many walking wickets.

Reply 3992

Captain Crash

9

Original post by 2011wc2013ct

no, you are suggesting players determine the rules by values they do not. noether does the predated values- values change over time , as was expaleind by the changing attitude to walking etc. ICC set the rules, just as MCC used to in the past, not players. its just not everyone fully understands the letter or the law . ICC should however, therefore should be applying them to everyone equally.

Of course I am suggesting players influence the values of cricket. The ICC and the MCC don't decide which values constitute the spirit of cricket; the players do. Not walking is acceptable practice from amateur cricket upwards, because batsmen get bad decisions against them and by allowing not walking, this roughly evens out.

You may not like it, but everyone who watch and play the game regularly accept it.

Original post by 2011wc2013ct

again wrong - there is no law saying umpire waits for a fielder to tell him a catch is clean or not, he has to decide. Equally the umpire doesnt ask the batsmen if he knicked it or not. the law is the same for both catches and nicks, regardles of 'player values' both ramdin and broad did exactly the same thing, ie kept quiet so the the ump made wrong descison. both could have owned up and the ump prob would have changed their minds, but neither did

You're right in that there is no law against a fielder owning up, except it is clearly in breach of the spirit of cricket. Whilst batsmen get bad decisions against them, justifying no walking when decisions go their way, thus it is an accepted convention. The same doesn't apply to catching, hence why it is widely considered as cheating and therefore against the spirit of the game. As a case in point, pretty much every ex-cricketer pundit defended Broad in this regards, whereas exactly none defended Ramdin.

Reply 3993

Captain Crash

9

On another note, anyone else surprised Smith didn't bowl at least a couple of overs in the Aus innings? He may not be the best bowler but he bowls leg spin for Victoria and the change in bowling could have bought a wicket.

Reply 3994

abzy1234

14

Original post by Captain Crash

On another note, anyone else surprised Smith didn't bowl at least a couple of overs in the Aus innings? He may not be the best bowler but he bowls leg spin for Victoria and the change in bowling could have bought a wicket.

Good point. But as we saw, Swann was really struggling until Jimmy got Rogers, so it might've been a tall order expecting Clarke to pass his vote of confidence to Smith.

Then again, Cook gave the ball to Root, who did take a wicket- albeit batsman fault tbh- so you never know. I think this enforces the picture that Cook has been miles better as a captain thus far :smile:

Reply 3995

Aky786UK

Australia looked promising with Watson/Rogers but a tall order for them to win tomorrow. Even rain can't save them.

Agar probably will put up a fight with Haddin as the former has shown he has a good technical ability with the bat but expecting England to go 1-0 up. An excellent Test match though, great to see the match closer than people expected.

Reply 3996

Kenan and Kel

Original post by Captain Crash

On another note, anyone else surprised Smith didn't bowl at least a couple of overs in the Aus innings? He may not be the best bowler but he bowls leg spin for Victoria and the change in bowling could have bought a wicket.

Shocked that he didn't bowl. I reckon Clarkey missed a trick there.

Reply 3997

This could yet be good - anyone remember Edgbaston 2005? Australia set 282 to win, and were 175-8 at the end of Day 4. They lost by just 2 runs.

The target here is 311 (so, higher), but they're slightly better placed at 174-6; if Agar finds some inspiration tomorrow and the English bowlers are slightly off their game, we could still be in for another thriller.

Reply 3998