Showing posts with label Nathan Hauritz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nathan Hauritz. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The Cardiff Spill-Over & the Lord's Record

The drama following the Cardiff test has hardly subsided and the next Ashes test is already upon us!

A lot has been said following England's last wicket heroics at Cardiff; there have been pot shots taken, players have reacted, former players have reacted, the media has reacted, retirements have been announced, former coaches have spoken, captains have spoken, bloggers have written, and what not.

All this and all of them missed out on a dramatic Colombo affair.

Before I move on to Lord's, I just want to add my two-bits to the spill-over from Cardiff.

  1. England played out of their skins to draw a test and it got all of England raving about a sensational performance. Their best is past them now, it is going to be all down hill from here.
  2. Ricky Ponting is the last person in this world who should be talking about "playing cricket in the right spirit".
  3. Anything and everything spoken for and against Kevin Pietersen is a load of crap. He plays for his team, he is a great batsman, he looks ugly when he scores, hence he looks ugly when he gets out.
  4. You tell him Duncan Fletcher! What do you mean he is irrelevant Ricky? He is probably the most important English person related to cricket this decade.
  5. I wonder what Ricky feels about Nathan Hauritz statement, where he says that "Australia would have done the same".
  6. I also wonder why Ricky thinks that Flintoff's retirement announcement will make England lose focus. Weren't the 2006 Ashes a farewell series for McGrath, Langer, and Warney?

Coming back to Lord's and the rest of the Ashes series.

Focused or not, I don't think it makes much of a difference to England's chances in the 2009 Ashes.

As I said before the series, I don't think they are going to win anything.

Not till they continue to persist with Stuart Broad. What good is he anyway?

I actually feel that had Flintoff announced his retirement with immediate effect, it would have been better for England.

Flintoff doesn't cut it any more as the 6th batsman and 3rd pacer in the side.

A specialist batsman at 6, coupled with three pacers, none of whom are Flintoff or Broad, will actually give England more balance and strength in my opinion.

But with this being Flintoff's farewell test series, that is not going to happen now, is it?

A lot is being said about Australia's and England's history at Lord's. 75 years since England beat Australia there?

Well even if England had beaten Australia every single time in the last 75 years at Lord's, even then they would not have stood a chance to win the 2nd Ashes test that starts tomorrow.

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Sunday, July 12, 2009

Ashes Day 5: Two-Bits

I was expecting an innings win for Australia but Paul Collingwood lived to do what he claimed he would - bat out the game for England.

Australia could not close what really should have been their game, especially after they ran through England's middle order and had them at 127-6.

It was quite unbelievable really, particularly when Monty Panesar came out to bat and went back unbeaten.

Here are my two-bits from Day 5:

  1. Graeme Swann was supposed to be the biggest threat to Australia but he failed to pick up a single wicket; his unbeaten 47 and 31 though probably saved the game for England.

  2. James Anderson managed his 2nd and 3rd highest test score in this match; quite a game to do it in.

  3. Nathan Hauritz with figures of 6-158 surprised me; what shocked me is that he did a lot better than Swann.

  4. There was talk before the Ashes that the batting from the tails will probably decide the series. Australia's tail did not get a chance in this match; England's last 4 wickets, on the other hand, added 108 runs in the 1st innings and an unbroken 125 runs in the 2nd.

    I'm not sure whether that says more about England's tail or Australia's bowling.

  5. Ben Hilfenhaus is a bowler and a half; I don't see Lee or Clark playing a single game this Ashes.

  6. Mike Hussey was the only batsman in this match who did not manage to hit a boundary; even Monty managed to hit one!

  7. Why was Mitchell Johnson not bowled near the end of the England's innings? Was Ponting trying to save some money again by handing the ball to North?

  8. This was the first first Ashes Test this decade that ended in anything but an Australian victory. The last time this happened, it was Brisbane and it was 1998.

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Friday, July 10, 2009

Ashes Day 2: Two-Bits & Hearsay

After Day 1, I was of the opinion that England were ahead; today Ricky Ponting and Simon Katich have ensured that Australia are definitely ahead.

A result is still possible I believe. Don't rule out an Australian lead and an English collapse; its happened way too often in the past.

Particularly in the first tests of an Ashes series.

Speaking of first Ashes series tests, here are my two-bits from Day 2:

  1. Ricky Ponting set the record straight in more than one way with his century; besides erasing memories of a bloody 1st test in 2005, Ponting kicked off an Ashes series in England with a hundred. He had done the same in Australia in the two Ashes series held there in this decade, but not in the two Ashes series held in England during the same period.

  2. Simon Katich managed his 1st Ashes century; strangely he has played all his Ashes tests in England. His previous best was 67.

  3. Ponting became the 4th batsman to cross 11,000 test runs; he did so in 9 more innings than Brian Lara, and in 1 less innings than Sachin Tendulkar.

  4. Before the series began, I called England's bowling shit. Anderson and Broad with test averages of 34 and 38 respectively did not exactly catch my fancy; all they did today was prove me right. Economy rates of over 4 and no wicket to show - they need to lift their game!

And some hearsay.


Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , , , ,