Got Out Of Jail

[athersgeo]

Well, I said at 10am that it would take something special from Australia, and so it did. With the arguable exception of Damian Martyn (who was unlucky to be dismissed LBW considering he HIT the ball first!), only Ricky Ponting brought anything to the party, and what he did bring was a fabulous innings. Can't argue too much with a guy who bats virtually the whole day and scores 156 in the process. The rest of the Aussie batsmen got in...and got out again - and frankly, the way McGrath and Lee rode their luck and defended in the last three overs rather outshines the way that one or two of the batsmen were out.

Ten days rest now - and then we do it all over again.

Gives me a chance to regrow some finger nails!

Comments

[donna-k.livejournal.com]

I think I've been converted - that's the second cricket match I've watched with interest (admittedly only the last 30 balls, but even so...!) I was so disappointed that England couldn't manage to get the last one out, but it was definitely a thrilling match!

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

*chuckles* You've definitely picked a good two tests to see :) I'd *almost* say only Australia can produce endings like this, except that I've seen endings almost as tight and thrilling when England have played New Zealand and Zimbabwe, too. In fact, for every 'boring' game, there's been two or three that have had me on the edge of my seat :) Welcome to the OTHER darkside ;)

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

*gripes quietly about Damien Martyn's wicket*

*refuses to listen to anything anyone might say about the English haven't lost a few dodgy wickets*

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

*chuckles* You're quite entitled to gripe about Damien Martyn's wicket. I haven't seen it, but from all accounts, twas a howler - and I *think* it may just be the only howler of the series so far, unless you count some of the not-outs on LBW shouts that both sides have received.

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

Excellent! That said, though, I think Brett Lee was out and the umpire didn't give him out, so I suppose things do even themselves out (although, if Martyn had stayed it, we might yet have won...)

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

*nods* these things DO even themselves out over the course of a match and, particularly, over a series - and I did exempt Martyn from my complaints about the batting other than Ponting for precisely that reason :) (Of course, I AM duty bound as an English person to point out that he has so far not really set the world alight with his batting so he might not have made that much difference to the overall result!)

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

From grumblings over here, it sounds as if both Gillespie and Clarke might be 'rested' from the next match. We'll see...

And Martyn has saved Australia on other occasions, so I have a degree of faith in him.

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

In the case of Clarke, I presume that's injury worries rather than form issues - seeing as he was (at about day 3 mark) second top scorer for the series (or was he top scorer...can't remember - he, Langer and Warne were the top three, with Extras in at four and Ponting at five).

Gillespie, I think, has rather had his chips for this series. I think the writing was on the wall on Sunday when Ponting only let him bowl 4 overs during England's innings. I think he was lucky, in many respects, to even play at OT. I hope that he can find his zip again - maybe a new haircut would help...? (I always did think he looked scarier with short hair!)

Martyn...I freely admit that I know nothing about him - so I'll go with your assessment :)

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

Oh, with Clarke it's definitely injuries. After all, if his back can go once without warning, what's to stop it going again?

I feel sorry for Gillespie, as he can be a demon bowler, but has always been in MacGrath's shadow. With Glen injured, he should have had a chance, but it just didn't happen. I hope he can too - and I hate his hair! The rest of the team looks clean and neat, and then there's Jase...

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

*nods* On a purely aesthetic level, Gillespie's hair is revolting. And worse, if you look down on him (OK - probably something neither of us are actually tall enough to do in the flesh unless he's sitting down!) he badly needs to dye his roots...

/impersonation of Trini and Susanna of What Not To Wear

So, if they drop Gillespie, will it be Kasprowicz or Tait they call up? And if it's Tait, what's he like?

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

Apart from the roots, because of the sweat, it also looks greasy, very like the way Pat Rafter looked before he came to his senses and went to a hairdresser.

I would hope it would be Kaspa, as I think he truly deserves a chance, but they are both pretty good. That's where Australia's lucky - we have got a solid lot of batsmen playing in the state competition and just chomping at the bit for a chance at a baggy green cap.

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

*nods* It was better when he was younger and had it long - he used to tie it back then. Much less like a moldering but perambulating haystack *grin*

I hope it'll be Kaspa. It's arguable that he shouldn't have been the one dropped prior to OT.

We're actually in quite a good position here, too, batting, bowling AND keeping - which is very nice, considering how we've struggled in all areas in years gone by. (There was one series against the West Indies where we ended up mislaying something like five batsmen courtesy of hand and head injuries!)

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with short hair. I'm not a fan of anything that has to be constantly pushed out of the eyes all day!

Agreed on Kaspa. There just aren't enough spaces if the whole team is playing properly!

And I do like the competition, but I still want Australia to win...

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

*pats own hair that is currently Gillespie length and which is always tied back out of the way* I do have to admit, I quite like long hair - but the owner has to be able to look after it. There's nothing worse than long hair that's just been left to itself. [which is entirely why my hair got radically chopped about ten weeks ago!]

When the team's all playing properly, tis a very nice dilema to have - not something I've seen England struggle with until very, VERY recently.

*evilgrin* Speaking of competition, when are we going to get some? *rapidly ducks*

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

Oops, I should have specified that I meant long hair in men. Yes, I'm sexist on this issue, and I'm not going to apologise. *g*

And it's quite a nice problem, I will admit (except when the bowlers break down and we're in trouble!).

As for competition, I thought you believed you were facing some. After all, we could just wipe the floor with you like with did in the first match at Lords, which was done in 3.5 days. Would you prefer that? *lol*

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

*grins* I did guess you meant long hair in men - but I think what I've said goes for both sexes. There are some men who just look downright blinking ODD (and I'm thinking of two members of Bon Jovi, in particular) without at least shoulder length hair (and I'd swear that's why they grew it in the first place!), but if it's not taken care of...ugh.

As for Lord's you were all out for 190 in your first innings and you entirely relied on Warne and McGrath to keep you out of trouble (which they did by bowling out of their skins), which is not exactly a World No.1 performance, and the Australia of old would have batted us right out of the match second innings instead of being dismissed for less than 400. The total we were set was similar to the OT test but with twice the time to get it in, which was more than a sniff of a chance for England. McGrath bowled very well, as did Warne, and we probably didn't bat quite as well as we could, but it wasn't the floor whiping the end margin makes it look (in fact, 279 runs is one of the smaller Aussie Ashes victories I can recall!).

Seriously, what I'd like to see is an actual contest. So far, Lord's was Australia's match; Edgbaston was England's and Old Trafford had Australia being played off the park for most of it (and you have no idea how weird it is to write that!). I'd like an actual contest that really DOES swing both ways, like The Oval test from 97 (now THERE was a 3 day test to sit on the edge of your seat for - bloody lousy cricket all round but hoboy!).

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

I can see the sense of your argument about hair, but I personally don't like it. Can't think of any man I've looked at and said 'yes, he looks better with long hair'. I don't expect to convert you or anything, though, so don't worry. *g*

Honestly, I'm not sure whether it's Australia doing worse or England doing better. We've had similar matches against other teams in the past 18 months or so as the one we had at Lord's and usually the opposition crumbled. That England didn't shows that they are a much improved team.

And we can only wait to see if the other two tests become anything of a contest... (Just remember that you were the person who wanted to see England win by 100 runs or more - you can't have it both ways! *g*)

[athersgeo.livejournal.com]

I think, to be honest, it's Australia doing worse and England's batsmen doing better - the bowlers did fire at Lord's! Overall, I do think that the England team have improved tenfold over the last two years, and, of course, it helps that of this current side, there's only a handful that have ever played Australia before so they haven't got the mental scarring that the likes of Gus Fraser, Graham Thorpe and Mike Atherton perhaps have (all of whom made their test debuts against Australia!). No-one's told this side that they shouldn't be able to bounce back from losing like they did at Lord's!

(You're right. I did. You *can* still have a contest and have a team win by 100 runs...but it usually requires a spectacular 4th innings collapse like 46 all out!)

[katherine-b.livejournal.com]

England has certainly improved, no doubt about it, but Australia has had times of playing like this on other occasions, particularly outside Australia. I really worry we will become a team who can't be beaten at home, but can't win outside it. Still, only time will tell. And you're right, this English team doesn't have that sort of psychological barrier, but you also have other factors in your favour, like the pitch.

(I don't think Australia's crumbled to a score like 46 for 30 years or more, so I'm not sure that's very likely. I'm afraid you're likely to have more edge-of-the-seat action, I'm afraid. May I offer this useful eye-mask to avoid you seeing it? Very cheap! *lol*)