25 Nov 2006 04:14:29
James Farrar
Not going to lose by an innings

But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
ASAP.


24 Nov 2006 20:22:13
Paji
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


James Farrar wrote:
> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
> ASAP.

still 2.5 days left and no weather problems predicted.
give rest to McGrath who has bowled 25 out of 61 Aussie overs.
batting practive to Hayden and Gilly.
drain more energy out of Eng bowlers and fielders.
better to bowl at tired Strauss and Cook than well rested opening pair.


Looks like a no brainer to me; why is anyone suprised?



25 Nov 2006 12:23:26
Dave -Turner
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room with
their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time to
completely demoralise England





25 Nov 2006 15:27:38
will_s
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Dave -Turner" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room with
> their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time to
> completely demoralise England
>
>
>

and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ? on this track
it is possible and Freddie should be opening the bowling.




25 Nov 2006 12:32:54
Dave -Turner
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ?
with England chasing such a total it wouldnt even put a dent in the
scoreboard ;)

> on this track it is possible and Freddie should be opening the bowling.
i agree but we probably wont see him for an hour ;)




25 Nov 2006 15:42:52
will_s
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Dave -Turner" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ?
> with England chasing such a total it wouldnt even put a dent in the
> scoreboard ;)

cricket is a game of confidence and that would be great for England
>
>> on this track it is possible and Freddie should be opening the bowling.
> i agree but we probably wont see him for an hour ;)

he is the best bowler



25 Nov 2006 04:49:04
James Farrar
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:23:26 +0800, "Dave -Turner" <[email protected] > wrote:

>It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room with
>their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time to
>completely demoralise England

Losing by an innings is completely demoralising.


25 Nov 2006 13:24:31
Dave -Turner
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"will_s" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Dave -Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ?
>> with England chasing such a total it wouldnt even put a dent in the
>> scoreboard ;)
>
> cricket is a game of confidence and that would be great for England

Exactly, which is why Aus are now demoralising them 8)

btw it's now 0/59 ... when does this "poms pick up 6-8 cheap Aussie wickets"
plan of yours come into effect? :)




25 Nov 2006 13:44:36
Dave -Turner
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

> btw it's now 0/59 ... when does this "poms pick up 6-8 cheap Aussie
> wickets" plan of yours come into effect? :)

ooh, we run ourselves out ... *taps nose* i'm with ya now ;)




25 Nov 2006 16:52:33
will_s
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Dave -Turner" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "will_s" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Dave -Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ?
>>> with England chasing such a total it wouldnt even put a dent in the
>>> scoreboard ;)
>>
>> cricket is a game of confidence and that would be great for England
>
> Exactly, which is why Aus are now demoralising them 8)
>
> btw it's now 0/59 ... when does this "poms pick up 6-8 cheap Aussie
> wickets" plan of yours come into effect? :)
>
>

"if"


"if"





25 Nov 2006 08:35:12
Cicero
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"James Farrar" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:23:26 +0800, "Dave -Turner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room with
>>their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time to
>>completely demoralise England
>
> Losing by an innings is completely demoralising.

The weather will not be a factor. I live a few km's from the Gabba and given
the drought we have had, there won't be rain.

I guess things change- no rest days etc for the bowlers- but I can't
understand why the follow on wasn't enforced. Even if Australia had to bat
last on the pitch, Giles (IMHO) would not be a bowler who you would expect
to rip through the opposition.

I want Australia to win (as I think they will) but I'm not sure I like this
approach.




25 Nov 2006 09:22:18
Graybags
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"James Farrar" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
> ASAP.

I can see that scoring a quick 150 and then sending us in for 10 overs at
the end of the day might cause demoralisation, and will mean guys who have
been fielding for a few hours suddenly find themselves batting again. But to
finish the day on 181-1 ? why? Everyone has a rest now - we must believe
that the Ozzies are planning to get another 150 or so and send us in
mid-afternoon.

They'll kick themselves if they leave us 9 down at the end.




25 Nov 2006 17:24:47
Dave -Turner
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

I'm sure there is a reason for the madness ;)




25 Nov 2006 20:24:46
Grinner
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Paji" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> James Farrar wrote:
>> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
>> ASAP.
>
> still 2.5 days left and no weather problems predicted.
> give rest to McGrath who has bowled 25 out of 61 Aussie overs.
> batting practive to Hayden and Gilly.

Pity Mattie didn't fire again, nerves got him with his run out.




25 Nov 2006 20:25:21
Grinner
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Dave -Turner" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room with
> their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time to
> completely demoralise England
>

Bad batting pitch? LOL !




25 Nov 2006 09:37:21
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

The follow on wasn't enforced because the spectators paid all this good
money to see a game of cricket and all the English could muster was a bunch
of old women.

After paying good money the spectators deserve to see some real cricket
which the Aussies play and not be put off by a bunch of old women.


Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Founder of the True Geology

20 Avenue des Grandes Guiardes
17000 La Rochelle France

Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Mobile +33 650 171 464

email address:- [email protected]






25 Nov 2006 09:39:48
Mango
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"James Farrar" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
> ASAP.

When most of your bowlers are well into their 30's they need their rest.
I'm sure they would have been fine in this match, but there is still another
4 after this one.




25 Nov 2006 20:43:39
pharro
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"will_s" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Dave -Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ?
>> with England chasing such a total it wouldnt even put a dent in the
>> scoreboard ;)
>
> cricket is a game of confidence and that would be great for England



As would scoring 2 for 600 in 3 days of following on.




25 Nov 2006 20:56:30
will_s
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"pharro" <nospam > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "will_s" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Dave -Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ?
>>> with England chasing such a total it wouldnt even put a dent in the
>>> scoreboard ;)
>>
>> cricket is a game of confidence and that would be great for England
>
>
>
> As would scoring 2 for 600 in 3 days of following on.
>

Australia has all the confidence going for it at the moment and batting
again could have dinted some of it. Instead it has really thumped the Poms
some more by showing nothing wrong with the wicket





25 Nov 2006 02:34:05
Fran
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


will_s wrote:
> "Dave -Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room with
> > their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time to
> > completely demoralise England
> >
> >
> >
>
> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ? on this track
> it is possible and Freddie should be opening the bowling.

Suppose they had bowled them out for 100 --- that would mean they'd
only have hit to hit more than 540 to win.

Of course if they could do that on this pitch, then you'd have to think
the Aussies could do likewise.

Realistically, it was never happening. The pitch is a belter, and their
best bowler hasn't recovered from the previous two days' efforts. And
they weren't placing a field to support that kind of bloodbath anyway,
primarily because it wasn't credible. They were bowling to delay the
declaration.

Fran



25 Nov 2006 02:37:15
Fran
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


will_s wrote:
> "pharro" <nospam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "will_s" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> "Dave -Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >>>> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ?
> >>> with England chasing such a total it wouldnt even put a dent in the
> >>> scoreboard ;)
> >>
> >> cricket is a game of confidence and that would be great for England
> >
> >
> >
> > As would scoring 2 for 600 in 3 days of following on.
> >
>
> Australia has all the confidence going for it at the moment and batting
> again could have dinted some of it. Instead it has really thumped the Poms
> some more by showing nothing wrong with the wicket

Exactly -- and bear in mind that when they won the toss, part of the
reason for batting first was to bowl last on a wearing pitch with their
new bowling sensation -- Shane Warne, who is hoping for his first test
wicket. Had they enforced, they'd never know if he could get anyone out
in the fourth innings.


;-)

Fran



25 Nov 2006 02:41:23
Fran
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


Cicero wrote:
> "James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:23:26 +0800, "Dave -Turner" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room with
> >>their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time to
> >>completely demoralise England
> >
> > Losing by an innings is completely demoralising.
>
> The weather will not be a factor. I live a few km's from the Gabba and given
> the drought we have had, there won't be rain.
>
> I guess things change- no rest days etc for the bowlers- but I can't
> understand why the follow on wasn't enforced. Even if Australia had to bat
> last on the pitch, Giles (IMHO) would not be a bowler who you would expect
> to rip through the opposition.
>
> I want Australia to win (as I think they will) but I'm not sure I like this
> approach.

It's ruthless and clinical. Australia will win it all. Not only will
they win big, but they'll do it without raising a sweat and go to
Adelaide fresh.

It's not just whether you win, but how well equipped to play the next
match you finish up.

Making them field twice increases the risk of injury to them -- and
Harmison underlined that when he tried to field that drive from Hayden.


Fran



25 Nov 2006 02:43:47
Fran
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


Mango wrote:
> "James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
> > ASAP.
>
> When most of your bowlers are well into their 30's they need their rest.
> I'm sure they would have been fine in this match, but there is still another
> 4 after this one.

It would be madness to enforce even if their bowlers were all under 28.
In cricket, you take every advantage you can if you want to win. You
give the opposition nothing and make them pay full price for
ineffective play.

Fran



25 Nov 2006 11:30:58
Mango
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Fran" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Mango wrote:
>> "James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
>> > ASAP.
>>
>> When most of your bowlers are well into their 30's they need their rest.
>> I'm sure they would have been fine in this match, but there is still
>> another
>> 4 after this one.
>
> It would be madness to enforce even if their bowlers were all under 28.
> In cricket, you take every advantage you can if you want to win. You
> give the opposition nothing and make them pay full price for
> ineffective play.
>

I've been a fan of not enforcing a follow on unless it is almost impossible
to win otherwise. With half the match time still to run, and no signs of
rain, you should always bat again. If its day 4 when you have to make that
decision then the follow on is probably your best shot.

> Fran
>




25 Nov 2006 12:00:31
RIO
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Mango" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
>> ASAP.
>
> When most of your bowlers are well into their 30's they need their rest.
> I'm sure they would have been fine in this match, but there is still
> another 4 after this one.
That theory seems to suggest that all England need to do in any match is bat
for 120 overs and they'll win??




25 Nov 2006 04:11:54
Fran
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


Mango wrote:
> "Fran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > Mango wrote:
> >> "James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >> > But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
> >> > ASAP.
> >>
> >> When most of your bowlers are well into their 30's they need their rest.
> >> I'm sure they would have been fine in this match, but there is still
> >> another
> >> 4 after this one.
> >
> > It would be madness to enforce even if their bowlers were all under 28.
> > In cricket, you take every advantage you can if you want to win. You
> > give the opposition nothing and make them pay full price for
> > ineffective play.
> >
>
> I've been a fan of not enforcing a follow on unless it is almost impossible
> to win otherwise. With half the match time still to run, and no signs of
> rain, you should always bat again. If its day 4 when you have to make that
> decision then the follow on is probably your best shot.

Exactly. If enforcing is much the more likely way to get the win, and
certainly if you couldn't win without doing so, then obviously you
must. In four-day games, or five-day games where the whether has denied
three or more sessions, this is commonly the case. Of course, in such
games, bowler fatigue is much less likely to be relevant, and the
disadvantages of batting on the last day, modest.

Fran



25 Nov 2006 04:13:26
Fran
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


RIO wrote:
> "Mango" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
> >> ASAP.
> >
> > When most of your bowlers are well into their 30's they need their rest.
> > I'm sure they would have been fine in this match, but there is still
> > another 4 after this one.
> That theory seems to suggest that all England need to do in any match is bat
> for 120 overs and they'll win??

That's actually not a bad plan. It worked a couple of times during the
last Ashes series. Why not write to Duncan and the team?

Fran



25 Nov 2006 14:49:01
David North
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

"Paji" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> James Farrar wrote:
>> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
>> ASAP.
>
> still 2.5 days left and no weather problems predicted.
> give rest to McGrath who has bowled 25 out of 61 Aussie overs.
> batting practive to Hayden and Gilly.

If they wanted to give Gilchrist batting practice, why hasn't he gone in
yet? Are they going to bat on until he comes in at seven as usual and then
give him some practice? Sounds good to me!
--
David North




25 Nov 2006 06:54:45
Fran
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


David North wrote:
> "Paji" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > James Farrar wrote:
> >> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
> >> ASAP.
> >
> > still 2.5 days left and no weather problems predicted.
> > give rest to McGrath who has bowled 25 out of 61 Aussie overs.
> > batting practive to Hayden and Gilly.
>
> If they wanted to give Gilchrist batting practice, why hasn't he gone in
> yet? Are they going to bat on until he comes in at seven as usual and then
> give him some practice? Sounds good to me!
> --

As everyone knows, I wouldn't have had Martyn in the side at all, but
as he is in the side, I wonder why he wasn't sent in when Hayden
committed suicide. I'd have sent Gilchrist in next, followed by Clarke
and Hussey.

Fran



25 Nov 2006 16:17:35
Andy Guthrie
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

will_s wrote:

>> It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room
>> with their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time
>> to completely demoralise England
>>
> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ? on this
> track it is possible and Freddie should be opening the bowling.
>
Hmmmmm. And pigs might fly.


25 Nov 2006 09:11:13
jeff
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


James Farrar wrote:
> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
> ASAP.

I think the Gabba are worried about takings and hoping for a 5th days
play.
However I doubt whether the England batters can bat out even tomorrow.
Whats the odds they wont even make 150 next time?

Also as a south african once said, "dont just beat 'em, make 'em
grovel"

Win by a record number of runs must be on the cards??

Jeff



25 Nov 2006 17:46:05
Tids
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

jeff wrote:
> James Farrar wrote:
>> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over
>> with ASAP.
>
> I think the Gabba are worried about takings and hoping for a 5th days
> play.
> However I doubt whether the England batters can bat out even tomorrow.
> Whats the odds they wont even make 150 next time?

183......all out......maybe. They always seem to bat
slightly better in the second innings.....although facing
that huge task they may not put in the effort to even
get that far.




26 Nov 2006 08:32:17
will_s
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Andy Guthrie" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> will_s wrote:
>
>>> It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow room with
>>> their high score and Englands low score so why not use that time to
>>> completely demoralise England
>>>
>> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ? on this track
>> it is possible and Freddie should be opening the bowling.
>>
> Hmmmmm. And pigs might fly.

a better saying is " dont give a mug an even break"

Well apparently this pitch with the cracks had demons in it and if Freddy
had opened the bowling maybe they could have found something. Basically they
bowled just as shit in the 2nd innings as they did in the first. Freddy has
to open the bowling and show the way from ball ONE not after 60 mins when
the batsmen have their eye in.



25 Nov 2006 21:46:10
max.it
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:00:31 -0000, "RIO" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
>"Mango" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>>
>> "James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over with
>>> ASAP.
>>
>> When most of your bowlers are well into their 30's they need their rest.
>> I'm sure they would have been fine in this match, but there is still
>> another 4 after this one.
>That theory seems to suggest that all England need to do in any match is bat
>for 120 overs and they'll win??
>
>

Aus have or are in the process of sticking England with a series
handicap. It's all going well too. How few sessions can Aus use to
bowl England out in this match ? That's how many sessions England are
worth + 61 overs.

max.it


25 Nov 2006 23:14:40
sdavmor
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

will_s wrote:
>
> "Andy Guthrie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> will_s wrote:
>>
>>>> It's no longer just about winning, they've got a lot of elbow
>>>> room with their high score and Englands low score so why not
>>>> use that time to completely demoralise England
>>>>
>>> and what if the poms pick up 6 - 8 aussie wickets cheaply ? on
>>> this track it is possible and Freddie should be opening the
>>> bowling.
>>>
>> Hmmmmm. And pigs might fly.
>
> a better saying is " dont give a mug an even break"
>
> Well apparently this pitch with the cracks had demons in it and if
> Freddy had opened the bowling maybe they could have found
> something. Basically they bowled just as shit in the 2nd innings as
> they did in the first. Freddy has to open the bowling and show the
> way from ball ONE not after 60 mins when the batsmen have their eye
> in.

Dreadful is the word that comes to mind, when compared to the
effectiveness of the Aussie seamers. Not just in the wicket taking but
in hitting the right line and length off the mark, challenging the
batsmen to show their technique. Mahmood, Plunkett and Broad couldn't
have been any less effective. I think Saji should get serious
consideration for inclusion in the T2 lineup, along with Panesar.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net >
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory >
garageband <www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory >
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming Nov 2006
NP: nothing


26 Nov 2006 10:00:09
damnfine
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

"David North" wrote:
> If they wanted to give Gilchrist batting practice, why hasn't he gone in
> yet? Are they going to bat on until he comes in at seven as usual and then
> give him some practice? Sounds good to me!

Wouldn't be at all surprised if Gilly was sent in today to swing the bat for
a while before declaration.


--
damnfine



25 Nov 2006 23:38:32
sdavmor
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

damnfine wrote:
> "David North" wrote:
>> If they wanted to give Gilchrist batting practice, why hasn't he gone
>> in yet? Are they going to bat on until he comes in at seven as usual
>> and then give him some practice? Sounds good to me!
>
> Wouldn't be at all surprised if Gilly was sent in today to swing the bat
> for a while before declaration.

..and bag his pair! ;-)
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net >
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory >
garageband <www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory >
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming Nov 2006
NP: nothing


26 Nov 2006 17:17:34
RIO
Re: Not going to lose by an innings


"Tids" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> jeff wrote:
>> James Farrar wrote:
>>> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over
>>> with ASAP.
>>
>> I think the Gabba are worried about takings and hoping for a 5th days
>> play.
>> However I doubt whether the England batters can bat out even tomorrow.
>> Whats the odds they wont even make 150 next time?
>
> 183......all out......maybe. They always seem to bat
> slightly better in the second innings.....although facing
> that huge task they may not put in the effort to even
> get that far.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm not quite eh?




26 Nov 2006 18:48:10
Tids
Re: Not going to lose by an innings

RIO wrote:
> "Tids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> jeff wrote:
>>> James Farrar wrote:
>>>> But I can't see why the Aussies wouldn't want to just get it over
>>>> with ASAP.
>>>
>>> I think the Gabba are worried about takings and hoping for a 5th
>>> days play.
>>> However I doubt whether the England batters can bat out even
>>> tomorrow. Whats the odds they wont even make 150 next time?
>>
>> 183......all out......maybe. They always seem to bat
>> slightly better in the second innings.....although facing
>> that huge task they may not put in the effort to even
>> get that far.
>
> Mmmmmmmmmmmm not quite eh?

I know......but remember I have a shocking lack of knowledge
of the game....apparently ;-)

--
Its a funny kind of month, October. For the keen
cricket fan its when you realise that your wife left
you in May.