27 Nov 2006 01:34:52
Graybags
Small Consolation

Highest ever 4th inning score at the Gabba.

Roll on Adelaide. Maybe the Ozzies will underestimate us, like they did
after Lords last year.




28 Nov 2006 05:49:05
Cicero
Re: Small Consolation


"Graybags" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Highest ever 4th inning score at the Gabba.
>
> Roll on Adelaide. Maybe the Ozzies will underestimate us, like they did
> after Lords last year.
>

Quite a bit of difference though. England bowled well at Lords- they never
did at the Gabba. The only positives I can see for England are the
performances of Pietersen and Collingwood- which was by then on a very good
batting pitch.




28 Nov 2006 06:59:57
woodsy
Re: Small Consolation


"Graybags" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Highest ever 4th inning score at the Gabba.
>
> Roll on Adelaide. Maybe the Ozzies will underestimate us, like they did
> after Lords last year.
>
will you look at that....there really are fairies living at the back of the
garden !!




28 Nov 2006 17:06:13
Dr A. N. Walker
Re: Small Consolation

In article <[email protected] >,
Cicero <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Roll on Adelaide. Maybe the Ozzies will underestimate us, like they did
>> after Lords last year.
>Quite a bit of difference though. England bowled well at Lords- they never
>did at the Gabba. The only positives I can see for England are the
>performances of Pietersen and Collingwood- [...].

Not exactly either a positive or a consolation, but I am
reminded of the corresponding Test in 1954. Following a long period
of Oz domination, we won the Ashes narrowly, amid much jubilation, in
1953, then were a bit up-and-down for a year, and went to Oz for the
keenly-awaited return. Brisbane was a disaster [Oz 601-8d, England
190 and 257]. Hutton then dropped his leading bowler, we squeezed out
a win at Sydney thanks to May, Tyson and Statham, and a bit of tail-
wagging; and the rest is history.

Of course, the danger is that this series may look more like
2002-03.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]


29 Nov 2006 05:46:48
Robert Henderson
Re: Small Consolation

In message <[email protected] >, Dr A. N. Walker
<[email protected] > writes
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Cicero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Roll on Adelaide. Maybe the Ozzies will underestimate us, like they did
>>> after Lords last year.
>>Quite a bit of difference though. England bowled well at Lords- they never
>>did at the Gabba. The only positives I can see for England are the
>>performances of Pietersen and Collingwood- [...].
>
> Not exactly either a positive or a consolation, but I am
>reminded of the corresponding Test in 1954. Following a long period
>of Oz domination, we won the Ashes narrowly, amid much jubilation, in
>1953, then were a bit up-and-down for a year, and went to Oz for the
>keenly-awaited return. Brisbane was a disaster [Oz 601-8d, England
>190 and 257]. Hutton then dropped his leading bowler, we squeezed out
>a win at Sydney thanks to May, Tyson and Statham, and a bit of tail-
>wagging; and the rest is history.
>
> Of course, the danger is that this series may look more like
>2002-03.
>
Mmm...a bounded mind does historical analysis ( history by numbers
chortle - place facts in a row without understanding of their context).

There is another example of a first Test loss followed by a thumping
England series win (4-1) - 1911/12.

RH .
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


29 Nov 2006 17:54:55
Steve Hague
Re: Small Consolation


"Robert Henderson" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In message <[email protected]>, Dr A. N. Walker
> <[email protected]> writes
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Cicero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Roll on Adelaide. Maybe the Ozzies will underestimate us, like they did
>>>> after Lords last year.
>>>Quite a bit of difference though. England bowled well at Lords- they
>>>never
>>>did at the Gabba. The only positives I can see for England are the
>>>performances of Pietersen and Collingwood- [...].
>>
>> Not exactly either a positive or a consolation, but I am
>>reminded of the corresponding Test in 1954. Following a long period
>>of Oz domination, we won the Ashes narrowly, amid much jubilation, in
>>1953, then were a bit up-and-down for a year, and went to Oz for the
>>keenly-awaited return. Brisbane was a disaster [Oz 601-8d, England
>>190 and 257]. Hutton then dropped his leading bowler, we squeezed out
>>a win at Sydney thanks to May, Tyson and Statham, and a bit of tail-
>>wagging; and the rest is history.
>>
>> Of course, the danger is that this series may look more like
>>2002-03.
>>
> Mmm...a bounded mind does historical analysis ( history by numbers
> chortle - place facts in a row without understanding of their context).
>
> There is another example of a first Test loss followed by a thumping
> England series win (4-1) - 1911/12.
>
> RH .

Relevant as always, RH. Obviously your unbounded mind allows you to see the
extent to which a series win in the early part of last century has something
to do with what's happening now, but those of us who are less fortunate are
in need of some clarification.
Steve Hague




29 Nov 2006 20:01:37
Dr A. N. Walker
Re: Small Consolation

In article <[email protected] >, Robert "How do you
know my IQ isn't 160?" Henderson <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Not exactly either a positive or a consolation, but I am
>>reminded of the corresponding Test in 1954. [...]
>There is another example of a first Test loss followed by a thumping
>England series win (4-1) - 1911/12.

Shucks, now how on earth did I fail to be reminded of that
as a parallel? Oh, let's see:

(a) That first Test wasn't played at Brisbane.
(b) It wasn't an innings victory, nor anything close to it.
(c) England had not just won the Ashes.
(d) Oz had not dominated the previous couple of decades or so.

And most importantly:

(e) I wasn't actually alive in 1911, so, like you, I know about it
only through the books; whereas in 1953 and 1954-55 I was glued to the
crackling old wireless whenever the Tests were on [no ball-by-balls,
indeed no 24-hr radio, in those days], so *un*like you I actually do
remember the excitement, the fears, hopes and aspirations, the agonies
of the Bailey-Watson stand, the "coming good" at the Oval, the bitter
blow of the innings defeat, the Tyson-Statham comeback, and the tense
moments when it seemed that Miller might have "done for us" again, and
reading the match reports each day in the evening papers [esp to see if
local hero Reg Simpson had done well, but he was dumped for Graveney].

Apart from that, it could be another good parallel. As long as
we manage to win the next few Tests.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]


30 Nov 2006 06:57:29
Robert Henderson
Re: Small Consolation

In message <[email protected] >, Steve Hague
<[email protected] > writes
>>> Of course, the danger is that this series may look more like
>>>2002-03.
>>>
>> Mmm...a bounded mind does historical analysis ( history by numbers
>> chortle - place facts in a row without understanding of their context).
>>
>> There is another example of a first Test loss followed by a thumping
>> England series win (4-1) - 1911/12.
>>
>> RH .
>
>Relevant as always, RH. Obviously your unbounded mind allows you to see
>the extent to which a series win in the early part of last century has
>something to do with what's happening now, but those of us who are less
>fortunate are
>in need of some clarification.
>Steve Hague

Sigh. Offered merely as a fact. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


30 Nov 2006 07:00:09
Robert Henderson
Re: Small Consolation

In message <[email protected] >, Dr A. N. Walker
<[email protected] > writes
>>There is another example of a first Test loss followed by a thumping
>>England series win (4-1) - 1911/12.
>
> Shucks, now how on earth did I fail to be reminded of that
>as a parallel?

ROTFL! It was not offered as a parallel merely as a fact which might be
of interest. Poor old bounded mind. RH

>Oh, let's see:
>
> (a) That first Test wasn't played at Brisbane.
> (b) It wasn't an innings victory, nor anything close to it.
> (c) England had not just won the Ashes.
> (d) Oz had not dominated the previous couple of decades or so.
>
>And most importantly:
>
> (e) I wasn't actually alive in 1911, so, like you, I know about it
>only through the books; whereas in 1953 and 1954-55 I was glued to the
>crackling old wireless whenever the Tests were on [no ball-by-balls,
>indeed no 24-hr radio, in those days], so *un*like you I actually do
>remember the excitement, the fears, hopes and aspirations, the agonies
>of the Bailey-Watson stand, the "coming good" at the Oval, the bitter
>blow of the innings defeat, the Tyson-Statham comeback, and the tense
>moments when it seemed that Miller might have "done for us" again, and
>reading the match reports each day in the evening papers [esp to see if
>local hero Reg Simpson had done well, but he was dumped for Graveney].
>

Effing hilarious. Recounting memories has nothing to do with the
parallel you tried to draw. RH

> Apart from that, it could be another good parallel. As long as
>we manage to win the next few Tests.

--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


01 Dec 2006 19:31:47
Dr A. N. Walker
Re: Small Consolation

In article <[email protected] >,
Robert Henderson <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>There is another example of a first Test loss followed by a thumping
>>>England series win (4-1) - 1911/12.
>> Shucks, now how on earth did I fail to be reminded of that
>>as a parallel?
>ROTFL! It was not offered as a parallel merely as a fact which might be
>of interest. Poor old bounded mind. RH

*Right*. So when you wrote in <[email protected] >
" Mmm...a bounded mind does historical analysis ( history by numbers
" chortle - place facts in a row without understanding of their context). "
was that a particularly egregious straw man, or were you describing yourself?

[...]
>Effing hilarious. Recounting memories has nothing to do with the
>parallel you tried to draw. RH

You mean you didn't spot the parallels between 1953-55 and the
denouement thus far of 2005-07? The long Oz domination followed by a
narrow win amid great jubilation followed by an eagerly anticipated
series followed by a thumping defeat at Brisbane? Well, I'm sure it's
in the books you read. I just thought some newer followers of cricket
might be interested. No-one is forcing you to read.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]


01 Dec 2006 14:18:27
Richard Dixon
Re: Small Consolation


Dr A. N. Walker wrote:

> You mean you didn't spot the parallels between 1953-55 and the
> denouement thus far of 2005-07? The long Oz domination followed by a
> narrow win amid great jubilation followed by an eagerly anticipated
> series followed by a thumping defeat at Brisbane? Well, I'm sure it's
> in the books you read. I just thought some newer followers of cricket
> might be interested. No-one is forcing you to read.

Bear in mind Robert's enjoyment of the England cricket team (or at
least his definition of the England cricket team) ended when the
darkies and interlopers started playing for England - so in that sense
his reaction is understandable.

Richard



03 Dec 2006 07:05:31
Robert Henderson
Re: Small Consolation

In message <[email protected] >, Dr A. N. Walker
<[email protected] > writes
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Robert Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>There is another example of a first Test loss followed by a thumping
>>>>England series win (4-1) - 1911/12.
>>> Shucks, now how on earth did I fail to be reminded of that
>>>as a parallel?
>>ROTFL! It was not offered as a parallel merely as a fact which might be
>>of interest. Poor old bounded mind. RH
>
> *Right*. So when you wrote in <[email protected]>
> " Mmm...a bounded mind does historical analysis ( history by numbers
> " chortle - place facts in a row without understanding of their context). "
>was that a particularly egregious straw man, or were you describing yourself?
>

Poor old bounded mind unable to recognise itself,.RH
>[...]
>>Effing hilarious. Recounting memories has nothing to do with the
>>parallel you tried to draw. RH
>
> You mean you didn't spot the parallels between 1953-55 and the
>denouement thus far of 2005-07?


Only the most superficial ones. The context of the two periods is
completely different. For example, England desperately struggled to win
1-0 in 1953 against an Oz side on the slide, while England were overall
the dominant side in 2005 against a still great Oz side. . RH .

> The long Oz domination followed by a
>narrow win amid great jubilation followed by an eagerly anticipated
>series followed by a thumping defeat at Brisbane? Well, I'm sure it's
>in the books you read.

More mechanical recitation of facts without context. RH

> I just thought some newer followers of cricket
>might be interested. No-one is forcing you to read.
>
Don't fret, you are a source of never ending albeit unintentional
amusement. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk