Ashes Series 2009 (3 Viewers)

[Roy9]

Hughesy for captain

(as in Phil Hughes)

(joking btw)

 

[JB10]

What's Steve Waugh up to?

 

[Lentern]

I don't like all this I'm reading about how we should have picked Hauritz. We lost the test because of a batting collapse, very unfortunate yes but not something that we're prone to, not someone you can reduce the chances of ocuring significantly through any changes. And short of scoring all the runs himself what is a captain supposed to do about a batting collapse?

 

[superralex]

I don't like all this I'm reading about how we should have picked Hauritz. We lost the test because of a batting collapse, very unfortunate yes but not something that we're prone to, not someone you can reduce the chances of ocuring significantly through any changes. And short of scoring all the runs himself what is a captain supposed to do about a batting collapse?

If England bowled out Australia for 150 odd, why can't Australia do the same thing? It's obvious the pitch wasn't batting friendly, but I'm pretty sure Hauritz would've taken more wickets than Clarke. Hauritz would've strengthened the lower batting and added a few more runs.

Honestly, England had a weaker side compared to Australia; both batting and bowling wise.

 

[Lentern]

If England bowled out Australia for 150 odd, why can't Australia do the same thing? It's obvious the pitch wasn't batting friendly, but I'm pretty sure Hauritz would've taken more wickets than Clarke. Hauritz would've strengthened the lower batting and added a few more runs.

Honestly, England had a weaker side compared to Australia; both batting and bowling wise.

I agree the final test squad on paper meant a win to Australia, the game was decided because of an aberration first innings by Australia. The pitch wasn't a flat deck but it wasn't a 150 pitch as Australia posted more than twice that on a pitch that was two days older despite losing two players to run outs.

Cricket is a game where ten balls can mean ten wickets, flukes can happen and did happen in the first innings. Let's not forget the first innings wasn't a tale of steadilly losing ten wickets on the way to 160 it was the case of getting to 70 then losing ten wickets for ninty runs. You don't respond to a fluke failure on the part of the batsman by sacking the most consistant bowler in the side, retrieving the straight breaker and replacing the most successfull captain in the world.