Australia v Sri Lanka, 3rd ODI, Brisbane, Nov 7, 2010

....and WIN goes to the news so we miss most of the OZ innings

Jeez.. free to air TV sucks

Big Dog wrote:....and WIN goes to the news so we miss most of the OZ innings

Jeez.. free to air TV sucks

Oh....its the Tea break

Is this match for real?

Hardly. The Sri Lankans have played as if they are hungover from quite a party.

Big Dog wrote:

Big Dog wrote:....and WIN goes to the news so we miss most of the OZ innings

Jeez.. free to air TV sucks

Oh....its the Tea break

Or scheduled news break.

Clint McKay is building a pretty a pretty good JAMODI record. 30 wickets at 21 in 15 matches.

Well at least we didn't create a new record for the most consecutive losses in international cricket matches by Australia EVER.

Henry wrote:

Red wrote:I wonder if Sanga will complain that the pitch was not flat enough. Lankans were exposed again by the bouncing ball, dead rubber or not. Their top order also flopped in Sydney.

Interesting re. their test ranking - when was the last time they won a test series on bouncy pitches?

You really are an idiot, aren't you. Dilshan and Tharanga put on 70 odd at Sydney. They lost 4 wickets in making 213 before the rain came. How is that a flop?

Their batsman were mostly dismissed here today driving at full balls. But as is always the case with you Red, don;t let the facts etc......

Don't care what you say, some of their guys backed away a bit today. They looked uncomfortable at times, dead rubber or not.

Tell me, when was the last time they won a test series on hard, bouncy wickets?


The top order failed twice out of three ODIs, only to be rescued by the tail in the series clinching win in Melbourne. The top order had one decent match. Had the Aussies been able to bowl at the stumps on Wednesday evening, they would have taken the series comfortably. The signs of top order fragility from the Lankans were still evident.

Ok, you don't care what I say, but it doesn't hide that you were wrong with the facts. Again.

Yes you're right, Malinga backed away, but he's a number 10 batsman, who incidentally had great success in backing away at Melbourne. Who in the top six backed away today? Who in the top eight for that matter?

And what does winning a test series on hard, bouncy wickets have to do with them winning this ODI series here in Australia? If it's not a rhetorical question and you really want to know when they last won a test series on "hard, bouncy wickets", then i suggest you do some research yourself

Not really sure what you're getting at here.

Henry wrote:Ok, you don't care what I say, but it doesn't hide that you were wrong with the facts. Again.

Yes you're right, Malinga backed away, but he's a number 10 batsman, who incidentally had great success in backing away at Melbourne. Who in the top six backed away today? Who in the top eight for that matter?

And what does winning a test series on hard, bouncy wickets have to do with them winning this ODI series here in Australia? If it's not a rhetorical question and you really want to know when they last won a test series on "hard, bouncy wickets", then i suggest you do some research yourself

Not really sure what you're getting at here.

I know for a fact that they've never won a test series on hard, bouncy pitches.

What I'm getting at is that the press has been lauding them over the past week, even confusing at times, their test ranking (above us) with their ODI ranking. But in two of the three matches, their batsmen did nothing to disabuse one of the notion that in a test match series with slips etc. they would struggle against the lifting ball, the short ball; they'd showcase their shortcomings from long back.

In fact they weren't as impressive as the media, including some ex-players have been making out during this series. Twice they've effectively been eight for a hundred odd. Australia should have cruised the penultimate match but for some injudicious tactics.

The Lankans will probably do well on the flat subi tracks but they're nothing to right home about.

Henry wrote:Ok, you don't care what I say, but it doesn't hide that you were wrong with the facts. Again.

Yes you're right, Malinga backed away, but he's a number 10 batsman, who incidentally had great success in backing away at Melbourne. Who in the top six backed away today? Who in the top eight for that matter?

And what does winning a test series on hard, bouncy wickets have to do with them winning this ODI series here in Australia? If it's not a rhetorical question and you really want to know when they last won a test series on "hard, bouncy wickets", then i suggest you do some research yourself

Not really sure what you're getting at here.

Certainly one thing I'm getting at is that the Aussies have deservedly copped a lot of flak over some flaky performances of late. The Lankans have been lauded in the papers etc. as this excellent team with these stellar players. The reality is that their batting has been pretty lamentable save for the rain-affected Sydney match.

Red wrote:[The top order failed twice out of three ODIs, only to be rescued by the tail in the series clinching win in Melbourne. The top order had one decent match. Had the Aussies been able to bowl at the stumps on Wednesday evening, they would have taken the series comfortably. The signs of top order fragility from the Lankans were still evident.

Red in claiming moral victory for Aus shock.

Erm, so what are you doing? Being a bitter Australian fan? Or anti Sri Lankan? Are you saying Sri Lanka didn't deserve to win this series? I'm confused.

Your so called 'argument' is so full of hypothetical situations it's barely worth responding to. This was not a test series, it was an ODI series, so why are you even mentioning their failure to win a test series on hard, bouncy pitches? What has that got to do with anything?

FWIW, Sri lanka are now a fairly close second to Australia in the ODI rankings, have three world class players (Sanga, Mahela and Murali) compared to Australia's one (Ponting, who for one reason or another chose not to play in two of the three games this series).

Sri Lanka beat Australia fair and square in this series, so if they didn't deserve the plaudits that came their way, then maybe you should write a big, boring post about how crap Australia is to have lost to such an overrated Sri Lankan side, and how vulnerable they are against this, that, and the other.

Nice f*cking tits.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:[The top order failed twice out of three ODIs, only to be rescued by the tail in the series clinching win in Melbourne. The top order had one decent match. Had the Aussies been able to bowl at the stumps on Wednesday evening, they would have taken the series comfortably. The signs of top order fragility from the Lankans were still evident.

Red in claiming moral victory for Aus shock.

Not really, more claiming that the hysterical press has been blinkered where the Lankans have been concerned.

Already today's headlines talked about the unimpressive poms. They're baying for blood!

Hope they have a go at the limp-wristed effort of the Lankans in tomorrow's papers.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:[The top order failed twice out of three ODIs, only to be rescued by the tail in the series clinching win in Melbourne. The top order had one decent match. Had the Aussies been able to bowl at the stumps on Wednesday evening, they would have taken the series comfortably. The signs of top order fragility from the Lankans were still evident.

Red in claiming moral victory for Aus shock.

Not really, more claiming that the hysterical press has been blinkered where the Lankans have been concerned.

Already today's headlines talked about the unimpressive poms. They're baying for blood!

Hope they have a go at the limp-wristed effort of the Lankans in tomorrow's papers.

Once again, not everything you read in the papers is necessarily true.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:[The top order failed twice out of three ODIs, only to be rescued by the tail in the series clinching win in Melbourne. The top order had one decent match. Had the Aussies been able to bowl at the stumps on Wednesday evening, they would have taken the series comfortably. The signs of top order fragility from the Lankans were still evident.

Red in claiming moral victory for Aus shock.

Not really, more claiming that the hysterical press has been blinkered where the Lankans have been concerned.

Already today's headlines talked about the unimpressive poms. They're baying for blood!

Hope they have a go at the limp-wristed effort of the Lankans in tomorrow's papers.

I think the NSW media will more than likely laud Starc's bowling, and call for him to be in the first test squad, whilst admitting that this was a dead rubber game where the Sri Lankans were clearly taking it easy after securing the series victory and quite frankly, no one really GAF.

Henry wrote:Erm, so what are you doing? Being a bitter Australian fan? Or anti Sri Lankan? Are you saying Sri Lanka didn't deserve to win this series? I'm confused.

Your so called 'argument' is so full of hypothetical situations it's barely worth responding to. This was not a test series, it was an ODI series, so why are you even mentioning their failure to win a test series on hard, bouncy pitches? What has that got to do with anything?

FWIW, Sri lanka are now a fairly close second to Australia in the ODI rankings, have three world class players (Sanga, Mahela and Murali) compared to Australia's one (Ponting, who for one reason or another chose not to play in two of the three games this series).

Sri Lanka beat Australia fair and square in this series, so if they didn't deserve the plaudits that came their way, then maybe you should write a big, boring post about how crap Australia is to have lost to such an overrated Sri Lankan side, and how vulnerable they are against this, that, and the other.

Nice f*cking tits.

Indisputably Australia performed badly and deserved flak. Let's not forget either that they seemed to be partly experimental with selection.

SL deserved their win because they somehow beat the odds in Melbourne but with a lot of Aussie largesse, courtesy of odd tactics and profligate bowling.

This shouldn't camouflage the fact though that their batsmen failed pretty miserably in two of their three outings. The Aussie press has been harsh on their own team for some time now but largely overlooked the classic top order collapse from them on Wednesday, matched only by another one today.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:[The top order failed twice out of three ODIs, only to be rescued by the tail in the series clinching win in Melbourne. The top order had one decent match. Had the Aussies been able to bowl at the stumps on Wednesday evening, they would have taken the series comfortably. The signs of top order fragility from the Lankans were still evident.

Red in claiming moral victory for Aus shock.

Not really, more claiming that the hysterical press has been blinkered where the Lankans have been concerned.

Already today's headlines talked about the unimpressive poms. They're baying for blood!

Hope they have a go at the limp-wristed effort of the Lankans in tomorrow's papers.

Once again, not everything you read in the papers is necessarily true.

Granted, but a bit of perspective wouldn't go astray.

Henry, if they were taking it easy they were shortchanging the public, something the Pakistanis would be derided for.

Red wrote:

Henry wrote:Erm, so what are you doing? Being a bitter Australian fan? Or anti Sri Lankan? Are you saying Sri Lanka didn't deserve to win this series? I'm confused.

Your so called 'argument' is so full of hypothetical situations it's barely worth responding to. This was not a test series, it was an ODI series, so why are you even mentioning their failure to win a test series on hard, bouncy pitches? What has that got to do with anything?

FWIW, Sri lanka are now a fairly close second to Australia in the ODI rankings, have three world class players (Sanga, Mahela and Murali) compared to Australia's one (Ponting, who for one reason or another chose not to play in two of the three games this series).

Sri Lanka beat Australia fair and square in this series, so if they didn't deserve the plaudits that came their way, then maybe you should write a big, boring post about how crap Australia is to have lost to such an overrated Sri Lankan side, and how vulnerable they are against this, that, and the other.

Nice f*cking tits.

Indisputably Australia performed badly and deserved flak. Let's not forget either that they seemed to be partly experimental with selection.

SL deserved their win because they somehow beat the odds in Melbourne but with a lot of Aussie largesse, courtesy of odd tactics and profligate bowling.

This shouldn't camouflage the fact though that their batsmen failed pretty miserably in two of their three outings. The Aussie press has been harsh on their own team for some time now but largely overlooked the classic top order collapse from them on Wednesday, matched only by another one today.

To be honest, I don't think the Sri Lankans really GAF if their batsmen wobbled a bit in two of the games. They did enough to win the series, and will be laughing on the plane all the way back to Colombo. Maybe they'll address their batting problems when they next tour Australia in about what......three years?

Stark looks quite impressive

Jeez, I should have stayed on here last night. MIssed a first-class bitch fight.

yep - a red v trev v taips hair pulling contest- prolly dragged more crowds than the recent jamodis