England v South Australia, Adelaide, Nov 11-13

Jebus, I just realised that it's just after 4.00 am in Blighty. Are Pete and Smerks insomniacs like me???

You may be on to something. Kinship of Craziness.

So are you up early, Pete, or haven't gone to bed yet?

Aye, I'm just hitting the hay. Better had before people start associating me with Merlin and Fromage.

Merlin is Fromage? Never!

What did the hay do to deserve that treatment?


I'm off to the scratcher too ...

DJ_Smerk wrote:Aye, I'm just hitting the hay. Better had before people start associating me with Merlin and Fromage.

Evening to you, Smerks.

PeterCS wrote:Merlin is Fromage? Never!

PeterCS wrote:What did the hay do to deserve that treatment?


I'm off to the scratcher too ...

Night Pete.

Looks like most people are getting a hit. Cook needs some runs, and I hope they put Prior up the order next game. These 3 day affairs mean you cant really reack up 450+ if you want everyone to have a go.

Most of England's batsmen are getting starts. This either means they're building up nicely and will peak at the right time, or they're demonstrating a lack of application to go on and get really big scores.

A bit of Arthur and Martha there, Trev.

Anderson watch- 1/101 so far on this tour. FFS.

Henry wrote:Anderson watch- 1/101 so far on this tour. FFS.

I've been saying it for months now, (despite knowing he would be) Anderson shouldn't have been picked for this tour, he can be devastating when the ball swings but he has never done anything to suggest he can take wickets when there is no movement. He is the weak link in our bowling attack and I don't expect him to improve, I imagine he will average around 50 for this tour (and that's being kind).

But they'll definitely pick him for Brisbane. Brisbane is the one ground in Australia where the ball can swing if the conditions are right.

Henry wrote:But they'll definitely pick him for Brisbane. Brisbane is the one ground in Australia where the ball can swing if the conditions are right.

It will swing at all grounds ....its more likely to be the right conditions in Brisbane

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Anderson watch- 1/101 so far on this tour. FFS.

I've been saying it for months now, (despite knowing he would be) Anderson shouldn't have been picked for this tour, he can be devastating when the ball swings but he has never done anything to suggest he can take wickets when there is no movement. He is the weak link in our bowling attack and I don't expect him to improve, I imagine he will average around 50 for this tour (and that's being kind).

Vilks I don't know how you can make such an assertion. I've said it before .... that same thing was said over and over again with regard to a certain MJ Hoggard - no good abroad / on sunny days / on flat tracks. He ended up as our 6th most successful bowler in tests, and his 248 wickets weren't all on green-tops by any means.

Anderson is currently 15th, and will certainly go up a few places this winter. Compared with Hoggy, their stats are pretty close in all respects. I agree Anderson has had some horrible numbers overseas - but a deeper study reveals that he was either injured, coming back from injury, or thrown in for an odd test having played no cricket of any sort for weeks before - thats no good for a rhythm bowler.

I don't see why 1/101 gets a FFS from Trev ... it was off 38 overs, not 14.

My worry is actually Finn. He's done OK so far, but who against ? Bangladesh & Pakistan ... and there were times the Paksters treated him like a pub trundler. If Watson/Katitch/Ponting get settled I can see them giving him a bit of a belt.

I'm not sure how Hoggard being a decent enough bowler on dead pitches relates to Anderson though. They are different players, they might be similar but just because Hoggard proved himself doesn't mean that Anderson will.

I will be (pleasantly) shocked if Anderson has a good Ashes series.

With respect vilks, when two players have similar stats - doesn't that suggest they're of a similar standard? JA has 188 wickets from 52 matches .... Hoggy had 203 at the same stage, so Hoggy had taken one extra wicket every six innings or so.

You're suggesting that Hoggard was far superior to Anderson - I'm contending that's not so, you see ? You'll get a pleasant surprise I'm sure. If we lose the urn it will be down to the top 6, mark my words.

I still don't see how having similar stats means that Jimmy will miraculously learn to bowl on dead pitches. I've seen no evidence of Anderson bowling well when conditions don't suit, whereas Hoggard has proven himself to some extent in that regard.

I agree about our top six though, even though I suspect Jimmy won't do well I'm relatively confident in our other bowlers.

We'll have to wait until January - and in the meantime agree to disagree - although I'm not sure that we define "well" the same way .....

Growler wrote:We'll have to wait until January - and in the meantime agree to disagree - although I'm not sure that we define "well" the same way .....

If he averages between 30 and 33 then I will be more than happy.

I'd be happy if all the qucks average 30-33.

If the MCG is anything like it was last year for the Pakistan Test on the first day Jimmykins will be deadly. But when the ball stops swinging he is a concern.

What other options do we have though? Bresnan? Tremlett? Holloway? Saj the wonder horse?

Botham

Gary 111 wrote:If the MCG is anything like it was last year for the Pakistan Test on the first day Jimmykins will be deadly. But when the ball stops swinging he is a concern.

What other options do we have though? Bresnan? Tremlett? Holloway? Saj the wonder horse?

Amdram Shawoddywoddy's out there, I believe.

Batting's still floppy, I see.

Top five again skittled for less than 250 in the first digs.

'Aint gonna' win 'owt wi' tha' shi'.