Australia v England, 5th Test, Sydney, January 3-7, 2011

Eric Air Emu wrote:Was at the SCG today and would be interested what our Aussie friends think of it as a ground. The two most striking things are you can't leave the ground and return during a days play (!) and you can't really go walking round the ground as the circuit's blocked off by the member's area. Not that you'd want to mind you, it's an ugly unwelcoming place. Nowt to see apart from concrete and piping. It's comfortably the most charmless cricket ground I've been to.

The MCG on the other hand is fab. Sh*ts on the SCG from an almighty height.

MCG all the way for me. And the you tend to get blue skies and glorious weather more often. Some cricketers used to feel that the 'G was too big and the SCG was the perfect size but now that the boundaries have been brought in, that argument doesn't hold.

When I've been at the SCG, I've felt that some of the stands are a bit incongruous, whereas its Melbourne counterpart has a more uniform look about it. Visiting players think the 'G is an awesome stadium and let's not forget it can hold 100,000+ and the atmosphere is electric when it's well-patronised.

First day's play was very reminiscent of a traditional wet Whitsun opening in the Roses Match at Headingley or Old Trafford with neither side giving very much quarter although the England bowlers proved to have more patience than the Aussie batsmen as all the wickets fell to batting errors rather than particularly good balls.

At least, with the exception of the captain, the Australians showed much more determination not to surrender their wickets cheaply as they had done at Adelaide and Melbourne. However they were placed under a handicap by Clarke's decision to bat first despite adverse conditions. This seemed to indicate a lack of confidence in his bowlers to take advantage of the conditions.

It is still very difficult to judge the the relative positions of the two sides in the match until we see what happens tomorrow. If the sun shines batting conditions will improve and Hussey and Haddin could well stage a rescue act as they did at Brisbane but the Australian tail is lengthy and, so far in the series, fairly unprolific.

In the end the series may end not with a bang but a whimper and finish, as it began, with rescue acts on both sides turning it into a bore-draw leaving England with the advantage in the series. However, as in all cricket, one piece of brilliance with either bat or ball could determine the outcome.

We continue to suck.

Henry wrote:Khawaja's first two balls brought the biggest cheers from Aussie fans this Summer.

England have just shaded the first day though, despite not bowling all that well.

That second 4 in particular was sublime. I was sitting square on and the time he had to play it was ridiculous.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Sorry, he got off to a good start and then his positive and precise footwork and steely concentration meant that he pushed on to a big score.

Red, talk, cut & paste all you like. Throw in words like "resolve", "concentration", even "character" if you see fit. With all that done you probably feel quite chuffed with yourself. If you don't understand that the ball only has to move 7 centimetres off line in the last 7 metres of travel to get a nick, then you are a clueless twat.

fixed

Red wrote:Watson got a good start and then surrendered his wicket, making an effeminate gesture to himself in the process.

Spectacular tits Briony.

Of the four wickets today only one was down to good bowling. And here's a clue, it wasn't Flooz, Pup, or Used Car Yard.

UK - the pivot of Oz batting for the next decade?

UK - better than England.

And bigger.

Zat wrote:UK - better than England.

Hardly, it includes the Welsh.

vilkrang wrote:Falling asleep now anyway, still a bit knackered from all the new years festivities.

And you are welcome for all the wickets my sleep will bring.

Night.

Damn I'm good.

Well done Vilks, keep going at this rate and you'll be inline for an OBE!

I guess the important partnership is Hussey/Haddin now, break it early and we could potentially bowl them out for 220. If they get going they could well set Aus up for the game.

Nah. England have this in the bag. Crazy decision to bat.

Poor woofing.

Just watched a few highlights and England actually bowled pretty average. Far too short after lunch...

Tremlett was outstanding in the first session. Bresnan bowled pies. Anderson didn't look as threatening as you'd have expected in the conditions.

After lunch, with all the on-off-on-off delays, the seamers weren't too hot. Bit short, but mostly too impatient. They knew conditions were in their favour, but the Aussies were leaving the ball well and the bowlers were blinking first.

On the flipside, Swann looked like he brought his good version with him for this Test in the few overs he bowled.

The weirdest thing was Tremlett and Anderson bowled faster than they have all series - clocked 89 mph quite often. Maybe they were trying too hard?

Whether we win the series or not is going to depend on our first innings and conditions when we bat. We might get lucky having lost the toss and get the best batting conditions.

One good performance with the bat....one good performance.

A 185 all out Perth style spazathon coming up then

Vilks, are you a wizard?

DJ_Smerk wrote:Vilks, are you a wizard?

I'm starting to think I might be. I did see the end of the two tests we won but for the most part whenever I have been watching we haven't really done a great deal, or were even craptastic (see Perth, the one test I watched pretty much start to finish).

I'm still fecking tired from new years as I had to go to London to watch Stuart Lee today so still haven't been able to rest, meaning I might be able to take us a few more wickets tonight when I inevitably fall asleep after seeing no wickets in the first hour.

Is it possible to set up a futon in the outfield at every England game and let Vilks have a nap when things aren't going England's way?

DJ_Smerk wrote:Is it possible to set up a futon in the outfield at every England game and let Vilks have a nap when things aren't going England's way?

Few problems though, when we do take a wicket I will most likely wake up from the cheering, causing our fortunes to once again be hampered by my viewing.

If we throw a few valium into the equation then I'll be game, should be able to sleep after each wicket if I just down a few of them.

I did find the BBC news coverage rather appalling this morning, all the plaudits seemed to go to Bresnan and Swann with no mention of my name.

"England on top after Vilks falls asleep" would have been fairer.

Bresnan 0 wickets 56 runs 2 maidens
Tremlett 0 wickets 34 runs 5 maidens
Anderson 0 wickets 67 runs 4 maidens
Vilks 4 wickets 40 winks 3 maidens at New Year

Sky just showing an index they've done for all the players in the series. After a couple of minutes they all made the point that they should have done an average per game as opposed to being cumulative.

Great feature that...

Red wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Sorry, he got off to a good start and then his positive and precise footwork and steely concentration meant that he pushed on to a big score.

Red, talk, cut & paste all you like. Throw in words like "resolve", "concentration", even "character" if you see fit. With all that done you probably feel quite chuffed with yourself. If you don't understand that the ball only has to move 7 centimetres off line in the last 7 metres of travel to get a nick, then you are a clueless twat.

I think I know that. The bottom line though is that Watson keeps going out after getting a start. He was annoyed with himself too. Whether he 'surrendered' it or not, or surrendered his wicket on other occasions this summer is a moot point, and that's the word you seem to have an issue with. No doubt he put a price on his wicket today but once again he slightly lost concentration and missed the opportunity to press on.

Red, I admire your resilience & wouldn't question your love of the game. However ........ I do question your understanding of what's taking place. If you know that the ball can move enough to catch the edge, in less than the time it takes for the brain to process what the eyes are seeing, how could you attribute his dismissal to a lack of concentration? Would you like to describe the shot he should have played?

I should add that I'm not being precious about Watson. Hughes second innings run out in Melbourne was completely Watson's fault; poor judgement, likely due to poor concentration at that point.