Re: Australia v England, 5th Test, Sydney, 3-7 January, 2014

by Ethics? The Gall! Sun 05 Jan 2014, 19:33

holcs wrote:
Dello wrote:
skully wrote:Is it cocky of me to think that if the Aus bowling attack performs like they have in this series in SAf, then we can make a series of it?

I'd expect SA's batsmen to hold up better than England's, and SA's bowling attack is far better than their's too, which could prove a problem as I don't think Australia's batting is anywhere near as good as England have made them look.

And they haven't even made them look good most of the time.

SA's batting line up is far superior, have a larger set of collective testicles, would not be worried about any of the Aussie bowlers, and more importantly more attacking and allowed to play freely so will not let the Aussies bowl at them.

More importantly, Steyn et al will not be bowling the enormous amount of freebies that we have nor will let the Aussies off at 100/5. I cannot see Haddin splitting them all over the park.

Bump will be the sound heard as the Aussies firmly land back to earth!

Yep
So let us enjoy this all the more right now. Its gonna be a long time until we get a series result this good again

by beamer Sun 05 Jan 2014, 19:38

Yeah, somewhere around 20 months I guess.

by Ethics? The Gall! Sun 05 Jan 2014, 19:57

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:I get the sense that this time it will take Aussie bowlers a long time to get 10 wkts.

I would have thought that Clarke would have wanted longer rest for bowlers but didnt seem like that given how they batted.

I think this will be a hard slog for the bowlers

2 & 1/2 hours of hard slogging
I feel so sorry for those bowlers

by skully Sun 05 Jan 2014, 20:01

embee wrote:

by horace Mon 06 Jan 2014, 00:26

what embee and skully said

agree with OP...this result is simply inexplicable ...we do not possess a strong team..it is mediocre...06-07 was great but as others have said we had a team full of champs and TGM...

a wonderful result

by Ethics? The Gall! Mon 06 Jan 2014, 04:49

horace wrote:what embee and skully said

agree with OP...this result is simply inexplicable ...we do not possess a strong team..it is mediocre...06-07 was great but as others have said we had a team full of champs and TGM...

a wonderful result

Its the ones you dont expect that satisfy the most
Or hurt the most if youre a pom...

by horace Mon 06 Jan 2014, 04:53

aye etg...this unexpected result is treasured away in the memories

by Anthony_Gonzales Mon 06 Jan 2014, 05:02

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:
horace wrote:what embee and skully said

agree with OP...this result is simply inexplicable ...we do not possess a strong team..it is mediocre...06-07 was great but as others have said we had a team full of champs and TGM...

a wonderful result

Its the ones you dont expect that satisfy the most

Its the same for sex.

by taipan Mon 06 Jan 2014, 05:54

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:
Ethics? The Gall! wrote:
horace wrote:what embee and skully said

agree with OP...this result is simply inexplicable ...we do not possess a strong team..it is mediocre...06-07 was great but as others have said we had a team full of champs and TGM...

a wonderful result

Its the ones you dont expect that satisfy the most

Its the same for sex.

Woody, is that you?

by CT Mon 06 Jan 2014, 07:46

skully wrote:Aye CT, the SAffies will be tough. But if we bowl like we did in this series, the World's best top 7 will have to work very hard against.

Our batting looks frail on paper against the might of Steyn, Philander and Morkel. We need solid back up at 3 (maybe behind the iffy Warner (who I think Steyn will sort right out) and move Twatson to 6, if we are to have any hope of making enough runs to compete.

Still, I intend to bask in this glory for just a wee while.

yes agree. yep tough gig, . but we have the urn back so we got a month to enjoy it.

by PeterCS Mon 06 Jan 2014, 15:46

You have the urn, now you have to earn the right to claim #1.

by lardbucket Tue 07 Jan 2014, 11:14

Shouldn't this thread be Rikki'd still?

by PeterCS Tue 07 Jan 2014, 13:13

For ever.

Though forum convention is for continual bumping, not stickying.

by taipan Tue 07 Jan 2014, 13:26

I would move it to the gold thread.

by Bradman Tue 07 Jan 2014, 13:28

71 pages is enough. There are other threads dissecting, projecting and angsting already.

by Guest Tue 07 Jan 2014, 14:45

CT wrote:
skully wrote:Aye CT, the SAffies will be tough. But if we bowl like we did in this series, the World's best top 7 will have to work very hard against.

Our batting looks frail on paper against the might of Steyn, Philander and Morkel. We need solid back up at 3 (maybe behind the iffy Warner (who I think Steyn will sort right out) and move Twatson to 6, if we are to have any hope of making enough runs to compete.

Still, I intend to bask in this glory for just a wee while.
yes agree. yep tough gig, . but we have the urn back so we got a month to enjoy it.

That's about as long as we had to enjoy our last Ashes victory...

by Brass Monkey Tue 07 Jan 2014, 14:47

What's so gold about this? Very little banter, as there was no need. Summary execution used to excite people, until they saw it, then they realised there's no point in cheering about some corpse getting violated. Same difference here.

by Bradman Tue 07 Jan 2014, 14:57

112 1/2 days actually depending when you count to. More likely 89 3/4 days.

by lardbucket Tue 07 Jan 2014, 20:50

PeterCS wrote:For ever.

Though forum convention is for continual bumping, not stickying.

I think it should have been Rikki'ed at least until the scheduled end of the match!

'Bumping' forever can start now. Guess we saw that pic of Strauss with his tongue all over the urn a thousand times ...

by G.Wood Tue 07 Jan 2014, 20:53

I thought the English don't gloat

by PeterCS Tue 07 Jan 2014, 21:20

Vilks is a Saffie.

by lardbucket Tue 07 Jan 2014, 21:28

Were those sneering, fist-pumping, spitting lager louts and Hooray Henrys in Manchester all Saffies too? That's an image not easily forgotten.

by PeterCS Tue 07 Jan 2014, 21:29

No, they were probably pissed dolts.

by lardbucket Tue 07 Jan 2014, 21:30

No doubt of that.

by G.Wood Tue 14 Jan 2014, 00:08

Why was this on the second page?

by Sponsored content