Australia's top order

This summer Australia's 5th wicket has fallen at the following scores:

vIN 259, 128, 130, 58, 399, 265, 154
vNZ 132, 109, 247
vSA 166, 148, 223, 145, 162, 257-4, 182, 104, 329, 331, 152

Only 8 times out of 21 has the top order reached 200. In 10 out of 21 they failed to reach 155-4. Yet they still win more than they lose, even without an especially good bowling attack.

Make that only 8 times out of the last 22.

ten years after wrote:This summer Australia's 5th wicket has fallen at the following scores:

vIN 259, 128, 130, 58, 399, 265, 154
vNZ 132, 109, 247
vSA 166, 148, 223, 145, 162, 257-4, 182, 104, 329, 331, 152

Only 8 times out of 21 has the top order reached 200. In 10 out of 21 they failed to reach 155-4. Yet they still win more than they lose, even without an especially good bowling attack.

Sure about that?

I started a thread about this a while back. Bet I can't find it though. I put it in terms of percentage of runs scores by the bottom 5 wickets in those same Test.

taipan wrote:

ten years after wrote:This summer Australia's 5th wicket has fallen at the following scores:

vIN 259, 128, 130, 58, 399, 265, 154
vNZ 132, 109, 247
vSA 166, 148, 223, 145, 162, 257-4, 182, 104, 329, 331, 152

Only 8 times out of 21 has the top order reached 200. In 10 out of 21 they failed to reach 155-4. Yet they still win more than they lose, even without an especially good bowling attack.

Sure about that?

won 5 and lost 3 of the last 8 (5-5 over the summer but this thread was started before they lost the last test).

ten years after wrote:

taipan wrote:

ten years after wrote:This summer Australia's 5th wicket has fallen at the following scores:

vIN 259, 128, 130, 58, 399, 265, 154
vNZ 132, 109, 247
vSA 166, 148, 223, 145, 162, 257-4, 182, 104, 329, 331, 152

Only 8 times out of 21 has the top order reached 200. In 10 out of 21 they failed to reach 155-4. Yet they still win more than they lose, even without an especially good bowling attack.

Sure about that?

won 5 and lost 3 of the last 8 (5-5 over the summer but this thread was started before they lost the last test).

So all square over the summer?

do two wins against the snoozers at home count? a good test team would probably put a lot more pressure with their own batting than this kiwi team

against ind its 0-2 and the saffies 3-3

taipan wrote:

ten years after wrote:

taipan wrote:

ten years after wrote:This summer Australia's 5th wicket has fallen at the following scores:

vIN 259, 128, 130, 58, 399, 265, 154
vNZ 132, 109, 247
vSA 166, 148, 223, 145, 162, 257-4, 182, 104, 329, 331, 152

Only 8 times out of 21 has the top order reached 200. In 10 out of 21 they failed to reach 155-4. Yet they still win more than they lose, even without an especially good bowling attack.

Sure about that?

won 5 and lost 3 of the last 8 (5-5 over the summer but this thread was started before they lost the last test).

So all square over the summer?

In the end, but not at the time of the post.

Anyway the point remains valid. Despite rubbish from the top order and no great bowlers they still give at least as good as they get. As has been suggested on another thread, despite having a less impressive playing list they still looked slightly the better side overall against SAF.

Where is the prescient TYA ... another loss from the forum?

Presumably he's not celebrating Essendon's revitalisation under James Hird ...

TYA was an excellent forummer. REcommended a number of Prog Rock bands for me.

into the King Crimson and other Frippery now are we?

I wouldn't say "into" but I did listen to a few bands that I would have otherwise not given a second thought to.

definitely worth investigation ... I still have the LPs ... haven't listened for a while

it was a pleasant surprise to hear a recent programme on the ABC featuring Prog Rock and in particular Yes, KC, ELP, some of the classics that inspired them, and some other contemporaries. Adventurous? Certainly. Easy listening? Never.

In 1975, when I were a lad spending virtually all my money on LPs, they and their ilk kept me intrigued if not always entertained.

Hughes
Jaques
Clarke
Ponting
North
Smith

SORTED.

Smith? Smith? Johnson would be a better 6 than Smith ...

lardbucket (June 2011) wrote:Where is the prescient TYA ... another loss from the forum?

Presumably he's not celebrating Essendon's revitalisation under James Hird ...

I didn't know!

lardbucket wrote:Smith? Smith? Johnson would be a better 6 than Smith ...

wrong again