• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Ashes Series 2009 (1 Viewer)

Roy9

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
582
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Hughesy for captain

(as in Phil Hughes)

(joking btw)
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
I don't like all this I'm reading about how we should have picked Hauritz. We lost the test because of a batting collapse, very unfortunate yes but not something that we're prone to, not someone you can reduce the chances of ocuring significantly through any changes. And short of scoring all the runs himself what is a captain supposed to do about a batting collapse?
 

superralex

Sheriosusly BHS09.
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
164
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I don't like all this I'm reading about how we should have picked Hauritz. We lost the test because of a batting collapse, very unfortunate yes but not something that we're prone to, not someone you can reduce the chances of ocuring significantly through any changes. And short of scoring all the runs himself what is a captain supposed to do about a batting collapse?
If England bowled out Australia for 150 odd, why can't Australia do the same thing? It's obvious the pitch wasn't batting friendly, but I'm pretty sure Hauritz would've taken more wickets than Clarke. Hauritz would've strengthened the lower batting and added a few more runs.

Honestly, England had a weaker side compared to Australia; both batting and bowling wise.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
If England bowled out Australia for 150 odd, why can't Australia do the same thing? It's obvious the pitch wasn't batting friendly, but I'm pretty sure Hauritz would've taken more wickets than Clarke. Hauritz would've strengthened the lower batting and added a few more runs.

Honestly, England had a weaker side compared to Australia; both batting and bowling wise.
I agree the final test squad on paper meant a win to Australia, the game was decided because of an aberration first innings by Australia. The pitch wasn't a flat deck but it wasn't a 150 pitch as Australia posted more than twice that on a pitch that was two days older despite losing two players to run outs.

Cricket is a game where ten balls can mean ten wickets, flukes can happen and did happen in the first innings. Let's not forget the first innings wasn't a tale of steadilly losing ten wickets on the way to 160 it was the case of getting to 70 then losing ten wickets for ninty runs. You don't respond to a fluke failure on the part of the batsman by sacking the most consistant bowler in the side, retrieving the straight breaker and replacing the most successfull captain in the world.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top