Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,269
Immense pressure on Michael Clarke here. What can Graeme Swann come up with?
No idea if that's true or not yet. We could skittle them out for 170-220, then suddenly 300 is more than enough.
You think Australia exceeding 300 with ease is a LUNATIC suggestion? It might be incorrect but "lunacy" is pure arrogance on your part. Apart from anything else, Australia usually win here.
Our two best bowlers are indeed good, but Broad is patchy and Bresnan is a trundler - teams that truly dominate test matches regularly normally have tandem bowlers who between them are very difficult to score against. Broad can bowl really well, but he also bowls some dross in spells.
Don't be a nob. England were 28/3.
Exactly. This Aus innings has proved, once again, that you can't really judge scores until both teams have batted. Not saying they are going to be all out for less than us, but I can't foresee a massive first innings lead.
And? You said you expected them to easily exceed 300. They're a poor team nowadays.
To be fair Bresnan was pretty ordinary when he broke into the England team but he's become a useful squad player. Paul Collingwood was a bit like that at the start too, but went on to have a very decent test career. Credit to the England set-up for getting this sort of thing right.
He's very good at being a workhorse bowler. Keeps going, but very rarely will cause a lot of problems. I never feel inspired when I see him coming on, but his record is not really that bad. I did wonder as to whether he would get back in (wasn't he injured; shoulder/arm??).
I have indeed called that wrong. Australia have been embarassingly poor here. Geniunely shocked.
I have indeed called that wrong. Australia have been embarassingly poor here. Geniunely shocked.
He also doesn't seem mentally fragile like Finn.
What amazes me is that I feel that England have been poor so far, yet still seem to have too much for the Aussies.