Australia have got wickets through a combination of England's batsmen being fucking awful and their own ability to bowl short and fast now and again, which is just about the only cricket that works on these pitches
I think Smith has a bat that is actually a foot wide but the outer four inches on each side are painted with invisible paint. He doesn't miss the bloody ball!
Thinking that short and fast cricket is superior to others is so boneheaded and Australian. May they always get torn apart in the subcontinent and in England
Australia have got wickets through a combination of England's batsmen being fucking awful and their own ability to bowl short and fast now and again, which is just about the only cricket that works on these pitches
Give them five green, green seamers when they next tour England and watch them fail to work out how to bat or bowl on them. Then train our boys to learn how to duck any conceivable 90mph bouncer so we can draw the next away series 0-0 as well
Smith is an absolute freak - how does he make the way he bats look so easy? At times he looks like he could light a cigar and have three puffs of it before deciding exactly where he wants to hit the ball.
A freak indeed. And tonight he’s really taking the Michael. Logically he should be easy to get out by bowling a fast leg stump yorker, given that he’s virtually batting at gully by the time the ball is delivered. I just don’t get it.
The thing is that he's almost becoming a parody of himself - the movement is so dramatic and so exaggerated that he is literally taking the pxxx out of the opposition bowling. Even Mitchell Johnson says that Smith used to wind him up in the nets playing as he does to the extent that all he ended up doing was bowling shorter and shorter to him.
I bowled (clean) the opening batsmen out 3 times in the first over of Oxted v Blackheath in 1981, all were called No-Ball. I wasn't a leggie but a 16 year old quick.
England's spinners suddenly clicked 10 minutes before lunch, a shame we have the break now
Gutted about that no-ball though. What's galling for England is that we lose a review and give away a run, as a result of the review as the umpire hadn't spotted it.
These things happen to "losing" teams. During a rain delay they showed the Sydney test from 2011, when Cook on his way to 189 was reprieved on 46 by a no-ball costing spinner Michael Beer his first wicket...
Stupid for a spinner to get so close to the line. You can understand the 3rd umpire giving it, even if it could be argued that 1mm at the end of his boot was behind the line
Still think its a no-ball. To me, nothing is behind the line. Just because his boot curves out an inch higher up doesn't mean its a legal delivery.
And even if its that close, I'm with Boycs on this. As a spinner there is no way you should be bowling no-balls. Harsh lesson but hopefully he'll take note & go back half a yard.
Any no ball should result in bowler being unable to bowl for 30 minuted once that over is completed. There is no need to be trying to land that close to the line.
Comments
why is it that when we bat the pitch looks a bit tricky but when they bat the pitch is benign.
(Both Marshes to get hundreds?)
Gutted about that no-ball though. What's galling for England is that we lose a review and give away a run, as a result of the review as the umpire hadn't spotted it.
These things happen to "losing" teams. During a rain delay they showed the Sydney test from 2011, when Cook on his way to 189 was reprieved on 46 by a no-ball costing spinner Michael Beer his first wicket...
And even if its that close, I'm with Boycs on this. As a spinner there is no way you should be bowling no-balls. Harsh lesson but hopefully he'll take note & go back half a yard.
Twonk
There is no need to be trying to land that close to the line.