The Ashes - TEST 2

atypical_boro said:
Exclusive in the sense that it is expensive? Yeah, I’ve got friends whose kids go there. Yeah, he’s a public schoolboy, but upper class doesn’t quite equate to that. Upper class actually means aristocracy. Atherton is still from Failsworth. He’s middle class and he’s Mancunian.
Click to expand...
He is only Mancunian by birth not by choice.
 
atypical_boro said:
Exclusive in the sense that it is expensive? Yeah, I’ve got friends whose kids go there. Yeah, he’s a public schoolboy, but upper class doesn’t quite equate to that. Upper class actually means aristocracy. Atherton is still from Failsworth. He’s middle class and he’s Mancunian.
Click to expand...
Ok, fair enough. It sounded from your post that you were claiming him to be some sort of working class lad made good, who’d attended the Mancunian equivalent of Eston Grammar.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
Atherton also attended Cambridge University.

Pietersen only qualifies for England on his mother's side and only chose England after his comments about being dropped from the Natal 1st team stating that he only had been dropped due to South Africa's racial quota. His accent is as annoying as the Aussies.
Click to expand...
Well fine but he still doesn’t sound upper class!
 
Billy Horner said:
Ok, fair enough. It sounded from your post that you were claiming him to be some sort of working class lad made good, who’d attended the Mancunian equivalent of Eston Grammar.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt he’s working class but Failsworth is a very working class area. I imagine he could have got some kind of cricket scholarship too? Obviously I’m guessing. But yes he’s clearly not some scallywag.
 
It’s been done to death now, but it was a bad show from the Aussies. They seem to justify it because of the Starc ‘catch’, but two completely separate and different incidents. They could have easily won without it, but now leaves a bad taste going forward for the rest of the series.
 
Pak_Doo_Ik said:
I’m with you, I’ve just been watching it back on Sky as I didn’t watch it yesterday (superstition), how long is Ponting on commentary for and how much do Hussain and Atherton pander to him.

Still fuming!!!!
Click to expand...
Is it my imagination but something bad alaways happens when atherton gets on the mic.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Didn’t we start the short bowling in the first test? The idea seems to have stuck with us for the rest of the series now.
Click to expand...
I didn't notice it with England, anywhere near to that level, and of course we bowled a lot more spin and our bowlers aren't as quick, so can't get it as high etc. We just used to a lot more pitching it up.

First noticed it when everyone was getting on Englands back for playing so many short balls in our first innings (when we were like 200-2 and Aussies were in trouble), but I don't know what we were meant to do, as they were only bowling short and it's not possible to stay safe/ in with that bowling, so you have to score, you're forced into it, or it's a guaranteed loss.

There's bowling a couple short with a normal field, but bowling everything short with all the fielders square or behind is a different thing I think. We did bowl shorter than them in their second innings mind, but don't think we were as radical with the fielding.

I don't think I've ever seen a field setting like how Australia had it, probably not even happened since bodyline.

Just seemed so odd, especially with what happened with Phil Hughes etc.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
I didn't notice it with England, anywhere near to that level, and of course we bowled a lot more spin and our bowlers aren't as quick, so can't get it as high etc. We just used to a lot more pitching it up.

First noticed it when everyone was getting on Englands back for playing so many short balls in our first innings (when we were like 200-2 and Aussies were in trouble), but I don't know what we were meant to do, as they were only bowling short and it's not possible to stay safe/ in with that bowling, so you have to score, you're forced into it, or it's a guaranteed loss.

There's bowling a couple short with a normal field, but bowling everything short with all the fielders square or behind is a different thing I think. We did bowl shorter than them in their second innings mind, but don't think we were as radical with the fielding.

I don't think I've ever seen a field setting like how Australia had it, probably not even happened since bodyline.

Just seemed so odd, especially with what happened with Phil Hughes etc.
Click to expand...

I noticed that we couldn’t help ourselves play daft shots. It’s very hard against the shorter ball, don’t get me wrong, but I think the best course of action was just to leave everything and defend rather than be expansive. The Aussies would soon have to change their tactics as they wouldn’t be getting the flurry of wickets.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I noticed that we couldn’t help ourselves play daft shots. It’s very hard against the shorter ball, don’t get me wrong, but I think the best course of action was just to leave everything and defend rather than be expansive. The Aussies would soon have to change their tactics as they wouldn’t be getting the flurry of wickets.
Click to expand...
If we had left everything we would have got fewer runs though, so would have got out for less.

They would have just kept bowling there, as the umpires let them, and we would have either got players injured or gloved/ edged the odd one etc.

If one team isn't scoring and you're getting opportunities then nobody would change away from the tactic.

It's hard to know what to do with inconsistent bounce when the ball could go anywhere from stomach height to over head height etc, not possible to leave every ball.

The Aussies pushed the boundaries, they umpires didn't call any of it, which I found remarkable. As they never called it, we had no option just to play what we could (not easy). Then we used the same tactic ourselves in their innings and got them out for 279, problem was they got another go at doing it in our second innings and we couldn't got back and do it in their first innings as it wasn't a legal option etc.

Another problem I have is that we didn't seem to mention it either, but not sure whether that's through trying to act tough and not wanting to look scared etc, or they just didn't realise either. I think I only heard/ saw Broad mention something about it once, when he was batting.
 
Andy_W said:
If we had left everything we would have got fewer runs though, so would have got out for less.
Click to expand...

Come on man, that’s not how it works! We wold have stayed in longer, rather than gifting our wickets. The Aussies would have to change their approach if they didn’t get wickets and then it may well have swung our way. You can’t go out there with the attitude that leaving balls is bad cos if you went after everything you would soon get out. It’s test cricket after all, not Twenty20.

Andy_W said:
The Aussies pushed the boundaries, they umpires didn't call any of it, which I found remarkable.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure loads were over shoulder height every over. I did notice the umpires giving the bowlers (from both sides) warnings. If you can hook it it’s under shoulder height, and by god we were hooking it (straight to the fielders lol).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top