Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ashes 2006/07 Third Test Perth

young alistair cooke as scored four centuries before the age of twenty-two(birthday christmas day)gower and compton only managed two .so the bad news of losing trescothick as been eased by finding what is a great player for the future.:p
 
Cook now averages 49 in Tests, Bell 45. They're the future, the Bell knockers had best get used to it :)
 
OK I'm not actually watching it coz i ain't got sky, but what the fuck was going on there? Was flintoff going for a win but forgot to tell KP or something, coz flintoffs got 51 off 67 balls while I'm pretty sure pietersons only put on about 7 in the same time:confused:

I don't get it
 
bollocks - tail end obviously just want to go home.

we're dead in the water unless monty and KP manage to bat all fucking day by themselves
 
Well, that's that.

I had some hopes for the Poms while Pietersen and Flintoff were at the crease. After Flintoff fell,no one else, other than Pietersen, put up any resistance.

Do you Poms feel a draw in either of the next two matches will restore Pommy pride or will you need to win one?
 
Jazzz said:
I was saying to a friend that - as desperate situations call for desperate measures - England should have opened this innings with Pietersen.

Follow my logic - to win this, chasing 550 odd on a deteriorating pitch - they were going to need a very special innings from someone and the by FAR the most likely person that could be was Pietersen. Something like 250 plus. That special innings could win the match. Now just suppose Pietersen had that in his tank. Batting where he is now, he is almost certain to run out of partners. But if he had opened - and if he could have batted through the day - the match would be England's.
Click to expand...

and indeed, Pietersen finished not out... who knows?
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
Don't be a twat.
Click to expand...
...what, for thinking that the only player on the English team to really display mastery (and hence the last you want to finish NO) of the Australian bowling is Pietersen? I don't know if you are suggesting I am a 'twat' for making a silly suggestion, or am somehow being one as some period of mourning is required before one can make tactical suggestions. :confused: :D
 
Except you just watched Cook and Bell do exceptionally well at the top of the order, and through the series you've seen KP do ok where he is.

England had a better chance of reaching the 500s with their normal line-up than by rearranging it. If they'd batted the two days at normal pace they would have won the test. It was always a 50 or 100/1 shot, but putting KP in as the opener would have made it less likely.

There is a reason KP doesn't open, for club or country. There are also tactics. If England had needed to win, and had 1.5 days to chase 500+, you'd have a semblence of argument. That they had long enough, just not the capability, doesn't make you sound knowledgable at all.
 
Pish - these were extraordinary circumstances, and with those, you allowed to consider extraordinary measures. It's rare for a team to make 300 batting fourth to win let alone 550. Yes other players did well but Pietersen is the only one who looked, on his day, as if he was on top of Warne et al and they might just not be able to dismiss him. If you agree with that then it makes perfect sense to promote him to the head of the innings. The challenge to the Australians is then "yes, you're doing well. But hey, you've still got to get KP out, otherwise you won't win". As it was, they didn't have to.

There is some extra risk for him in facing the new ball but that's the sort of luxury to be dispensed with.

That they had long enough, just not the capability, doesn't make you sound knowledgable at all.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't sound knowledgable either when I described the straight ball that Bell padded up to in the last series from Warne as a leg-break ;)
 
Yeah, you're right, they would've won by rearranging their line-up and having a batsman who never opens opening, hence rearranging everyone else as well.

They'd have had a much better chance of achieving a never-achieved before 4th innings total.
 
Well I don't know about that but consider the following stats. Pietersen comfortably tops our batting averages at 79.6 - cricinfo. And of his five dismissals, one was run out, another was a wild slog when he had to force the pace worried he was going to run out of partners, a third was unlucky where he was out LBW padding up to a ball that was missing off, and a fourth was a superlative turning delivery from Warne.

Now consider the 50 highest ever test innings - 262 and above. 47 of those were scored from batting four or higher. Out of the remaining three, two were Bradman. They are:

304 Bradman batting at 5
287 RE Foster at 5
270 Bradman again batting at 7

I rest my case.
 
Kenny Vermouth said:
They were genius - anyone if they're online to listen to?
Click to expand...

They have a new album out 'Boned', someone put a montage together with clips of the Ashes 2006 series on You Tube, well worth watching, very funny :)



:D
 
oh look nonamenopackdrill!

It seems that every cricket commentator is now - after KP gets stranded with the tail again - going on about how insane it is for Pietersen to be batting at 5. Must have been pure luck that I was saying that before, being a 'twat' who is 'lacking in knowledge', eh? Maybe it's the 'aliens' that are controlling Pietersen. ;)

Pietersen's position makes no sense

Andrew Miller at Melbourne

December 26, 2006

Kevin Pietersen is not the type of chap who likes to appear foolish, but increasingly in this series he is being made to look it. Not through any apparent fault of his own, I hasten to add, (the odd ill-advised sweep shot notwithstanding) but by proxy. Pietersen is a player who believes in his own brilliance, but by persistently appearing at No. 5 in a malfunctioning batting line-up, he is forever being shown up by the incompetence of his peers.

Today's dismissal was so familiar, it was almost a self-parody. Abandoned by his fellow batsmen and despairing of the lesser lights he'd been left with, he flung the kitchen sink at a full delivery from Shane Warne and slapped a swirling slog down the throat of long-on. He fell in identical circumstances in the first innings at Perth, before opting for a red-inker second-time around (60 not out), as he nudged the singles early in each over, and left his colleagues to their fate.

Perhaps he secretly enjoys it. His look-at-me strut - gloves off, helmet down, quick drink from the 12th man - every time another wicket falls reinforces the image of Pietersen, England's lone hero. And since the dramatic decline of Paul Collingwood on the bouncier wickets of Perth and Adelaide, that is precisely what Pietersen has been. Today's innings of 21 - riches by the standards of most of his colleagues - took him to 419 runs for the series, which is second only to Ricky Ponting (524) in the series tally.

Pietersen's continued appearance at No. 5 is utterly mystifying. "I can't believe they don't send him in at No. 4," Ian Chappell told Cricinfo at the close of play this evening. "He gets left with the tail-enders and he virtually has to throw his wicket away. If he came in at two-down, he could dictate the terms, but at No. 5 the match dictates to him."

And even Australia's hero of the hour, Shane Warne, was lobbying for Pietersen's promotion after engineering his dismissal during his first-innings figures of 5 for 39. "He should be batting 3 or 4, for sure," said Warne. "He's a world-class player and we've seen that through the series. I suppose he plays me the best in the side, but you want your best players up the order when the new ball is hard.

"As a bowler, it's harder to come on to a bloke when he's got 30 or 40," added Warne. "It's easier to bowl at them when they first come in because, like anyone, the first few overs are quite hard, and anyone can get you out. If I was England I would definitely be putting him up the order."

During his commentary stint for Sky this afternoon, Nasser Hussain speculated that Pietersen himself was refusing to budge from his current slot, which is an intriguing suggestion, if true. After his contradictory statements about his apparent "team orders" at Perth, and given his reputation as a difficult team-mate in times of hardship (just ask Kevin Newell and the Nottinghamshire dressing-room) the implication is of a man who's intensely fed up by England's failures in this series.

There was one slight, but notable, change in England's batting order today. Steve Harmison and Monty Panesar, who - without putting too fine a point on it - have the range of strokes to be the Pietersens of the lower order, were promoted to Nos. 9 and 10 respectively, with Matthew Hoggard, England's solid, reliable Collingwood-alike, shunted down two slots to 11. It was late, it was a token gesture, it failed, but it was further evidence that England - and Duncan Fletcher - are willing to adapt their approach.

But where the deployment of Pietersen is concerned, England are stuck in a rut. Collingwood's admirable qualities do not extend to early-innings initiative-seizing - his best moments of improvisatory batting invariably come with a score under his belt - while the out-of-sorts Andrew Flintoff is a lame duck at No. 6. Pietersen is the alpha and the omega of England's momentum in the series, and seeing as they have none, a positional switch must surely be a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

cricinfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
Up the arse! Arsenal 25/26
Replies
28
Views
808
marshall
M
The39thStep
Odds and sods 2025/26 Thread
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
150
Views
3K
Terraform
Terraform
Numbers
The BEES 2025
Replies
7
Views
351
May Kasahara
May Kasahara
L
Moyes in the 'hood: Everton 25-26
Replies
6
Views
391
Lotte
L
editor
America's warm welcome to fans coming to the 2026 World Cup
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Wilf
Wilf
Back
Top Bottom