I Dont' Like Cricket, Oh No, I Love it, Yeah

[Eelementary]

Dave warners not that old

Not too sure, mate - I'm sure if we asked Bancroft, he'd tell us that Old Man Warner's eyesight is starting to fail him...

 

[Happy MEel]

Sorry, referring to the day-nighters at Adelaide (i.e. v NZ and v S.A.). NZ batted first lost. SA batted first lost.

I think the SA game was in Hobart.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I think the SA game was in Hobart.

2nd test v SA was in Hobart. 3rd test day-night in Adelaide.

 

[Happy MEel]

2nd test v SA was in Hobart. 3rd test day-night in Adelaide.

Sorry, my mistake. I still think it was the wrong decision. It looks pretty flat.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Sorry, my mistake. I still think it was the wrong decision. It looks pretty flat.

Probably as much about not facing Starc and Cummins after dark on the first day as anything else.

I'm not sure that it's such a big deal either way in these conditions.

 

[Twizzle]

the team batting second has always won the D/N in Adelaide but a sample of 2 is really grasping at straws

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

the team batting second has always won the D/N in Adelaide but a sample of 2 is really grasping at straws

So, you'd rather pick the option that has come up 0 from 2? It's not compelling evidence in and of itself, but it's not irrelevant.

My opinion is not based on the simple win/loss ratio, but on watching how those games played out, (including the fact that one of the usual benefits of batting first...which is bowling last on a crumbling pitch...is not likely to be so important when the pitch is not exposed to sunlight for the whole of the daylight hours.....and because the difficulty of facing a new ball at night seems to mean that game is likely to be shorter).

But whatever you do....you have bat and bowl (and field) well.

Since 2005 there have been 12 tests at Adelaide, 3 of which were draws. Of the 9 games with a result the team batting first has lost 6 and won 3. My point again? Simply that Root's decision is not as idiotic as people are making out.

 

[Twizzle]

Or possibly he just didn't want to bat at night as they have never played a D/N is Australia so maybe he thought it better to field first and get used to the conditions

who knows

I'm not much of a stats man as it doesn't tell you much unless you analyse the data and who played, ie: if the shit team bats first then a good chance the team batting second will win

One thing for sure, bowling first and setting a defensive field is very English, cant believe they did that

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

It is certainly a defensive move.

 

[hineyrulz]

So, you'd rather pick the option that has come up 0 from 2? It's not compelling evidence in and of itself, but it's not irrelevant.

My opinion is not based on the simple win/loss ratio, but on watching how those games played out, (including the fact that one of the usual benefits of batting first...which is bowling last on a crumbling pitch...is not likely to be so important when the pitch is not exposed to sunlight for the whole of the daylight hours.....and because the difficulty of facing a new ball at night seems to mean that game is likely to be shorter).

But whatever you do....you have bat and bowl (and field) well.

Since 2005 there have been 12 tests at Adelaide, 3 of which were draws. Of the 9 games with a result the team batting first has lost 6 and won 3. My point again? Simply that Root's decision is not as idiotic as people are making out.

Ummmm 7 for 381 in a day night test after being sent in????

Idiotic doesn’t come close.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Last I looked, Cummins had just got off the mark after about 38 balls. I suppose they've been given the hurry up.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Shaun Mush, legend!

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Ummmm 7 for 381 in a day night test after being sent in????

Idiotic doesn’t come close.

You're assuming that England would have done any better batting first.

And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, even before the advent of the day-night tests, the team batting first has lost far more than they've won over the past decade at Adelaide. England's problem is that most of them aren't good enough (or aren't suited to Aust. conditions). Putting Australia in wasn't the problem. Not being up to the task is.


I note that your mate Marsh is going ok.

 

[Eelogical]

I love watching the poms squirm rather than a quick flogging. It's almost a delirious experience.

 

[hineyrulz]

You're assuming that England would have done any better batting first.

And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, even before the advent of the day-night tests, the team batting first has lost far more than they've won over the past decade at Adelaide. England's problem is that most of them aren't good enough (or aren't suited to Aust. conditions). Putting Australia in wasn't the problem. Not being up to the task is.


I note that your mate Marsh is going ok.

He’s played well. Fair play to him.


The wicket was far drier than the one from last season It was a terrible call.

I don’t care what your stats say, it was the wrong call. And when we knock 2 or 3 over tonight before stumps it will reinforce it.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I hope BA is watching this. And notes how the commentators don't have any problem talking to a Vaughan.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Good effort, Australia. Well done, Marsh.

 

[strider]

I hope BA is watching this. And notes how the commentators don't have any problem talking to a Vaughan.

Hey. We are talking an italian vaughn ffs

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Hey. We are talking an italian vaughn ffs

Ah, capisce.

 

[Gronk]