2009 Ashes Series - England vs. Australia **Spoilers**
- Thread starter oli collett
- Start date
Trott, Strauss, Prior and Pietersen. What is it with the England national team picking South African born players 
Don't think the Aussies will survive this, they are gonna need the mother of all innings by someone like Ponting tomorrow to even draw this match.
Don't think the Aussies will survive this, they are gonna need the mother of all innings by someone like Ponting tomorrow to even draw this match.
A declaration on the ninth wicket? Give over.
No chance, I'd rather we lost it than drew it to be honest. If we had batted until lunch tomorrow (unlikely I know with 9 down!) and then drawn I'd be considerably more angry with Strauss than if we lost it from here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,507
- Location
- LU7
Could be worse. We could be picking Australian born players.Trott, Strauss, Prior and Pietersen. What is it with the England national team picking South African born players
*shudders*
Course the Aussies like to pick English born players. Andrew Symonds anyone?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,507
- Location
- LU7
I know. He was still born in England though. Bit like Strauss, Trott, Prior and Pietersen all having been born in South Africa.
I know. He was still born in England though. Bit like Strauss, Trott, Prior and Pietersen all having been born in South Africa.
Yea but Trott and KP left SA when they were well into their lives
Meh, we could field a team of South Africans as long as we win the Ashes!!!
so if they win with 8 or 9 down the media won't go mad, you give over
As they would if we drew having declared a little later. Strauss was in a no win situation in terms of the media, but from the cricketing point of view made the right call.
Why ?? If they batted out the rest of the day which could have been doubtful then you still would have had two full days to bowl them out. Personally I didnt see the point.
Yes it would have been nice if we got a wicket before the end of the days play but we didnt.
Strauss definitely did the right thing, waiting until Trott had his 100 before declaring. If Trott had been out earlier, I think Strauss would have declared earlier. The lead England had was massive and the chances of Australia getting the target looked remote on paper. It still is very unlikely although history is made to be broken so you never know.
Thank god for Trott that Mike Atherton wasn't the captain or he might have done to him what he did to Graeme Hick that time!
Thank god for Trott that Mike Atherton wasn't the captain or he might have done to him what he did to Graeme Hick that time!
If Australia manage to successfully make the biggest run chase in history, then they deserve to win this test, and us posting another 10 or so runs won't make much difference.
Strauss took a gamble on putting the Aussies in late and getting a quick evening wicket. It didn't pay off, but it was still worth more of a try than hoping Steve Harmison does something exciting with the bat.
Fair play to the Trottster, that was a damn fine Ashes debut.
How many Saffers do you have in the team now? "So we're back to the fourth day in this Test series... Australia vs South Africa; the South Africans playing here under their alternative title of 'the English cricket team'..."
Actually I think you only have three Saffers, so it's not that bad.
How many Saffers do you have in the team now? "So we're back to the fourth day in this Test series... Australia vs South Africa; the South Africans playing here under their alternative title of 'the English cricket team'..."
Actually I think you only have three Saffers, so it's not that bad.
Fair play to the Trottster, that was a damn fine Ashes debut.
How many Saffers do you have in the team now? "So we're back to the fourth day in this Test series... Australia vs South Africa; the South Africans playing here under their alternative title of 'the English cricket team'..."
Actually I think you only have three Saffers, so it's not that bad.
Four if Pietersen was playing. It is a bit embarrassing I must admit, that English cricket has been a bit of a foreign legion of players for a long time. Some of whom have a greater link to the country of England than others.
There's a scathing article on the situation here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/cr...ion-for-england/2009/08/06/1249350638418.html
Last edited:
Not as far as I know, but even so, 38 is a good age to play until, and the fact that he did, proves you were mistaken that there is no chance Ponting could be playing Test cricket in four years
A few more random names for you:
Mark Waugh, played Tests till 37
Shane Warne, 37
Allan Border, 39
Glen McGrath, 36 (one month before 37)
Matthew Hayden, 37
Last edited:
what happens regards the ashes if this test turns out to be a draw ???? because we both have a test each and this is the deciding(sp) one 
just wow at that link lol the island full of ancestors of convicts and ladies of the night having a dig at the brits what a shocker lol
just wow at that link lol the island full of ancestors of convicts and ladies of the night having a dig at the brits what a shocker lol
Last edited:
