The 1st ashes test

Welcome surprise on seeing the score today, still a long way to go mind.

Fair play to you lot who stayed up to watch that, you've got what you deserved, good resistance lads 👏 👏 👏
 
GazC_MFC said:
When looking back at this test it’ll be the toss that cost us
Click to expand...
Not bowling 1st on that green pitch seemed a strange decision to say the least.

What was the thinking behind it? Not wanting to bat last? Aussies still might not need to bat last.

Can only win by taking 20 wickets, how did we expect to do that, and win, by not bowling a weakened attack in the optimum conditions? It's not like we have a world class spinner who will clean them out last day.

Maybe we wanted to bat 3rd, which seems like it would be the best conditions overall, and have the best chance of tiring their bowlers out ahead of the next test (at the expected cost of the first test).
 
GazC_MFC said:
When looking back at this test it’ll be the toss that cost us
Click to expand...
Andy_W said:
Not bowling 1st on that green pitch seemed a strange decision to say the least.

What was the thinking behind it? Not wanting to bat last? Aussies still might not need to bat last.

Can only win by taking 20 wickets, how did we expect to do that, and win, by not bowling a weakened attack in the optimum conditions? It's not like we have a world class spinner who will clean them out last day.

Maybe we wanted to bat 3rd, which seems like it would be the best conditions overall, and have the best chance of tiring their bowlers out ahead of the next test (at the expected cost of the first test).
Click to expand...
I've mentioned throughout this thread that the Aussies stated they would have battered first if they had won the toss with one commentator/ex-cricketer stating it was a good toss to lose. In hindsight, batting first is being proven to have been the wrong choice and one which could prove costly. I am more concerned though that the selectors thought it was a good choice to leave out Anderson and Broad when they aren't injured.
 
We need to at least match their first innings total to have any chance, that means scoring another 200 plus.....can't see it unless both these get big hundreds and Butler, Pope and Stokes all chip in. Can see a typical England collapse tomorrow morning and Australia not having to bat again, but hope I'm wrong and good to see some fight at last.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I've mentioned throughout this thread that the Aussies stated they would have battered first if they had won the toss with one commentator/ex-cricketer stating it was a good toss to lose. In hindsight, batting first is being proven to have been the wrong choice and one which could prove costly. I am more concerned though that the selectors thought it was a good choice to leave out Anderson and Broad when they aren't injured.
Click to expand...
Toss has been the deciding factor without a doubt. You would think people are smart enough to look at the weather forecast and green tinge
 
Every time I’ve watched live, England have either lost wickets or been hit around the park.

I might have to turn off for them to stand a chance.

Not sure what Malan was trying to achieve there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top