*** The Ashes 2013 1st Test 10-14 July Trent Bridge*** > Betfair Community

Betfair Community

Home › Cricket Forum › *** The Ashes 2013 1st Test 10-14 July Trent Bridge***

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Cricket

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

These 2744 comments are related to the topic:
*** The Ashes 2013 1st Test 10-14 July Trent Bridge***

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 69 of 69 • Previous | 1 | ... | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 2,744

By:

Try My Best When: 19 Jul 13 20:38

We r ****. Get Ricky back asap. England aren't much better. South Africans and the Indians will be pissing themselves watching this crap.

By:

alfee When: 19 Jul 13 21:12

lay aussie no fecking chance .

By:

Lets Elope When: 20 Jul 13 15:13

Unbelievable even the drs umpires is incompetent, bell was out for 3 the ball clearly carried on replay to smith every commentator said so and you can see smiths fingers bent back because they're under the ball.

For fark sake even david gower admits it's clearly out!!!

By:

BJT When: 21 Jul 13 09:32

Jul 19, 2013 -- 8:38PM, Try My Best wrote:

We r ****. Get Ricky back asap. England aren't much better. South Africans and the Indians will be pissing themselves watching this crap.

Don't kid yourself, they lost interest long ago. No chance they are still watching.

By:

BJT When: 21 Jul 13 09:33

Jul 18, 2013 -- 7:17AM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

Think you'll find England won the Ashes in 1981 and 1985 here and in 86/87 in Oz BJT. Some good players in those England teams. Grant you Oz were totally dominant from 1989 to 2002/2003 a period where you produced a slew of great players. Don't kid yourself that there isn't much between these teams, England are farsuperior in every department - apart from tail batting. Your boys showed a lot of fight and got the rub of the green re ump decisions and still got beat. With the weather looking set fair can see Oz going down to a massive defeat in the series.

Show us some numbers to prove your point. If they are far superior in every department, the numbers will back you up. So where are they?

By:

BJT When: 21 Jul 13 09:38

With the amount of stats recorded for everything involved in cricket, you must be able to come up with something. Surely.
Not numbers from an hour, or a day, or a week. Some real numbers. Players averages? Strike rates? Wickets? What?

By:

BJT When: 21 Jul 13 09:41

Bowlers are better?
So they get more wickets, for less runs, and less balls?
Nope.
Batsmen far superior?
They average around 2.5 per player more.
Nope.
Ranking?
England have 115 ranking points.
Nope.

Hmmm.. Must be something somewhere. Dig deep captain.... Sure you can find something.

By:

viva el presidente! When: 21 Jul 13 09:42

here's one:

2-0

By:

rob_dylan When: 21 Jul 13 11:00

Here's another...

ICC rankings top 50 bats playing in this game..

5. Clarke
6. Cook
10. Trott
13. KP
16. Prior
17. Bell
43. Watson
45. Hughes
47. Root
48. Haddin

By:

rob_dylan When: 21 Jul 13 11:02

And Bowlers.

5. Siddle
6. Anderson
8. Swann
9. Broad
20. Pattinson
28. Harris
35. Bresnan
37. Watson

By:

Captain Wurzel When: 21 Jul 13 11:11

Dig deep captain.... Sure you can find something.

Tell you what BJT look at the figures for this test match - they're on cricinfo - those figures look like a powerful argument

By:

BJT When: 21 Jul 13 12:11

Jul 21, 2013 -- 11:00AM, rob_dylan wrote:

Here's another...ICC rankings top 50 bats playing in this game..5. Clarke6. Cook10. Trott13. KP16. Prior17. Bell43. Watson45. Hughes47. Root48. Haddin

So how do they work? I know for a fact they punish players that haven't played enough innings. I also know for a fact that comparing Harris with Anderson for their last 19 innings, Harris comes out far superior, without acknowledging Anderson has played mainly against New Zealand in that time.

I also notice you put in Watson twice. Probably because 2 of our batsmen don't even qualify to be on the list because they haven't played enough.

Also notice you have pointed out Siddle as a better bowler than Anderson, and Clarke better than your best Cook as well.

But really, without explaining what the numbers mean, you can't really use them to show them as being far superior. I already said England are about 2.5 runs per player better with the bat, but our bowlers have yours covered easily, and backed it up.
You have provided rankings, which really don't mean anything. I certainly don't know the formula they use, so I certainly don't know what the difference between ranked 1 and 500. I bet you don't either.

By:

Captain Wurzel When: 21 Jul 13 12:15

two down

By:

Captain Wurzel When: 21 Jul 13 12:35

three down

By:

rob_dylan When: 21 Jul 13 12:38

What it means BJ, is you have one batsman and one bowler.

By:

BJT When: 21 Jul 13 12:44

Yet we have 3 bowlers that get wickets faster and for less runs than your best.

By:

BJT When: 21 Jul 13 12:45

And lets be honest, we are playing the best team in history..... rotflmfao... Wonder what sort of a goose would start a thread like that....

By:

viva el presidente! When: 21 Jul 13 13:19

BJT: give me stats. go on, stats. I demand stats. I defy you to give me stats. STATS!!

(PAUSE) not those. I don't like them, they don't count.

By:

rob_dylan When: 21 Jul 13 13:21

You cannot argue with an idiot viva. For my sins I have got a little engaged, but perhaps no more.

By:

viva el presidente! When: 21 Jul 13 13:26

I just like winding him up, tbh. it's just so moreish.

By:

BJT When: 21 Jul 13 13:34

Yes cease now before he reminds everybody how England are a 25% chance of being the best sports team to ever play sport....

By:

viva el presidente! When: 21 Jul 13 13:48

totally agree, england are only a touch better than average atm.

yet they're still on the verge of running up one of the top 5 winning margins in post war tests.

By:

AdvantageAussie When: 22 Jul 13 23:28

>>As has been stated before, the decision was a close call and the
>>batsmen was given the benefit of the doubt, as he should be.

>total bollox, everyone could see he didn't get back

double bollox, yes many saw it as OUT... many also thought it was too
close to call.

By:

AdvantageAussie When: 22 Jul 13 23:35

>>nd England's bowling isn't anything special except for Anderson.
>>As I see it, your whole Ashes defence depends on Anderson staying healthy.

>Nonsense. Anderson is superb, and had a great match. But Broad and Swann are
>of course top notch too, look at their records over the last three years ffs.

Seems like it is perfectly OK to judge the Aussies on one or two performances,
but to do so for and English player and records of past performances are trotted out.

I'm only going on what I see, last day of first test, Aussies handling all other bowlers
with ease, only Anderson was able to make the breakthroughs needed.

Without him, this series is currently 1-1

By:

rob_dylan When: 22 Jul 13 23:41

Yes. But it aint. It is 2-0. And you aint regaining the ashes this side of 2018. Get used to it.