Australia v England, 1st Test, Brisbane, 3rd day November 27, 2010

England take the hard knocks

Despite a traumatic third day in the field, England showed that they've got what it takes to fight back, if not right now, then without question as the series wears on
29

Despite batting through to the close with all ten wickets intact, England face a bitter struggle to recover from a traumatic third day - and given the Gabba's Lions v Christians reputation, the chances of them doing so would appear to be slim in the extreme. Nevertheless, amidst the wreckage of their immediate match prospects, there were plenty reasons to believe that they've got what it takes to fight back, if not right now, then without question as the series wears on.

If England need a precedent from which to draw inspiration, they need only rewind 16 months to Cardiff at the start of the 2009 Ashes. On that occasion they had to hack their way back into the contest after conceding 674 for 6, the highest total in post-war Ashes history, and though they eventually did so by the skin of their teeth, the momentum they generated sustained them for the rest of the series, and beyond.

Australia know, from what happened in 2009, that titanic scoreboard feats are only half the battle where this particular England side is concerned. It remains a source of bemusement, and outright dismay in some quarters, that they managed to rack up six of the top seven run-scorers in last summer's series, as well as collecting eight individual hundreds to England's tally of two, only to be trumped in the final analysis by two first-innings batting failures at Lord's and The Oval.

With that in mind, the brilliance of the triple-century stand between Michael Hussey and Brad Haddin will not be allowed to have anything like the same effect as Australia's last humungous partnership against England, the 279-run stand (also for the sixth wicket) that Matthew Hayden and Andrew Symonds compiled at the MCG in December 2006. Not least because, on this occasion, England know precisely how and why their day went so sour. And they'll also believe that they won't get quite so unlucky in quite such a bizarre way again.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the review system, the isolated set of circumstances that kept Michael Hussey at the crease in the first half-hour of the day meant that James Anderson was denied his just rewards for a spell that Haddin described as "probably the hardest Test bowling I've ever had to face". On 82, Hussey successfully overturned an lbw decision that had pitched outside leg; on 85, he survived a stone-dead shout because England had already used up their reviews on the first day - one of which, ironically, was lost on a caught-behind appeal against Michael Clarke that snickometer later suggested was out.

It was a set of circumstances that, had the ECB chairman Giles Clarke been in town, might have caused a few toys to fly out of a few prams - as was the case in Johannesburg earlier in the year, when he set about demanding the reinstatement of a lost appeal against another man who made a match-turning century, Graeme Smith. Unsurprisingly, the petition fell on deaf ears, and as it happens, the fuss didn't do a lot for the focus of the team - they went on to lose by an innings.

Right now, however, the spirit within the squad looks more durable than was the case 12 months ago, and as Eoin Morgan noted by tweeting: "made up for Finny!!" moments after the close, the sight of Australia's last five wickets tumbling for 31 in 13 overs - four of them to the rookie Steven Finn - will be of greater consequence this evening than everything that happened up until that point.

Up until then, retaining optimism in the face of such adversity had been a challenge, and there were moments throughout the day when England's spirits were allowed to flag, not least when Alastair Cook and Anderson dropped the only two catches that came their way in the whole of the first two sessions. And yet, all throughout there were little moments that spoke volumes for their resolve, such as the sight of Matt Prior and Kevin Pietersen running a full 40 yards from the cordon to congratulate Cook at mid-on for a particularly sharp piece of groundwork.

"I enjoyed the wicket bits," said Finn, whose 6 for 125 was not only a personal best, but England's best at the Gabba since John Snow in 1970-71. "It was a tough day of Test cricket for us, but we're a confident unit, we know we can get ourselves out of tricky situations, and we back ourselves to do that. To concede a first-innings deficit is not good, but we feel we've done things properly. We kept the intensity up in the field and we kept the pressure on."

The final moments of Australia's innings were a reminder, however belated, of the fragility that still lurks within their line-up, but the day as a whole lived up to the maxim, repeated ad nauseum in the build-up to the series, that a bowling team has to make the most of the Kookaburra ball while it's still shiny and new in those crucial first 15 overs. With that in mind, there was nothing more that Anderson in particular could do, as he hounded the outside edge for eight of the best overs of his life, much as Dale Steyn had done to Paul Collingwood at Cape Town back in January.

If England do go on to lose, there's another precedent that would be worth bearing in mind. The 2005 Ashes series began with a two-day dogfight at Lord's, but descended into a rout on the pivotal third day, when Australia were allowed to get too far in front in their second innings, following a crucial drop from Pietersen off Clarke. In the end it became embarrassing, with Shane Warne administering a string of ducks on a beaten batting line-up. But then as now, the tipping point was one clearly defined moment, rather than a long and slow tilting of the scales.

"The game's such a fine line," said Hussey of the let-off that transformed Australia's day. After the month of speculation that he's just endured, there's no danger that he will be getting ahead of himself after his remarkable day. And nor, for that matter, will any of the ten Australians in this side who played in 2009. There are too many opportunities for the narrative to twist again.

Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • phoenixsteve on November 28, 2010, 6:37 GMT

    So - as I write this England are dominating Australia (or is it SA, WA or Aussie A? - who are all dreadful - according to Aussie supporters) As a worried English fan after Siddle/Haddin and Hussey I am feeling much happier right now! Thank you God that Australia can't bowl and of of course (as everybody knows) that YOU are an Englishman! Being more serious..... England have put the Ausiie performance in persective and may the best side win! Come on England!

  • EnglishArrogance on November 28, 2010, 5:37 GMT

    @PTtheAxis. Come on! England won the toss, it's a bit much to complain about the conditions. England get to bowl last too. If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle. If this, if that, blah blah. What HAPPENED is Aust got 480. Live with it.Give credit where it is due. It's imbecilic to think that because Aus lost 5-30 when 450 was on the board, that's what would have happened if Hussey and Clarke got given. Clarke got what, 10? Geez man clutching at straws. Oooh Oooh if it was only cloudy when England bowled blah blah.

  • longdonkey on November 28, 2010, 4:57 GMT

    One thing that cricket in general has to look at is pitches in general. It looks as though the Brisbane pitch is doing a "Perth" and is going to be at its best between Days 3-5. I think this type of slow lifeless wicket is one of the reasons for defensive cricket that focuses on batting only. I understand that CA wants to maximise money and 3 day tests are a bit NO-NO. A spinner is only useful to a team as a defensive focus if the pitch is not going to deteriorate on the last 2-3 days. Fast bowlers do grunt work and swing bowlers are only useful for 10 overs. I think I saw the draw at 15-1 at one stage ONLY IF!

  • PTtheAxis on November 28, 2010, 4:34 GMT

    point is that aussies have gotten lucky otherwise they would have been 1 down within 4 days ... at 143/5 they never looked like getting close to 260 with their long long tail ... some bad decisions, lack of snicko, 2 sunny days to bat, 2 cloudy days to bowl & they still cannot overopower england ... writing is on the wall ... cricinfo wall

  • EnglishArrogance on November 28, 2010, 4:21 GMT

    I think it's a bit much to read into the last 5 wickets falling given Asutralia were just looking for a few cheap runs before declaring.

    OOoh OOh I'm so worried England knocked out Aussies tail when 450 was already on the board!

  • slugger1969 on November 27, 2010, 23:06 GMT

    Oh dear!! Any Englishman, or anyone for that matter, that complains about the Hussey decision after what Rudi Koertzen did to the Australians in 2009 is really laughable. I mean REALLY laughable. Geez, this stuff happens to all sides.

  • Vice-Captain on November 27, 2010, 22:54 GMT

    Being a neutral observer, one can't help but agree that the UDRS has been a major spoiler here. Anyone with an understanding of analytics should realize that the UDRS system is not just about good/bad luck. It actually exacerbates bad situations by helping the side that might have been lucky to have got their calls right. In the best case situation it brings the game to the level where it started -- i.e. dependence on on-field umpires. As the commentators said yesterday ... the "goto" system should be that each test match should have 3 fully qualified umpires that rotate through ... with the third umpire helping the on-field umpires get their decisions right using available technology. There should be no silly rules like 2 per inning -- use it or lose it systems. I am sure teams such as India would back a revised UDRS system that is not so flawed. India got the flaws before the rest did because they were on the receving side during the Lanka series of 2008.

  • Trickstar on November 27, 2010, 22:37 GMT

    Ross_Co You've gone on about sour grapes and whinging and moaning , but that's all you've done ,moan about 2009,you're nothing but a hypocrite. Lets face it if it had been a England player who was nailed plumb Lbw at 80, then went on to 190 odd,you'd be moaning, a bit like you haven't stopped moaning since 2009, so give it a rest with this higher ground,it's part of the game rubbish. Whats with jumping all over Swanny because of one inning, the fact is it hasn't been the England fans or the media that's hyped him up, stats and bowing well and becoming the number 2 ranked bowler in the world is what's done it. Warney's made his opinion clear, that he rates him the best and he knows better than most you can have bad days,it's not just him, media from all over the world, see how good he is,one bad day doesn't make him rubbish. Lets see what he's like in the last innings on day 5, .Ponting,when he was in the field, blew his UDRS'S in no time,but he was lucky.

  • docsankalp on November 27, 2010, 22:25 GMT

    As expected one more comedy writing from English writer ! I dunno when in life they grow that they got pathetic test side in world and they are on mat more often than not. They dont have single quality batsman in there side neither got any world class bowler! I wont be surprised if they lose match on 4th day of match even with this aussie side.

  • parviii on November 27, 2010, 22:24 GMT

    Whilst Aleem Dar has had an exceptional game, it is unfortunate that he will be responsible for handing this game to Australia on a platter... We saw what could have happened to Australia if they lost that early wicket... they lost 5/30 to a worn out tired english attack... England probably would have had the lead if it wasn't for that massive not out. I don't understand why Dar didn't give that out and let Hussey review it given he had the opportunity to do so... He looks more foolish by not doing so...

  • phoenixsteve on November 28, 2010, 6:37 GMT

    So - as I write this England are dominating Australia (or is it SA, WA or Aussie A? - who are all dreadful - according to Aussie supporters) As a worried English fan after Siddle/Haddin and Hussey I am feeling much happier right now! Thank you God that Australia can't bowl and of of course (as everybody knows) that YOU are an Englishman! Being more serious..... England have put the Ausiie performance in persective and may the best side win! Come on England!

  • EnglishArrogance on November 28, 2010, 5:37 GMT

    @PTtheAxis. Come on! England won the toss, it's a bit much to complain about the conditions. England get to bowl last too. If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle. If this, if that, blah blah. What HAPPENED is Aust got 480. Live with it.Give credit where it is due. It's imbecilic to think that because Aus lost 5-30 when 450 was on the board, that's what would have happened if Hussey and Clarke got given. Clarke got what, 10? Geez man clutching at straws. Oooh Oooh if it was only cloudy when England bowled blah blah.

  • longdonkey on November 28, 2010, 4:57 GMT

    One thing that cricket in general has to look at is pitches in general. It looks as though the Brisbane pitch is doing a "Perth" and is going to be at its best between Days 3-5. I think this type of slow lifeless wicket is one of the reasons for defensive cricket that focuses on batting only. I understand that CA wants to maximise money and 3 day tests are a bit NO-NO. A spinner is only useful to a team as a defensive focus if the pitch is not going to deteriorate on the last 2-3 days. Fast bowlers do grunt work and swing bowlers are only useful for 10 overs. I think I saw the draw at 15-1 at one stage ONLY IF!

  • PTtheAxis on November 28, 2010, 4:34 GMT

    point is that aussies have gotten lucky otherwise they would have been 1 down within 4 days ... at 143/5 they never looked like getting close to 260 with their long long tail ... some bad decisions, lack of snicko, 2 sunny days to bat, 2 cloudy days to bowl & they still cannot overopower england ... writing is on the wall ... cricinfo wall

  • EnglishArrogance on November 28, 2010, 4:21 GMT

    I think it's a bit much to read into the last 5 wickets falling given Asutralia were just looking for a few cheap runs before declaring.

    OOoh OOh I'm so worried England knocked out Aussies tail when 450 was already on the board!

  • slugger1969 on November 27, 2010, 23:06 GMT

    Oh dear!! Any Englishman, or anyone for that matter, that complains about the Hussey decision after what Rudi Koertzen did to the Australians in 2009 is really laughable. I mean REALLY laughable. Geez, this stuff happens to all sides.

  • Vice-Captain on November 27, 2010, 22:54 GMT

    Being a neutral observer, one can't help but agree that the UDRS has been a major spoiler here. Anyone with an understanding of analytics should realize that the UDRS system is not just about good/bad luck. It actually exacerbates bad situations by helping the side that might have been lucky to have got their calls right. In the best case situation it brings the game to the level where it started -- i.e. dependence on on-field umpires. As the commentators said yesterday ... the "goto" system should be that each test match should have 3 fully qualified umpires that rotate through ... with the third umpire helping the on-field umpires get their decisions right using available technology. There should be no silly rules like 2 per inning -- use it or lose it systems. I am sure teams such as India would back a revised UDRS system that is not so flawed. India got the flaws before the rest did because they were on the receving side during the Lanka series of 2008.

  • Trickstar on November 27, 2010, 22:37 GMT

    Ross_Co You've gone on about sour grapes and whinging and moaning , but that's all you've done ,moan about 2009,you're nothing but a hypocrite. Lets face it if it had been a England player who was nailed plumb Lbw at 80, then went on to 190 odd,you'd be moaning, a bit like you haven't stopped moaning since 2009, so give it a rest with this higher ground,it's part of the game rubbish. Whats with jumping all over Swanny because of one inning, the fact is it hasn't been the England fans or the media that's hyped him up, stats and bowing well and becoming the number 2 ranked bowler in the world is what's done it. Warney's made his opinion clear, that he rates him the best and he knows better than most you can have bad days,it's not just him, media from all over the world, see how good he is,one bad day doesn't make him rubbish. Lets see what he's like in the last innings on day 5, .Ponting,when he was in the field, blew his UDRS'S in no time,but he was lucky.

  • docsankalp on November 27, 2010, 22:25 GMT

    As expected one more comedy writing from English writer ! I dunno when in life they grow that they got pathetic test side in world and they are on mat more often than not. They dont have single quality batsman in there side neither got any world class bowler! I wont be surprised if they lose match on 4th day of match even with this aussie side.

  • parviii on November 27, 2010, 22:24 GMT

    Whilst Aleem Dar has had an exceptional game, it is unfortunate that he will be responsible for handing this game to Australia on a platter... We saw what could have happened to Australia if they lost that early wicket... they lost 5/30 to a worn out tired english attack... England probably would have had the lead if it wasn't for that massive not out. I don't understand why Dar didn't give that out and let Hussey review it given he had the opportunity to do so... He looks more foolish by not doing so...

  • Iceborn999 on November 27, 2010, 22:07 GMT

    What is worrying is the English attitudes. You could just see the body language all day. Especially from Broad. It's that type of attitude that leads to 5-0 white washes. If England are going to be in contention this summer, brighten up. This is test cricket, in Australia..... things are not going to go your way. Live with it and bowls your length and lines.

  • Barnito on November 27, 2010, 22:07 GMT

    Also interesting Jonathan Edwards-Tooke that none of the English on here have mentioned Strauss's first innings contribution....oh that's right, he didn't make one

  • on November 27, 2010, 20:54 GMT

    I have to say as usual there are some pretty pathetic comments on here!!!!!....... a) England bowled brilliantly, Swann didnt bowl too bad, he was pulled of a length quite often by Hussey.......... b)Hussey and Haddin batted brilliantly, they did the hard yards and were rewarded. c) the days of Australia getting on top once and never letting go are long gone, Hilfenhous was average, Doherty similar, neither were threatening, Johnson was pretty much as expected, unlikely to hit the cut strip, but Siddle bowled a magical spell which probably cost england a decent score, it has to happen second time round for england to be defeated in a manner that they couldnt come back from.........+ Andrew Shulz, are you an idiot, the last 5 wickets fell for 31 and you are saying that Aus would still of got a match winning lead.231 for 5 at the time + 31 is a lead of 2!!! harsh_vardhan2002 has about the most appropriate comment on here i think, - Aus will prob win, but the ashes will be far from over!

  • David47 on November 27, 2010, 19:50 GMT

    Yes, we're in a strong position. But the lack of contribution from North and Johnson continues to irritate. I can't for the life of me work out why Johnson does not recognise his obvious deficiencies and do something about them. Everyone can see that his action needs to be higher, the seam needs to be up, and he needs to concentrate on line and length. Despite this, he won't do a thing about it and has been bowling mostly rubbish since after the SA series in early 2009. Unless he takes a 5-for today HE'S GOT TO GO. And as for North - Swann is bowling about as usefully as Hauritz, but he's still good enough to get North out - my cat could do that. Anyway, great partnership by Huss and Haddin - well done. I expect you have both had a good rest overnight and will give Ponting and Clarke some batting lessons in the nets in the near future. CARN AUSTRAYYA.

  • on November 27, 2010, 18:48 GMT

    Excellent play from England and excellent batting from 2 of the Australian team, interesting that none of the Aussies commenting here mention Pontings memorable contribution. going to be a good series thats for sure.

  • Groocifer on November 27, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    @ Ross_Co: Your comments about Cardiff sound a bit whingey to me...

  • phoenixsteve on November 27, 2010, 16:27 GMT

    I am England fan obviously concerned by the current match situation. But let's not take anything away from this Australian side and to messrs Hussey, Haddin and Siddle in particular - they were GREAT and tuned in what may be match winning performances. Under pressure the Aussies delivered - they deserve full credit for the current strong position they have put themselves in. Sure, England were unlucky a few times but luck (like form) is cyclical and it will even out. How can England save this game or even win it from here? Unlikely but still possible IF they bat all day Sunday with a fast scoring rate (which should be possible as the Aussies will be attacking) they might be 75-125 runs ahead. Given that another 100 might be added leaving Australia to chase say 200 ish with about 2 sessions or 55 overs to go on a final day pitch. Of course England might totally capitulate and lose by an Innings plus! Fascinating? Now... where did I put that crystal ball & rabbits foot? COME ON ENGLAND!

  • ryanakajoey on November 27, 2010, 16:09 GMT

    And another thing about appealing, there were so many extremely poor appeals from the english later in the day,(was like watching india at some stages) one off doherty comes to mind, he must of missed it by 15cm!! Another one was a huge inside edge onto pad... This was desperate stuff by england and they were really just hoping for a favourable decision...but with no referrals left themselves and the australians having 2, why appeal? you know it's not out, the batsman knows he's not out...of course an umpire is not going to give that out, he's certain of humiliation being brought upon himself....

  • KingofRedLions on November 27, 2010, 14:52 GMT

    As far as I can see the only piece of resolve England showed today was getting the tail out cheaply. That's not a good sign, and certainly doesn't indicate that "England took the hard knocks".

  • on November 27, 2010, 14:05 GMT

    Schulz is over the top with his rampant criticism of Miller's piece. I believe the appeal against Hussey, which was wrogly turned down, happened when Australia were still behind, so for Schulz to assert that "Australia would have gained a winning lead" is not spot on. I was, and still am critical about India's stance in not accepting the UDRS, but they may have a point---- it is obviously not an ideal system. I agree with the Aussie commentators ( no lovers of the Poms) that the third and other umps should be saddled with the responsibility of invoking the UDRS rather than leave it to the players esp when snicko is not used.

  • Ross_Co on November 27, 2010, 14:02 GMT

    Sour Grapes abound. The review system was agreed upon by both sides to prevent howlers but with a built-in system to prevent abuse of the system. England used up their reviews because, lets face it - they don't know where the stumps are. Snicko is excluded from the system for the very good reason that it can pick up anything - bat hitting pad, bat hitting ground, pad hitting pad, some guy coughing in slips. The idea that the English have something to whinge about boggles the mind considering the amount of professional time-wasting that occured on a Cardiff pitch already doctored specifically for the home side in 2009. Right now they are playing on a pitch that most commentators agree most suits Swann. That's how to play cricket - you don't doctor pitches to suit the home side; you don't get cute with time-wasting & specialist fielders as 12th men; you don't whinge & you don't cheat. If England were to just give this method of playing a go then we might not have to hear this BS!

  • ryanakajoey on November 27, 2010, 13:26 GMT

    Yeah spot on andrew shulz!! Miller, the game of cricket as we all know is a great leveler, one man who has truly seen both sides of the leveling pattern is mike hussey...he has endured without a doubt the toughest time of his career. During that time he has been on the other end of quite a few wrong decisions, which is not an excuse for his results, niether has he or will he complain about those wrong decisions. And i might add niether did the australian captain during the 2009 series, Giles Clarke can take a leaf. England need to remember 2 things: -How to use the refferal system, after all it's there for shockers. -They're not the only one's on the end of bad umpiring decisions, take it on the chin and get on with it. The way Strauss acted today was a disgrace, like a toddler being disciplined and showing no restraint. It amazes me that you english can be so narrow minded and blindsighted that you don't realise that in the game of cricket WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

  • Something_Witty on November 27, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    What mystifies me the most is how poorly Swann bowled. England have RAVED about Swann for the best part of two years, and today he was, to put it mildly, rubbish. I have never seen a spinner at international level drag so many balls down in a single day. I know Swann is a great bowler, but this performance is really indicative of how over-hyped the English players are. Unless his bowling improves tenfold, I cannot see England posing a challenge this summer, which would be a real shame.

  • Koushik_Biswas on November 27, 2010, 13:09 GMT

    Absorbing stuff. About the umpiring decisions - where are the people who bash India for doubting the UDRS? What is the difference between relying on the time tested, age old method of having human umpires and getting a wrong decision versus spending a bunch of money on a system that misses a faint nick? The difference is this: if you are a victim of the later, you will be left with a gnawing feeling of helplessness and vengeance as you try to make sense of it all - why did I use up all my appeals? should I appeal now or not? what if technology disagrees, I lose an appeal, and on the final hour we lose the match just because we do not have any more left? Aren't we over complicating the purity of cricket - fight between bat and ball? Aren't we adding to possible strategic decisions that distract the player out there? As opposed to that, playing cricket the way it as been played, enjoyed, glorified and eulogized for few centuries now - you come off cheerful even if u get a bad decision.

  • on November 27, 2010, 13:06 GMT

    Miller, I have to disagree with you as well. The pitch didnt flatten out, the poms gave up in a worrying (but all too familliar) fashion. Strauss switched to negative tactics and Haddin and Hussey just picked them off with ease. The fielding standards dropped, and the body language was terrible. If the English bowlers thought that this was hard work...wait 'till Adelaide, they wont get anything like the assistance they had here. And quick wickets always tumble after a huge partnership, particularly lower order ones.

    Also, if Anderson was beating the outside edge so often, is that not an indicator to bowl a bit fuller? Or attack the stumps?

    Finn ended up with the best bowling analysis but I think he was the worst of the quicks. His innacurate bowling released the pressure on the batsmen, and allowed them to break the shackles, setting them up for this huge partnership.

  • Trebil on November 27, 2010, 12:51 GMT

    @andrew-schulz Its a bit harsh to say it was England's fault they had no referrals left when snicko showed their second referral was correct in referring the edge they heard from Clarke. If that was given out the whole complexion of the game would have changed and England would have had one more referral left. Whether they would still have had that referral come this morning is another story. Another aspect of the UDRS that intrigues me is whether the umpires consider which team has any referrals left. If Aleem Dar didn't give the Hussey lbw out because he thought there was bat in it, why not give it out and then leave it to Hussey to review it if hes hit it?

  • on November 27, 2010, 12:18 GMT

    Its early days but where have all the blowhards and knockers of the Australian cricket team evaporated to. Sir Ian Botham had a lot to say. Can't find any comments on GOOGLE News.

  • CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on November 27, 2010, 12:15 GMT

    WELL EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD WENT AGAINST THE 11 POMS ON THE FIELD PLUMB LBW OF HUSSEY DENIED IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SITUATION WITHOUT HUSS TON THE PITCH FLATTENED OUT HORRIBLY AFTER 1ST HOUR SUN BEATING DOWN I RECKON IF POMS CAN FIGHT OUT THE FIRST SESSION AND SIDDLE MAINLY WITH THE FLAT TRACK ALL DAY I DONT THINK THE IMPOTENT BOWLING OF AUS CAN KNOCK POMS DOWN APART FROM SIDDLE DOERTHY IS NOT EVEN 1/4 OF WARNIE SO THE CRUX IS THE 1ST HOUR AND THEN ITS QUITE THE CAKE WALK BUT BEWARE OF SIDDLE

  • andrew-schulz on November 27, 2010, 12:10 GMT

    As usual, you are totally wrong Miller. Two points. The difference between this and Cardiff is that England have to bat for two days, not one and a bit. And to say that Australia's day was transformed by an umpiring decision is just brainless. It was England's fault that they did not have a review left. And even if Hussey had been out, Australia would still have gained a winning lead. Just useless English straw-clutching. England did not show resolve and the ability to fight back. What rot! To see Stuart Broad spitting the dummy over Jonathan Trott not effecting a run out after he himself had made the worst misfield of the year at a vital time not long before typified this group-not so much a team as a rabble. How you can grab a positive from this day is beyond me.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • andrew-schulz on November 27, 2010, 12:10 GMT

    As usual, you are totally wrong Miller. Two points. The difference between this and Cardiff is that England have to bat for two days, not one and a bit. And to say that Australia's day was transformed by an umpiring decision is just brainless. It was England's fault that they did not have a review left. And even if Hussey had been out, Australia would still have gained a winning lead. Just useless English straw-clutching. England did not show resolve and the ability to fight back. What rot! To see Stuart Broad spitting the dummy over Jonathan Trott not effecting a run out after he himself had made the worst misfield of the year at a vital time not long before typified this group-not so much a team as a rabble. How you can grab a positive from this day is beyond me.

  • CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on November 27, 2010, 12:15 GMT

    WELL EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD WENT AGAINST THE 11 POMS ON THE FIELD PLUMB LBW OF HUSSEY DENIED IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SITUATION WITHOUT HUSS TON THE PITCH FLATTENED OUT HORRIBLY AFTER 1ST HOUR SUN BEATING DOWN I RECKON IF POMS CAN FIGHT OUT THE FIRST SESSION AND SIDDLE MAINLY WITH THE FLAT TRACK ALL DAY I DONT THINK THE IMPOTENT BOWLING OF AUS CAN KNOCK POMS DOWN APART FROM SIDDLE DOERTHY IS NOT EVEN 1/4 OF WARNIE SO THE CRUX IS THE 1ST HOUR AND THEN ITS QUITE THE CAKE WALK BUT BEWARE OF SIDDLE

  • on November 27, 2010, 12:18 GMT

    Its early days but where have all the blowhards and knockers of the Australian cricket team evaporated to. Sir Ian Botham had a lot to say. Can't find any comments on GOOGLE News.

  • Trebil on November 27, 2010, 12:51 GMT

    @andrew-schulz Its a bit harsh to say it was England's fault they had no referrals left when snicko showed their second referral was correct in referring the edge they heard from Clarke. If that was given out the whole complexion of the game would have changed and England would have had one more referral left. Whether they would still have had that referral come this morning is another story. Another aspect of the UDRS that intrigues me is whether the umpires consider which team has any referrals left. If Aleem Dar didn't give the Hussey lbw out because he thought there was bat in it, why not give it out and then leave it to Hussey to review it if hes hit it?

  • on November 27, 2010, 13:06 GMT

    Miller, I have to disagree with you as well. The pitch didnt flatten out, the poms gave up in a worrying (but all too familliar) fashion. Strauss switched to negative tactics and Haddin and Hussey just picked them off with ease. The fielding standards dropped, and the body language was terrible. If the English bowlers thought that this was hard work...wait 'till Adelaide, they wont get anything like the assistance they had here. And quick wickets always tumble after a huge partnership, particularly lower order ones.

    Also, if Anderson was beating the outside edge so often, is that not an indicator to bowl a bit fuller? Or attack the stumps?

    Finn ended up with the best bowling analysis but I think he was the worst of the quicks. His innacurate bowling released the pressure on the batsmen, and allowed them to break the shackles, setting them up for this huge partnership.

  • Koushik_Biswas on November 27, 2010, 13:09 GMT

    Absorbing stuff. About the umpiring decisions - where are the people who bash India for doubting the UDRS? What is the difference between relying on the time tested, age old method of having human umpires and getting a wrong decision versus spending a bunch of money on a system that misses a faint nick? The difference is this: if you are a victim of the later, you will be left with a gnawing feeling of helplessness and vengeance as you try to make sense of it all - why did I use up all my appeals? should I appeal now or not? what if technology disagrees, I lose an appeal, and on the final hour we lose the match just because we do not have any more left? Aren't we over complicating the purity of cricket - fight between bat and ball? Aren't we adding to possible strategic decisions that distract the player out there? As opposed to that, playing cricket the way it as been played, enjoyed, glorified and eulogized for few centuries now - you come off cheerful even if u get a bad decision.

  • Something_Witty on November 27, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    What mystifies me the most is how poorly Swann bowled. England have RAVED about Swann for the best part of two years, and today he was, to put it mildly, rubbish. I have never seen a spinner at international level drag so many balls down in a single day. I know Swann is a great bowler, but this performance is really indicative of how over-hyped the English players are. Unless his bowling improves tenfold, I cannot see England posing a challenge this summer, which would be a real shame.

  • ryanakajoey on November 27, 2010, 13:26 GMT

    Yeah spot on andrew shulz!! Miller, the game of cricket as we all know is a great leveler, one man who has truly seen both sides of the leveling pattern is mike hussey...he has endured without a doubt the toughest time of his career. During that time he has been on the other end of quite a few wrong decisions, which is not an excuse for his results, niether has he or will he complain about those wrong decisions. And i might add niether did the australian captain during the 2009 series, Giles Clarke can take a leaf. England need to remember 2 things: -How to use the refferal system, after all it's there for shockers. -They're not the only one's on the end of bad umpiring decisions, take it on the chin and get on with it. The way Strauss acted today was a disgrace, like a toddler being disciplined and showing no restraint. It amazes me that you english can be so narrow minded and blindsighted that you don't realise that in the game of cricket WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

  • Ross_Co on November 27, 2010, 14:02 GMT

    Sour Grapes abound. The review system was agreed upon by both sides to prevent howlers but with a built-in system to prevent abuse of the system. England used up their reviews because, lets face it - they don't know where the stumps are. Snicko is excluded from the system for the very good reason that it can pick up anything - bat hitting pad, bat hitting ground, pad hitting pad, some guy coughing in slips. The idea that the English have something to whinge about boggles the mind considering the amount of professional time-wasting that occured on a Cardiff pitch already doctored specifically for the home side in 2009. Right now they are playing on a pitch that most commentators agree most suits Swann. That's how to play cricket - you don't doctor pitches to suit the home side; you don't get cute with time-wasting & specialist fielders as 12th men; you don't whinge & you don't cheat. If England were to just give this method of playing a go then we might not have to hear this BS!

  • on November 27, 2010, 14:05 GMT

    Schulz is over the top with his rampant criticism of Miller's piece. I believe the appeal against Hussey, which was wrogly turned down, happened when Australia were still behind, so for Schulz to assert that "Australia would have gained a winning lead" is not spot on. I was, and still am critical about India's stance in not accepting the UDRS, but they may have a point---- it is obviously not an ideal system. I agree with the Aussie commentators ( no lovers of the Poms) that the third and other umps should be saddled with the responsibility of invoking the UDRS rather than leave it to the players esp when snicko is not used.