Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ste
I really don't care how many times you point out "so and so wasn't out but the umpires gave it omgomg england are lucky" because we've had decisions go against us just as much.
It's only because we're winning that you're concentrating on the ones that go for us.
It's obvious we've played better than the aussies in the last 3 tests.
|
You see, your argument might be even remotely valid if you give a few examples. How can you be "playing much better" if the games have all came down to a -bawhair- of being won or lost, and simultaeniously claim that the decisions that have gone against Australia havent meant anything, is quite frankly, unbelievably poor logic.
Please, name some decisions that have gone against England and give sources. I can give you double that have gone against Australia.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by midge5
And in the same test Bell was wasn't out in both innings and Pieterson in the 2nd yet were given out. People just concentrate on the shit decisions going Australia's way(which there have been move of I agree) because it looks like it caused them to lose the tests. They were totally outplayed in both the 2nd and 4th tests and they only ended up close because of great performances by Warne and Lee.
The third test then, a day was lost to rain which was unlucky but I agree England weren't unlucky not to win. Every possible over that could have been bowled was, there was plenty of extra time given. A great innings by Ponting and then Lee/Warne hanging around again saved them. Australia could never have won it though as even though they weren't that far off the England total that was mainly due to the hugely attacking fields, if they ever looked like winning the field would have dropped back and they wouldn't have got close.
Overall while Australia have been unlucky I believe England have been by far the better team and deserve to winthe series.
|
"It looked like it caused them to lose the tests" - what? If you cant see how losing batsmen unfairly hinders you in tight run chases causes you to lose test matches, then i cant really argue with you.
"Lee/Warne saved them". Lee and warne did very well. They batted nicely. What did you want them to do? Lie down? I suppose their innings dont really count because theyre tail enders? Thats like me saying "Australia deserve to win because Simon Jones has been really good and hes normally rubbish" or "England are lucky to be ahead, theyre only there because of Flintoff". You cant just take away a large part of a team and declare it irrelevant. The equivalent is saying "Labour were really lucky to win the election, they only did it because all the poor people vote for them".
So you admit Australia have been very unlucky, yet you think England drawing one and winning two tight tests, after Australia had players dismissed ridiculously, and had absolutely crushed England in the first test, have been "by far the better team". **** you, history books!