> I didn't see much of Australia's bowling, but I bet they didn't pitch
> consistently too short the way that England did. England eventually
> realised that pitching it up was a better option in these conditions,
> but by then the genie was out of the bottle. If England had bowled a
> fuller length from the start the match might be looking a little
> different now.
Australia looked very focussed in the field and (excluding the first
ball of the match) had things going their way. The bowling was
disciplined (all the bowlers for a change) - it was like watching
Australia playing again after a few tests of watching Australia A show
Stuart Clark really did make a big difference to our attack and set up
the demolition of the tail by Siddle.
> It also struck me that the two team's fortunes seem to be running in
> different directions at present. Australia seem to have less injury
> worries now than they did two tests back, England have more.
> I thought Ponting played very, very well. He did get served up a lot
> of short-ish pitched rubbish, it's true, but I'm not sure the
> conditions were that good for batting.
It wasn't bad batting conditions, but there was plenty in it for the
bowlers if they got it right.
I thought Ponting rode his luck a bit. You may have only watched
highlights, he was often beaten and played quite a few loose shots.
But he came off, and all of a sudden Australia had 50 odd after 6 or 7
It would have been nice (for Ponting personally that is) to have got a
hundred after being booed to the wicket again.
> Harmison was pants.
I think in general bowling consistently short to most of our batsmen
is just not smart. That's ignoring watching how Australia had pitched
it up and found both swing and seam.
Harmison gets steepling bounce and maybe the poms were misled by the
ball which got rid of Katich.