First test

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 8th, 2017 at 05:35 pm

Glenn McGrath’s torture of Kevin Pietersen is finally ended; England 4/78 chasing 602.

UPDATE. Lee has Flintoff caught behind for 0. England 5/79.

UPDATE II. Isn’t McGrath meant to be too old or something? He’s just nailed Jones with a perfect inswinger. England 6/126.

UPDATE III. Could’ve had one more: Giles dropped at slip off McGrath.

UPDATE IV. A hard-earned 50 to Ian Bell; took him 155 deliveries. Giles looks clueless.

UPDATE V. Bell out, tricked by wily Stuart Clark. England 7/149.

UPDATE VI. Clark snares Hoggard for nothing. England 8/149.

UPDATE VII. Five wickets to old man McGrath (his tenth five-wicket haul against England). Harmison gone for nothing. England 9/154.

UPDATE VIII. Elderly McGrath finishes with 6/50 and delights the crowd by hobbling from the ground geezer-style. England all out for 157. Australia doesn’t enforce the follow-on.

UPDATE IX. McGrath to Ian Healy: “It was a walk in the park.” Matt Hayden is currently batting in a manner likely to cause someone physical injury.

UPDATE X. Hayden, as predicted, has just smashed a ball into Steve Harmison’s wrist.

UPDATE XI. Waiting for the third umpire’s decision on a Hayden run-out … OUT for 37. Australia’s lead with nine wickets left: 514. Harmison receiving treatment on the field.

UPDATE XII. One thousand runs in 2006 for Ricky Ponting … and nine thousand career runs.

UPDATE XIII. Kevin Pietersen just scored four runs. For Australia.

Posted by Tim B. on 11/24/2006 at 08:50 PM
    1. 5/79? Ouch.

      Posted by Nic on 2006 11 24 at 09:12 PM • permalink


    1. It helps when umpires miss obvious no balls.

      Of course all I have is english commentary, so they might be exaggerating a little.

      Posted by sam on 2006 11 24 at 09:24 PM • permalink


    1. You know, I’d swear Tim posted in english.

      And I don’t understand a word of it.

      Posted by fclark on 2006 11 24 at 09:28 PM • permalink


    1. Both those decisions perhaps a little dodgy, Pieterson LBW perhaps unlucky in that there was enough doubt, and Lee may have been very close to overstepping against Flintoff.

      Still, England have managed to get into triple figures at least. Only another 300 runs to avoid the follow on.

      Good to see Billy get smacked at square leg though.

      Posted by brucey bonus on 2006 11 24 at 10:10 PM • permalink


    1. One wonders, one does, what song pommygranate is singing just now?

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 24 at 11:05 PM • permalink


    1. World turned upside down? Or is he saving that for the last day of the Sydney test?

      Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 11 24 at 11:08 PM • permalink


    1. RE: Suspect umpiring decisions:

      Am I the only one who thinks the ball that got Ponting pitched outside the line of off stump?  He was most certainly playing a shot…

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 24 at 11:13 PM • permalink


    1. #7 Yer not the Lone Ranger there, mate.

      And, if you don’t offer a shot that is a coat of varnish from missing off, any Ump in the world’ll will send you back to the pavilion, Mr. Pieterson…

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 24 at 11:16 PM • permalink


    1. #4 judging from the English audio only commentary I’m listening too Lee must have stepped about three feet over the line. They’re still going on about it…

      Posted by sam on 2006 11 24 at 11:16 PM • permalink


    1. (post went south?)

      Matthew Lawrence, if it’s the Coldplay song you are referring to—spot on.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 24 at 11:22 PM • permalink


    1. World turned upside down lyrics

      “a ragged band they called the Diggers came to show the peoples’ will
      they defied the Landlords, they defied the laws
      they were the dispossessed, reclaiming what was theirs”

      Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 11 24 at 11:28 PM • permalink


    1. It seems the Booney Army have come up with a rather effective retort for the unwashed, warm beer drinking POME B@stards:

      “Warney’s shagged your missus!”

      Also the POMEs are now 9/154, requiring 349 more runs to avoid the follow-on.

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 24 at 11:57 PM • permalink


    1. England all out for 157…

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 25 at 12:03 AM • permalink


    1. And the ‘old man’ McGrath finished with 6/50.  Thats not too shabby even for a young chap…

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 25 at 12:07 AM • permalink


    1. England batting like lizards I see – tail drops off at the first sign of trouble.

      Which didn’t help anyway.

      Posted by Ozwitch on 2006 11 25 at 12:08 AM • permalink


    1. Glen McGrath – 6/50. Australian of the Year?

      Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2006 11 25 at 12:10 AM • permalink


    1. Well bugger me: Australia didn’t call for the follow-on.

      Batting again at 445 runs ahead.

      Posted by Dogz on 2006 11 25 at 12:19 AM • permalink


    1. #17 Chappelli not pleased.  Then again, when he was playing it would have been the rest day tomorrow, giving time for the bowlers to recover.  A bit toasty in Brisbane, so why not let the bowlers cool off?

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 11 25 at 12:25 AM • permalink


    1. #18 that was my guess. No coverage here in VA unless you’re willing to pony up $100 for the whole series. Reduced to reading the commentary on cricinfo.

      Posted by Dogz on 2006 11 25 at 12:36 AM • permalink


    1. #17, #18 & #19, Healy was chatting to McGrath on channel 9, McGrath rekons they’re planning on letting the cracks in the pitch open up a bit more before they send the POME B@stards back in.

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 25 at 12:53 AM • permalink


    1. #20 Bowl England out for under 100 in their second innings, completely destroying any remaining confidence they may have. Then take back the ashes 5-0, thus establishing the English win of last year as a minor aberration from the true order of things.

      Posted by Dogz on 2006 11 25 at 01:03 AM • permalink


    1. Highlights of the first innings:

      1. Billy Bowden being whacked by the ball at square leg.
      2. McGrath hobbling off the ground like an old pensioner.

      Both incidents drew standing ovations from the crowd.

      Maaarvelous, that.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 11 25 at 01:31 AM • permalink


    1. OK, I understand not sending the Poms back in, to give ‘ol Geezer McGrath & the rest a bit of rest… but why the heck not send the Poms back in for 45 mins before stumps?

      For some-one who lost the Ashes, Punter does play on the edge a bit…

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 11 25 at 02:51 AM • permalink


    1. Ponting “inviting” the follow-on = One(or two)lost days
      One(or two)lost days = $Channel 9 + $ACB + $Sponsors + $UK Broadcasters + Disappointed Ticket Holders including Corporate Boxes Bought Months Ago

      Not that I would suggest for a second that any of this arithmetic would have the slightest bearing on Ponting’s decision even if it was a close call. Let alone suggest he received a close call last night.

      Just saying is all.

      Posted by geoff on 2006 11 25 at 03:04 AM • permalink


    1. live commentary world wide on

      Posted by Astonished on 2006 11 25 at 04:18 AM • permalink


    1. England refuse to field their best team.  Geraint Jones must be giving Duncan Fletcher blow jobs to gain precedence over Reid; the preference for Giles over Panesar is equally inexplicable; Flintoff is a good player but a lousy captain.  They thoroughly deserved to be beaten before a ball was bowled

      Posted by rexie on 2006 11 25 at 06:53 AM • permalink


    1. #18  is where I’m getting my audio commentary – they’re getting more and more depressed… Cricbuzz, already mentioned, is another option.

      As for not enforcing the follow on – giving McGrath a rest is the obvious reason. There’s four more tests after this match, giving him a rest seems wise, not to mention the rest of the bowlers. Plus let the pitch wear a bit more.

      Posted by sam on 2006 11 25 at 10:05 AM • permalink


    1. Why did Australia not take the follow-on? England has the (remote) possibility of ghanging ou for a draw.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 25 at 10:06 AM • permalink


    1. #28: “Why did Australia not take the follow-on?”

      The follow-on is not all its cracked up to be. Remember this game, where we enforced the follow-on with a lead of 274, after just 58 overs in the field?

      Advantages to not enforcing the follow-on:

      1. Rest for your bowlers and fielders.
      2. Don’t have to chase in the fourth innings.
      3. Rub in the dominance (the psychological advantage has been truly drilled in).
      4. Wear out their batsmen a little more by making them run around in the field.
      5. As the test draws out longer, the Australian players make more money because their salaries are tied in to gate receipts.

      Posted by Leigh on 2006 11 25 at 12:21 PM • permalink


    1. You forgot

      6. Pad your batting average against a demoralised bowling attack.

      Posted by sam on 2006 11 25 at 04:14 PM • permalink


    1. I reckon Punter was spot on in not enforcing the follow-on.
      First there are two days to go and you must assume that a side is capable of scoring 300 runs a day.
      Remember Tubby? Don’t even give the bastards a sniff of a chance.
      Second, why not give the bowlers a spell.
      Third, and most important, why wouldn’t you have Warney bowling last on a wearing Gabba pitch.
      I’ve seen him operate in similar circumstances in Brisbane before (I remember a test against the Pakis) and he is magic to watch in that sort of situation. Pommy batsmen shitting bricks and the Earl of Twirl doing what he does best.

      Posted by hazza on 2006 11 25 at 05:17 PM • permalink


    1. Hazza, I thought he was the Sheik of Tweak? Or has that gone out of fashion?

      Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 11 25 at 10:08 PM • permalink


    1. What on earth are you talking about?

      Posted by Rittenhouse on 2006 11 26 at 09:07 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.