yeah i agree. And where the fark is stuart clark? zzzthey should of batted like that in the first innings...
should just put mitch johnson in as a spec. batsman... cause his bowling is terrible atm
LOL Mcgill was saying how Swann isn't spinning the bowl and how he probably won't get a game ever after this test... minutes later Swann suprises...
Stuart is such a douche get rid of the pleb.
Going great guns there Ben.Since Flintoff is screwed Australia will draw at the very least they may very well win because the run rate required is pretty average.
The other bowlers arn't threatening. If Harmison doesn't get picked in place of pretty boy Broad England deserve to loose the series. Broad is only playing now because his Dad used to play for england. Looks exactly like him too lol.</SPAN>
Rushing in to make another brave prediction lol.Pretty sure Clark will come in maybe for Siddle. Although he played pretty well too it will be hard.
How you managed to miss the point escapes me but for your benefit and any other cretins lurking in the wings Swan did not bowl well. That is my point, he was fortunate. As great as luck is you tend to rate a player on the standard of their bowling and Swan as you correctly noted got two wickets almost entirely through the failure of the batsman and one through the failure of the umpire.How do those wickets deride Swan's effectiveness? Clarke's ball may have been a full toss but it was batsmen error for getting out. Johnson's wicket is similiar, batsmen error otherwise it wouldn't hit the stumps? have you ever played cricket? or are you just a dude behind a keyboard paraphrasing what Roebuck inter alia states? As for Hussey's wicket, the Australian bowlers have been gifted their fair share of wickets that weren't caught, nicked etc need i remind you of the infamous Sydney test?
Please don't tell me you're talking about the Johnson and North wickets, because that was a brilliant bit of bowling by Swann, he completely decieved both the batsman.How you managed to miss the point escapes me but for your benefit and any other cretins lurking in the wings Swan did not bowl well. That is my point, he was fortunate. As great as luck is you tend to rate a player on the standard of their bowling and Swan as you correctly noted got two wickets almost entirely through the failure of the batsman and one through the failure of the umpire.
God knows why you felt the need to bring up the Sydney Test, I have an idea but you've made it very clear how much you hate people assuming things.
Obviously it was the failure of the batsman you idiot. If they didn't make a mistake they wouldn't be out would they?Swan as you correctly noted got two wickets almost entirely through the failure of the batsman