equatorOne team made 8/337 on a top wicket against the 2nd best attack in the country.
The other made 8/290 dec against a team that hasn’t won a game this year with a bowling line up that hasn’t seen a wicket this year on a wicket that had some life in it.
So who played better?
Well it isn’t fucken easy to work out is it?
Australian only had 3 batsmen look comfortable.
England only had one score over 50.
Hughes, Ponting, Clarke, North and Haddin combined for a negative total.
The top score of an Englishman outside the top 3 was 22*.
This Ashes is going to be a shit fight alright.
Harmy says the Australian’s don’t look confident.
But no Australian batsmen went out to anyone as shit as Rikki Clarke (2 fucken wickets) or Jonathon Trott.
Which team would you rather support right now?
Exactly.
Fucken warm up games, they don’t mean shit, but they do my head in just the same.
Loading ...
Does mine in also…is there really such a thing as meaningless cricket?
On today’s evidence, you could say that Panesar is better than the entire Aussie attack…
As long as it reminds a few of them how to play, after the fun and frolicks of the Twenty20, then they have a minor meaning. Roll on next Wednesday for the real constest.
Well, er, England Lions still in though Lee terrific bowling. Whereas Warwickshire were all out inside 45 overs. Then again, England Lions > Warwickshire undoubtedly.
Then again, hindsight is at times a wonderful thing.