[...] Then he let Shane Watson have a few more easy runs to ease him into the side at Hughes expense. A slight problem with this angle was highlighted by Cricket with balls. [...]
Context? You mean like mentioning Watson’s top score in the first innings, and the fact that Hughes went out to a short ball again without mentioning how well he batted in this innings. That context?
From this game (so far), the Good News for Australia
Hughes got some runs in one innings
Watson got lots of runs
McDonald showed Mitchell what a real all-rounder is
Clark was tidy and got a few wickets
The Bad News
Northants bowling in this game aspires to be third-rate
Watson got lots of runs, preparing him for facing Jimmy and Fred in no way whatsoever
McDonald showed Mitchell what a real all-rounder is
Mitchell bowled 14 overs for 90 runs against a batting line-up that aspires to be second-rate
North didn’t do anything worthwhile.
Siddle went round the park in the first innings.
The upshot
The aussie selectors now have a reason for continuing with Hughes
They have a couple of all-rounders in some sort of form
Mitchell is in trouble
Clark has made an impressive case for selection.
Before this game I thought that the Australians would field an unchanged side. Now I think, Watson for North, Clark for Johnson.
and as we speak, Mitch is getting an extended bowl at the last two in a desperate bid to give him a wicket. Clark was bowling with him, but got someone out, so got taken off just in case he got the other one.
So if you make 156 on one day, and you make 3 the next day, you have faltered? It’s a bullshit article GC. Regardless of context or whether it is a report of one day of a 3 day game. A cricket game doesn’t start on day 3 because your report does.
For a guy who can’t play on the legside and gets caught in slip a lot, when facing a second rate bowling attack, is caught down the leg side and not given, and then dropped in slips, then that would be a falter (rather than a fail).
Am I the only one that gets the feeling that even if Hughes fails miserably this tour, he will be back and averaging something bradmanesque in later years?
Note the author wasn’t prepared to leave his name. Mrs Watson perhaps?
[...] Then he let Shane Watson have a few more easy runs to ease him into the side at Hughes expense. A slight problem with this angle was highlighted by Cricket with balls. [...]
Damnit. I swear I left this around somewhere….
(checks under the couch)
Ahah! Context! I knew you were around somewhere you slimy bastard.
Report on the day.
Day started.
Hughes failed.
Watson shined.
geddit?
Context? You mean like mentioning Watson’s top score in the first innings, and the fact that Hughes went out to a short ball again without mentioning how well he batted in this innings. That context?
From this game (so far), the Good News for Australia
Hughes got some runs in one innings
Watson got lots of runs
McDonald showed Mitchell what a real all-rounder is
Clark was tidy and got a few wickets
The Bad News
Northants bowling in this game aspires to be third-rate
Watson got lots of runs, preparing him for facing Jimmy and Fred in no way whatsoever
McDonald showed Mitchell what a real all-rounder is
Mitchell bowled 14 overs for 90 runs against a batting line-up that aspires to be second-rate
North didn’t do anything worthwhile.
Siddle went round the park in the first innings.
The upshot
The aussie selectors now have a reason for continuing with Hughes
They have a couple of all-rounders in some sort of form
Mitchell is in trouble
Clark has made an impressive case for selection.
Before this game I thought that the Australians would field an unchanged side. Now I think, Watson for North, Clark for Johnson.
I don’t know whether this is better or worse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/australia/5912016/The-Ashes-Shane-Watson-shines-as-Phillip-Hughes-falters-once-again.html
jrod, exactly :)
How far down did you have to go to see it? Isn’t at the top is it. You don’t falter for 68. Context or not.
and as we speak, Mitch is getting an extended bowl at the last two in a desperate bid to give him a wicket. Clark was bowling with him, but got someone out, so got taken off just in case he got the other one.
I love it.
Nice to know that the press want Watson in the team. The nearly man will be on one leg by the second innings.
jrod:
That’s because it’s a story about the last day’s play….
anyway, enough nit picking mate. they taste like shit no matter what you serve them with.
Chris, at least one strategy worked, Mitch finally got one…
So if you make 156 on one day, and you make 3 the next day, you have faltered? It’s a bullshit article GC. Regardless of context or whether it is a report of one day of a 3 day game. A cricket game doesn’t start on day 3 because your report does.
For a guy who can’t play on the legside and gets caught in slip a lot, when facing a second rate bowling attack, is caught down the leg side and not given, and then dropped in slips, then that would be a falter (rather than a fail).
Oh you were claiming it’s a bullshit article. ok. :)
I still think he faltered.
Am I the only one that gets the feeling that even if Hughes fails miserably this tour, he will be back and averaging something bradmanesque in later years?