Ashes 2nd Test: Day One Review

If there’s any amusement to be had from Australia closing on 337-1 today, it’s that it has once again made an awful lot of journalists look silly.  They don’t need much help in order to achieve those lofty heights, but their continued lack of awareness when jumping on a single victory as a harbinger of the future generates as much amusement as ever.  One wonders if today’s play was mainly down to Andrew Strauss as well, for example.

Instead of reacting with pleasure to England’s victory at Cardiff, but noting it was a single Test match and that Australia hadn’t become a bad team overnight, several once again got giddy – just as they did in the West Indies, and then just as they did against New Zealand.  After one outbreak of egg-on-face disease, it might have been thought that a lesson would be learned, but oh no, they did it again after England beat the Kiwis, and then a third time after Cardiff.  There’s not a thing wrong with offering an opinion, or making a call on what might happen – the risk that you will be wrong is an occupational hazard – there is a lot wrong with going over the top repeatedly and failing to learn the lesson that baseless hyperbole tends to bite back.  Doubtless the scurrying back over the bridge and pretending none of it happened will be in evidence tonight.

Now equally, it shouldn’t go too far the other way (place your bets on how doomed the fourth estate will consider England after today), it’s day one of five.  Lords is what it has been for quite some time, an excellent batting surface lacking in pace and movement.  It shouldn’t come as any kind of surprise that Australia, having won the toss, have had a good day.  It shouldn’t even come as that much of a surprise that they’ve had an exceptional day.  They’ve simply made the most of conditions, which is what decent sides do.

The irony is that over-reaction is one of the charges continually aimed at the bilious inadequates, yet it is the established press (one again) who are most guilty of it time and again.

No doubt also there will be some complaining that the pitch is too flat and that it is therefore some kind of anti-cricket surface.  That may yet prove  to be true, but it is a faintly ridiculous line to take after a single day.  Much will depend on how it plays over the remainder of the Test – should it prove to remain entirely flat, then such comments will be justified.  If it deteriorates – and let’s be clear, Lord’s usually produces a result – then there’s no reason for any such claim.

What today’s play does mean is that Australia are in a very strong position to dictate terms for the next couple of days at least.  England didn’t bowl badly, and while they missed a couple of half chances they couldn’t be said to have performed badly – not that they were outstandingly good, just not bad – it was benign conditions for batting and Australia just cashed in.  At this stage it’s already going to be key how England bat in response.  Even with everything going right, England are going to be facing 450; more realistically somewhere around 550 and above is probable.  Rogers and Smith deserve immense credit for maintaining their discipline, and should they survive the first hour, England will unquestionably be chasing leather.

The pitch at that point is if anything likely to be even better for batting on, so there’s no reason for England to have a problem on it.  Except that thing called scoreboard pressure.  Australia will have their tails well and truly up, and negating the early stages will be critical.  Cook had a quiet first Test, but he will be needed to play one of those long innings in reply.  There’s no reason whatever he can’t.

For Australia, the one person in the team who may need to be kept away from sharp implements is David Warner.  Being positive against the spinners is one thing, and players who take a chance in order to dominate always risk looking foolish when it goes wrong, but the nature of the three shots in an over against Moeen Ali were outright slogs at the ball.  First one was fair enough (a full toss), the second was wild, and the third was downright rash.

Cook rotated the bowling well enough, trying different things, and attempting to find a combination that worked.  Sometimes you just have one of those days.  What we do not know yet is whether that is an example of England lacking penetration on flat surfaces or simply a result of the conditions.  Certainly the ball barely swung, and definitely didn’t seam.  England tried to counter this by bowling dry, which was exactly the right approach, but weren’t able to maintain the pressure.  If one was to be critical, that’s perhaps where it might lie, a few too many four balls.  It’s quibbling, they worked hard.

Short of having a disaster and being bowled out for 150, day one is a set up day, with limited certainty about what is to follow.  It has always been that way and always will be that way.  Australia have had an outstanding day today, but whether it is a decisive one, it is impossible to say.  There’s no doubt though that England are up against it as things stand, and will have to play well to get a result.  They are quite capable of so doing, and if they do, there is the potential for a borefest.  The additional pace in the Australian bowling order will make them feel that they can get something out of the surface that England didn’t, and they may be right about that too.

Today is one day.  And a very good one for Australia it was too.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Advertisements

60 thoughts on “Ashes 2nd Test: Day One Review

  1. OscarDaBosca Jul 16, 2015 / 6:46 pm

    4 wickets by lunchtime tomorrow and it could look different (still staring down the barrel, but Australia would be more likely to have to bat again).

    0 wickets by lunchtime and England will have to bat for potentially 6 sessions to save the game.

    Like

  2. Mark Jul 16, 2015 / 6:55 pm

    I would give England’s bowlers 7 out of 10. It is a flat pitch, and there is no swing. So even a top quality bowling side would struggle to make inroads. Having said that, I did feel the most important part of the day, the first hour England wasted the new ball. It was not that they were dreadful like against India last summer. But they weren’t bang on accurate. Too many balls the batsman didn’t have to play at. And too many 4 balls. With little to work with from the conditions a McGrath type bowler trying to hit the top of off stump might have forced a few errors from the batsman.but we don’t have a MCGrath. Very few teams do.

    I think you are being optimistic if you think we will be chasing 450. More like 450 to avoid the follow on. With 9 wickets still in the shed Australia can bat most of tomorrow and get a score of 600 plus. Then England will need to bat for at least 5 session in the first innings to make the game safe. Can they do it? Well we will see how far this so called positive attitude gets them under pressure. This won’t be a time for giving it away.

    The moaning about the pitch is a bit rich coming from the ECB stenograhers. This is the England way, and has been for some time. Perhaps they haven’t noticed. Although they thought it was a brilliant strategy at Cardiff. Speaking about the 4 th estate it’s always funny to watch them get egg all down there face.. But when there is no penalty for being wrong over and over again you can just write triumphalist bull shit with no consequences.

    Like

    • thelegglance Jul 16, 2015 / 6:57 pm

      Even with everything going right, England are going to be facing 450; more realistically somewhere around 550 and above is probable.”

      Like

    • lionel joseph Jul 16, 2015 / 11:48 pm

      I felt the same as you.

      If England were to have any chance of neutralising Australia’s winning an excellent toss, then that first hour was it.

      Again, they weren’t awful, but 6.5 to 7/10 has made this test an massive uphill struggle, 8.5 upwards and while you still feel Australia would still be batting tomorrow morning, England could have been looking to work away at something closer to 400 than 600.

      Like

  3. SimonH Jul 16, 2015 / 7:05 pm

    Anyone have any theories what’s wrong with Anderson?

    He was warned for running on the pitch in Cardiff and TV replays clearly showed him doing it again this morning. Erasmus was close to giving a warning which Anderson only avoided by going round the wicket. David Lloyd reckoned he wasn’t completing his action properly (although there was no close analysis to confirm that).

    I thought Anderson not playing between the NZ Test and Cardiff was a strange decision and one that would have attracted more comment if it had been anyone else. Of course that might be unrelated to his running on the wicket. Broad played one CC match, did well in it and looks in good condition (he was the best bowler again today by some distance).

    Clearly I’m not suggesting that Anderson here or in Cardiff is running on the pitch deliberately.

    Like

    • metatone Jul 16, 2015 / 7:19 pm

      He seems to have changed the angle of his run up. I’m not really sure why – he managed to get his usual movement in the WI without this change. One wouldn’t be surprised to hear he’s changed because he has a niggle…

      Like

  4. metatone Jul 16, 2015 / 7:16 pm

    Ok, I know I’m in a minority with this, but I’ve been campaigning against the idea that “bowling dry” is the solution on these pitches since South Africa came to England in 2012 – and gave us not a sniff of victory.

    Bowling dry works fine when you get scoreboard pressure on your side, but on dry pitches when you lose the toss good teams just murder you. And it’s a pattern with England since 2012…
    Without an in-form Harmison or Tremlett type bowler, well, we’ve struggled.

    Now as I’ve said elsewhere the paucity of alternatives in county cricket (we’re playing Ali unfit, I have no idea what we’d do if Wood got injured – perhaps Footit?) is probably the main area to blame, rather than just the selectors. Yet at the same time, 3 years of a philosophy that isn’t just a “home” philosophy, but one that depends (seemingly) on the weather – well, that’s so emblematic of English strategic incompetence it’s really hard not to get annoyed about it.

    Like

    • thelegglance Jul 16, 2015 / 7:17 pm

      I know what you’re saying, but if the ball isn’t moving at all, and the opposition are whacking you around, what other tactic should they employ?

      Like

      • metatone Jul 16, 2015 / 7:32 pm

        As a tactic, bowling dry is fine. Indeed, with the players we have and the pitch as it is, as you say, what else can you do? (Although it works better with a third man, perhaps, as MM notes.)

        However, the latter Flower years saw “bowling dry” elevated to a strategy. And it’s affected selection and player development. I’m fine with the tactic of bowling dry, but infuriated with the strategy of bowling dry…

        If you want a ridiculous heresy, how’s this? 😉

        You should not select Broad and Anderson together on pitches like this. And on performance in recent years on such pitches, Anderson is the one who should make way. Of the available candidates you’d probably need to gamble on Footit, as he seems to have some pace.

        (And to be clear, I know how ridiculous this sounds, but I’m really fed up of watching my prediction of us looking toothless if there isn’t swing come true.)

        Like

  5. MM Jul 16, 2015 / 7:17 pm

    Having watched the highlights on Channel 5 I’d like to say this to Cook[y]:

    For FFS, how about a third man?

    I’ve been thinking that for about 5 years but it’s really getting my blood pressure up now. Fine leg is for bad bowling on the wrong side of the wicket, or somewhere a non-athlete can hide. Third man is protection for a good ball taking an edge and bypassing the slips. Or bad bowling on the correct side of the wicket.

    I know what I’d do but I’m not inside their cricket. Grrr!

    Like

    • MM Jul 16, 2015 / 7:18 pm

      Can anyone suggest what my extra F might be for? Sorry about that.

      Like

      • Pontiac Jul 16, 2015 / 7:20 pm

        Same as the other one but in the form of a gerund.

        Like

    • thelegglance Jul 16, 2015 / 7:19 pm

      This one is a fascinating question. Few teams do employ a third man. In the last home Ashes Bell got something like 300 runs (really) down to third man across the series. I can only presume that all teams have analysed it and feel that it doesn’t work. Quite why, I don’t know.

      Like

      • d'Arthez Jul 16, 2015 / 7:31 pm

        Not sure why either.

        I imagine that they think that if the edge goes in that direction, it would be catchable in the slips (unless it drops short, and then there is often a reasonable chance that the slips can block it). If not, the third man can only save a few runs – how often do you see a genuine edge balloon to third man? Not that often.

        In short, it may save you a few runs, but it reduces your chances of taking a wicket (because the fielder has to come from somewhere else). Or, alternatively, it leaves such a massive gap elsewhere, that other shots become highly profitable, even if one is not a skilled executioner of those shots.

        That is fine and dandy if you post three or four slips. But reduce the number of slips, and the cost / benefit analysis should become increasingly favourable to posting a third man.

        I somehow doubt that there were that many slips throughout Bell’s innings in the 2013 Ashes. If you have no slips, it is quite idiotic to have no third man.

        Like

      • Mark Jul 16, 2015 / 7:49 pm

        This is very true. Third man is not fashionable in today’s game. I also don’t know why. I think the analysis is wrong. As you say there is a bucket load of runs scored down in that area. Maybe they think it tempts batsman to play shots in that direction which may encourage nicks to slip.

        I’d rather a third man and open up point and tempt them to hit square, with the knowledge that if they edge it they will only get one run. If they hit perfectly they will gt 4 but are they good enough to get it right every time?

        Like

    • thelegglance Jul 16, 2015 / 7:38 pm

      Sorry, I refuse to click that link. La la la didn’t happen, not listening….

      Like

      • wrongunatlongon Jul 16, 2015 / 9:39 pm

        Was Bicknell really unlucky not to play a lot more Tests than 4, as my memory is telling me? I can see he didnt exactly pull up any trees in the outings he had, but surely in the day and age of the time, he should have racked up ten times as many caps?

        Like

        • LordCanisLupus Jul 16, 2015 / 10:15 pm

          Alec Stewart believed he needed 5-10 mph more to be a test bowler.

          Like

      • SimonH Jul 16, 2015 / 10:15 pm

        Wrongun, as Ed Smith wrote at the time, “In her book Love Game, the cultural critic Elizabeth Wilson used a Marxist intellectual framework to point out Tres gave it some humpty”.

        And yes Martin Bicknell was terribly unfortunate not to play more for England. England had a decent stock of RFM at the time (Gough, Fraser, Caddick, Cork) but he still was unlucky.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. escort Jul 16, 2015 / 7:52 pm

    A good innings thus far from Chris Rogers. Just the ticket for Australia.

    Like

  7. LordCanisLupus Jul 16, 2015 / 8:21 pm

    I really, and I mean really, don’t like this sort of grassing out of school. I saw it with Pietersen, and there was no apology, and now with Rashid. George is a reporter. He should pass on this sort of thing when he gets, but I don’t like the leaking of someone’s physical condition. It reads as nasty. Ask baseball pitchers what they think about blisters on their fingers. I think the leak speaks more about those “inside the England camp” than it does Rashid for who his spinning fingers are his livelihood. There’s too much macho bullshit about “playing through pain”.

    For a while on Tuesday, it looked as if he was going to be in the side. With Moeen Ali struggling with a side strain, Rashid was told that there was a good chance he could play and asked to ready himself.

    He then reported a finger problem – what is described as a relatively minor abrasion on the ring finger of his right hand – and ruled himself out of contention.

    It seems that some in the England camp are underwhelmed by that development. Not only are they surprised that he did not report the problem until Tuesday night, but there were some raised eyebrows when he considered the injury bad enough to rule himself out of a Test debut against Australia at Lord’s.

    To be fair to Rashid, he could be forgiven for not wanting to be judged when anything below 100% fit and only he can say with certainty whether he is ready. But many is the spinner who has gone into a game with ripped, blistered fingers – most would consider it an occupational hazard – and he may come to rue this decision as a crossroads moment in his career.

    If he is deemed fit to play for Yorkshire in their Championship match against Worcestershire at Scarborough on Monday – and at present the England camp expect him to be available for it – it will be a surprise if he is in the third Test squad.

    Like

      • Mark Jul 16, 2015 / 8:57 pm

        Reason 2357 why I f****** hate Lords and all these private clubs with their prissy dress codes.

        Dress codes? Have you seen the pile of vomit those members wear? Bright, rhubarb and custard ties , with matching socks, and dog vomit jackets. Wow, really stylish!

        Like

    • Mark Jul 16, 2015 / 8:40 pm

      OMG OMG

      He tuned down King Alastair and his mighty Royal Kingdom of sycophants. Off with his head.

      This is a team that has a terrible record dealing with injuries, and an even worse record of dealing with players who can think for themselves, and can make decsions on their own terms and without being told what to think.

      He was available in the WI, and they wouldn’t pick him. I hope this isn’t going to develop into yet another player thrown on the scrap heap for failing to salute enough.

      Individual thought is regarded as treason.

      Like

    • Zephirine Jul 16, 2015 / 8:40 pm

      Why don’t they like Rashid? Is he a spikey Yorkie with a mind of his own? Does he react badly to being treated like a spare wheel? There’s something going on.

      If he says he’s not fit, then he’s not fit. End of. He’s a professional.

      Like

      • Belgianwaffle Jul 17, 2015 / 12:58 pm

        It’s not that they don’t like Rashid; it’s just that this creates a scapegoat if their decision to play an unfit Ali backfires. Rashid is collateral damage only.

        It is however just dismal behavior.

        Like

    • Pontiac Jul 16, 2015 / 10:34 pm

      Wholly agreed. I read that column and was pretty disappointed with it. I might have to read it again, but it’s really /something/ to be carrying that kind of water. It’s Rashid’s career, and Rashid’s debut and not anybody else’s, and I doubt he made that call lightly. To intimate otherwise without there being a track record of this kind of thing or a source willing to be quoted by name, that’s disrespectful.

      Like

    • d'Arthez Jul 17, 2015 / 5:24 am

      Could it be that he bowled too much in the nets in a style that does not suit him (54-57 mph, rather than the style he is proven to be effective at in County Cricket), that the ECB thinktank are effectively responsible for creating the injury? And then get all prissy when their brilliant strategy does lead to problems?

      We all know that Mr. Selfey is England’s best ever legspinner, as demonstrated by his highly impressive England record as one. Pity he bowled it about 30-35 mph too hard when in the limelight. But hey, it is better to bowl it 30-35 mph too hard, than 1-3 mph too slow.

      Finger injuries are serious business for spinners. Did Bishoo not miss a Test because of an injury to his finger recently? Does anyone really think that the West Indies are so blessed with bowling options that they can easily afford to leave a guy out who took 6-80 against Australia in his last Test?

      Like

    • paulewart Jul 17, 2015 / 6:30 am

      Quite right. We see it in football all the time. Responsible players inform their team mates and coaches if they are injured. It’s the right thing to do as they’ll be letting their team mates down if they’re unable to perform. If only Matt Prior, Swann et al had played a little less…..

      Like

      • LordCanisLupus Jul 17, 2015 / 6:33 am

        Precisely. The media deified Prior for his heroism in playing with that injury. It kept Buttler out of the team and Prior was a wounded duck costing us runs. Who knows if playing on for too long cost him his career?

        Like

    • paulewart Jul 17, 2015 / 6:32 am

      Sounds increasingly like George has crossed over…maybe he’s a journalist after all

      Like

  8. LordCanisLupus Jul 16, 2015 / 8:50 pm

    Martin Samuel in the Mail, about as adept at cricket reporting as Paul Downton was as MD of English cricket.

    Here, he tackles Day 1 with aplomb. Note how Australian record breaking batsmen of yesteryear are all called Don…

    A couple of snippets. He actually gets some of the message right, but he puts the mess in message.

    “Gung-ho is not the way to go here. This is a match that needs an Alastair Cook special, a faultless, deliberate innings that places its hands around the throat of the spectacle and gently throttles it. If you want entertainment in the next few days, there’s always the circus.”

    “After him, with the score at 78, Rogers and Steve Smith became the first Australian pair since Don Bradman and Don Woodfull in 1930, to pass 200 for a second-wicket partnership at Lord’s. And as they ploughed on, so England’s chinks became more apparent.”

    “Stokes began slinging a few down leg, no doubt to Cook’s frustration.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3164346/England-not-play-gung-ho-following-opening-day-collapse-Lord-s.html#ixzz3g5aPrZ4z

    Like

    • thelegglance Jul 16, 2015 / 9:06 pm

      It was a dastardly Australian plot. Don Richardson and Don Woodfull to open up, and the devastating Don Ponsford and Don McCabe in the middle order. Jardine was horribly confused.

      Like

      • Pontiac Jul 16, 2015 / 10:38 pm

        I thought it was ‘Mitch’ this millennium…

        Like

  9. thelegglance Jul 16, 2015 / 9:12 pm

    Quite witty actually.

    Like

  10. Lawrence Booth Jul 16, 2015 / 9:34 pm

    The note to Aggers was a piss-take.

    Like

    • thelegglance Jul 16, 2015 / 9:40 pm

      Of course it was. You don’t think people are unhappy on Aggers’ behalf do you?

      Like

    • escort Jul 16, 2015 / 10:26 pm

      Was it really? You should try for the next series of mastermind Lawrence.. Special subject The Fucking Obvious

      Like

  11. Lawrence Booth Jul 16, 2015 / 9:45 pm

    OK – wasn’t sure everyone realised! 🙂 An elaborate gag, I’ll grant you…

    Like

    • thelegglance Jul 16, 2015 / 9:47 pm

      Not going to speak for anyone else, but part of what I loathe about the Lords/MCC set up is that they can all have that lovely little joke amongst themselves, but someone like me would be escorted off the premises. Call it being outside cricket 😉

      Like

      • escort Jul 16, 2015 / 10:13 pm

        Escorted???? i do agree with you though.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Mark Jul 16, 2015 / 10:42 pm

      It wasn’t a gag when they escorted Lewis Hamilton out of Wimbledon last week.

      I know, I know a different private club and all, but still………

      They do so like their little jokes with their insider friends.

      Like

  12. wrongunatlongon Jul 16, 2015 / 9:46 pm

    If we could demolish Lords, and create a purpose-built, 60k seater in it’s place, I do wonder how many would see that as downgrading. My boss, who doesn’t like cricket, scoffed at me for going to Cardiff over Lords this summer. For the cost of a cheap seat in the uncomfortable Edrich stand lower with a restricted view on a muggy day in North London, I sat behind the bowlers arm on a stunning day in Cardiff, and drank Stowford Press all day.

    Like

    • MM Jul 16, 2015 / 10:27 pm

      Cardiff would always get my vote even if I had to sit on an upturned cricket stump, just coz you said the Stowford Press words!

      Fair play, Aussies. Great pair of innings. It might sound weak but a grindingly slow old-school saving of the follow-on will do for me. (And a third man for the rest of their innings.)

      Like

    • escort Jul 16, 2015 / 10:33 pm

      Stowford Press??? Didn’t they have any proper Cider?

      Like

      • MM Jul 16, 2015 / 11:08 pm

        Maybe I’m easily pleased but I wouldn’t consider it a ‘cooking cider’. Wonder what Lords has, and is charging the earth for.

        Like

      • wrongunatlongon Jul 17, 2015 / 7:14 am

        Stowford Press is the official cider of the ECB. Which made it taste rank, but it was up against Fosters and John Smiths. Last time I went there, there was Brains on tap – I’m guessing the sponsors didn’t like that. :/

        Like

  13. dvyk Jul 17, 2015 / 12:27 am

    I’m pleased to see a consistent line from our hosts here about the pitch issue. I wonder what those in the press who are complaining about it now (and were silent about Cardiff) would have been saying if this was Cook on 160 over night instead of Rogers. (Maybe we’ll find out soon what they would say!)

    But I will also have to be consistent and say I really find it disappointing. One wicket in a day, and catches not carrying to slips — I don’t think it’s up to test standard. Obviously England will be happy with a draw and some batting practice.

    I thought Smith got in a good jab at Cook — by criticising Bayliss for Cook’s on-field captaincy. Mysteriously the English don’t seem to have reported it for what it was. No such constraints for the Aust press.

    From the SMH–
    “The pot shot at Cook was two-fold in nature. Not only was he criticising the England captain’s marshalling of his fieldsmen, but by introducing his former state mentor Bayliss to the discussion he was making a suggestion that it’s not Cook who runs the show for the opposition, but the head coach.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • amit Jul 17, 2015 / 2:05 am

      Agree on both counts. Had it been cook 160* overnight, the media (i can certainly name a few journalists here) would’ve been gloating, with no mention of the pitch whatsoever. That it wasn’t him and that bowlers struggled to make a dent despite some early help must obviously be confounding. I thought Broad bowled beautifully to Rogers in his first spell. He was, to my mind, the better bowler on view yesterday. If the Aussies don’t suffer any more brain farts like Warner’s, English bowlers are going to struggle. Stokes / Moeen will not take wickets without help from the pitch or the batsmen, so it will have to be the other 3 all the time to maintain any pressure.
      Jimmy bowled some big swingers to both rogers and smith but in general, struggled to make any impact while Wood didn’t seem to get much movement.
      Another 2 sessions of this, and the Aussies will get over 600 and then pile on pressure. this pitch might be slower than usual, but it still has better bounce than Cardiff. I am looking forward to someone like Mitch Marsh getting stuck into the bowling with little pressure on him and then seeing the Cook / Root etc. bat when under the gun. Should still be an interesting game.

      Like

      • Pontiac Jul 17, 2015 / 3:07 am

        At Cardiff ‘what the pitch is normally like’ is at Lord’s ‘terrible for cricket’ And indeed, I think here if there’s no rain there’s likely to be a result.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. LordCanisLupus Jul 17, 2015 / 1:17 am

    Dobell v Conn on twitter is a rare treat. For that Conn man to accuse someone of not being even handed in their reporting is hilarious. That one trick pony is everything wrong with this rivalry. Baiting and sniping while having an official role in the echelons of Aussie cricket is pathetic.

    He probably is pleased with himself. Charming, yet regularly defended by some of our number over here.

    Like

      • LordCanisLupus Jul 17, 2015 / 8:16 am

        Terrific stuff. He’s strange all right. First encountered his stuff while out there in 2002. One-eyed claptrap. His piece on day 1 at Adelaide in 2006 was the stuff of an idiot.

        Like

    • dvyk Jul 17, 2015 / 7:55 am

      O god. Malcolm Conn is one of the reasons I stopped reading the Aust press years and started reading the Guardian instead. CA should be telling him to rein it in or get off their staff. Actually the Australian Telegraph should have been telling him that for years too.

      Like

      • LordCanisLupus Jul 17, 2015 / 8:17 am

        As I said, our journos should not entertain this stuff, but do, yet some get all sniffy at us bloggers. Life’s odd.

        Like

      • Arron Wright Jul 17, 2015 / 8:26 am

        Thanks for the Dave Kidd tweet yesterday. I see him quite regularly in my Grandad’s Mirror. He clearly knows much, much more about football than cricket. “Weathervane” would be a polite term for his cricket writing. He lumped on with the ECB/Pietersen stuff last year, and now he’s all in on wonderful rejuvenated Cooky. Utter trash.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s