One Great Game; Three Lousy Runs

What a riveting end to the second Ashes Test!  I'll admit now that I couldn't bear to watch it or even listen to it....But to lose by three lousy runs.  Argghhh. 

As much as it hurts me to say it, here goes;   over the course of the three and a half days that the game lasted, the Poms deserved to win it.  More so than Australia.

But the only down side to the game was that, as is too often the case in cricket, the umpiring had a fair bit to do with the way the game panned out.  Don't get me wrong, I think the Pom's still would have won. But umpire Billy Bowden had an absolute shocker of a game, and his denial of one of the plummest LBW decisions you'd ever see when Michael Kasprowicz had just come to the wicket and Australia was still about 50 short of the target was almost laughable.  In other words, England had actually won, but the umpire badly blundered. And even the final, winning wicket of Michael Kasprowicz has some conjecture over it.  Did it flick the glove or not?

But I suppose we can debate those type of things, and argue all kinds of other reasons why Australia lost (which is fascinating; why don't we look for reasons why England won?) but that is all part of the great uncertainty of Test cricket. 

But enough bouquets for England.  They would do well to remember  that it probably wouldn't have happened if Glenn McGrath hadn't turned his ankle minutes before play was due to start on the first day....

(And Ashley Giles is still crap)

Comments

[Kevin Silberberg]

I think Australia lost the Second Test by two runs. Had Australia scored just two more runs, the game would have been a tie; three runs were required for victory.