On balance, you would have to say that this tour of Australia probably went a bit better than expected.
Which is better: winning or doing it in such a way that Australia look shit?
Don’t answer that. You don’t have to. You can have both.
Three innings victories and one Ashes win
Posted by
< 1 minute read
Lovely stuff.
The comment threads from this series should be made into some sort of book. It would certainly rival ‘Is it cowardly to pray for rain?’
It could even contain all the venn diagrams reproduced on glossy paper, and perhaps recipe ideas for through the night culinary delights.
I’ll take a 40 per cent cut of the profits.
Don’t we now have to do that boxers thing of beating an opponent and then saying that he is the greatest boxer that ever lived, with the intention of having the viewer think “Hold on, if he’s the greatest that ever lived, and you’ve just beaten him…”
Australia aren’t shit. They are the greatest team in the world. Hold on…
41 innings defeats in total for OZ. Three in the last few weeks.
That’s shit enough. More stats and uneasy triumphalism here:
http://pavilionopinions.blogspot.com/2011/01/rolfs-on-plate-england-win-ashes-3-1.html
(sorry for my squalid piggybacking again)
Simple stats:
England
91 wickets
2,864 runs
Australia
56 wickets
2531 runs
That is a hammering.
The train of thought in this posting of yours, KC, is so manifestly Vennable, I’m not even going to bother to draw it.
Perhaps you can get Terry to draw it for you.
Terry?
Simpler stats:
Victories: 3-1
Innings victories: 3-0
It greatly amuses me that we’d have won the series 3-2 even if we let Australia have an innings head start.
I like it. Now we can have more interesting test series’ than 10 years ago.
Terry Vennables, KC.
I used to think more highly of your ability to spot a pun.
And no doubt you used to think more highly of my ability to write one.
Late nights and early mornings, Ged. We’re not what we were.