That doesn’t effect our batsmen when they’re at the crease, their poor performances can either be down to the Aussie bowlers or their own decisions.
You can choose.
But, in a contest of two fragile batting units, the insatiable Smith has been the big difference and Australia’s bowling has carried a more constant threat.
You really should give your source when you quote somebody.
1 Like
Just copy and paste it, I’m not Roger Cook.
That’s all too obvious, but if you’re going to quote stuff as opposed to simply parroting it you should acknowledge the source.
Having met you in person, I can attest to this. You’re nowhere near fat enough. 
1 Like
I merely quoted that as that was what I was also saying.
That also is massively obvious. But if you quote with no attribution you run the risk of passing off the words and views of others as your own. Granted, this is highly unlikely here, as you could never construct a sentence of that length and coherence. However, it’s always good to know who actually said what you’ve quoted.
5 Likes
Maybe bazaar should just use quotes - more succinct and pithy! (And far more comprehensible)
Well how did you find out about it?
About what?
It would have been tighter IF Anderson had been fit.
And tbh IF Moeen hadn’t been broken by too much cricket.
You can add the injuries to other bowlers like Mark Wood, whereas Aus had a plan, rotated their bowlers and kept them fit as a unit.
1 Like
Your assertion my reply was quoted.
They had 6 bowlers who they rotated and used to the conditions, they bowled superbly together, our batsmen didn’t bat and of course there’s Smith.
Yep, Anderson may not have got Smith out, but would have helped keep it tight & may have made him run out of partners sooner.
Que sera.
1 Like
Simple, and I’ve already said it. You could never, off your own bat, come up with that sentence - it’s clearly a quote. It makes perfect sense, it’s coherent and it’s nicely punctuated; none of these ever applies to your posts.
So you assumed or guessed? Its also a quote that backs up what I was saying.
There’s some truth there. The Australians have used five quick bowlers and have rotated them very well - who would have thought before this series that Starc wouldn’t even feature until the fourth Test? And I’d certainly agree that Smith has been the key difference between the sides in this series.
But to state that our batsmen didn’t bat is farcical. They didn’t bat well enough, but neither did the Australians - with the blindingly obvious exception of Smith. Our batsmen have scored centuries and come close to centuries - not enough, and some have failed pretty much entirely (Roy most obviously, but he’s done no worse than several Aussie batsmen). If you’re going to assert that our batsmen didn’t bat, then you’d also have to assert that the same applies to the Australians, except for Smith. In earlier posts you deny that this is the case. You can’t have it both ways.
3 Likes
Neither. A guess or assumption would presuppose an absence of empirical evidence, knowledge, or both. In this case I had ample knowledge of your posting style and use of English to set against the post in question.
I have never seen you produce a sentence that reads as well as this:
So I neither assumed nor guessed. I deduced.
2 Likes
They batted better than we did, that is a fact.
I suggest you look into the averages and the high scores of the English side and its makes for woeful reading.
Where do I want it both ways.
They bowled better than we did.
They batted better than we did but more specifically Smith did.
This isn’t this series either, this has been going on for years and years.