My “research” was done listening to the radio and I might have misheard. Safe to say though that the odds are severely stacked in favour of the side batting first. Out of last 56 tests the side batting first has won 26 times, and 15 have been drawn. And yes I know that England lost in 2003/4 by an innings despite Vaughan making 177, but the odds are still in our favour now having won the toss. (No doubt one of those numbers will be wrong as well!).

With regards to the Old Man and the last test. It wasn’t so much his great bowling as our awful batting. Even great sides have the odd off day with the bat. I seem to remember Bangladesh thrashing you guys not so long ago.
I for one do have the greatest respect for Mcgrath and acknowledge that he “was” one of the greeatest fast bowlers in the world. But “was” is the appropriate word in this context. It’s not a case of being bitter. Just realistic!

The statement that ‘you have to go back about 15 years to find a team that batted second and won in Adelaide’ is just totally and utterly wrong!

You actually have to go all the way back to last year to find a team that batted second and won, when Australia beat West Indies in 2005/06 after W.I. won the toss and batted first. And you have to go deep into the past, 2003/04, when it happened before that, with India batting second and winning an amazing Test match. And prior to that it happened in 2002/03, with England batting first and then being hammered by an innings. This means that 3 of the last 4 tests in Adelaide have been lost by the side batting first, so the facts slightly contradict your bizarre assertation.

So what’s this blog about … just make stuff up and hope no one bothers to consider the facts? You’d make a great journalist.

And how bad is the England batting line up to be skittled (yet again, *yawn*) by an ‘old and decrepit’ McGrath? English fans can’t seem to show any respect for one of the greatest fast bowlers the world has ever seen, but hey, if I was a pom I’d probably be bitter toward him as well.