awtb

[pasag]

Ashes coming home? Have I missed something?

Posted By: Mike Norrish at May 19, 2009

Sorry to dump on Sky again, but a bloke can only splutter so much coffee over his TV screen before he starts to get cranky.

Yesterday's second Test against the West Indies finished early, which gave the Sky team plenty of time to discuss the forthcoming Ashes.

If you missed it, here's what they said.

David Lloyd: "I fancy England. Strongly."
Nasser Hussain: "England. Not strongly but I think they'll win."
David Gower: "(coquettishly) I prefer to ask the questions. (Then, after ribbing from Hussain) Okay, I'll say 2-1 England."
Ian Botham: "England 3-0."

Better get Trafalgar Square booked for August 24th then...

Now, I realise on-air predictions are a bit unfair, and tend to back pundits into a corner ("In a word Kevin, will Batty score?").

But I can't have been the only one utterly dumbfounded by the bravado on show.

This wasn't Sky hyping up their coverage, either. I'm sure the team honestly believe it's in the bag. You'd be forgiven for thinking it was Australia (8/11 favourites by the way) who'd lost the last series 5-0.

Botham again: "I don't think there will be much in it, mind you. There never is in the Ashes."

What?? In the last 20 years, the only Ashes series that's been remotely close was 2005. Except for that one, miraculous, victory (and the odd dead rubber) England have been destroyed.

1989:Eng 0-4 Aus
1990-91: Aus 3-0 Eng
1993:Eng 1-4 Aus
1994-95: Aus 3-1 Eng
1997:Eng 2-3 Aus
1998-99: Aus 3-1 Eng
2001:Eng 1-4 Aus
2003/4:Aus 4-1 Eng
2005:Eng 2-1 Aus
2007/8:Aus 5-0 Eng.

"Not much in it?" Not much point, more like...

It seems much of the optimism has been created by Sky's latest commentary signing.

That Shane Warne will have a microphone rather than a ball in his hand this year is certainly good news for England. But that alone doesn't justify this surge of optimism.

Granted, Australia are not what they were. But "what they were" was always way, way too good for England. The last Ashes was wrapped up in 11 days.

When England arrived for that tour, they were ranked No.2 in the world and still whitewashed.

England are now fifth. They have only just moved ahead of Pakistan in the Test rankings (which Australia still top), and God only knows when Pakistan last played a series.

A few months back, Australia won 2-1 in South Africa. England haven't had a win like that, a grown-up victory, since '05.

Back then, England had a settled side with incredible class, experience and momentum. Today, they are a mixture of class (Pietersen, Anderson, Strauss), promise (Swann, Bopara, Broad) good-but-not-greats (Collingwood, Cook, Prior), and county hopefuls (Bresnan, Onions). They have no real momentum, no recent experience of winning close matches, and were fighting a civil war a few months back.

I would dearly love the Sky guys to be proved right. Here's hoping they will be. But as it stands, I'm just hoping and wishing. It's heart over head stuff.

I can't see one good reason why anyone 'expects' England to retain the Ashes. Can you?

It's not the first time England were made to look like superstars after playing WI at home and have then come crashing back down to earth right afterwards. These guys aside from Botham are usually very good, but what have they been smoking lately? Strauss on the other hand...

 

[andyc]

Top article, really not sure how that many people, paid to offer knowledgeable, informed opinions on cricket would put England as 'strong' favourites to win it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

AWTB?

Agree With The Bastard?

Anyway, not the greatest of shocks that three ex-England captains and an ex-England coach allow their objectivity to become slightly askew when it comes to The Ashes. Plus, of course, there's the peer pressure aspect; I bet if Warne were there he's have gone for Oz by the odd test instead of the 3 test margin he really believes too. You'll notice Bumble went first (and I disagree slightly with saggers that he's "usually very good"; entertaining and occasionally informative, but still more of a cheer leader than an unbiased appraiser IMHO) and the two more objective pundits (Gower and Nass) were rather less zealous in their backing of England.

 

[Athlai]

Haha WTF surely just trying to get viewers interested or something, no way are England favorites to win this. Beating a disheartened West Indies at home was nothing special, and their loss to them away should be kept in mind. Edwards troubled England throughout, and Australia will be bringing 4 guys just as fast and more well rounded bowlers. Australia are probably quietly backing themselves to win 3-0 to 5-0

 

[PhoenixFire]

Lloyd, Hussain and Gower are all far to intelligent to actually think that England will win. Bumble was saying it because that's the sort of things that Bumble says, Gower and Hussain because they were probably trying to interest the viewers and Botham said it because he is an idiot.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha WTF surely just trying to get viewers interested or something, no way are England favorites to win this. Beating a disheartened West Indies at home was nothing special, and their loss to them away should be kept in mind. Edwards troubled England throughout, and Australia will be bringing 4 guys just as fast and more well rounded bowlers. Australia are probably quietly backing themselves to win 3-0 to 5-0

I don't think the series in the West Indies is especially relevant. Challenges like particularly strong heat, no swing, a board preparing pitches specifically to give them minimal chance of a result, first-test-on-tour syndrome and being away from home for long periods of time aren't going to harm their chances in this particular series.

Although the fact that Australia are miles better than they are probably will.

 

[jondavluc]

Only three nil!!! Bothem what is a matter can't you go the whole distance for your team.For shame .


I bet 5-0 nil for Australia.

 

[Athlai]

I don't think the series in the West Indies is especially relevant. Challenges like particularly strong heat, no swing, a board preparing pitches specifically to give them minimal chance of a result, first-test-on-tour syndrome and being away from home for long periods of time aren't going to harm their chances in this particular series.

Although the fact that Australia are miles better than they are probably will.

I think it's relevant because it showed us an English side that couldn't deal with a tough series. Though I'd say it isn't the be all and end all for England.

 

[Richard]

AWTB?

Agree With The Bastard?

Opposite of AWTA - agree with the below (not that Dale Brumby'll read this obviously, so someone'll need to quote it if they want him to be informed).

Anyway agree with most of that article except the part insinuating the 1997 Ashes wasn't close - it was. There was not much between the teams that series and it hinged on Stephen Waugh being wrongly given n\o in the first-innings of the Third Test and Matthew Elliott being dropped in the first-innings of the Fourth Test. Both of these two ended-up playing the innings that decided the Tests - all it'd have taken was these two things to go the other way (which, as even the most fervent anti-first-chance people can see, would not have been remotely inplausible) and England would most likely have won both Tests - so thus been 3-1 up (if it hadn't rained so much at Lord's) with 2 to play.

Don't like the England-cheerleading that goes on in Sky com-boxes TBH. Bores the hell out of me, and I absolutely hate hometown bias at the best of times.

 

[Uppercut]

I think it's relevant because it showed us an English side that couldn't deal with a tough series. Though I'd say it isn't the be all and end all for England.

Nah, i'm not having that. You can't have watched the final two sessions of the last test and tell me that England wilted under pressure in the Caribbean. It says nothing about their character and everything about their level of skill- they simply weren't good enough at batting to combat Jerome Taylor and Suliemann Benn on an awkward pitch in the first test of a series, and weren't good enough to force results on dead wickets in severe heat.

I don't think it's relevant to how the Ashes will go, although I'll still definitely be expecting an Aussie win.

 

[GIMH]

Nothing wrong with believing in your team

 

[Uppercut]

Your blind support of England is admirable and annoying.

 

[Richard]

It says nothing about their character and everything about their level of skill- they simply weren't good enough to force results on dead wickets in severe heat.

That in itself is a rather worrying trait though - if it was Chanderpaul batting out days a la Salim Malik vs Australia in '94/95 then yeah - but on both occasions it was simple inability to dismiss a couple of tailenders.

All right, the Fourth Test would've been a remarkable victory if they'd pulled it off, but the Second was on a plate and they never mind threw it at the wall, they poured it down someone else's throat.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Opposite of AWTA - agree with the below (not that Dale Brumby'll read this obviously, so someone'll need to quote it if they want him to be informed).

Anyway agree with most of that article except the part insinuating the 1997 Ashes wasn't close - it was. There was not much between the teams that series and it hinged on Stephen Waugh being wrongly given n\o in the first-innings of the Third Test and Matthew Elliott being dropped in the first-innings of the Fourth Test. Both of these two ended-up playing the innings that decided the Tests - all it'd have taken was these two things to go the other way (which, as even the most fervent anti-first-chance people can see, would not have been remotely inplausible) and England would most likely have won both Tests - so thus been 3-1 up (if it hadn't rained so much at Lord's) with 2 to play.

Don't like the England-cheerleading that goes on in Sky com-boxes TBH. Bores the hell out of me, and I absolutely hate hometown bias at the best of times.

That just sounds idiotic.

Knowing the nature of cricket, it is almost assured that during the series an england batsman got a favourable decision and didn't go on to make a match winning score and an england batsman was dropped and didn't go on to make a match winning score. Isn't this just as relevant? (not to mention indicative of the final result)

 

[Richard]

Of course it isn't. I've said it before - bad decisions, even if equal in number, will favour the stronger side. Stephen Waugh was a far better batsman than anyone in the England team and thus a let-off for him was always likely to be more significant than one for any England batsman. If he'd not got that let-off, England could easily have won the Old Trafford Test, it's as simple as that.

 

[Burgey]

Opposite of AWTA - agree with the below (not that Dale Brumby'll read this obviously, so someone'll need to quote it if they want him to be informed).

Anyway agree with most of that article except the part insinuating the 1997 Ashes wasn't close - it was. There was not much between the teams that series and it hinged on Stephen Waugh being wrongly given n\o in the first-innings of the Third Test and Matthew Elliott being dropped in the first-innings of the Fourth Test. Both of these two ended-up playing the innings that decided the Tests - all it'd have taken was these two things to go the other way (which, as even the most fervent anti-first-chance people can see, would not have been remotely inplausible) and England would most likely have won both Tests - so thus been 3-1 up (if it hadn't rained so much at Lord's) with 2 to play.

Don't like the England-cheerleading that goes on in Sky com-boxes TBH. Bores the hell out of me, and I absolutely hate hometown bias at the best of times.

It's closeness might have also hinged on the fact England were about to cop the world's biggest boot up their arses at Lord's but rain saved them.

 

[Richard]

You noticed how I mentioned that, yes?

Had all gone well, it might have gone thus:
Edgbaston - England thrash Australia
Lord's - Australia win comfortably
Old Trafford - England win
Headingley - easy England win
Trent Bridge - easy Australia win
The Oval - could easily have gone either way

 

[JRF1973]

These blokes cannot be fair dinkum.

"Maybe" the Poms match us in the batting department (I'm only being kind) - but Jimbo, Fontbottom, Onions (never heard of him 2 months ago) Bresnen (who ?), Broad (maybe), Monty Python (we'd have him) or Swannie, can't possible match it with the Australian bowlers.

We are behind the 8 ball in the spin department for sure, but the quicks that we leave out (who ever they are) would open the bowling for the Poms.

Brush Ronald Mcdonald, bat Mitch at 8 and bring on 3 more quicks.

Australia 4-0. (Again..) Yawn..

 

[andyc]

These blokes cannot be fair dinkum.

"Maybe" the Poms match us in the batting department (I'm only being kind) - but Jimbo, Fontbottom, Onions (never heard of him 2 months ago) Bresnen (who ?), Broad (maybe), Monty Python (we'd have him) or Swannie, can't possible match it with the Australian bowlers.

We are behind the 8 ball in the spin department for sure, but the quicks that we leave out (who ever they are) would open the bowling for the Poms.

Brush Ronald Mcdonald, bat Mitch at 8 and bring on 3 more quicks.

Australia 4-0. (Again..) Yawn..

that's more of an indictment on yourself rather than Onions though, surely. Not meaning to offend, I just dislike people using that argument, especially in the case of someone like Onions who's been around the scene for a decent amount of time.

 

[James_W]

Gower- 'Who do you think will win Ian?'

Botham- 'Australia are going to bum us 5-0, really not much point in watching. We are absolute ****, to follow us this summer would be a complete waste of time.'

Doesn't make sense from an advertising point of view does it?