awtb

[Son Of Coco]

Do either of you two have any idea how regularly Test matches have been saved by such a mindset? Far, far more often than they have by batting "normally". I don't know how old you are, GingerFurball, but if you're the same sort of age as me as most on here are then you'd not really remember such a time. SOC I know is a bit older so probably will remember something of that time.

If you're looking to save a game, you need to bat more defensively than normal. If Warne and Clark had bowled poor areas, England would've scored much more quickly. The bowler controls the game. To look to take the game to Warne unless you're one of the best players of spin ever has always been unwise; to look to take it to a super-accurate seamer like Clark or McGrath is completely stupid. It's easy to say "you don't have to swing from the hip, just look for scoring opportunities" - that's not how treating each ball on its merits works. It's easy to be wise after the event - if you watch a ball-by-ball replay of that last day, see how often there were deliveries an England batsman should have done something more with. Then come back to me and tell me they were over-defensive.

They scored 70-odd runs off 50-odd overs at one point. When you get yourself into a position where you're trying not to get out then you're in trouble. The number of times a game has been lost with this mindset is equally large I'd imagine. Warne bowled well, but the Adelaide wicket wasn't exactly a quick bowler's paradise.

As Australia used to say (from the early 90's onwards) against England, they were a good chance of winning because they tried to do so from the beginning, whilst England tried not to lose first and then though about winning. This changed in 2005, but then England went back to their old ways. Sure, it has a bit to do with personnel, but an average team trying not to lose looks very ordinary at times (i.e: Adelaide 2006/07).

I have the DVD here with me so I'll take great pleasure in watching it again.

You don't have to play more defensively, just more sensibly. There's a fine line between being defensive and getting yourself bogged down. By scoring no runs England failed to take the game out of Australia's reach. Then they start losing wickets. Then they start to panic as they realise they can actually lose the game.

 

[Furball]

Do either of you two have any idea how regularly Test matches have been saved by such a mindset? Far, far more often than they have by batting "normally". I don't know how old you are, GingerFurball, but if you're the same sort of age as me as most on here are then you'd not really remember such a time. SOC I know is a bit older so probably will remember something of that time.

If you're looking to save a game, you need to bat more defensively than normal. If Warne and Clark had bowled poor areas, England would've scored much more quickly. The bowler controls the game. To look to take the game to Warne unless you're one of the best players of spin ever has always been unwise; to look to take it to a super-accurate seamer like Clark or McGrath is completely stupid. It's easy to say "you don't have to swing from the hip, just look for scoring opportunities" - that's not how treating each ball on its merits works. It's easy to be wise after the event - if you watch a ball-by-ball replay of that last day, see how often there were deliveries an England batsman should have done something more with. Then come back to me and tell me they were over-defensive.

What was the need to save the Test match? It wasn't an Atherton and Russel esque "bat for 6 months" effort in South Africa. They were in the 3rd innings of the match ffs.

They were playing on a pitch which had seen 1000 runs scored on it in 4 days for the loss of 16 or 17 wickets. In the days before covered pitches, you might have seen an overnight storm that suddenly turned the pitch into an absolute minefield, but this was 2006.

The pitch and the Australian bowlers were easy enough to score runs on on days 1 and 2. Hell, Warne was reduced to bowling about 7 miles outside of leg stump, so ineffective was he in the 1st innings. There's no way in hell the pitch deteriorated that much between days 4 and 5. Everything about the Test screamed bore draw after 2 days - only England could contrive to turn such a situation into a defeat.

 

[James_W]

Can someone tell me what the thread title means please?

I'ma say agree with the below. Not sure though.

 

[Richard]

Can someone tell me what the thread title means please?

I did mention - it's agree with the below, the opposite of AWTA. What I want to know is did Gelman type AWTA and get done by the CAPS filter, or did he deliberately type awta knowing if he typed AWTA he'd get done by the CAPS filter?

 

[Richard]

They scored 70-odd runs off 50-odd overs at one point. When you get yourself into a position where you're trying not to get out then you're in trouble. The number of times a game has been lost with this mindset is equally large I'd imagine.

Nah, it's miniscule. It's only very recently that that would have begun to be regarded as a poor approach - until about 2003 or so it'd have been the only acceptable thing, and any other approach would've received heavy criticism.

As Australia used to say (from the early 90's onwards) against England, they were a good chance of winning because they tried to do so from the beginning, whilst England tried not to lose first and then though about winning. This changed in 2005, but then England went back to their old ways. Sure, it has a bit to do with personnel, but an average team trying not to lose looks very ordinary at times (i.e: Adelaide 2006/07).

Aussies say a lot of things, and they gain a lot by it. Doesn't mean they're all neccessarily true. Stephen Waugh thought Allan Donald was mentally weak - he was wrong, but thinking that helped him bat better against Donald.

BTW there's nothing much to suggest England tried to win from the start in 2005 - they did lose emphatically at the start, after all.

 

[Richard]

What was the need to save the Test match? It wasn't an Atherton and Russel esque "bat for 6 months" effort in South Africa. They were in the 3rd innings of the match ffs.

They were playing on a pitch which had seen 1000 runs scored on it in 4 days for the loss of 16 or 17 wickets. In the days before covered pitches, you might have seen an overnight storm that suddenly turned the pitch into an absolute minefield, but this was 2006.

The pitch and the Australian bowlers were easy enough to score runs on on days 1 and 2. Hell, Warne was reduced to bowling about 7 miles outside of leg stump, so ineffective was he in the 1st innings. There's no way in hell the pitch deteriorated that much between days 4 and 5. Everything about the Test screamed bore draw after 2 days - only England could contrive to turn such a situation into a defeat.

Nah, Bangladesh could have done. Exeter Third XI certainly could have.

Either way, has it escaped your attention that Australia bowled much better on the last day than on the first two? Because they did. Thus, scoring quickly was much more difficult. If anyone seriously expects Kevin Pietersen to bat as well as he did in that first-innings twice in the same game they're expecting far, far too much. The bowler controls the game; Australia tightened-up considerably; England's scoring-rate dropped. It dropped overwhelmingly because of the Australian bowlers, not their own batting. The change in approach from trying to win (first two days) to trying to draw (last day) was only a small part in this. As I've said, if Australia bowled as poorly as they did on the opening day England would still have scored at a decent-ish clip.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nah, it's miniscule. It's only very recently that that would have begun to be regarded as a poor approach - until about 2003 or so it'd have been the only acceptable thing, and any other approach would've received heavy criticism.

Aussies say a lot of things, and they gain a lot by it. Doesn't mean they're all neccessarily true. Stephen Waugh thought Allan Donald was mentally weak - he was wrong, but thinking that helped him bat better against Donald.

BTW there's nothing much to suggest England tried to win from the start in 2005 - they did lose emphatically at the start, after all.

Of course it is. I'd like to revise my reply to your suggestion that millions of test have been saved by this approach to - 'Nah, it's miniscule'.

I'm not sure Waugh was 100% wrong about Donald. But you'll just tell me he was, which is 100% inline with all reported observations into the symptoms of the problem.

They were more aggressive in their approach in 2005 though Richard and believed they could win. In 2006 they seemed to be thinking 'ok, if we draw this we're still in it' and played extremely negative cricket. Only the blindest of the blind couldn't see that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Aussies say a lot of things, and they gain a lot by it. Doesn't mean they're all neccessarily true. Stephen Waugh thought Allan Donald was mentally weak - he was wrong, but thinking that helped him bat better against Donald.

Steve Waugh said he was soft and then went about proving it by just batting better. His mentality helped but he also batted tactically and capitalised when Donald dropped his head. Waugh was mentally strong, sure, but he was also an extremely talented batsman. A lesser batsman with the same mentality against Donald probably would have failed. Point is, Donald may not have been soft against other teams but guys like Waugh had the game to make him appear so. Playing good cricket isn't about just playing your A-game, it's about preventing the other guy from playing his too.

Donald had his days against the Aussies but not once did they influence a result. Ironically, the most significant bowling he did against Aus was in Sydney 1993 when he only took 2 or 3. Even though De Villiers took 6-fer, Donald's bowling on day 5 was absolutely brilliant. Quick, aggressive and tight as a drum. Knocked over AB early then ripped Mark Waugh out with an unplayable yorker, all the while bowling immaculately between the wickets.

BTW there's nothing much to suggest England tried to win from the start in 2005 - they did lose emphatically at the start, after all.

Come on, they bowled Aus out for < 200 on day 1! Aside from Harmison's knock on Langer's elbow first ball and a bit of helmet rattling, just look at the dismissals of the top 6 in the first dig; Hayden cleaned-up with a hooping in-swinger, Langer and Katich bounced out, Ponting and Martyn nicking defensively on the back-foot, etc. The English came out full of confidence and threw some big, big punches early on. Even when Mcgrath tore through them, the game was really only taken away from them by the Aussie middle order in the second dig. After that, the English openers came out hard in the second dig before the bowlers ended the resistence.

Even after that heavy defeat, the English selectors had the nads to keep an unchanged side. Clearly they came out thinking they had the right combination to win and saw the signs even in a heavy defeat that they were on the right track.

 

[Richard]

Steve Waugh said he was soft and then went about proving it by just batting better. His mentality helped but he also batted tactically and capitalised when Donald dropped his head. Waugh was mentally strong, sure, but he was also an extremely talented batsman. A lesser batsman with the same mentality against Donald probably would have failed. Point is, Donald may not have been soft against other teams but guys like Waugh had the game to make him appear so. Playing good cricket isn't about just playing your A-game, it's about preventing the other guy from playing his too.

That's all well and good for bowlers to batsmen, but the best bowlers like Donald can make even the best batsmen like Stephen Waugh look novices if they bring their A-game - a great quick bowler controls the game, however good the batsman is. Donald, unfortunately, didn't bowl well as often against Australia as he did against others - hence he averaged 27 against Aus (with his best performances in dead games) where he averaged <20 against most teams.

Waugh was mentally superb; Donald was actually mentally sound. Waugh and Donald were both, physically, phenomenally talented players. Waugh just turned-up against Donald more often than Donald turned-up against Waugh. Ditto there was the odd bowler who had the wood on Waugh, and Donald almost had the wood on a batsman no-one else ever came close to having - Sachin Tendulkar.

When you play as much as those two did, to get it right every single time against every single opponent is almost impossible.

Come on, they bowled Aus out for < 200 on day 1! Aside from Harmison's knock on Langer's elbow first ball and a bit of helmet rattling, just look at the dismissals of the top 6 in the first dig; Hayden cleaned-up with a hooping in-swinger, Langer and Katich bounced out, Ponting and Martyn nicking defensively on the back-foot, etc. The English came out full of confidence and threw some big, big punches early on. Even when Mcgrath tore through them, the game was really only taken away from them by the Aussie middle order in the second dig. After that, the English openers came out hard in the second dig before the bowlers ended the resistence.

Even after that heavy defeat, the English selectors had the nads to keep an unchanged side. Clearly they came out thinking they had the right combination to win and saw the signs even in a heavy defeat that they were on the right track.

England bowled Australia out in the first couple of sessions in the Lord's 2005 Test because Australia batted poorly. Simple as that. You can try to credit them batting poorly with whatever was in the bowling if you want - I know people do that all the time - but if Australia had batted better they could have made 300+ - which on a pitch as bad for batting as that would have been truly astonishing and showed-up just how dreadful the bowling was. McGrath in his opening spell, on the other hand, was simply magnificent and none of the batsmen really played bad shots, they were just ripped out.

What England did in 2005 was play better, not more aggressively. Not change the mindset to be more aggressive - they just had better players. Irritates the hell out of me to see people crediting change of mindset for what is in reality simple change of physical talent.

 

[Richard]

They were more aggressive in their approach in 2005 though Richard and believed they could win. In 2006 they seemed to be thinking 'ok, if we draw this we're still in it' and played extremely negative cricket. Only the blindest of the blind couldn't see that.

You know why they believed they could win in 2005 (from Edgbaston onwards) don't you? Yes, because, well, they could - they realised there wasn't much between them and Australia. They realised (especially after McGrath trod on that ball) that they could win. And that belief continued as the series played-out.

What you seem to overlook is that many England teams have gone into Ashes believing they could win - 2001 is the best example. But once the Aussies started playing better, it became clear they could not. In 2005, the Aussies weren't enough better than England to dispel the belief; at other times, they were. If England had continued believing through every single Ashes '89-'02/03 it'd not have made the blindest bit of difference to the result, because Australia were better.

 

[oitoitoi]

They realised (especially after McGrath trod on that ball) that they could win.

Only after Mcgrath trod on that ball could England win.

 

[Richard]

That's something that can never truly be known. That belief ebbed back into England - players and spectators - on that opening morning at Edgbaston, however, should have been very clear to all.

That was the moment the summer begun to go England's way. Not some pipe-opener Twenty20, not Somerset (or more accurately Smith and Jayasuriya) beating them on the postage-stamp-size ground; not them losing to Bangladesh; not the Lord's final tie; not Langer being hit by Harmison as he's been hit by hundreds of other bowlers down the years. But that morning at Edgbaston when Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz sprayed it and Trescothick and Strauss collared 'em.

 

[Top_Cat]

TEngland bowled Australia out in the first couple of sessions in the Lord's 2005 Test because Australia batted poorly. Simple as that.

No it's not.

You can try to credit them batting poorly with whatever was in the bowling if you want - I know people do that all the time -

Good Lord! I wonder why?!

but if Australia had batted better they could have made 300+ - which on a pitch as bad for batting as that would have been truly astonishing and showed-up just how dreadful the bowling was.

The pitch was fine, FFS. A little slow but it that's it. Proof; every one of McGrath's 5-fer came from hitting the slope with nothing from the other end. Only Flintoff's ball kept low. The rest of the wickets; Jones and Giles caught fending on the legside (i.e. pretty average shots), Pietersen caught on the fence, etc. Pietersen himself showed just how easy-paced it was by barely giving a chance during his knock. Even Jones was perfectly comfortable before Lee bruted him out.

What England did in 2005 was play better, not more aggressively. Not change the mindset to be more aggressive - they just had better players. Irritates the hell out of me to see people crediting change of mindset for what is in reality simple change of physical talent.

They're related! It's not like England didn't have the players to win the Ashes before.

 

[Top_Cat]

Only after Mcgrath trod on that ball could England win.

England knew and said well before the first Test they had the combination to win. After a 190-run drubbing in the first Test, they kept the same XI. That tells you something about the confidence of the side. McGrath going down was a massive, massive psychological moment and England capitalised but it really just gave them more of a chance to win. McGrath was obviously the leader of the attack but, as England would have known, Aus won plenty of matches without him in the past so I doubt it was the reason they won, especially since he came back (albeit, was still injured, really).

 

[Son Of Coco]

You know why they believed they could win in 2005 (from Edgbaston onwards) don't you? Yes, because, well, they could - they realised there wasn't much between them and Australia. They realised (especially after McGrath trod on that ball) that they could win. And that belief continued as the series played-out.

What you seem to overlook is that many England teams have gone into Ashes believing they could win - 2001 is the best example. But once the Aussies started playing better, it became clear they could not. In 2005, the Aussies weren't enough better than England to dispel the belief; at other times, they were. If England had continued believing through every single Ashes '89-'02/03 it'd not have made the blindest bit of difference to the result, because Australia were better.

And what you seem to overlook is that the difference between thinking 'well, if Australia play really badly and we get some luck we might manage to win', and 'we have the team to win regardless of what the opposition does'. Of course having a better team helps, but it you don't have a positive mindset you're often reluctant to make key decisions on the spur of the moment that can swing a match in your favour when you do manage to get the upper hand.

As T_C pointed out earlier, England went hard from the first test in 2005 (regardless of the result). I think McGrath's withdrawal had a greater effect on Australia's attack than England's morale. To say that England would mentally be down after the first test, but yet be world-beaters immediately after hearing of McGrath's injury and that this would transform the whole team and they'd all start playing better is ridiculous. As is saying Australia batted badly in the first innings, England bowled pretty bloody well. When Harmison's bowling decent spells you know they're going alright.

 

[Richard]

England knew and said well before the first Test they had the combination to win.

They said the same thing before most if not every Ashes of my time. People said "well they were just saying that, they didn't really believe it" when they lost, whereas people accepted they believed they could win after they actually did win.

 

[Richard]

No it's not.

'Tis for mine.

Good Lord! I wonder why?!

Because some people see good figures and think "well the bowler must have deserved them!" The notion of figures flattering a bowler just doesn't seem to be acceptable to some people.

The pitch was fine, FFS. A little slow but it that's it. Proof; every one of McGrath's 5-fer came from hitting the slope with nothing from the other end. Only Flintoff's ball kept low. The rest of the wickets; Jones and Giles caught fending on the legside (i.e. pretty average shots), Pietersen caught on the fence, etc. Pietersen himself showed just how easy-paced it was by barely giving a chance during his knock. Even Jones was perfectly comfortable before Lee bruted him out.

Fine? You must be kidding. Honestly, I recall very clearly every single Test in England since 1998 and you'd be hard-pressed to find a more seam-friendly deck than that one in that time. It was uneven, bouncy, seaming, the slope exaggerating that seam - everything you could wish for. And the skies were grey virtually all game too.

Pietersen looked comfortable because he batted after McGrath finished his superlative spell (Lee was average, Gillespie diabolical and Warne merely good though without Pietersen's number) and because he played absolutely superbly - I'm still inclined to rank those debut innings' up with his very best.

Seriously, that was an incredibly seam-friendly deck and England completely wasted it.

They're related! It's not like England didn't have the players to win the Ashes before.

They didn't, though, really. Maybe they could have done in one or two series, but usually injury took them away - never more spectacularly than in 2001. The England teams that ended-up playing Australia in 1989, 1990/91, 1993, 1994/95, 1998/99, 2001, 2002/03 and 2006/07 had no hope in hell of winning. Australia were just so much better it's untrue. Only in 1997 was it ever really a level playing-field - though things might've been different in 1990/91, 1994/95 and 2001 but for multitudes of injuries.

 

[Richard]

And what you seem to overlook is that the difference between thinking 'well, if Australia play really badly and we get some luck we might manage to win', and 'we have the team to win regardless of what the opposition does'. Of course having a better team helps, but it you don't have a positive mindset you're often reluctant to make key decisions on the spur of the moment that can swing a match in your favour when you do manage to get the upper hand.

Don't disagree at all, but that's a rather more measured claim than you were making earlier TBH.

As T_C pointed out earlier, England went hard from the first test in 2005 (regardless of the result). I think McGrath's withdrawal had a greater effect on Australia's attack than England's morale. To say that England would mentally be down after the first test, but yet be world-beaters immediately after hearing of McGrath's injury and that this would transform the whole team and they'd all start playing better is ridiculous. As is saying Australia batted badly in the first innings, England bowled pretty bloody well. When Harmison's bowling decent spells you know they're going alright.

They managed to dominate the last four Tests with him bowling his usual heap of nonsense. Anyway, I don't think England were "mentally down" after the First Test, but I cannot see how anyone could miss the fact that McGrath's withdrawl and Australia's horror-show on the opening morning of Edgbaston swung the series completely. However up for the contest England were they were still overpowered at Lord's; that first morning at Edgbaston showed everyone that they were in the ascendency. And they stayed there for the rest of the series.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Don't disagree at all, but that's a rather more measured claim than you were making earlier TBH.

Not really, earlier I said England's mindset was a major factor in them losing the 2nd test in Adelaide due to them taking a very negative approach. They were so busy trying not to save a test they hadn't lost (at that stage) they forgot to actually do anything. In 2005, on the other hand, they were a lot more pro-active. Either that, or their supply of mints came just in time for the 2nd Test.

 

[Richard]

Well they'd been using the mints for a year or so, so I doubt it TBH. Anyway, I'll leave it at that that attitude would have saved England the Adelaide Test on that last day 99 times out of 100 if not more, and that England could have been as proactive as they wanted in 2005, none of it would have counted if Australia had managed to keep-up the level of performance of Lord's and England had carried-on their diabolical showings there.