*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[fredfertang]

................ but it will be enough come Monday

 

[Woodster]

Well no, but he could at least say "We've got 300, which isn't quite what we had hoped for".

They may say that after the Test (depending what Australia make), but remain as positive as possible throughout.

 

[steds]

Saying "We should have got more. We'll have to put alot of work in tomorrow" wouldn't exactly be demeaning or defeatist. Infact, it would say alot more about the attitude of the team. If they are prepared to dig in, that is.

 

[sledger]

They may say that after the Test, but remain as positive as possible throughout.

True, but there is a point where blind optmism can leave you looking like an idiot. If Australia go and rack up 300-4 tomorrow, him being thrilled to have reached this mark with double the amount of wickets down is going to look pretty stupid.

 

[sledger]

Saying "We should have got more. We'll have to put alot of work in tomorrow" wouldn't exactly be demeaning or defeatist. Infact, it would say alot more about the attitude of the team if they were prepared to dig in.

Yeah, I think there is a fine line between what would be considered too optmisitic and too pessimisitic. Obviously coming in and saying "well, ****ing hell that was bad, we wanted double that and failed miserably, game over" would do no good either, but you're not wrong in saying it would be reasonable to at least show some gumption and not insult the intelligence of the people watching. That said, having batted on the pitch itself he will probably be a better judge of what is a decent total than I am, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Woodster]

Saying "We should have got more. We'll have to put alot of work in tomorrow" wouldn't exactly be demeaning or defeatist. Infact, it would say alot more about the attitude of the team. If they are prepared to dig in, that is.

Yes I see where you're coming from, although having batted on that pitch, Bell may genuinely believe that we have got a chance of registering a decent (not great) first innings score on there. His words may be analysed and discussed at further length once Australia have had a bash. Should they cruise past us, fair do's, if they fall short, perhaps there is an element of truth in what he was saying.

 

[marc71178]

Haha, even if he had, I can't see the selectors having the gumption to actually try him out. He seems to have been bracketed as a "One Day Specialist" type player, who didn't even seem to get any consideration for the test side.

Wasn't he effectively told he'd have played the WI Tests if he hadn't decided against losing the weight?

 

[Woodster]

True, but there is a point where blind optmism can leave you looking like an idiot. If Australia go and rack up 300-4 tomorrow, him being thrilled to have reached this mark with double the amount of wickets down is going to look pretty stupid.

Yes, but he can't be thinking what if they get to 300-4. Each individual is different, I know players that come off the park convinced that the 130 all out we got is a testing target! Others will realise that we were around 200 short! I don't have a big problem with his attitude like this during the Test. Should Australia win convincingly, then yes I'm sure we'll see them taking a collective responsibility for their shortfalls.

 

[sledger]

Wasn't he effectively told he'd have played the WI Tests if he hadn't decided against losing the weight?

If true, then I rescind my remark.

 

[sledger]

Yes, but he can't be thinking what if they get to 300-4. Each individual is different, I know players that come off the park convinced that the 130 all out we got is a testing target! Others will realise that we were around 200 short! I don't have a big problem with his attitude like this during the Test. Should Australia win convincingly, then yes I'm sure we'll see them taking a collective responsibility for their shortfalls.

Haha, unfortunately I think he might be forced to think of such an outcome sooner rather than later. Though obviously I hope not.

 

[Woodster]

Haha, unfortunately I think he might be forced to think or such an outcome sooner rather than later. Though obviously I hope not.

It may become a reality, but until that actually happens I share his sentiments, even if 'great' was a little exagerrated.

 

[Top_Cat]

That both North and Clark bowled the same number of overs in the day is a fairly strong indication of how Aus missed a trick in not having specialist spinner in the side. That North looked more threatening is a fairly damning indictment of the selection of Clark too, especially since the spinner's going to play a bigger role as the match wears on which pretty much everyone has been saying for days now.

Must say, don't like this over-bowling of the part-timers at all. North still has to bat after all. North's good as far as part-timers go but to my mind, Hauritz should have played.

The way Trott played puts paid to the ridiculous notion that Ramps should have been in the side because he's more experienced, playing a debutante in a pressure game might wreck him, etc. If a bloke is in the nick he is and the incumbents are under-performing, you pick him. Kudos to England for that at least.

 

[Jamee999]

Have the selectors openly said that the issue is "Samit Patel is overweight, so he's not in the team" -- as opposed to "Samit Patel would be good enough to play if he lost weight, but his weight means he's not good enough to play for England"?

 

[steds]

It's not a matter of losing the weight making him better. It's proving he can go 3 minutes without eating. It's hard to bat with Viennese Whirls in each hand.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's hard to bat with Viennese Whirls in each hand.

England make hard work of it with just a batting glove in each hand.

 

[Uppercut]

That's a good score from England considering:

(a) how difficult it will be to bat last on this pitch (the ball is already going through the top); and
(b) that Australia I think will need a lead of at least 100 on the first innings.

Australia won't bat last on this pitch unless England bowl really, really well.

I think Australia are quite firmly on top in this game, because they've outperformed England so considerably. Look at how the wickets are going down- the freak Katman incident, a great slower ball from Johnson, some very poor shots- and it's worth noting that they aren't taking them in clumps. You have to really, really work for your wickets here, and the outfield is literally the fastest I've ever seen.

302/8 might not look disastrous, but if Australia are to be bowled out for less than that either England have to outbowl Australia (certainly not easy) or Australia have to bat even worse than England have (not bloody likely). I can see the Aussies batting England out of the game if things go their way.

 

[Top_Cat]

Australia won't bat last on this pitch unless England bowl really, really well.

I think Australia are quite firmly on top in this game, because they've outperformed England so considerably. Look at how the wickets are going down- the freak Katman incident, a great slower ball from Johnson, some very poor shots- and it's worth noting that they aren't taking them in clumps. You have to really, really work for your wickets here, and the outfield is literally the fastest I've ever seen.

302/8 might not look disastrous, but if Australia are to be bowled out for less than that either England have to outbowl Australia (certainly not easy) or Australia have to bat even worse than England have (not bloody likely). I can see the Aussies batting England out of the game if things go their way.

Not really up on my Oval Tests but in previous recent games, has the ball gone through the top on day 1? The last time I saw so many footmarks early was '97 and there were 3 bowlers who took 7-fer in that game.

 

[social]

My summary of day 1

The pitch - too dry and looks as though it will be a minefield later in the test. If Eng bowl half-decently then the Ashes will have effectively been decided by the toss

The ground - SCCC hang your head in shame as you've turned a great big ground with more than a century of history into a ****ty little postage stamp

Billy Bowden- made Rudi look good with one of the biggest howlers in history

Oz selectors - please, please, please do the honourable thing and resign if Oz lose. EVERY expert knew they'd picked the wrong team before a ball had been bowled and the first few overs simply confirmed it

Peter Siddle wouldnt have picked him but bowled great

Ian Bell - hack

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, Siddle's spell either side of tea was real quality.

 

[andyc]

Don't really get the criticism for Bell. Yeah, he should've gone on and made 100, but he still top scored. What about Strauss, Collingwood, Flintoff and Prior?