• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
So which of Lords, Edgbaston and the Oval wasn't bad then?
We lost Lords and Oval, and both because of the atrocious 1st innings. Have I said anything different? Whilst Edgbaston wasn't good, it wasn't that poor either. And in the 2nd innings of that match we came and scored 370-odd with only 4 wickets gone, but that match drew to rain. So what is your point with Edgebaston?

Saying Australia's averages are inflated because of the 1st test is simply wrong. Australia were very consistent bar 2 innings.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Erm, no, he didn't make it a point to mention it. He was asked if he considered the pitch poor by Aggers initially.
Come off it, Ikki, it's not as though that question came as a surprise to him. He knew he would be asked it by each and every interviewer that spoke to him, and would have prepared his answer for it. Do you think they don't get taught this kind of thing in week 1 of their media relations courses at the ACA? He had various ways of answering that question and he chose to get his point across in the way that he did.

I'm not having a go at him for doing so, mind you.

He said whilst he believed it was poor, that it didn't excuse the result - Australia losing. And it really didn't.
Agreed.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
You say it doesn't fit your definition of graciousness, ok, fine. I replied saying that it's a silly point and that I tire of politicking to the point where the person in question can't speak their mind. Saying, "when you look at the stats, you scratch your head in wonder how we lost" is hardly as crude as you are suggesting since everybody that understands the game would have been thinking the same thing.

He said England won the big moments, no excuses, and congrats. Anymore gracious than that he'd have to have puckered up to Strauss' behind.
I don't anyone who really understands the game would genuinely think that, much less everybody. It might just have been a throwaway comment (I doubt it, he's had media training and a lot of time to rehearse his post-match comments), but it's not a mystery why Australia lost.

You know the old expression: lies, damn lies & statistics. Ponting may wish to cling onto averages for comfort (in fact he has a vested interest in doing so as the defeated captain), but neither of our wins were sneaked, both were by margins of over 100 runs.

I'll say now tho that I have no issue with what Ponting said and he was quite gracious in defeat; my point was just that he wasn't very gracious & that's his right.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Come off it, Ikki, it's not as though that question came as a surprise to him. He knew he would be asked it by each and every interviewer that spoke to him, and would have prepared his answer for it. Do you think they don't get taught this kind of thing in week 1 of their media relations courses at the ACA? He had various ways of answering that question and he chose to get his point across in the way that he did.

I'm not having a go at him for doing so, mind you.
There is a completely different perspective to take on whether you are asked a question and are being honest compared to whether you make it a point to comment on without it even being asked. The latter shows you are trying to take credit away slyly whereas the former doesn't.

I thought his reply was perfectly reasonable. Truthful. That's what I ask of him. If they truly thought that they lost the match simply because of the toss...well, then they're idiots.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
We lost Lords and Oval, and both because of the atrocious 1st innings. Have I said anything different? Whilst Edgbaston wasn't good, it wasn't that poor either. And in the 2nd innings of that match we came and scored 370-odd with only 4 wickets gone, but that match drew to rain. So what is your point with Edgebaston?
He was talking about 1st innings. Do you think that scoring 260 (thanks largely to some tail-end tenacity from Siddle and Hilfenhaus) in the first innings on a flat pitch is remotely acceptable?
 

Pigeon

Banned
In the whole series, Australia only had 2 bad 1st innings and those 2 innings were so bad that they cost them both matches. They then went on in both 2nd innings batting better than both teams did during those matches chasing unlikely wins/draws. So calling it a thrashing is just ignorant since we gave away so many wickets in such a small time for so few runs. It was so bad, it'd be generous to say that England bowled well enough to take them like that. So don't even start that BS with stats being inflated due to one match because Australia were good in all innings bar 2 essentially. And if the pitch was so flat that tailenders held out for an hour, why did their top order crumble? Oh yeah...
When since first innings disasters do not count while determining thrashings but second innings performances count? :wacko:

Aussies lost both matches they lost heavily. The final result shows that. In fact in the second one, there was hardly 2% chance of them winning it when they came into bat for the 2nd time. That's what I call a thrashing.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
As for it being a poor pitch, well it was certainly quirky. But it can't have been that bad, or offered that much of an advantage to the team batting first, if the highest scoring innings in the game were the 3rd and 4th innings of the match.
It was a dreadful wicket that "offered" the team batting first a huge advantage. England didn't bat well enough to take up that offer. Australia negated the advantage by bowling England out in just over a day but then lost the match with their own inept batting in the first innings. The higher scores of the 3rd and 4th innings were due to England's lower order hitting out under no pressure and Australia scoring a lot of boundaries against rightly attacking fields who weren't concerned with runs.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
There is a completely different perspective to take on whether you are asked a question and are being honest compared to whether you make it a point to comment on without it even being asked.
No there isn't. See ACA Media Relations Course, week 1.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
It was a dreadful wicket that "offered" the team batting first a huge advantage. England didn't bat well enough to take up that offer. Australia negated the advantage by bowling England out in just over a day but then lost the match with their own inept batting in the first innings. The higher scores of the 3rd and 4th innings were due to England's lower order hitting out under no pressure and Australia scoring a lot of boundaries against rightly attacking fields who weren't concerned with runs.
Fair point, well made. I think it was a bit flatter than you suggest, but I'm not going to die in a ditch over it.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Ikki shut up.

Congratulations England. Would never have predicted this tbh, thought Aussie eoulf have retained the Ashes comfortably before the series began. Certainly shut me up.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
When since first innings disasters do not count while determining thrashings but second innings performances count? :wacko:

Aussies lost both matches they lost heavily. The final result shows that. In fact in the second one, there was hardly 2% chance of them winning it when they came into bat for the 2nd time. That's what I call a thrashing.
AUS collapses in 2009 at Lord's & the Oval first innings, was not like 2005 where they exposed to coventional & reverse swing - it was shocking batting. The fact that they recovered in the 2nd innings both times to bat well shows that clearly. The Edgbaston test was a collapse due to good swing bowler though.

In 2005 every innings AUS where exposed after the 1st test.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I don't anyone who really understands the game would genuinely think that, much less everybody. It might just have been a throwaway comment (I doubt it, he's had media training and a lot of time to rehearse his post-match comments), but it's not a mystery why Australia lost.
He already said why they lost: Australia lost because they were really bad in their worst parts and not just one or two, but collectively. Whilst the same went for them when they were good.

You know the old expression: lies, damn lies & statistics. Ponting may wish to cling onto averages for comfort (in fact he has a vested interest in doing so as the defeated captain), but neither of our wins were sneaked, both were by margins of over 100 runs.
There's nothing wrong with the statistics. Even Strauss commented on them. Australia were superior in most facets of the game most of the time. But in the periods they weren't, they were so bad that they undid themselves and handed the matches away.

The interesting part is you won by over 100 runs in those victories, but in neither did you post really high scores. In fact, you'd have considered them par scores. That's why your averages are lower: because in those innings you weren't all that superlative, we were simply that bad that we didn't even get to what would be par.

At Lords you started the first inning with 425 and we ended the 4th inning with 405 scored on the last 2 days. It was our innings (2nd match inning) of 215 that obliterated our chances. At the Oval you scored 332 and 370 and we scored 348 in the last innings chasing again, but what cost us the match was again a really poor 2nd match innings. The statistics don't lie one bit.

I'll say now tho that I have no issue with what Ponting said and he was quite gracious in defeat; my point was just that he wasn't very gracious & that's his right.
Heaven forbid, someone isn't very gracious. ;)
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
He was talking about 1st innings. Do you think that scoring 260 (thanks largely to some tail-end tenacity from Siddle and Hilfenhaus) in the first innings on a flat pitch is remotely acceptable?
That innings is not acceptable, but it's frankly a different kettle of fish to the two 1st innings in the other Test matches. Those matches were effectively over after those poor scores. The test at edgebaston wasn't, not close, and if there was more time England could have been in trouble. We were 250 up with 6 batsmen left with England to bat last. Not even in the same post-code. Anyway, this is a slight digression. Not all teams will play every innings well. But those innings in the Oval and Lords were so atrocious I can't remember the last time Australia folded like that.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
When since first innings disasters do not count while determining thrashings but second innings performances count? :wacko:

Aussies lost both matches they lost heavily. The final result shows that. In fact in the second one, there was hardly 2% chance of them winning it when they came into bat for the 2nd time. That's what I call a thrashing.
I am not interested in what you call a thrashing, frankly. You said bar the 1st test Australia didn't do well hence our averages are out of whack. I just showed you, you're wrong. It's actually only in those matches where we were out of whack. The 160 we scored at the oval and the 600+ we scored at cardiff pretty much cancel each other out, yet our figures are still superior.
 

Pigeon

Banned
I am not interested in what you call a thrashing, frankly. You said bar the 1st test Australia didn't do well hence our averages are out of whack. I just showed you, you're wrong. It's actually only in those matches where we were out of whack. The 160 we scored at the oval and the 600+ we scored at cardiff pretty much cancel each other out, yet our figures are still superior.
I didn't say Australia were completely dire post 1st match. I just said Australia did not dominate England as you are suggesting since the first match,

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Have a look at those figures. Exactly same no. of batsmen each team has in the top 10. 5 each.

Here's the bowling figures:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Only 7 bowlers managed to average under 40 and 4 out of them were England's.
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
Congratutlations to all English fans for regaining the Ashes! Well deserved victory. I'm sure the celebrations are in full flow! :)
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Yeh, I think I will reiterate my congratulations to the English team. Yes, I am Australian and thus thoroughly annoyed - doubly because the only player of yours I liked retired - but you won when it mattered. As Ponting said in the post-interview with Fox Sports, the fact that England bounced back after such a defeat in Headingley is a credit to their side and says a lot about their players.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Congratutlations to all English fans for regaining the Ashes! Well deserved victory. I'm sure the celebrations are in full flow! :)

Not quite full flow. It's not like the old days when you could nip out and have LSD in your pocket within 10 minutes, give it 'til midnight.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Erm, no, he didn't make it a point to mention it. He was asked if he considered the pitch poor by Aggers initially.
Just heard the interview again - you can listen to it here - and Ricky mentioned the poor state of the wicket 7 times before Aggers first asked him about it.

I reiterate, I'm not having a go at Ponting for making his point. But to say that he was just "honestly answering questions" rather than deliberately making a point is make-believe.
 

Top