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?
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.
Agreed.
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.
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.
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?
When since first innings disasters do not count while determining thrashings but second innings performances count?
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.
No there isn't. See ACA Media Relations Course, week 1.
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.
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.When since first innings disasters do not count while determining thrashings but second innings performances count?
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.
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.
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.
Heaven forbid, someone isn't very gracious.
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.
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.When since first innings disasters do not count while determining thrashings but second innings performances count?
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 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,
Congratutlations to all English fans for regaining the Ashes! Well deserved victory. I'm sure the celebrations are in full flow!
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.
