*Official* Fifth Test at the SCG

[Mister Wright]

Australia really need to look at the way that cricket is run in this county. We need to start selecting three separate squads and not picking our best 15 players to play in all forms. I think it was mentioned somewhere that only Pietersen and Collingwood were regulars in the 20/20 team, while only Hughes and Ponting weren't in the Australian team. I think that has shown.

Let's have some sense to our selection. We picked left arm spinners to get one man out - Kevin Pietersen, other than Adelaide he didn't really have that much influence on the series. What a joke!

If it is true that Ricky Ponting didn't want Hauritz in the team because they had a personality clash then Ponting can no longer be our captain. All good when your team is winning to pick mates you get on with, but if you're not winning, suck it up.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is excellent:

The Confectionery Stall | Page 2 | ESPN Cricinfo

"Australia must feel like a carnivore being eaten by a steak"

 

[Son Of Coco]

In my 20 years on this planet i've not seen anything like this from an England attack, so I plan on lauding it up.

I have, The Ashes 2005...

 

[GIMH]

I have, The Ashes 2005...

Hmm. Interesting one, we probably bowled better at points, but we weren't rolling Australia out for subpar totals as often as we have done here.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bowled a lot tighter here too. For example, Jones bowled some absolute peaches, but did get driven a lot too and generally was going for some runs. Harmison wasn't exactly the tightest going around, either.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmm. Interesting one, we probably bowled better at points, but we weren't rolling Australia out for subpar totals as often as we have done here.

Bowled a lot tighter here too. For example, Jones bowled some absolute peaches, but did get driven a lot too and generally was going for some runs. Harmison wasn't exactly the tightest going around, either.

Yep. While it's fair to say Australia batted a bit better in the 2005 series, I think you could well argue England bowled better here too. The best spells in the 2005 series were of a better quality than the best spells in this series, but the bowling has been a lot more consistent as a unit and less reliant on freak performances. As I've said in a few other threads, I think the overall professionalism and the elimination of weak links from the current side give it a much more stable base to move forward from than the 2005 side, which fell away after achieving its Everest.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yep. While it's fair to say Australia batted a bit better in the 2005 series, I think you could well argue England bowled better here too. The best spells in the 2005 series were of a better quality than the best spells in this series, but the bowling has a lot more consistent as a unit and less reliant on freak performances. As I've said in other threads, I think the overall professionalism and the elimination of weak links from the current side give it a much more stable base to move forward from than the 2005 side, which fell away after achieving its Everest.

This. The pressure built up by the bowling in this series has made the Aussies get themselves out more often than not. As with more or less the whole side, the individual performances haven't been as impressive as 05 but they have played better as a team.

 

[Faisal1985]

I still can't make out if England were so good or were Australia really ****ty in this Ashes...

 

[Prince EWS]

I still can't make out if England were so good or were Australia really ****ty in this Ashes...

A bit of both.

 

[Furball]

I still can't make out if England were so good or were Australia really ****ty in this Ashes...

Both. As dire as Australia have been, good sides ram home the advantages they get and win matches.

Gonna be controversial here, but if India had had England's ruthlessness this series they'd have won 2-1 in South Africa.

 

[vcs]

Both. As dire as Australia have been, good sides ram home the advantages they get and win matches.

Gonna be controversial here, but if India had had England's ruthlessness this series they'd have won 2-1 in South Africa.

Nothing controversial about that at all.

Having said that, Kallis was immense and England rarely came across such an immovable object this series. Even Hussey fell away eventually when he realised how ****e everyone else was.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nothing controversial about that at all..

I think it is a bit, because if the Ashes was only a three match series it would've finished 1-1 as well, with England having played a worse team in conditions more akin to home conditions than what India did.

I rate this England team as highly as anyone on the forum but I think India should be proud of their efforts in South Africa. Overall, South Africa played the better kallisball and India still came away 1-1, even if they did let an opportunity slip in the final Test. That they can't put teams away and don't get the series results their performances dictate is the last criticism I'd ever have of this Indian side which seems to, from my perspective anyway, regularly come out the end of series with scorelines that arguably flatter them a bit, by performing well at key moments.

 

[Howe_zat]

Even Hussey fell away eventually when he realised how ****e everyone else was.

Like a flatmate who refuses to continue doing everyone else's washing up.

 

[Furball]

I think it is a bit, because if the Ashes was only a three match series it would've finished 1-1 as well, with England having played a worse team in conditions more akin to home conditions than what India did.

I rate this England team as highly as anyone on the forum but I think India should be proud of their efforts in South Africa. Overall, South Africa played the better kallisball and India still came away 1-1, even if they did let an opportunity slip in the final Test. That they can't put teams away and don't get the series results their performances dictate is the last criticism I'd ever have of this Indian side which seems to, from my perspective anyway, regularly come out the end of series with scorelines that arguably flatter them a bit, by performing well at key moments.

I'm referring to India having South Africa in massive trouble in the final Test and not ramming home their advantage; England dropped the ball in Perth but in every other Test they've taken an advantage and really really rammed home that advantage.

edit: particularly this Test. Having regained the Ashes at Melbourne it would have been easy for England to show up and half arse their way to a defeat. Instead they've kept their boot on Australia's throat, and look set to deal out another enormous thrashing.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm referring to India having South Africa in massive trouble in the final Test and not ramming home their advantage; England dropped the ball in Perth but in every other Test they've taken an advantage and really really rammed home that advantage.

edit: particularly this Test. Having regained the Ashes at Melbourne it would have been easy for England to show up and half arse their way to a defeat. Instead they've kept their boot on Australia's throat, and look set to deal out another enormous thrashing.

Yeah, I know what you meant. I don't think it's a fair criticism of India overall though, really, even though it did apply to the last match. Going forward I think England have a better side than India and I've said that before (although Collingwood's retirement changes that a bit as I'm just about to point out in another thread) but India's ability to get series results by winning close games and drawing games they're outplayed in is quite impressive. I don't think it's something England have over them, despite the one recent Test in South Africa.

 

[vcs]

I think it is a bit, because if the Ashes was only a three match series it would've finished 1-1 as well, with England having played a worse team in conditions more akin to home conditions than what India did.

I rate this England team as highly as anyone on the forum but I think India should be proud of their efforts in South Africa. Overall, South Africa played the better kallisball and India still came away 1-1, even if they did let an opportunity slip in the final Test. That they can't put teams away and don't get the series results their performances dictate is the last criticism I'd ever have of this Indian side which seems to, from my perspective anyway, regularly come out the end of series with scorelines that arguably flatter them a bit, by performing well at key moments.

Hmm.. I kind of agree with Craig Mathews that India put themselves in a winning position in the last Test, which SA didn't, and were the only team in with a chance of winning the series. So wouldn't really say SA played much better kallisball than India.

Also agree with GF that England's performance in this dead Test (as far as the destination of the Ashes is concerned) sends a serious message about the ruthlessness and purpose of this English side. I was one of those expecting a bit of a letdown, which hasn't come. Also expected Australia to raise their game significantly for the sake of pride, but ugh..

 

[Woodster]

England's attack really is a joy to watch at the moment, regardless of how old the ball is. Jimmy and Tremlett up front are our answer to Steyn and Morkel. One pitch it up and swing bowler and one that looks to hit the deck hard and extract some bounce. Swann obviously gave Strauss control and the quick bowlers a rest with long spells, his battle with Hussey was again fascinating, he bowled well today and could easily have had a couple of wickets.

The fact we have Swann in the side, means Australia have been reluctant to prepare any track that may assist him later in the game. Also throw in the lack of a top spinner in Australia's side, and it is an easy decision to make. Yet he has stuck to his task, if unspectacularly, certainly as an important part of a bowling pack.

As the ball does get older, the skills of Bresnan, Anderson and Tremlett in reversing the ball means we look penetrative throughout. Of course today we were assisted by one or two loose shots, but the balls to dismiss Hughes, Clarke, Haddin and Johnson especially, were decent nuts.

The way England look after and tend to the ball is critical in getting it into the necessary condition for the bowlers to work their magic.

Shame we couldn't wrap it up at the end of the fourth day with a big crowd and a great atmosphere, but when you've waited this long for a series win, it doesn't matter when it comes as long as it does.

 

[vcs]

I think it is a bit, because if the Ashes was only a three match series it would've finished 1-1 as well, with England having played a worse team in conditions more akin to home conditions than what India did.

I rate this England team as highly as anyone on the forum but I think India should be proud of their efforts in South Africa. Overall, South Africa played the better kallisball and India still came away 1-1, even if they did let an opportunity slip in the final Test. That they can't put teams away and don't get the series results their performances dictate is the last criticism I'd ever have of this Indian side which seems to, from my perspective anyway, regularly come out the end of series with scorelines that arguably flatter them a bit, by performing well at key moments.

Seriously felt prouder of our 1-1 in SL TBH. We went into the last Test without Harbhajan and Zaheer (who missed the entire series), relied on Sehwag to get us breakthroughs, nearly let the game slip away with that Samaraweera-Mendis partnership, and yet managed a tough fifth-day chase. That really felt awesome after the torrid first 7-8 days India endured in that series. Even the 2nd Test was looking tough to save at one point.

EDIT : We lost all the tosses in that series as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmm.. I kind of agree with Craig Mathews that India put themselves in a winning position in the last Test, which SA didn't, and were the only team in with a chance of winning the series. So wouldn't really say SA played much better kallisball than India

Haha, I think that's a great example of what I was saying though! Across the series, South Africa played the better kallisball as their win in the first Test was more impressive than India's in the second, and the third Test ended up quite even by the end. Yet despite that, it was a drawn series and India were the only team that really had a proper chance to win it halfway through Day 4. India are good at performing in those key moments to make that happen - they played worse overall but they still managed to get themselves into by far the better position in the series with a day and a half to go.

I think you're misinterpreting me when I say South Africa played the better kallisball. I'm saying that excluding the factor of performance-timing (for lack of a better word), because India's timing of performance was precisely the factor I was trying to isolate and comment on. They'd played worse overall but were still in the better position because they played better at key moments - it's not a fluke and it's not a criticism of them; it's a compliment. That's part of what makes them so hard to beat in a series.. you have to really outplay them or it just doesn't happen.

 

[vcs]

Haha, I think that's a great example of what I was saying though! Across the series, South Africa played the better kallisball as their win in the first Test was more impressive than India's in the second, and the third Test ended up quite even by the end. Yet despite that, it was a drawn series and India were the only team that really had a proper chance to win it halfway through Day 4. India are good at performing in those key moments to make that happen - they played worse overall but they still managed to get themselves into by far the better position in the series with a day and a half to go.

I think you're misinterpreting me when I say South Africa played the better kallisball. I'm saying that excluding the factor of performance-timing (for lack of a better word), because India's timing of performance was precisely the factor I was trying to isolate and comment on. They'd played worse overall but were still in the better position because they played better at key moments - it's not a fluke and it's not a criticism of them; it's a compliment. That's part of what makes them so hard to beat in a series.. you have to really outplay them or it just doesn't happen.

OK.. yeah I get your point now. Yeah that's pretty fair, we were certainly a bit lucky at times in the 2nd Test and the performance was far from flawless (especially the batting), just good enough to get the job done.