*Official* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

[grecian]

Play went on until well after half 7 tonight.

So why in normal circumstances do we trot off the field at 6:30 regardless of how many overs have been bowled? Bloody stupid rule.

There are so many ridiculous rules concerning not getting the 90 overs in, in the day, it's just silly, and would be great if the ICC could do more about it. TBF it used to be even more regimented, at least today we didn't have to take tea at 3.40, but in a way that makes it all the more silly that Lunch is almost always 1.

English matches, as proved at Wimbledon could easily last 'til nine, now no-ones asking for that, but it really could go on later if it's rain delayed. Look at today, the sun came out at about 7.30 after being dimpsy at 7.15.

 

[GotSpin]

So bad. Turned the TV off in disgust when Smith pulled it back on himself.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree on the bowlers but KP, Trott and Cook averaging 30 odd and Prior less than 20 shows clearly that they could play better. Don't know how anyone could argue that England couldn't play any better.

But it's not like Bell can maintain scoring a century in 75% of his tests either. There's been a lot of this particular brand of nonsense this series for some reason.

 

[Cabinet96]

But it's not like Bell can maintain scoring a century in 75% of his tests either. There's been a lot of this particular brand of nonsense this series for some reason.

Usually used by the English for the English players, but not for the Australian's. Funnily isn't it?

 

[Uppercut]

Cook has his weaknesses and Australia have bowled better to him than any side since Pakistan in 2010. Trott has been patchy for ages now, doesn't seem to have the patience he became infamous for anymore.

KP's done OK, got his one big knock when the team needed it most. Given the tough conditions and the Aussie attack he's not going to be coming close to his career average.

I think you can definitely expect more from Prior. He's just not in great touch. But likewise you can't rely on Bell to keep bailing everyone else out.

 

[91Jmay]

Cook has his weaknesses and Australia have bowled better to him than any side since Pakistan in 2010. Trott has been patchy for ages now, doesn't seem to have the patience he became infamous for anymore.

KP's done OK, got his one big knock when the team needed it most. Given the tough conditions and the Aussie attack he's not going to be coming close to his career average.

I think you can definitely expect more from Prior. He's just not in great touch. But likewise you can't rely on Bell to keep bailing everyone else out.

If you don't rate the England batting line up that is fine and a different argument, but to trott out the line that England have a strong batting line up and then say England couldn't play any better as Bahnz did is a bizarre contradiction. If you rate the England batting line up, then 4 of the 5 best players failed so its logical to assume that England could have played better in this series. No one is saying England are 2000 Australia. Not even close, about two all time great batsmen, two all time great bowlers away at least.

 

[Adders]

This. People going on and on about how England are only playing at about 80% is really starting to annoy me.

I think our batting has left a lot to be desired this series and tbf, a 3-0 scoreline isn't a true reflection in the difference in these 2 teams.

I can't see how it isn't fair to say that we've got a 20% margin for improvement in the batting?? You only have to look at Cook, Trott, Prior and KP's averages for this series against their careers to know that we've underperformed with the willow despite Bells heroics.

 

[hendrix]

This England side has definite weaknesses, but they also have (on average) a strong batting lineup and a world-class spin option. People should stop expecting them to be Australia circa 2000, and just be satisfied that they're winning consistently against all comers.

I know that continuity of selection is not really a tangible factor, and people throw around the phrase "knowing how to win", but I do think that there's some mental aspect to it as well that England have. They've all won tests before. Players like Bell are really benefitting from the confidence - he knows that he's done it, so he can trust his own technique and his own game plan.

If you look at the way Khawaja, Hughes etc have been playing across the tests, they've looked uncomfortable. And I don't think that that's a manifestation of poor technique or not being test standard, it's that they don't have trust in their own batsmanship.

I think it's similar for the bowlers. Broad knows he has the ability to pull one out of the hat. What the selectors are doing to Starc is really not good in terms of gaining that confidence. It's a testament to Lyon's character that he's been able to come back (again and again) and still trust himself to take wickets - although the early round-the-wicket line (as effective as it may have been) is a pretty sure indication that he still doesn't really rate himself.

 

[BeeGee]

jeez imagine the press tony hill would have had on this game with no drs.

The press would have been so bad that it would have forced the ICC to set up some kind of umpire decision review system.

 

[Uppercut]

If you don't rate the England batting line up that is fine and a different argument, but to trott out the line that England have a strong batting line up and then say England couldn't play any better as Bahnz did is a bizarre contradiction. If you rate the England batting line up, then 4 of the 5 best players failed so its logical to assume that England could have played better in this series. No one is saying England are 2000 Australia. Not even close, about two all time great batsmen, two all time great bowlers away at least.

It's not really contradictory. They could play better of course, but they could also play worse. I don't think they're playing below their average level, not significantly so anyway. I think they've just come up against a good attack in bowler-friendly conditions.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think our batting has left a lot to be desired this series and tbf, a 3-0 scoreline isn't a true reflection in the difference in these 2 teams.

No 4-0 is more like it.

 

[Furball]

If you don't rate the England batting line up that is fine and a different argument, but to trott out the line that England have a strong batting line up and then say England couldn't play any better as Bahnz did is a bizarre contradiction. If you rate the England batting line up, then 4 of the 5 best players failed so its logical to assume that England could have played better in this series. No one is saying England are 2000 Australia. Not even close, about two all time great batsmen, two all time great bowlers away at least.

Surely the point is that if you take off 1 of Bell's 100s and one of his 50s so he has a 'normal' series and give one of his tons to Trott and add one of the 50s to one of Cook's 50s to give him a ton, therefore having a more balanced top 5 stats wise, it doesn't actually result in team totals that are any different?

 

[grecian]

It's not really contradictory. They could play better of course, but they could also play worse. I don't think they're playing below their average level, not significantly so anyway. I think they've just come up against a good attack in bowler-friendly conditions.

Nah disagree mate, mainly with Trott who hasn't got out to a good ball all series. Prior also hasn't exactly batted to his best degree.

I'm not sure why we're even having this argument, surely players have in form and out of form times, Trott and Cook have been out in really poor ways all through the series. Doesn't mean they're poor, but just they've not been contributing at optimum performance. Of course they're playing below their normal average of play, it's farcical to say otherwise.

and Bell has done a lot better than normal, that's what happens over short periods.

 

[Burgey]

I know that continuity of selection is not really a tangible factor, and people throw around the phrase "knowing how to win", but I do think that there's some mental aspect to it as well that England have. They've all won tests before. Players like Bell are really benefitting from the confidence - he knows that he's done it, so he can trust his own technique and his own game plan.

If you look at the way Khawaja, Hughes etc have been playing across the tests, they've looked uncomfortable. And I don't think that that's a manifestation of poor technique or not being test standard, it's that they don't have trust in their own batsmanship.

I think it's similar for the bowlers. Broad knows he has the ability to pull one out of the hat. What the selectors are doing to Starc is really not good in terms of gaining that confidence. It's a testament to Lyon's character that he's been able to come back (again and again) and still trust himself to take wickets - although the early round-the-wicket line (as effective as it may have been) is a pretty sure indication that he still doesn't really rate himself.

This is a valuable point. It often takes time to feel you belong at a certain level. It's much easier to come into a settled side which can afford to give you time to adjust. Blokes like Hayden, Martyn, Langer and Ponting came into a side which was winning and settled, and could learn from the established players.

Currently Australia is trying to balance the need to develop certain players with the desire for short term results. It's less of an issue with the bowling, because there is genuine depth there and the physical requirements of that discipline means there will be some rotation between players. The batting is a different story though, with chopping and changing and moving between positions really leading to instability in the side. You get the impression blokes like Khawaja, Hughes, Cowan etc are playing for their spot every time they go out to bat. It's not a healthy mind set for inexperienced players.

 

[Nate]

Rogers
Hughes
Watson
Warner
Clarke
Smith
Haddin
Siddle
Harris
Lyon
Bird

Clarkeh should still be batting five imo.

 

[benchmark00]

Didn't think I was going to wake up with the game all over, but it's not unexpected. Sounds like Warner did well which is a positive.

Nice that Siddle got 20 odd, means he's cemented in the number 8 position until the apocalypse. Usman's gotta go.

Now everyone close their eyes and imagine the posting if Starc got figures of 2/125 on a pitch that suited him.

 

[grecian]

Didn't think I was going to wake up with the game all over, but it's not unexpected. Sounds like Warner did well which is a positive.

Nice that Siddle got 20 odd, means he's cemented in the number 8 position until the apocalypse. Usman's gotta go.

Now everyone close their eyes and imagine the posting if Starc got figures of 2/125 on a pitch that suited him.

have you seen the Rad LBW yet, I'm waiting for the fume

 

[Top_Cat]

Didn't think I was going to wake up with the game all over, but it's not unexpected. Sounds like Warner did well which is a positive.

Nice that Siddle got 20 odd, means he's cemented in the number 8 position until the apocalypse. Usman's gotta go.

Now everyone close their eyes and imagine the posting if Starc got figures of 2/125 on a pitch that suited him.

haha, so much.

 

[Furball]

Didn't think I was going to wake up with the game all over, but it's not unexpected. Sounds like Warner did well which is a positive.

Nice that Siddle got 20 odd, means he's cemented in the number 8 position until the apocalypse. Usman's gotta go.

Now everyone close their eyes and imagine the posting if Starc got figures of 2/125 on a pitch that suited him.

I'd prefer not to imagine Ruckus' posting, cheers.

 

[Top_Cat]

Just watched the highlights, Warner got a jaffa didn't he?