*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[Flem274*]

You can score at a reasonable pace in the context of the bowling standard and the conditions without collapsing horribly.

 

[Flem274*]

They weren't thinking 'oh well' at the prospect of 4-0 though, clearly they were thinking about trying to make it 3-1.

I don' think you're seriously suggesting a team would fail to take the series in context and start not caring when it's 1-0 or 0-0. There's no comparison to what happened in this test.

It's exactly the attitude the minnows display at times. Lots of talk about improving and competing so they can hopefully win, not much actual winning.

This test didn't show the attitude taken to the extreme end of the scale no, and I never said it did. I was replying to someone who said "oh well, 4-0 isn't any different to 3-0" o something along the lines.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

If you then want to argue a reasonable pace was what Eng were going along at, well then that's simply where I disagree. I don't think the bowling nor the conditions warranted such slow batting.

Teams have also been collapsing in a heap for years being too attacking when a more circumspect approach would be more applicable. The players aren't just there to entertain the crowds either - some are playing for their futures and throwing your wicket away in such circumstances could cause a player to 'miss' the plane to Australia.

I'm gonna agree with Border, Clark and Julian on this one and respectfully disagree with you.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It seems from the post match celebrations that England players have expressed their disappointment at the state of the pitch.

From the footage I saw they were struggling to get it off the square like it was Day 3 all over again.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's exactly the attitude the minnows display at times. Lots of talk about improving and competing so they can hopefully win, not much actual winning.

This test didn't show the attitude taken to the extreme end of the scale no, and I never said it did. I was replying to someone who said "oh well, 4-0 isn't any different to 3-0" o something along the lines.

Do the minnows lose more games than they win due to an attitude problem or a lack of ability though? You can have the best attitude in the world, but if the other team is better than you are then you'll still lose 9 times out of 10.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Do the minnows lose more games than they win due to an attitude problem or a lack of ability though? You can have the best attitude in the world, but if the other team is better than you are then you'll still lose 9 times out of 10.

Or 7 in 9 in your lots case.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Sorry but why are we discussing England's negative batting from days ago? Don't know if people have noticed but that's allowed.

Pathetic time-wasting, constantly harassing and crying at the umpires isn't. And that was what cheated England out of a Test victory, and it was yesterday not 3-4 days ago.

We should be discussing what length of ban Clarke should be getting.

My theory is his time wasting was a massive '**** you' to Cook and co.

 

[Howe_zat]

Do the minnows lose more games than they win due to an attitude problem or a lack of ability though? You can have the best attitude in the world, but if the other team is better than you are then you'll still lose 9 times out of 10.

It cuts both ways though because even in the case of minnows, I imagine losing that much just gets to you after a while. There have been plenty of one-day innings where I've seen Bangladesh not even try to chase the target and just sort of accept defeat, hoping for one of their batsmen to get a hundred or something.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Or 7 in 9 in your lots case.

But we lose to the best of the best

Let's face it, we've always struggled in India so playing 4 tests there against India, and then having to back up and play The Ashes there against England was always going to be a struggle.

And I like our odds better. Can't believe people suggest we don't play for the draw enough, 2 out of 9 is probably more than S.Waugh achieved in his whole captaincy career.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It cuts both ways though because even in the case of minnows, I imagine losing that much just gets to you after a while. There have been plenty of one-day innings where I've seen Bangladesh not even try to chase the target and just sort of accept defeat, hoping for one of their batsmen to get a hundred or something.

I don't think we have to worry about that with Australia.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

But we lose to the best of the best

And I like our odds better. Can't believe people suggest we don't play for the draw enough, 2 out of 9 is probably more than S.Waugh achieved in his whole captaincy career.

Both those games lost a day+ to rain anyway as well.

I would say the playing for a draw is far less a worry than the ridiculous batting collapses that you have had time and again over the year. They are the reason England will be favourites in the winter as well.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Both those games lost a day+ to rain anyway as well.

I would say the playing for a draw is far less a worry than the ridiculous batting collapses that you have had time and again over the year. They are the reason England will be favourites in the winter as well.

I assume you thought my comment on the draw was something about England? If so, not so.

They have been bad, but then again we also managed the two highest scores of the series...more of the latter and less of the former would be good.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I assume you thought my comment on the draw was something about England? If so, not so.

They have been bad, but then again we also managed the two highest scores of the series...more of the latter and less of the former would be good.

No I knew it wasn't, I was defending your lot. In all probability you would have won at OT without the rain and this last match would have been a cracker with an extra day.

For all the talk of our weak batting we got 6 scores over 300 in the series and weren't out for under 200 at any time. Not a bad effort but obviously not great.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Only reason they urinated on the pitch is because they were too far from the garden at 10 Downing Street to do it there.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No I knew it wasn't, I was defending your lot. In all probability you would have won at OT without the rain and this last match would have been a cracker with an extra day.

For all the talk of our weak batting we got 6 scores over 300 in the series and weren't out for under 200 at any time. Not a bad effort but obviously not great.

England far more consistent, no doubt. Even when we made an early breakthrough or 3 there wasn't a collapse. Very solid effort really. Australia need to fix their batting to compete (Captain Obvious agrees), but I guess we won't know until Brisbane whether anything we've seen froma couple of the guys in this match, and particularly Watson, is a sign of an improvement.

 

[NUFAN]

Because you said "It's because we realized that a draw was better than a lose after all, which basically rendered our second innings rubbish attempt at posting a sizable total, useless.". I.e. it can only be rendered a rubbish attempt in hindsight. Before Eng started the chase there was a small chance of victory, or at least that's how it was perceived by most involved.

Ah okay. That wasn't me talking with hindsight, it was more of a see 'the tactic which I didn't like, proved to be stupid if bad light didn't intervene'.

Would you prefer to support a country who, when 3-0 down, are happy play out a tame draw; or a country who, at 3-0 down, do everything in their power to make that scoreline 3-1?

Neither.

If we finished the day at 175-2 it doesn't necessary have to be tame. If you're asking if I would prefer to lose 3-1 or 3-0, I would prefer 3-1 obviously.


I don't understand how this argument works. He was told to go out there and make runs quickly, and he did that well. One innings isn't going to suddenly rework his technique so he can only play in that manner in the future, nor are the selectors going to use it to judge his batting ability. Are we really suggesting that the selectors and the public are so intellectually vapid that they can't take the context of the performance into account when forming opinions? It's playing for the team, and nobody will ever be penalised for that.*

And in terms of bad light making it "a little bit better", I wholeheartedly disagree. The scoreline reads exactly the same as it did coming into the Test match. It looks no better on paper. If England made the extra 20 runs, it doesn't mean the positives of the series (Rogers proving himself, Smith's development, Harris proving his class, Lyon proving himself, Watson finally doing something) are all completely lost.

*Or more accurately, I refuse to believe any selection panel, even if they don't have a modicum of common sense, would penalise a player for following the captain's orders.

I'm an advocate of aggressive captaincy and nothing will change that. I'd risk a loss to try and win a game any day. Playing out pointless draws doesn't cut it for me. I'm guessing you're not one to share that view.

There are many comments going on that Faulkner should not be batting at 6 or 7 at the Gabba. He had an excellent opportunity to face Broad, Anderson and Swann and bat properly and finish on 65* if he was good enough. Not that it makes a massive difference, but the general public can make a big deal out of one innings. Of course Faulkner may have gotten out first ball, who knows, but for an all rounder to give himself room stepping away from the steps from the first ball of the innings was just ordinary for me.

Bad light made it 3-0, no bad light would make it 4-0, that is a little bit worse than 3-0 which is a little bit better.

 

[Flem274*]

Do the minnows lose more games than they win due to an attitude problem or a lack of ability though? You can have the best attitude in the world, but if the other team is better than you are then you'll still lose 9 times out of 10.

They go hand in hand. If you conduct yourself like a loser then you will lose. Lack of ability is the excuse of the loser.

 

[Son Of Coco]

They go hand in hand. If you conduct yourself like a loser then you will lose. Lack of ability is the excuse of the loser.

Yes, generally because if you have a lack of ability you lose

 

[Cabinet96]

na don't you understand. GF has actually enlightened us that Eng were in fact maximizing the chances of a result by batting slower than molasses on days 2 and 3. So really we should be thanking Cook for that exciting finish to the series.

*Sigh* Lets use a different example shall we. Remember the first test of the England v New Zealand series in May? England scored at two an over for the duration of the first day. Two an over. Now it wasn't a particularly impressive batting display, people regularly threw away starts, but New Zealand bowled well in what were at times helpful conditions. Fast forward a few days though, and when New Zealand got bowled out in 20 overs, no one was criticising England's approach.

Can you honestly say, that you think England were playing for a draw first day against New Zealand, just like you think they were playing for a draw from day two onwards here? England are a slow scoring side, particularly their top order, so the fact that they occasionally don't score at a rate that'll see them win in three days, is no reflection of their desire to win or not. The worst thing to happen when an opposition puts up a huge score is to lose early wickets. That's a stage where you really can't win. Scoring slowly but getting close to the score puts you in a much better position. It's how Australia won the Adelaide test of 06 (sure they scored a bit quicker, but it was also with a late charge from Gilly, they used up 160odd overs).

 

[Flem274*]

Yes, generally because if you have a lack of ability you lose

Indeed, which is why you find a way to get able. The alternative is don't bother turning up.

Do you think the most gifted players are always those who succeed? Do you think Glenn McGrath thought "oh well, I'm not really fast like many before me so I may as well not bother." Malcolm Marshall was five nine, which is unusually short for a fast bowler. He made his height a strength.

This idea cricketers spring forth from the womb already knowing the perfect outswinger or cover drive is crap. What you don't see of Viv, Kallis, Ponting, Warne, Hadlee or Holding is the hours and hours of practice beginning in their teens honing their abilities and learning the right things so it became instinct. Even at pro level you see the likes of Ryan Harris and Michael Hussey go away and learn new skills to come back better.

If you can comfortably get bat on ball against 140kph you have the basic hand eye to bat at test level. The relative lack of ability between test cricketers is because one cricketer worked harder and learned the right things, and the other didn't. Is it any wonder the lesser test sides also have the worst batting techniques and the most one dimensional bowlers?