*Official* Fourth Test at Trent Bridge

[greg]

6 Ashes series so far, 1 dominant series, 1 very good series, 1 decent series , 2 poor ones and 1 horror.

Needs another good one here to make his mark as a real Ashes performer. Averaging 37 with 4 hundreds so far is meh (although 10 games against McGrath/Warne in there doesn't help that).

22 fifties from 57 innings, 4 converted into hundreds.

4 hundreds, highest score of 115.

An all-time great record has gone begging there...

 

[Howe_zat]

The England players in the 1880s won 8 ashes series in a row so I don't think Bell's 5 would be a record

 

[GIMH]

The England players in the 1880s won 8 ashes series in a row so I don't think Bell's 5 would be a record

It was that period that fuelled Burgey's hatred of the motherland

 

[Adders]

5 wins and 2 whitewashes.

I was actually thinking about this the other day, in the last decade which side has been overall stronger?

England have won 4 series to Australia's 2, but in terms of tests won Aus have 13 to our 10 (Not counting the tests in this series) the 2 whitewashes certainly count heavily for Australia but England have the only away win.

Pretty even IMO and this series will tip it 1 way or the other.

 

[NUFAN]

I was actually thinking about this the other day, in the last decade which side has been overall stronger?

England have won 4 series to Australia's 2, but in terms of tests won Aus have 13 to our 10 (Not counting the tests in this series) the 2 whitewashes certainly count heavily for Australia but England have the only away win.

Pretty even IMO and this series will tip it 1 way or the other.

I guess realistically who ever wins the most series is the stronger team so its been England for mine over the past decade. I would only start to say it is pretty even if Australia win the 4th and 5th Tests.

 

[Furball]

Yeah this is generally the case for some reason. But I'd argue that even when he bowls poorly the rest of the attack falls to pieces. Can't have been too many tests that England have won where he has been well below par?

That's pretty much what I said

 

[GIMH]

I was actually thinking about this the other day, in the last decade which side has been overall stronger?

England have won 4 series to Australia's 2, but in terms of tests won Aus have 13 to our 10 (Not counting the tests in this series) the 2 whitewashes certainly count heavily for Australia but England have the only away win.

Pretty even IMO and this series will tip it 1 way or the other.

We've won there and they haven't won here in that time. Open-shut case.

 

[burr]

It'd be nice if the fourth test possesses a little more nuance than the last two and maybe, just maybe, lasts into the fifth day. Although, to be fair, I think Edgbaston was a superb pitch and all could have been set up for a brilliant weekend of cricket if not for Australian batting incompetence.

Clarke at 5 is an interesting one. I see what Ponting and Nasser are saying re: the signal it sends to England, but Clarke has such a weird mental hang-up about batting 4 and you get the impression he, even if only subconsciously, believes himself a better player at 5, that the edge it gives him may make it worth it.

Nice to see Belly back in the runs. Always good to watch class players score big (particularly those of a 113 test match vintage, ahem, Michael dear).

 

[Uppercut]

Aakash Chopra ‏@cricketaakash 5h5 hours ago

Two equally below-par teams can make for exciting cricket but not a spectacle...This #Ashes is exciting but 2005 #Ashes was a spectacle.


Not sure I totally agree with the below-par teams part of this tweet. Think the series has been a fairly accurate representation of the teams.

Australia have struggled in England for a while. Starc is hardly a consistent match winner at test level. Hazlewood hardly established and no prior tests in England. Johnson isn't particularly suited to the conditions and as a result has been fairly miss in England. Smith has had one bad test. etc etc. The only guy who you say has been below par from Aus I would say is Clarke and even that seems to be part of a trend. Batting has been questionable for a while and bowling without Harris is prone to inconsistency in somewhat alien conditions.

England too are still fairly inexperienced. Likes of Buttler, Ali, Stokes, Lyth, Bairstow, Wood are yet to prove they are test class. Some of them aren't underpar they're just not good enough at the moment (or maybe ever)

It's easy to spin a coherent narrative 3 games into the tour but Australia came in as massive favourites for a reason. Hazlewood is the one I think has been furthest below pre-tour expectations. Voges wasn't expected to fare so badly either.

 

[adub]

I don't think England will be feeling they've had much of a win forcing Clarkeh back to 5 if he comes and bangs a double ton. He's just the kind of **** to do exactly that too. Look like a has been at 4 drop down one and suddenly find himself in God Mode again.

 

[marc71178]

Oh to be Graham Onions, gone but forgotten.

Dropped at the right time actually.

 

[weldone]

I don't think England will be feeling they've had much of a win forcing Clarkeh back to 5 if he comes and bangs a double ton. He's just the kind of **** to do exactly that too. Look like a has been at 4 drop down one and suddenly find himself in God Mode again.

Even if not the double ton part, I think this is a possibility...Not spending enough time in the middle also means he's still relatively fresh from a fatigue pov...I can see Clarke making a ton at no. 5 in Trent Bridge after the team is 100/3

 

[NUFAN]

Anyone else hearing the rumours that it is Voges&Starc out Marsh&Siddle in!

 

[Compton]

Anyone else hearing the rumours that it is Voges&Starc out Marsh&Siddle in!

McGrath has been talking about Siddle coming in for Starc.

 

[Burgey]

we need Clarke to bat at 5, not that it will make a huge difference the way he's batting right now I'd even put him at 7. Voges should be gone to and SMarsh should take his place.

Rogers
Warner
Smith
SMarsh
Clarke
Nevill - instead of Marsh at 6, can't believe how Marsh batted ahead of him especially given that Nevill is an accumulator
MMarsh
Johnson
Starc
Lyon
Haze

Starc's fifty kinda made up for some piss bowling. Haze a real worry too, he's got some wickets to flatter his figures but he's not performing his duty which is to shut down runs.

With Jimmy injured we absolutely have to capitalize

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Australia's bowling. England has crossed 400 once in the series. Every single problem in the Australian team is a problem with the batting. The bowlers look tired because they're carrying around the sorry arses of the middle order on their backs.

Even 250 odd in the first dig at the **** Hole would have put a different complexion on the game. The batting was inept in the face of some good (I wouldn't even call it very good, tbh) bowling.

 

[adub]

Voges for Smarsh @4 would be the only changes I'd be looking at. Agree with Burgs that whilst the bowling has been less than stellar it's still be serviceable. The middle order is the problem. We can't rely on Smith scoring a first innings ton every game. I had high hopes that Voges would bring his Shield form to the big stage and after his debut that looked a solid bet, but he has just been completely found out. It was worth a try, but that's his test career done for mine. Talk about Clarke being dropped from the side is just stupid. But dropping back to 5 should be very seriously considered. He probably just needs a bit of luck to get to 40 and all of a sudden he'll click.

 

[adub]

Replacing Starc with Siddle fills me with dread. At least with Starc you'll get a wicket taking ball every now and then. We're not in a position to be reducing the potency of our attack to perhaps slow the scoring rate down a little.

 

[Riggins]

Siddle has that knack of his one wicket per innings always being the opposition's best player. If he can just get Root out and let the others get themselves out he could be pretty ****ing valuable.

 

[Spark]

Replacing Starc with Siddle fills me with dread. At least with Starc you'll get a wicket taking ball every now and then. We're not in a position to be reducing the potency of our attack to perhaps slow the scoring rate down a little.

Actually I think this is exactly what the attack needs tbh. We have way too many bowlers who are trying to constantly trying to bowl wicket-taking balls; we desperately need someone who can just calm things down and restore a sense of sanity to proceedings. The hard truth of it is that, as bad as we batted in both Cardiff and Edgbaston, England haven't batted very well in this series either. The difference is that they have bowled better - with more discipline and intelligence, if less out and out "threat" via pace/bounce/hellswing. We were still in the game after the first innings, but we bowled like **** (and even then, we were still in the game at 7 down!).

Incidentally, the one frontline bowler we have who is consistently doing that has probably been our best (Lyon).

 

[Burgey]

Actually I think this is exactly what the attack needs tbh. We have way too many bowlers who are trying to constantly trying to bowl wicket-taking balls; we desperately need someone who can just calm things down and restore a sense of sanity to proceedings. The hard truth of it is that, as bad as we batted in both Cardiff and Edgbaston, England haven't batted very well in this series either. The difference is that they have bowled better - with more discipline and intelligence, if less out and out "threat" via pace/bounce/hellswing. We were still in the game after the first innings, but we bowled like **** (and even then, we were still in the game at 7 down!).

Incidentally, the one frontline bowler we have who is consistently doing that has probably been our best (Lyon).

The bloke who should be getting them to do that is Craig McDermott, with a bit of help from the captain. If that's what they've told the bowlers to do but they're not, then sure, rissole them.