Great work, hendrixBoult not looking great tbh. Too much white ball cricket perhaps.
I feel like the series as a whole made ~no cultural imprint, probably because it was around that time where they decided to have a new Ashes every few months.No that really happened. One of the strangest things. Hit three hundreds and I'm pretty sure they were all vital in winning games.
He did an interview after where he was like, 'I've heard people calling this Bell's Ashes, which is pretty cool' even though noone was actually using that phrase.
That's such a blatant attempt to troll a wicket that I'm sure the blindest of the cricket gods will see through such a cheap ruse.Without Jamieson and Southee we could really struggle to polish off the tail.
Yeah, and the Ashes which followed it that year was Johnson's Ashes, which pretty much ensured it would not be the abiding memory from 2013.I feel like the series as a whole made ~no cultural imprint, probably because it was around that time where they decided to have a new Ashes every few months.
Which is unfortunate for Bell. You'd think winning your own Ashes would at least be enough that people wouldn't say things like "**** these new batsmen are so grim we'd almost settle for another Ian Bell".
You did this and you know it.All of a sudden Boult's pace and rhythm looking back
Tbh it's also because anyone who watched that series in full knew full well that those were not exactly two great teams duking it out and England mostly won 3-0 by dint of Australia being a bit **** and not being able to capitalise on the many, many opportunities they had in that series to win a game. That Lord's Test match in particular was embarrassingly low-quality all around, Swann was getting wickets with knee-high full tosses and Steve Smith got three in about five minutes.I feel like the series as a whole made ~no cultural imprint, probably because it was around that time where they decided to have a new Ashes every few months.
Which is unfortunate for Bell. You'd think winning your own Ashes would at least be enough that people wouldn't say things like "**** these new batsmen are so grim we'd almost settle for another Ian Bell".
'twas actually a very good series, sadly overlooked not just because there was another Ashes a few hours later, but said subsequent series was probably the single most significant series for England in the past decade. (Johnson's brilliance, Trott's health breakdown, last England series for Flower, Pietersen and Swann (last tour for Monty as well?), debut and first century for Stokes, Finn becoming 'unselectable', general mayhem everywhere.I feel like the series as a whole made ~no cultural imprint, probably because it was around that time where they decided to have a new Ashes every few months.
Which is unfortunate for Bell. You'd think winning your own Ashes would at least be enough that people wouldn't say things like "**** these new batsmen are so grim we'd almost settle for another Ian Bell".
Marvan AtapattuYou did this and you know it.
Did Bracey look at the start of Kane's international career and think that's what's you need to do?