*Official* Fifth Test (The Oval, London) 27-31 July

[Kraken]

The umpires made numerous strange decisions during the series that didn't even relate to dismissals.

1. Ollie Pope's injury - England were told if he didn't field, we'd have to field with 10 men. So out Pope went and inevitably made his injury worse.

2. The bowling of spinners at OT. Every commentatotor on both radio and TV was surprised at this, saying that it had been darker at other times. The Aussie batsmen had not even made any mention of the light.

3. The ball change at the Oval. Yes the ball had to be changed but the replacement ball was obviously significantly newer than the one it replaced.

4. Losing a review for the non Stokes catch at the Oval.

We all know the standard of umpiring on dismissals has been poor - God knows how many decisions were overturned this series.

But you'd expect even Wilson and Co to get the decisions I've referred to correct. They weren't in the heat of battle with marginal decisions to be made in a split second and yet they still got them wrong.

Joel Wilson is comfortably the worst international umpire I've seen in my time. How he continued to get a gig after the 2019 series is beyond me. Losing a review only happened cause he didn't think Smith gloved it (which is a bad decision within itself but it is what it is).

I think the Pope one was that he was told he couldn't bat if he didn't field - which I mean is a decent point. Why they were so strict on that one, and allowed England to continually bring fresh sub fielders on is ridiculous though

 

[G. S. Kohli]

Aggregates of runs in completed test ( 4 innings)

Oval test 1300 plus runs scored without 100, ( best 91 root)

This was only happen once involved eng in 1902 when 1279 runs scored without 100.

 

[G. S. Kohli]

Eng changed ball 37 ovs claimed ball out of shape, replacement ball was not 37 over Old,--- ricky ponting ask ICC to investigates

 

[G. S. Kohli]

England batters with most 50-plus scores in the Ashes
27 - Jack Hobbs
24 - Herbert Sutcliffe
22 - Ian Bell
22 - Joe Root


England batters with most 50-plus scores in Tests
90 - Alastair Cook
90 - Joe Root
68 - Ian Bell
66 - Graham Gooch
64 - Geoffrey boycott


300-plus runs in a Test series most often
19 - Sachin Tendulkar
19 - Joe Root
18 - Brian Lara
18 - Rahul Dravid
17 - Ricky Ponting
17 - Alastair Cook


England designated wicketkeepers with most runs in an Ashes series
378 - Alec Stewart, 1993
364 - Alan Knott, 1974/75
322 - Jonny Bairstow, 2023
314 - Jack Russell, 1989
306 - Jonny Bairstow, 2017/18


Batters with most sixes in a Test series
19 - Rohit Sharma (IND) vs SA, 2019/20
15 - Shimron Hetmyer (WI) vs BAN, 2018/19
15 - Ben Stokes (ENG) vs AUS, 2023


Batters with most sixes in an Ashes series
15 - Ben Stokes, 2023
14 - Kevin Pietersen, 2005
13 - Ben Stokes, 2019
11 - Andrew Flintoff, 2005


STAT: Usman Khawaja's last scoring shot (36.6) took him past 5,000 runs in Test cricket. He is the 21st Australian to the milestone.


Batters involved in most 100-run opening partnerships in the Ashes
16 - Jack Hobbs
15 - Herbert Sutcliffe
10 - Mark Taylor
8 - David Warner
7 - Geoffrey Boycott


Batters involved in most 100-run opening partnerships in Tests
25 - David Warner
24 - Jack Hobbs
24 - Graeme Smith
24 - Alastair Cook
23 - Michael Atherton
23 - Virender Sehwag


STAT: Most Tests played together
146 - Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid (1996-2012)
138 - James Anderson and Stuart Broad (2008-2023)
137 - Jacques Kallis and Mark Boucher (1998-2012)
132 - Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman (1996-2012)
130 - Alastair Cook and James Anderson (2006-2018)
Other than Anderson and Broad, the only other pair of specialist bowlers to feature in at least 100 Tests together was that of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath (104 between 1993 and 2007).

 

[Spofforth]

Joel Wilson is comfortably the worst international umpire I've seen in my time. How he continued to get a gig after the 2019 series is beyond me. Losing a review only happened cause he didn't think Smith gloved it (which is a bad decision within itself but it is what it is).

It doesn't work like that. It's one of the most basic rules in cricket, that it's not a catch if you drop the ball. That's black and white, none of the rest matters and you should lose a review. Stokes obviously knew he shelled it, but instead of accepting the umpires call chose to review it, which seems to make it worse.

It looks like he was hoping they wouldn't replay it right to the end, you know, to that part where he clearly grassed it. If you're not accepting the umpires "not out" call on that one but actually reviewing it, you're either trying to cheat, or you're quite the numbskull. Or a cheating numbskull. Either way you should lose a review, simply because the rules don't allow you to lose a review along with a swift uppercut.

 

[Kraken]

It doesn't work like that. It's one of the most basic rules in cricket, that it's not a catch if you drop the ball. That's black and white, none of the rest matters and you should lose a review. Stokes obviously knew he shelled it, but instead of accepting the umpires call chose to review it, which seems to make it worse.

It looks like he was hoping they wouldn't replay it right to the end, you know, to that part where he clearly grassed it. If you're not accepting the umpires "not out" call on that one but actually reviewing it, you're either trying to cheat, or you're quite the numbskull. Or a cheating numbskull. Either way you should lose a review, simply because the rules don't allow you to lose a review along with a swift uppercut.

I completely agree with you btw, they should have lost that review - I was just providing a reasoning as to why it happened the way it did & why they can't complain about losing said review

 

[Spofforth]

I completely agree with you btw, they should have lost that review - I was just providing a reasoning as to why it happened the way it did & why they can't complain about losing said review

Well then please accept my apologies, I misconstrued your previous post. It happens.

ps. I agree some of the umpiring was ordinary.

 

[Xix2565]

Not sure why we need fantasies about umpires to explain what happened.

 

[honestbharani]

Great series. Sorry, @Burgey but England have won the moral Ashes this time. And honestly, 2-2 with the 1 rained off test which was dominated by England is a pretty good result for England given how bad they looked in the Lords game.

Australia seemed to have lost a lot of zip as the tour wore on but that is part of why winning away is such a tough gig.

I love the fact that Marnus, Zak, Carey, Warner, Moeen (to an extent), Wood, Khawaja, Woakes all had great series. Crawley was my pick for MoS for England. Australia was more difficult to choose as they seemed to have different folks step up at different times, but Starc is a fair enough winner IMO.

 

[Line and Length]

Has anyone named a "Team of the Series"?

How does this stack up:

Crawley
Khawaja
Labuschagne (?)
Root (ahead of Smith because he is the spin option)
Brook/Head
Stokes (c)
Carey (w/k)
Woakes
Starc
Wood/Cummins
Broad

Almost put Moeen in at 3.

 

[Kraken]

Has anyone named a "Team of the Series"?

How does this stack up:

Crawley
Khawaja
Labuschagne (?)
Root (ahead of Smith because he is the spin option)
Brook/Head
Stokes (c)
Carey (w/k)
Woakes
Starc
Wood/Cummins
Broad

Almost put Moeen in at 3.

It's interesting isn't it, a couple of the positions will come down to personal preference rather than off stats/impact etc as they are quite similar.

I would go for:

Uz
Crawley
Root
Smith
Head
Stokes
Carey (not with any confidence mind you)
Woakes
Starc
Wood
Broad

 

[Spofforth]

Usman
Kreepy
Marnus
Root
Brook
Stokes
Bairstow
Woakes
Wood
Murphy
Broad

Wouldn't complain if Carey was in there. But he is somewhat overrated by many Aussies and had an ordinary couple of matches, whereas Bairstow improved markedly at the end and is also far better with the bat. Starc could be an option I suppose for his ability to get wickets out of nowhere, with Stokes as cover for when he sprays them, but he's not the type that will keep pressure on the batsmen. Think this team being stacked with poms is a reflection of who were probably the better side overall. Still, only as good as your results (2-2) ultimately.

 

[the big bambino]

The most influential player imo was Crawley. A normal Crawley gets us a real crack at their middle order and the likes of Root and Stokes. Crawley's runs would not have been ones we anticipated in chasing. The fact he bazballed them too gave England time as well as runs. After him come Woakes and Wood.

 

[Coronis]

KP somehow continues to get worse since retirement. While Ponting seems to get better (iirc was regarded as a bit of a **** during his career)

 

[Spofforth]

The fast bowling averages tell a story.

Woakes 18.
Wood 20.
Broad 28.
Robinson 28.
Stokes 30.
Anderson 85 (lol).

Starc 27.
Hazlewood 32.
Cummins 38.
Green 47.
Marsh 56.
Boland 115 (again lol).

Some of the Aussie figures slightly inflated in that drawn match, but despite the journalistic hype around the poms sloggit batting style, the impact of Wood and Woakes on this series was huge. Poms never lost a match after they were brought in and they were the major difference between the sides IMO.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So, two teams in adjacent dressing rooms, both with mobile phones at their disposal couldn't arrange a time to meet up for drinks at a time that suited both of them? Or at least, let each other know what the plan was.

Then one team and it's hangers on, numbering at least 30, managed to sneak away undetected by the other, like ships in the night.

...seems likely.

 

[Daemon]

View attachment 36787

more balls than braincells in this picture

 

[Gob]

Joel Wilson is comfortably the worst international umpire I've seen in my time. How he continued to get a gig after the 2019 series is beyond me. Losing a review only happened cause he didn't think Smith gloved it (which is a bad decision within itself but it is what it is).

I think the Pope one was that he was told he couldn't bat if he didn't field - which I mean is a decent point. Why they were so strict on that one, and allowed England to continually bring fresh sub fielders on is ridiculous though

Bloke is so incompetent is he not. I mean it seems like even the player's and pundit's accept this now. Mind that Dharmasena isn't much better either and as I said couple of days ago, Dharmasena I think is the architect who ****ed up the whole new ball thing

Thank **** that we have DRS now. Can't imagine what could actually happen if these blokes were allowed to umpire games the old way

 

[Molehill]

Bloke is so incompetent is he not. I mean it seems like even the player's and pundit's accept this now. Mind that Dharmasena isn't much better either and as I said couple of days ago, Dharmasena I think is the architect who ****ed up the whole new ball thing

Thank **** that we have DRS now. Can't imagine what could actually happen if these blokes were allowed to umpire games the old way

The funny thing about the Smith/Stokes drop is that if Stokes had properly caught it, Wilson would've given it not out. I also wonder what was going to happen if Marsh hadn't walked after his inside edge/pad through to Bairstow. It was noted well in advance that these 2 had been scheduled for the 5th Test and that they could bring trouble.....

 

[Molehill]

So, two teams in adjacent dressing rooms, both with mobile phones at their disposal couldn't arrange a time to meet up for drinks at a time that suited both of them? Or at least, let each other know what the plan was.

Then one team and it's hangers on, numbering at least 30, managed to sneak away undetected by the other, like ships in the night.

...seems likely.

Can't help thinking this has been blown out of all proportion, a mountain out of a molehill if you will!! It's pretty clear that many of those players are good buddies having played so much together around the world. It seems the fella who broke it was clearly after clickbait/more followers.