Am I The Only One That Thinks England Will Win The Ashes

[social]

Eng have chances in both Adelaide and Sydney IMO

Aus will almost definitely take 4 bowlers into Adelaide - a possibly not fully-fit McGrath and out of form Lee included

Weather forecast is for a heat-wave

IF Eng can keep Oz in field for a long time in sweltering heat and IF McGrath is less than fully fit, things could get interesting

2 spinners in Sydney and who knows

There appears to be a huge gulf in quality/form between the 2 sides but we're only one test in

Those talking of replacing Flintoff as captain are, IMO, playing right into Aus hands as that would be a sure sign of desperation

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I doubt that the Poms can win the series. Draw and therefore retain, maybe.

 

[Great Birtannia]

Melbourne and Sydney are the two tests that they are most likely to win. If they can keep it at 1-0, or better from their perspective, in the next two tests then they are still a show.

 

[sqwerty]

Trescothick is also a huge loss to England. He and Strauss can take as much credit for the series win last time as the England bowlers.

Cook appears to be capable but who knows what effect the loss of Trescothick has had on Strauss who looks a little out of touch.

 

[Matteh]

Trescothick is also a huge loss to England. He and Strauss can take as much credit for the series win last time as the England bowlers.

Cook appears to be capable but who knows what effect the loss of Trescothick has had on Strauss who looks a little out of touch.

Odd odd reasoning. I doubt Strauss thought out in the middle, oh my mate isn't here, i'd better try and pull/hook this when i know fine well there's 2 men back and for good measure i'll do it twice.

 

[Perm]

Of course there's more to winning a Test than taking 20 wickets, but you can't win a Test without doing so.

You can, twice in test history a team has won when the other team has declared in both innings. They haven't taken twenty wickets then, infact any time a declaration is made and the other teams goes on to win the game they have done so without taking 20 wickets.

 

[aussie]

If England didn't have all the injury woes of Vaughan & Jones & Tres didn't have his unfortunate mental problems England would have a a chance still, but based on what happened at the Gabba i reckon the Ashes will be back in Australia's hands by the end of the Boxing day test.

 

[greg]

Of course there's more to winning a Test than taking 20 wickets, but you can't win a Test without doing so.
Barring injuries of course.

You've selectively taken one line out of my post.

You asked how reducing a bowler increased the chance of taking 20 wickets. That was a false question because the five man attack didn't contain the four best bowlers.

If you had to choose between an attack of McGrath, Warne, Lee and Clark (4 bowlers), vs McGrath, Lee, Clark, Johnson and Brad Hogg which one would you choose?

I believe picking Panesar and an extra batsmen improves the batting and the bowling. Like i said if you took a dogmatic view on the number of the bowlers in the attack at the expense of it's quality, then why not pick 6 bowlers, or 7?

 

[Son Of Coco]

How does an extra batsman help take 20 wickets?

Is his own included in that 20?

 

[Burgey]

I don't get it. Everywhere I go it just seems to be everyone is saying the Aussies are bound to win. As an Englishman , and a realist , I still believe that England can take this series.

Does anyone , English or otherwise agree?

No. Sorry.

A lot has been said about how England lost the 1st test in 05 and bounced back - and that was so. However, the big difference then was that even though they'd lost, England's bowling on the 1st morning at Lord's was frightening and had the Aussies hopping around. They bowled us out cheaply. This time, their bowling was frightened and the only people on the hop were the scoreboard attendants.

Look, England are a good side, bordering on a very good one. Unfortunately, at the moment in Australian conditions they don't look like taking 20 wickets. In order to get back into this series (and if they dont win Adelaide, forget it) they need the luck of the toss and for their batsmen to aim up when it counts, not in the second innings when its too little too late. Then they may put enough pressure on our batsmen, especially if Panesar and Giles both play and they get to bowl last.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You can, twice in test history a team has won when the other team has declared in both innings. They haven't taken twenty wickets then, infact any time a declaration is made and the other teams goes on to win the game they have done so without taking 20 wickets.

Oh for pedantry...

Well Ponting may not be a great captain, but he won't be that poor.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You've selectively taken one line out of my post.

You asked how reducing a bowler increased the chance of taking 20 wickets. That was a false question because the five man attack didn't contain the four best bowlers.

If you had to choose between an attack of McGrath, Warne, Lee and Clark (4 bowlers), vs McGrath, Lee, Clark, Johnson and Brad Hogg which one would you choose?

I believe picking Panesar and an extra batsmen improves the batting and the bowling. Like i said if you took a dogmatic view on the number of the bowlers in the attack at the expense of it's quality, then why not pick 6 bowlers, or 7?

The post you quoted had nothing to do with bowler count. It had to do with the effectiveness of a bowling attack and taking 20 wickets to win a game.

 

[GIMH]

And most importantly, the crowd influence on some dubious umpiring decisions as they cracked under pressure and got twitchy fingers.

The LBW rule was only in operation for one of the sides in that series as I recall.

I think that's why the Barmy Army are making such an issue about seating arrangements/ ticketing etc. They know that's the only way they have a chance to win.

Hahaha, having read through last year's Ashes thread not so long ago (and I believe pasag has done the same) I can completely see why orthdox just called you Shane Warne. So obvious.

Seriously, get over it

 

[PY]

Orthdox, he'll skin you for that mistake.

 

[silentstriker]

Injury to Simon Jones saved Australia from defeat in the 3rd Test. Aussies getting psyched out is rubbish.

Ehh..if Glenn McGrath hadn't slipped, I doubt they would have lost the Ashes.

 

[greg]

The post you quoted had nothing to do with bowler count. It had to do with the effectiveness of a bowling attack and taking 20 wickets to win a game.

Youve lost me.

I wrote - "England can win if they pick an extra batsman, make Strauss captain, and pick Panesar"

You wrote "How does picking an extra batsmen (ie. one fewer bowler) help take 20 wickets?" - presumably the implication being England did not take 20 wickets in the first test so how does picking one fewer bowler help them win?

I said picking Panesar in a four man attack is the route to 20 wickets because a four man attack with Panesar is more likely to take 20 wickets than a five man attack without. Meanwhile the extra batsman will mean that we score the runs to capitalise on taking the 20 wickets because BOTH are necessary.

Maybe ive just completely missed your train of thought.

 

[BingLeeElectric]

Hahaha, having read through last year's Ashes thread not so long ago (and I believe pasag has done the same) I can completely see why orthdox just called you Shane Warne. So obvious.

Seriously, get over it

Seriously....get out more.

 

[Matteh]

Seriously....get out more.

Gun reply.

 

[Johnners]

Seriously....get out more.

Says he who makes a whole 20 posts and acts like he already runs the show. Seriously, from 1 relative newbie to another, get over yourself

 

[GIMH]

Seriously....get out more.

TBH I read it entirely in work when the workload was low...so I got paid a good few hundred to read it..thus enabling me to get out more....