awtb

[pietersenrocks]

Agree with Rich. England were on a roll in the 2nd & 3rd test, but lost their way in the end. England's collapse at Adelaide in the 2nd innings lost us the game & GIlly thrashing Monty in the 3rd Test also changed the game.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Agree with Rich. England were on a roll in the 2nd & 3rd test, but lost their way in the end. England's collapse at Adelaide in the 2nd innings lost us the game & GIlly thrashing Monty in the 3rd Test also changed the game.

It might have changed it slightly, England may have managed a draw. The batsmen above him scored two hundreds, a 92 and a 75 though. Australia still won by 202 runs, so Gilly's 103 just changed something that was almost impossible to totally impossible.

England scored 160 or less in half of their innings. Funnily enough, the 3rd Test in Perth was the only test where they got two innings over 200. And in my opinion they lost that when they couldn't pass Australia's first innings score of 244. The tour was a picture of hopelessness from go to woe really. Apart from the second test where they competed for most of the test before a mentally poor performance on Day 5, they never looked like winning a test. And when they did look like they were going ok someone on the Australian team seemed to take the initiative away from them as quickly as they had it.

But anyway, that was 2006. Means nothing coming into 2009.

 

[Richard]

Not so much luck as England ****ting themselves on the final morning and trying to play out a draw by scoring no runs.

No, both. Strauss wrongly given out; Bell unneccessarily run-out; England's utter terrible batting on such a flat deck was Australia's good fortune as well. Australia were ridiculously lucky to win that game, and England were ridiculously poor (and minutely unlucky) to lose it.

That's the only test where England got close to Australia for longer than about 10 minutes here or there. They might have played well for a session once or twice afterwards, but they were awful in general.

England competed well for much of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Tests. Until Gilchrist's assault they were, just, still in the WACA Test and had Cook and Bell made that partnership chasing 400 rather than 550 they could conceivably have even won (a draw was always OOTQ), though a 40-50-run loss would've been most likely. As I say, it was only poor Umpiring that stood between the teams at The MCG. And at The SCG if England had knocked-over the tail - a hardly arduous task - then they'd have stood a chance of victory also.

Don't get anyone wrong that Australia deserved to win all three games, but to say they dominated them from ball one and won most every session is very much wrong.

 

[Uppercut]

No, both. Strauss wrongly given out; Bell unneccessarily run-out; England's utter terrible batting on such a flat deck was Australia's good fortune as well. Australia were ridiculously lucky to win that game, and England were ridiculously poor (and minutely unlucky) to lose it.

Think it's the perfect example of a team (in this case England) making their own luck.

England competed well for much of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Tests. Until Gilchrist's assault they were, just, still in the WACA Test and had Cook and Bell made that partnership chasing 400 rather than 550 they could conceivably have even won (a draw was always OOTQ), though a 40-50-run loss would've been most likely.

Pahaha. "England were still in the Perth test, until Australia scored far more runs than them and took all their wickets".

 

[Richard]

Think it's the perfect example of a team (in this case England) making their own luck.

I don't. The misfortune came before the inexplicable implosion. And I know people have tended to be far more critical of the scoring-slowly than the losing wickets, but personally I think any fool should have been able to bat through that day losing no more than 6-7 wickets, regardless of how quickly or slowly they scored. I also think trying to take on Warne and Clark on that last day would have been tantamout to suicide given the position of the match.

Pahaha. "England were still in the Perth test, until Australia scored far more runs than them and took all their wickets".

England were still in the game until more than halfway through the third-innings of the match. To me, that's not a walkover. You still seem to be thinking I'm suggesting Australia weren't the better side and didn't deserve to win that Test. I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that it wasn't a case of ball-one-to-ball-last thrashing.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't. The misfortune came before the inexplicable implosion. And I know people have tended to be far more critical of the scoring-slowly than the losing wickets, but personally I think any fool should have been able to bat through that day losing no more than 6-7 wickets, regardless of how quickly or slowly they scored. I also think trying to take on Warne and Clark on that last day would have been tantamout to suicide given the position of the match.

England were still in the game until more than halfway through the third-innings of the match. To me, that's not a walkover. You still seem to be thinking I'm suggesting Australia weren't the better side and didn't deserve to win that Test. I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that it wasn't a case of ball-one-to-ball-last thrashing.

How does it matter whether England's arse-raping occurs in the third innings or in the first innings? It's still an arse-raping.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, both. Strauss wrongly given out; Bell unneccessarily run-out; England's utter terrible batting on such a flat deck was Australia's good fortune as well. Australia were ridiculously lucky to win that game, and England were ridiculously poor (and minutely unlucky) to lose it.

England competed well for much of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Tests. Until Gilchrist's assault they were, just, still in the WACA Test and had Cook and Bell made that partnership chasing 400 rather than 550 they could conceivably have even won (a draw was always OOTQ), though a 40-50-run loss would've been most likely. As I say, it was only poor Umpiring that stood between the teams at The MCG. And at The SCG if England had knocked-over the tail - a hardly arduous task - then they'd have stood a chance of victory also.

Don't get anyone wrong that Australia deserved to win all three games, but to say they dominated them from ball one and won most every session is very much wrong.

Putting pressure on a team and watching them fold like a deck of cards isn't all down to luck. Australia needed some luck to win, but they also had to play well. England had to play poorly under little initial pressure and helped pile it on themselves until collapsing in a heap.

 

[Richard]

Of course Australia played damn well, but as I say - you could replay that last day of that Adelaide Test 100 times with them doing about all they could each time and they might never win it again.

Australia bowled well on that last day and kept their heads with the bat superbly, but England's effort to be bowled-out was diabolical and the decision to give Strauss out was a shocker. Without which the collapse would very probably not have happened.

 

[Richard]

How does it matter whether England's arse-raping occurs in the third innings or in the first innings? It's still an arse-raping.

It's a huge difference. If, as happened in the First Test of that series, you're thrashed for 600-650 in the first-innings that's the game gone in one fell swoop, with one team never being in it (unless, of course, they've reduced their oppo to 45-3 on the first morn but a total of 600 is really not very likely under those circumstances).

If you're competing on near-level-terms for two innings', then just about holding on for another half-innings, before having it snatched by one superlative innings in towards the end of the match's third innings, I just can't see how anyone can classify this as anywhere near so comprehensive a beating.

Yes, a loss is a loss, but as far as the one-sidedness of a series is concerned, the eventual scoreline is not the only consideration - it's just how the matches unfolded, in my book.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Of course Australia played damn well, but as I say - you could replay that last day of that Adelaide Test 100 times with them doing about all they could each time and they might never win it again.

Australia bowled well on that last day and kept their heads with the bat superbly, but England's effort to be bowled-out was diabolical and the decision to give Strauss out was a shocker. Without which the collapse would very probably not have happened.

I'd say you're right in that it wouldn't happen again if the English team got a second chance. They'd certainly change their approach slightly I'd imagine. If they went in with the same approach though it's feasible the same thing would happen.

England's effort to be bowled out was diabolical. Strauss maybe shouldn't have been given out, but Bell's effort to be run out was indicative of the panic ensuing I think.

 

[Uppercut]

Flintoff's dismissal was the worst IMO. Nicking a wide. Was the moment his captaincy failed.

 

[Richard]

I'd say you're right in that it wouldn't happen again if the English team got a second chance. They'd certainly change their approach slightly I'd imagine. If they went in with the same approach though it's feasible the same thing would happen.

Nah, if they went after Warne and Clark bowling as they were that session they'd actually have been far more likely to fail than they ended-up being. The approach was right; the execution was dreadful.

And, yes, the Strauss incorrect decision was pivotal. Another 15 overs or so of him and the game was essentially drawn.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nah, if they went after Warne and Clark bowling as they were that session they'd actually have been far more likely to fail than they ended-up being. The approach was right; the execution was dreadful.

And, yes, the Strauss incorrect decision was pivotal. Another 15 overs or so of him and the game was essentially drawn.

As someone said at the time, if they'd have made an attempt to score more runs the result would have at the very worst been the same. That the pitch went from one where 1000 runs were scored in 4 days to one where players couldn't get the ball off the square is remarkable. Especially considering the 2nd innings of the other team went at a million miles an hour immediately after.

Strauss may have gotten out next ball. The English approach to their second innings was what was pivotal. It was defensive at best. When your game plan becomes 'don't get out' you've already dug yourself a massive hole.

 

[Richard]

As someone said at the time, if they'd have made an attempt to score more runs the result would have at the very worst been the same. That the pitch went from one where 1000 runs were scored in 4 days to one where players couldn't get the ball off the square is remarkable. Especially considering the 2nd innings of the other team went at a million miles an hour immediately after.

And if they'd not made an attempt to score more runs they'd not have lost it in 99 cases out of 100 - maybe more. The change was in the approach, not the deck, and that change was understandable.

Strauss may have gotten out next ball.

Hardly likely, given how ridiculously comfortable he was looking. Clutching at straws to play down the importance of a pivotal moment, saying "he may have gotten out next ball".

The English approach to their second innings was what was pivotal. It was defensive at best. When your game plan becomes 'don't get out' you've already dug yourself a massive hole.

Not if your aim is to save a game. There's precious little point in attacking strokes if you're aiming to save a game.

People go far too OTT about the "attack is best" mindset at the best of times and in this particular case it's just pretty stupid IMO. If you're looking to save a game you look to cut-out needless attacking strokes to deliveries which will be completely harmless if not attacked. If England had looked to attack in that morning session they'd have deserved to lose, properly.

 

[Furball]

I also think trying to take on Warne and Clark on that last day would have been tantamout to suicide given the position of the match.

In order to live, you must be willing to die.

 

[Richard]

I just don't see how such an idea makes sense TBH. Live and die are polar-opposites. Of course, one is an inevitable follow-up to the other as well.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And if they'd not made an attempt to score more runs they'd not have lost it in 99 cases out of 100 - maybe more. The change was in the approach, not the deck, and that change was understandable.

Hardly likely, given how ridiculously comfortable he was looking. Clutching at straws to play down the importance of a pivotal moment, saying "he may have gotten out next ball".

Not if your aim is to save a game. There's precious little point in attacking strokes if you're aiming to save a game.

People go far too OTT about the "attack is best" mindset at the best of times and in this particular case it's just pretty stupid IMO. If you're looking to save a game you look to cut-out needless attacking strokes to deliveries which will be completely harmless if not attacked. If England had looked to attack in that morning session they'd have deserved to lose, properly.

If they'd have scored more runs they would have saved the game. Trying to score no runs whatsoever is an indictment on their mindset at the time. No one expected them to lose coming into the last day. They managed to conjure that up all by themselves. They didn't have to go out and swing at everything to score more runs, just be positive and look for opportunities.

You simply can't tell what would have happened with Strauss. He may have batted all day. He may have got a good one in the next over. The English team's mindset was the turning point on the last day.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the '99 times out of 100' idea you keep talking about. Their defensive frame of mind meant whether they drew or lost was up to how well Australia bowled. They handed the initiative to the other team when they had it going into the final day, basically just bending over and saying "Make sure it doesn't hurt too much".

 

[Furball]

I just don't see how such an idea makes sense TBH. Live and die are polar-opposites. Of course, one is an inevitable follow-up to the other as well.

It's a quote which I've heard used a lot in relationship to tournament poker, but it refers nicely to the Test in question.

If England had been bowled out by a miracle performance having batted normally (or as normally as you could in such circumstances), then I could live with that. I could even live with it if they'd gone down swinging trying to score fast runs to set a sporting declaration in order to attempt to win the game, bearing in mind they were down in the series.

However, England not only allowed Australia to strangle the life out of them, they gave them a helping hand with such a ludicrously defensive mindset, in the process destroying a series that was shaping up to become nicely competitive with 3 Tests to play.

 

[Richard]

Do either of you two have any idea how regularly Test matches have been saved by such a mindset? Far, far more often than they have by batting "normally". I don't know how old you are, GingerFurball, but if you're the same sort of age as me as most on here are then you'd not really remember such a time. SOC I know is a bit older so probably will remember something of that time.

If you're looking to save a game, you need to bat more defensively than normal. If Warne and Clark had bowled poor areas, England would've scored much more quickly. The bowler controls the game. To look to take the game to Warne unless you're one of the best players of spin ever has always been unwise; to look to take it to a super-accurate seamer like Clark or McGrath is completely stupid. It's easy to say "you don't have to swing from the hip, just look for scoring opportunities" - that's not how treating each ball on its merits works. It's easy to be wise after the event - if you watch a ball-by-ball replay of that last day, see how often there were deliveries an England batsman should have done something more with. Then come back to me and tell me they were over-defensive.

 

[Burgey]

Can someone tell me what the thread title means please?