***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[FaaipDeOiad]

Also, for those watching on SBS (if there's anybody besides me, that is), don't Jones and Matthews' local interludes suck in comparison to Squires, MacGill and O'Keefe? Deano's just such a tosser.

Yeah. The Channel 4 commentary team is great, with the two best commentators in the world imo, but those studio interludes are ridiculous, I'd rather just listen to the Channel 4 guys.

 

[chalky]

No problem with being agrressive just use decent shot selection. Trying to Hook Harmison 1st ball on an up & down pitch is not good shot selection.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

If Australia win by a close margin then the toss has been the decisive factor.

Well you would be an idiot then.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If Australia win by a close margin then the toss has been the decisive factor.

Hilarious. So, when the pitch changed as dramatically as I have ever seen between one innings and another at Headingley and Australia lost, even mentioning the toss is a sign of bias, but when Australia win the toss and choose to bat on a wicket with a lot more in it than anyone expected under overcast skies and get bowled out for 190, it's a decisive advantage to Australia?

You're like a parody of yourself.

 

[Loony BoB]

Just to back up that aggression ain't so bad theory...

First Innings - Players, Runs, Balls Faced, Strike Rate.

 

[Somerset]

If Australia win by a close margin then the toss has been the decisive factor.

This match is not determined by the toss. The fact that England bowled Australia out for 190 gave them a great base to attack from and gain a first innings lead. They didn't and the pitch cannot be blamed for every wicket they lost. I admit the two deliveries to dimiss Vaughan and Flintoff were uneven and kept low but that's Australia's gain - it's two wickets. Should Trescothick, Strauss, Bell, etc all blame the pitch for their dismissals?

 

[superkingdave]

I think its fair to say the difference between the sides has been an absolutely awesome spell of bowling from a man named Glenn

 

[Scaly piscine]

Hilarious. So, when the pitch changed as dramatically as I have ever seen between one innings and another at Headingley and Australia lost, even mentioning the toss is a sign of bias, but when Australia win the toss and choose to bat on a wicket with a lot more in it than anyone expected under overcast skies and get bowled out for 190, it's a decisive advantage to Australia?

You're like a parody of yourself.

Love the way some of the convicts think an ODI in which England won by 9 wickets was decided by the toss - you yourself said it was 'decisive', but when there's been two of England's best batsmen have been done by grubbers that didn't occur at all in the first Australian innings doesn't make the toss an advantage. Ridiculous.

 

[wpdavid]

I think its fair to say the difference between the sides has been an absolutely awesome spell of bowling from a man named Glenn

Couldn't argue with that.

In comparison, it's pretty clear that hayden really fancies Hoggard's bowling.

 

[Loony BoB]

Which is why they should take Hoggy off. Is he bowling anything decent right now? Might be better off strangling them from both ends using Harmy and Flintoff or Jones instead of just working one end and then giving runs away at the other.

EDIT: I should take up gambling.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Which is why they should take Hoggy off. Is he bowling anything decent right now? Might be better off strangling them from both ends using Harmy and Flintoff or Jones instead of just working one end and then giving runs away at the other.

Vaughan thought the same, so here's Flintoff.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Love the way some of the convicts think an ODI in which England won by 9 wickets was decided by the toss - you yourself said it was 'decisive', but when there's been two of England's best batsmen have been done by grubbers that didn't occur at all in the first Australian innings doesn't make the toss an advantage. Ridiculous.

I said it was decisive - meaning it had a distinct influence on the match and not that it actually was the only thing of significance. If you bothered paying any attention rather than just accusing everyone of bias you'd notice that I also said England outplayed Australia in each facet of the game. However, given that the pitch was a minefield then Australia batted and England didn't even bowl particularly well in the eyes of any of the commentators or any other people on this forum who actually watched the game, obviously Australia were put at a disadvantage by being sent in. Add to that the fact that the sun then came out and the pitch did very little in England's innings, and you have a pretty important toss. In this game, Australia batted first on a dubious wicket and were bowled out for 190. Obviously that's not a good result after winning the toss, is it? Just because England didn't get any wickets with grubbers doesn't mean the wicket was any easier to bat on in Australia's innings - they still had seam movement and unpredictable bounce (notice Langer's hit where the bouncer didn't get up?), AND they also had swing to deal with, while none of the Australians got the new ball to swing at all with the sun out.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Langer is gone.

 

[Slow Love™]

Hmm..... Third time they took on Pietersen, and this time, Langer's gone.

 

[Nate]

Hmm... damn. Ponting needs a big innings.

 

[Loony BoB]

I really need to take up gambling. I was about to post saying I was predicting Langer to go, but lo and behold, I refresh the page quickly and see a post saying it's already happened.

Of course, now that I've said this, I'll probably get every prediction I make for the rest of the day completely wrong.

 

[Craig]

No, not sarcasm at all - I really liked the 7 coverage with Squires, MacGill and Kerry as well. I was saying that these guys suck in comparison.

I was the opposite - I cringed at Squires and MacGill. The probability factor? How do they work it out?

 

[Somerset]

Langer is gone.

Crazy running for a test match, stupid play from Langer. I seem to remember him nearly being run out in the first innings too, if Pietersen had hit the stumps early on in the day.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I said it was decisive - meaning it had a distinct influence on the match and not that it actually was the only thing of significance.

Decisive is a stronger term than that, there are obviously always going to be other factors but a decisive factor determines who wins the game.

 

[tassietiger]

I was the opposite - I cringed at Squires and MacGill. The probability factor? How do they work it out?

Didn't take the probability factor too seriously, but I loved that panel purely for Kerry O'Keefe. Gun in the highest order.