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

[Tom Halsey]

I think there's legitimate questions about his ability on tour, don't you? Anyone who gets homesick so badly they bowl rubbish for a whole series every now and then is going to struggle for consistency. Still, he's obviously a very useful bowler when he gets it right.

Personally, I don't think so. Anyone's entitled to a bad series (and lets be honest, the SA one was tripe) but the WI series proved in my mind he can tour.

 

[marc71178]

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

Lets face it, it's not going to be likely.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Which all countered by the fact the England bowlers didn't put the ball in that spot when Australia batted.

 

[tooextracool]

Firstly, whilst I appreciate that Jones is one of your favourite players, to say that he bowled "exceedingly well" is an exaggeration even by your standards.

His return of 2-48 at about 5 runs per over was indicative of his performance - couple of good balls interspersed by far too many hittable deliveries..

im not sure what the 5 runs an over is supposed to prove, given that the aussies seemed hell bent on playing in ODI mode, as though they were playing on one of their rubbish flat tracks at home. i may like jones a lot more than most people around here do, but i think it was glaringly obvious that he bowled extremely well in that first inning, even though he was undoubtedly rubbish today and bar the over before lunch, kept sending tripe down the leg side. to say that flintoff bowled well in that first inning is even more ludicrous, given that he bowled a dozen no balls and kept throwing it down the leg side, and showed nowhere near the accuracy we're used to seeing from him.

On the day, he ranked only above Hoggard and Gillespie of the seamers on show and was substantially below the standard set by McGrath, Harmison and even Lee...

nope, there was mcgrath and harmison, both of whom were in a class of their own, then there was jones who bowled easily as well as lee did. flintoff, hoggard & gillespie bowled poorly, and the latter 2 in particular were absolute garbage.

Secondly, 4 of the Aus top 6 played shots they'd sooner forget. If that is not batting poorly, then I dont know what is.

hayden had his weakness perfectly exposed
langer played a poor shot.
ponting got a good ball, and was softened by harmisons bowling previously
martyn played a poor shot against a very good ball, and would have been out as long as he'd played a shot against it.
clarke got a good delivery.
katich played a poor shot but batted well.
gilchrist had his flaws exposed.

you really seem to be the aussie version of SP, you dont seem to be able to acknowledge anything that the opposition does. if australia have a bad day, its because australia batted poorly, without even considering the fact that england may have actually bowled well.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Which all countered by the fact the England bowlers didn't put the ball in that spot when Australia batted.

No it isn't, the ball didn't grub at all in Australia's first innings - it wasn't a case of it did grub occasionally but it missed the stumps.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it should have been given out. It was angling down in, and you could see off stump when it hit him on the crease. That's not out, as far as I'm concerned.

Not a huge deal obviously, but I wouldn't have given it.

i dont really understand the concern about this decision. AFAIC in real time it just looked out, in the replay it looked like it might have been going down leg, and hawk eye confirmed that it was out. now as far as im concerned, it doesnt matter if that decision went either way, theres certainly no way you can say, well i wouldnt have given that out because i wasnt 100% sure after watching 100 replays, therefore it was not out

 

[aussie]

hayden had his weakness perfectly exposed
langer played a poor shot.
ponting got a good ball, and was softened by harmisons bowling previously
martyn played a poor shot against a very good ball, and would have been out as long as he'd played a shot against it.
clarke got a good delivery.
katich played a poor shot but batted well.
gilchrist had his flaws exposed.

agreed with everything but not the last one totally, thats the way Gilly plays it can lead to his downfall & also big runs.

 

[tooextracool]

KP may lack some of the finer human qualities, but he doesn't lack guts, and I think he showed up some of the others big time.

it his determination that really strikes me. its a bit like gary kirsten, no matter how poor his technique actually was it didnt really matter because he'd play as though he were batting for his life.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Still think we're squarely banged up the pooper, but it was a decent last hour for us. It's nice to have an attack that can genuinely trouble a world class top 7, all we need is someone to score some runs now. I've only seen the last hour & the 40 minutes after lunch, but Gilo's figures suggest he isn't contributing massively to the cause. It may be time to play the extra batter, defensive measure or not. That just leaves the question of who....

The more I think about it, the more I'm convincing myself there was an element of "well bloomin' sod you, then" in Thorpey's announcement today. I can't see Big Dunc going cap in hand & what other alternatives are there? Fat Bob & an untried Irishman? No chance of Butch being fit, is there?!? Mind you, Ramps averages 42 v Oz....

Hopefully Bell will do enough to justify the selectors faith & Tres and Strauss find some way to combat McGrath. In fact 5 of our top 6 owe our bowlers something.

 

[tooextracool]

I just realised... Warne got Pietersen.

First blood!

its not exactly a wicket that i'd be particularly proud of. buying one thanks to a brilliant catch on the boundary.

 

[King_Ponting]

If england play there cards right they should really win this match. They have umpteen overs to get the runs and as was shown by clarke and martyn, its much easier to bat once the ball was lost its intial hardness and shine. The pitch doesnt seem to be spinning that much, albeit it is only the second day.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, Australia big favourites at this point.

 

[King_Ponting]

No, Australia big favourites at this point.

Yeh im not denying that, all im saying is that if england stop playing this one day cricket stuff, much like australia, and knuckle down this test match could actually be a lot closer than some people think

 

[aussie]

Yeh im not denying that, all im saying is that if england stop playing this one day cricket stuff, much like australia, and knuckle down this test match could actually be a lot closer than some people think

maybe but at this stage it 70/30 Australia...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeh im not denying that, all im saying is that if england stop playing this one day cricket stuff, much like australia, and knuckle down this test match could actually be a lot closer than some people think

One of the commentators (I think it was Nicholas) said that England have only ever chased down 300+ 3 times in the 4th innings of tests. That's a lot of history to buck.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yeh im not denying that, all im saying is that if england stop playing this one day cricket stuff, much like australia, and knuckle down this test match could actually be a lot closer than some people think

Actually I think they might need some one day cricket stuff against McGrath, the rest they can play out normally, but they have to knock McGrath off his line & length, whether it be standing out of the crease, going after him whatever.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If Australia get out very cheaply tomorrow morning, 70/30 is about right, since 316 is tough but gettable. If they add another 50 runs though, it becomes extremely hard, and more than that and it's game.

Really though, anything is possible. If someone hits a big hundred even 400 becomes a much easier total to chase, and it's only going to be day 3. It really depends on how good a start england get from their top 3 or 4. If they get decimated again, it's gone. The other thing that's worth looking at is the weather. If it's overcast and Lee and McGrath can swing it, the chance of early wickets rises dramatically. If it's like it was in the first innings though and England bat well, 316 is very much within range.

 

[King_Ponting]

One of the commentators (I think it was Nicholas) said that England have only ever chased down 300+ 3 times in the 4th innings of tests. That's a lot of history to buck.

Well if ever there was an english team to do it, this would be the one

 

[kendall]

I was amazed by clarkes trasnformation today, I was at lords on thursday and he looked so nervous and too be honest out of his death. what a difference a day and some time at the crease makes a very good inings

 

[aussie]

One of the commentators (I think it was Nicholas) said that England have only ever chased down 300+ 3 times in the 4th innings of tests. That's a lot of history to buck.

no it was Atherton, when its England turn to chase the to 3 have a very imprtant role to play, but in all honesty what ever Australia put up i dont think England will get them.