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

[Burpey]

Hours later... and I still can`t get over it.

Makes me want to play my cricket better for sure. Also makes me want comfort in the form of my ex...

You got the 7000th post mate ... congrats

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Hours later... and I still can`t get over it.

Makes me want to play my cricket better for sure. Also makes me want comfort in the form of my ex...

Just imagine how we'd have felt if we'd lost that one. In fact I don't think you can imagine it, so don't bother.

 

[Nate]

Just imagine how we'd have felt if we'd lost that one. In fact I don't think you can imagine it, so don't bother.

Nah, I don`t think anyone can. Doesn`t bother to think about either...

I`m so lonely!

 

[Nate]

You got the 7000th post mate ... congrats

My one achievement for today...

I`m so lonely!

 

[luckyeddie]

why not? if the pitch is turning Macgill would be a far better option than Kaspa or Dizzy

Do you trust Ricky Ponting to know what a turning wicket looks like?

After all, he thought he saw a seaming one last week.

I look forward to Australia playing two seamers - that is a sure-fire recipe for something going dreadfully wrong with one of them, such as the Aussie coach saying "Come on, Brett, we're going for a game of touch-puffs-rugby now" and Lee stepping back anxiously saying "No fear, I saw what happened to Pigeon" - straight into the lady carrying the cakes up to Bearders and the TMS team, and getting Battenburged to death.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I've been on holiday in Rome since Saturday, but I caught Freddie's heroics at Heathrow and saw CNN's World Sport bulletin last night - and holy moly, what a game. These Romans need to get into cricket pretty damn soon, or I won't be coming here again for fear of MISSING THE GREATEST ASHES TEST EVER!!!!!!!!

On another note, well done England for holding their nerve, well done Aussies for taking it so far, well done Freddie for being an absolute f***ing legend, and well done Harmy for that unbelieveable slower ball to get Clarke out.

See you on Friday when I get home, guys. Let's hope Old Trafford is coming to a boil nicely.

 

[marc71178]

BTW, there is no such thing as a "very good" 20 in test cricket.

Suggests you weren't watching the game.

 

[Slats4ever]

suggests that it's his opinion and just because u don't agree wiht it doesn't mean that he wasn't watching the game.

 

[Top_Cat]

He has received some good balls but how well has he played them?

As well as anyone could. It's not as if he's been the only one to fall over.

Look, as I've said, it's all too easy in hindsight and when you're not out there but that said...........

McGrath moved one into him down the slope and he left a gaping hole between bat and pad whilst rooted on the crease and towards leg stump.

It wasn't that big a gap for mine. For two, even knowing that McGrath is going to move the ball in due to the slope doesn't mean you're going to be successful in playing the ball. Geez, batsmen were picking Warnie's flipper for years before they finally figured out how to play it and even then, his injury was probably what nullified it somewhat so I don't think batsmen we're playing it that well beforehand. I maintain there was very little wrong with Bell's technique and there was very little he could do with such superb use of the conditions. Glenn McGrath doesn't average 12 per wicket at Lords for no reason. He's played there three times now yet no-one has figured out how to play him effectively. Why? Again, even when you know what the ball is going to do, there's still the minor issue of coping with it. Bell left enough of a gap but at least he didn't get nowhere near the ball like Vaughan.

He was trapped in the second innings by a leggie that didnt spin but was still playing back to a full length delivery.

It wasn't played perfectly but again, he picked a ball which 99/100 times would have spun past the off-stump by a considerable margin. Certainly the best players of spin would have looked to cover that possibility but hey, I'd suggest he's learnt his lesson. Of his four dismissals, this one is the one you could say he contributed most to his own downfall but that's not saying much.

In the second test, he got a good ball from Kaspa in the first innings but again there was insufficient foot movement to cover his off stump adequately.

I'm sorry but I saw that one differently. I saw him get across enough but the ball was angled in and cut away sharply. It was a great ball, especially early on in his innings when the feet aren't moving decisively and the head is still getting into gear. If he didn't move his feet at all, he probably would have just missed it because he wouldn't have been across enough to nick it. Are you going to criticise Ponting for playing at his delivery in the second innings? I mean he could have left that one, right? WRONG; it was wide of off-stump but it moved away sharply and rew the false shot. All credit to Freddie for amazing bowling and although Kasper's didn't move as much or at such speed, it was still a really good ball to get early.

Second innings was just as bad as being bowled around his legs IMO. No need to play when the ball pitches outside leg.

This statement only makes sense if the ball had stayed outside leg-stump. The ball pitched outside leg-stump and spun past off-stump. Who on Earth wouldn't have played at that? Imagine the opposite scenario; a batsman is facing an off-spinner turning it sharply and gets one which pitches outside off-stump and past leg-stump, he gets a nick and is caught behind down the leg-side. Would you honestly say that he would have been able to predict it was going to spin so far and didn't need to play at it? Of course not. Give the ball the credit it deserves and give Bell the credit he deserves for even getting a touch on such a great ball. The fact you'd even question Bell on this one makes me wonder whether you've ever had to play a leggie turning it miles bowling around the wicket. It's far from easy and it's not a simple matter of just kicking the ball away or leaving it go. Yes it spun heaps and would have missed the stumps but there's no way you could let it go and be 100% it was going to spin as much as it appeared it would. We're playing on turf pitches, not matting; sometimes the ball doesn't do what it's 'supposed' to and isn't so easy to predict.

Undoubtedly he will be spared by virtue of England's victory but there is absolutely nothing in his performances to date to suggest that anything will change (likewise Jones and Hoggard) for the better.

It's all about perception. See I saw plenty in his technique, application and the fact he consistently played with a straight bat and was decisive with his footwork to suggest that if he gets a normal start (i.e. no absolute jaffers in the first 20 balls he faces), he'll go on and get a good score.

But u do need to play at the ball when it pitches outside off and is turning back in

Yes but he did, in a way. He tried to pad it away and the ball beat him. It was a good ball; give it some credit for beating a really good batsman. If he used his bat, there's no guarantee he would have hit it. A ball changing direction so suddenly is damn tough to play.

 

[Mister Wright]

Suggests you weren't watching the game.

I doubt he would have been saying the same thing about Kasprowicz's 20 if Australia had of won the test. I fail to see how that wouldn't have been a 'very good' 20.

 

[nick-o]

For me the match was won by Giles just as much as Flintoff. The guy was getting bagged by the media all week and I thought he was ordinary to, but put him on the right pitch at the right time and he's a match winner.

I think that's a really good point.

Gil-o ain't no world-beater, and something of a weak link in the team; but despite all the pressure on him and all the effort to basically knock him out of the series, he stood up and performed, and showed his worth.

That's what makes the current England team different from the teams of the last few decades.

Great to see an unchanged team for the 3rd, and the vindication that offers everyone considered a weak link. Nowadays they all get the chance -- no panic, no frights.

 

[Josh]

I'm struggling to find out how someone has mentioned to bring Symonds into the team when he isn't even in the squad...

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm struggling to find out how someone has mentioned to bring Symonds into the team when he isn't even in the squad...

Neither is Watson.

It's bordering on the ridiculous. After all the talk for so long about how England have chopped and changed sides over the past Ashes series, and then when they were thrashed this time stayed with the same side - clearly a positive sign. But now when Australia lose by 2 runs (clearly the margin flattered them, but still) there is all this talk about making drastic changes to the side, exactly the type of thing which has contributed to England not seeing the urn in their hands (figuratively speaking) for so long.

 

[Steulen]

Neither is Watson.

It's bordering on the ridiculous. After all the talk for so long about how England have chopped and changed sides over the past Ashes series, and then when they were thrashed this time stayed with the same side - clearly a positive sign. But now when Australia lose by 2 runs (clearly the margin flattered them, but still) there is all this talk about making drastic changes to the side, exactly the type of thing which has contributed to England not seeing the urn in their hands (figuratively speaking) for so long.

The point is that Australia might benefit from bringing in MacGill, but that just 2 seamers might make them a bit light in that department, especially if neither of the two is called McGrath. The solution might be to bring in Watson or Symonds. It has been tried before, was not terribly succsful, but might be a valid option for a real turner, which Old Trafford could be.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The point is that Australia might benefit from bringing in MacGill, but that just 2 seamers might make them a bit light in that department, especially if neither of the two is called McGrath. The solution might be to bring in Watson or Symonds. It has been tried before, was not terribly succsful, but might be a valid option for a real turner, which Old Trafford could be.

Hopefully England will have ordered a green top to try and blunt out Shane Warne and hope that our seamers will make better use of it than an Australian attack without McGrath.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That ball pitched just outside leg-stump and forced the stroke. He did have to play at it because he wouldn't have had any idea how far it was going to turn. Imagine if, considering his second-innings dismissal at Lords, he'd left it and been out bowled around his legs. You would have been tearing him a new one (and rightly so).

This is completely nonsensical, all you have to do is cover the stumps with your pads, that's it, no matter how much or little it turns you're in no danger. If Warne wants to ball 20-20-0-0 in that situation let him.

It pitched 6 inches outside leg stump with no drift whatsoever - only an idiot plays defensively at that with the bat - it wasn't like Gatting's ball where it drifted outside leg stump really late.

 

[simmy]

That would just be too perfect.

Problem is.. is that Old Trafford is notorious for being a spinners track.

 

[simmy]

Poor old Gatting. He's only talked about these days because of that ball!

 

[Shane Warne]

Hopefully England will have ordered a green top to try and blunt out Shane Warne and hope that our seamers will make better use of it than an Australian attack without McGrath.

Warne and Macgill have to play at Old Trafford or else Australia will lose again.;

 

[Scaly piscine]

--
Originally Posted by Slats4ever


"For me the match was won by Giles just as much as Flintoff. The guy was getting bagged by the media all week and I thought he was ordinary to, but put him on the right pitch at the right time and he's a match winner. "
--



I think that's a really good point.

Gil-o ain't no world-beater, and something of a weak link in the team; but despite all the pressure on him and all the effort to basically knock him out of the series, he stood up and performed, and showed his worth.

That's what makes the current England team different from the teams of the last few decades.

Great to see an unchanged team for the 3rd, and the vindication that offers everyone considered a weak link. Nowadays they all get the chance -- no panic, no frights.

Except he wasn't a match winner and wasn't anywhere near as important in the game as Flintoff. He really should have been looking at 5 wicket haul in that second innings, not a bit part effort.