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

[sqwerty]

at the end of the day, the toss had absolutely null effect on this game.

oh right...is that so???? good toss to lose I guess?? turn it up

 

[tooextracool]

I think I may have been one of them. And was it you who said that Hayden was a Flat Track Bully? 'Cause I said he was past it, and we both appear (so far) to be rather on the mark.

that would be me. not particularly surprising to see that either.

 

[vic_orthdox]

oh right...is that so???? good toss to lose I guess?? turn it up

Didn't really notice the wicket getting any worse to bat on.

 

[luckyeddie]

As for the Oval.....should be a good batting deck with the ball coming on. More like an Australian deck than any other. Australia have no excuses.

I'm sure you'll find some.

 

[tooextracool]

oh right...is that so???? good toss to lose I guess?? turn it up

so what then? pontings team batted like absolute duds against quality swing bowling in the first innings. not like thats surprising given that most of their players havent exactly faced quality swing bowling for either their entire careers(hayden, katich) or for a very long time. the toss wouldnt have changed that, and with the follow on, australia ended up not having to bat in the 4th inning on a pitch that was starting to play a few tricks on the batsmen.

 

[tooextracool]

Interested to hear your thoughts on Tait now that you've seen him, TEC.

i dont rate him as anything above the 'ordinary' category. hes less of a slinger than i thought he was, but the problem with his action is the falling over and having to bowl wide from the crease which makes it impossible for him to gain any sort of accuracy and no matter how much you say it, bowling without any accuracy is going to do more harm than good in over a career.

 

[tooextracool]

Which is, and always has been, my reservation about it.

What do you do if 15 replays are inconclusive?

the same thing you do when the umpires on the field are even more inconclusive about a particular decision.

 

[tooextracool]

I have always liked Alec Stewart. But can a Jones become a Stewart? Long shot. Stewart looked a solid batsman. Jones is more on the mould of Parthiv Patel. Indians also wanted to stick with him and show more faith.

theres only one problem with jones:

hes a complete dumba** and if theres any talent that he has, hes just too stupid to be able to use it often enough.

 

[Nuffy]

TEC

Its about the context of the match, of course Australia's 1st innings looks bad but you have failed to acknowledge the following:

Eng were 5/241 when Flintoff gets a generous decision from Bucknor, hes goes on to making 102. Jones gets another piece of charity when on 30, goes on to make 85.

Then Eng get the chance of attacking the Australians having just made 477, the Australian batsmen are under the hammer before the innings has even started, do you think they would have been under as much pressure if they were chasing a follow on mark of 101, instead of 278.

Then to compound the Flintoff and Jones errors, both Ponting and Martyn are given out LBW after edging the ball onto their pads.

Within that context the Australian first innings must be judged, its fair to say that swing bowling has caused some concerns, but we seem to be unable to receive the benefit of the doubt when batting and when bowling, the umpires are liberally applying the benefit of the doubt. All we want is consistency when the umpires are making a decision, to this point there has been none.

I'm sure that the English supporters will be so happy to accept an Australian victory in the 5th test on the back of some of the decisions we saw in the 4th test if England are the ones copping the roughies.

Its so easy to be flippant about the results of the decisions when they are running your way, lets see how happy you are if you lose the 5th test on the back of some.

 

[tooextracool]

1. Na bell is good he has had a tough battle this summer & his 2 50's at OT proved to me that he coulld become Englands next ice-man ala Graham Thorpe

i cant see how anyone can be convinced about bell after his performances this series. 2 50s under the least of pressure and in at least one of them he looked like getting out at nearly every point of his innings. add that to the fact that his technique against spin is 'questionable'.

 

[honestbharani]

First of all, well played to England. They still have issues about finishing the game off, they seem to get too tense at that stage, but I hope that improves as time goes on.


First of all, let there be no doubt about a couple of things. One, England have been the better side all series, all this talk about umpiring and stuff is just crap. Shane Warne is plumb LBW in the very next over after Katich was given out, I cannot believe people still don't understand that these things even out. At OT, Ponting was plumb LBW and then he went on to bat another 12 deliveries before he got out. WE can very well say that England would have won had they got those 12 deliveries at McGrath. Ponting, to me, did NOT get an inside edge. End of story. Martyn, yes, that was a toughie and so was Katich's. And I think Langer was plumb LBW on the penultimate day off Vaughan at OT as well. So all this talk about umpiring won't take anyone anywhere. I still don't think how Australia have had the worser of the umpiring. After all, when you have blokes like Warney and Ponting over appealing for everything, it is always on the cards that a couple of good shouts will be turned down. AFAIC, Australia brought it down upon themselves. And please don't even get me started about Ponting being angry that he was run out. I have always said that I don't think Ponting is the best choice as captain for Australia and all this is only proving that thought right.



Secondly, as well as England have played, I still think Australia came into this series rather ****ily and thought they were going to wallop England as usual. And the Lords test would have taken them to the other side of the fine line between confidence and arrogance. Their batsmen have absolutely refused to graft (exceptions are always there) and their bowlers, well, with the exception of Warne, this attack is as bad as the one that played against India in 2003 in Australia. Tait seriously looks like the fast bowling version of MacGill, and while he is not that bad and can even win matches for Australia, against good batting sides on flat tracks, he is a major risk. Ponting has been forced to employ 4 men on the boundary for most of this test match and I cannot see a side that has to employ such tactics winning a test match.



All in all, England have been the side that have worked harder going into this series and they have been the side who have worked harder in the series and hence they have played better. They have outplayed Australia in every department and I think they will be worthy winners of this series. My gut feeling is that England will win the next one at The Oval as well (if it rains, it will be a draw, obviously). And I think, whatever happens at The Oval, this series would be England's in my mind, given the fact that Australia were facing certain defeat at OT and without the rain, they may have well lost it.

 

[tooextracool]

TEC

Its about the context of the match, of course Australia's 1st innings looks bad but you have failed to acknowledge the following:

Eng were 5/241 when Flintoff gets a generous decision from Bucknor, hes goes on to making 102. Jones gets another piece of charity when on 30, goes on to make 85.

Then Eng get the chance of attacking the Australians having just made 477, the Australian batsmen are under the hammer before the innings has even started, do you think they would have been under as much pressure if they were chasing a follow on mark of 101, instead of 278.

Then to compound the Flintoff and Jones errors, both Ponting and Martyn are given out LBW after edging the ball onto their pads.

Within that context the Australian first innings must be judged, its fair to say that swing bowling has caused some concerns, but we seem to be unable to receive the benefit of the doubt when batting and when bowling, the umpires are liberally applying the benefit of the doubt. All we want is consistency when the umpires are making a decision, to this point there has been none.

I'm sure that the English supporters will be so happy to accept an Australian victory in the 5th test on the back of some of the decisions we saw in the 4th test if England are the ones copping the roughies.

Its so easy to be flippant about the results of the decisions when they are running your way, lets see how happy you are if you lose the 5th test on the back of some.

i certainly dont remember this 'generous' decision against flintoff.
this sort of reaction is exactly why i support technology, because i dont believe that any person can ever look beyond poor decisions to say 'the better team won in the end'.
as far as australia is concerned, their bowlers were so mediocre in the first innings, that if they bowled out england for anything less than 300, it would be an absolute disgrace. there isnt that much doubt that england have outbowled australia by a considerable margin in this series, the only question that remains, and will remain even after the series is done is whether england have actually batted better or even at the same level as the aussie batters. because a combination of poor catching and poor umpiring decisions will be used against them.

 

[sqwerty]

so what then? pontings team batted like absolute duds against quality swing bowling in the first innings. not like thats surprising given that most of their players havent exactly faced quality swing bowling for either their entire careers(hayden, katich) or for a very long time. the toss wouldnt have changed that, and with the follow on, australia ended up not having to bat in the 4th inning on a pitch that was starting to play a few tricks on the batsmen.

you're missing the point re: the toss. On a flat track you're coming out to chase a big total if you've lost the toss - bit different to batting first I think you'll agree if you've played any cricket in your life.

As for Australia not having to bat last....Australia were so far behind by the time they batted in the second innings that it made no difference where they batted. England had to chase 130 on a good deck and look what a meal of it they made.

Believe me....that was a big toss to win (you could see it in Ponting's face) and I believe that it's highly likely with the way these games are going that whoever wins the toss at the Oval will win the Ashes assuming the weather holds off.

 

[tooextracool]

think he's referring to OT when he was about to start an over and went of, Harmison replaced him

or maybe if vaughan had actually bowled him at the right times.

 

[honestbharani]

From England's point of view, I hope Jones is fit for the next test. And I hope Geraint Jones actually gets better as a keeper, he almost cost them this game. And I hope, for God's sakes, Pieterson learns to catch. My mom can catch better than him. The stupid ball doesn't just stick into his hands at all. I was struggling to see what he was doing wrong. He does nothing wrong. His hands are in the right position, he gets to the ball well enough, the ball just doesn't stick. I hope he gets better AND SOON. And I hope Bell gets better as well, although honestly, I still stick by my views on him after the first two tests.... Thorpe would have been a better choice by light years.

 

[vic_orthdox]

i certainly dont remember this 'generous' decision against flintoff.

Warne's slider. Might have hit leg, tough to tell. They usually give about every second one of them, in all honesty.

 

[tooextracool]

you're missing the point re: the toss. On a flat track you're coming out to chase a big total if you've lost the toss - bit different to batting first I think you'll agree if you've played any cricket in your life.

As for Australia not having to bat last....Australia were so far behind by the time they batted in the second innings that it made no difference where they batted. England had to chase 130 on a good deck and look what a meal of it they made.

Believe me....that was a big toss to win (you could see it in Ponting's face) and I believe that it's highly likely with the way these games are going that whoever wins the toss at the Oval will win the Ashes assuming the weather holds off.

err the thing was that bowlers did get assistance from the conditions at TB. fact is that none of the australian bowlers got the ball to swing, which is all their fault, not the toss. even ponting got the ball to swing. australia bowled poorly in the first inning, england bowled well in the 1st innings, and theres little reason to believe that had the toss been reversed,anything would have changed. and if england had batted in the 3rd inning instead of the 4th, it would have been an obvious advantage for them.

 

[tooextracool]

Exactly, me thinks they love the pressure, but they will be 'on' come the oval and so will the great man, Sir Pigeon. Our best bowling attack of the series

Warne
Lee
Tait
McGrath

no, your best bowling attack for the game at the oval would be:

mcgrath
lee
macgill
warne

and it would be ludicrous to think otherwise.

 

[sqwerty]

i certainly dont remember this 'generous' decision against flintoff.
this sort of reaction is exactly why i support technology, because i dont believe that any person can ever look beyond poor decisions to say 'the better team won in the end'.
as far as australia is concerned, their bowlers were so mediocre in the first innings, that if they bowled out england for anything less than 300, it would be an absolute disgrace. there isnt that much doubt that england have outbowled australia by a considerable margin in this series, the only question that remains, and will remain even after the series is done is whether england have actually batted better or even at the same level as the aussie batters. because a combination of poor catching and poor umpiring decisions will be used against them.

This I agree with...and this is the why England are leading.

re: Englands batting: I think if McGrath was fit we might have seen a different scenario. England are getting off to flyers now because the Aussie new ball pair are bowling poorly in tandem and England have got their tails up knowing they don't have to deal with McGrath.

I think it would have been a different story if Mcgrath was on deck after the way he dominated at Lords. All the press at that stage was how good he was and how stupid Hoggard was for saying he was over the hill.

The whole series turned when he trod on that ball.

 

[honestbharani]

no, your best bowling attack for the game at the oval would be:

mcgrath
lee
macgill
warne

and it would be ludicrous to think otherwise.

Absolutely, I am still not convinced about England's ability against spin and that is reason enough for that bowling line up to take the field... unless they really, really want to give Tresco his first 100 against Australia.