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

[Dasa]

Unfortunately he's only made it past good starts once but he's been one of the few players not getting out to poor shots other than one when he had his dicky back.

I'd say the shot he played in the 2nd innings of the last Test was pretty poor. He did play extremely well upto that point though. Really ground it out with Katich and did what most of the Aus top order haven't done, i.e. make 'ugly' runs.

Hayden has been OOF for a period that outdates the Ashes by far.

OOF?

 

[age_master]

out of form?

 

[age_master]

Actually, I think England will be a bit vulnerable after this series. They've spent the last two years working towards the goal of winning the Ashes and if they do it, they could well suffer from 'well...... now what?' syndrome. Certainly, playing against anyone else will be one heck of a come-down. How they respond to that will be interesting.

well after england won the rugby world cup.....

 

[Slow Love™]

out of form?

Yep.

(And I don't mind if people classify that as mental, either, because it largely is.)

 

[twctopcat]

Actually, I think England will be a bit vulnerable after this series. They've spent the last two years working towards the goal of winning the Ashes and if they do it, they could well suffer from 'well...... now what?' syndrome. Certainly, playing against anyone else will be one heck of a come-down. How they respond to that will be interesting.

Perhaps, but i don't get that feeling about this team. They just play good cricket and try to win every time, the fact that its the aussies on the receiving end is just a bonus. Unless the team falls aparts and retires, we should be ok for a while yet.

 

[social]

Translation: Yah boo sucks it'll happen to you.

You know, that is quite the mardiest and most pathetic quote you've managed in this entire summer.

Sorry but it's in response to all these supposed know-it-alls that have come out of the woodwork following 15 years of domination.

Have Hayden, Gillespie, Gichrist, etc suddenly become mediocre cricketers because of one series?

Of course not.

As a fight fan, I think you'd be able to recognise similarities between some fans' reaction to the Aus team and the reaction of US boxing fans when Lennox got knocked on his butt by Rahman.

 

[SJS]

I have always felt he is the best young talent to come into the test arena from the time I have seen him and I have had no reason to change that opinion.

I have always been surprised at how many Australians do not think very highly of him. There seems to be something about him, other than his cricket which is not liked , it appears.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'd say the shot he played in the 2nd innings of the last Test was pretty poor. He did play extremely well upto that point though. Really ground it out with Katich and did what most of the Aus top order haven't done, i.e. make 'ugly' runs.

Ah yes, good point. Forgot about that one. Just fished at a length ball, didn't he? Still, at least he didn't get done by Ponting.

well after england won the rugby world cup.....

Remind me how many players they lost to retirement after that WC.

 

[Nate]

I think, regardless of what happens in the last game BUT especially if you win/draw it, it will be very important that England backs it up with another Test series win.

 

[Steulen]

I have always felt he is the best young talent to come into the test arena from the time I have seen him and I have had no reason to change that opinion.

I have always been surprised at how many Australians do not think very highly of him. There seems to be something about him, other than his cricket which is not liked , it appears.

Hmmm..I think it's mainly his FC statistics which are not brilliant that make people question him

 

[Tim]

England are still trying to wheel some of them out, they're that desperate.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Slightly OTT reaction - who's saying that?

I think more to the point is that
a) You're not as good as you were
b) You're nowhere near as good as you thought you were
c) The Poms are at last worthy opponents.

Valid, but as S_L said the trouble is when people say "well Australia are getting beaten now, ergo they were never any good and only did well because everyone else was even worse". The Australian team which beat South Africa 5-1 in 2001/02 was one of the best ever fielded and contained four all-time greats and several other players who were among the best in the world at the time. With the decline of the backup bowling and Hayden and the loss of the Waughs this team is obviously not quite as good, but it still has some damn fine players in it, regardless of how they performed in this series, and anyone who genuinely thinks Australia are done and are going to decline like the West Indies did is way off the mark.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Great news... Channel 4 are trying to offload the ****ty horse racing which would interrupt the coverage of the final Test on the Saturday.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/217640.html

 

[matty1818]

Your comparing the current Eng bowling line-up to attacks containing at least 2 greats?

Get over yourself.

Gilchrist is by far the best ever in his position.

Hayden has averaged over 50 in over 70 tests yet you compare him unfavourably to Tresco who has averaged way less than that in both his career AND in this series (where he has played well but benefitted massively from McGrath's absence, Gillespie's off-form and numerous let-offs).

On this basis, Strauss, Bell, and Vaughan are similarly incompetent batsmen whilst Giles must be amongst the worst bowlers ever.

My point was that the current england bowling attack contains 4 v good bowlers whilst the others i mentioned only had two, thus less pressure and variety. Secondly im over myself. Thirdly Gilchrist probably is the best in his position still doesnt make him a great batsmen, but a great keeper/batsmen.

Hayden has averaged over 50 but your not listening to what im saying, who has he averaged over 50 against? my point is that he hasnt come up against a consistent attack before. How can he be considered good if he can't bat against a better attack. Being a butcher of crappy attacks means nothing. Tres has averaged almost 50 in this test series against one of the best bowling attacks in the world. Who has hayden averaged 50 against? Wasn't he at like 75 early on in his career around the time of that sparkling well achieved triple hundred against... ... zimbabwe cough. Thats come down a bit hasnt it. I think your right it may well be possible that Bell is out of sorts against a pressure inducing skilled attack compared to the county game, but um Strauss and Vaughan have both achieved hundreds in this series whilst hayden has got a wacking 36 so far so don't quite know how you can compare that.

 

[Adamc]

The ICC Test Championship will look quite interesting after this series:

                                [B]  England           Australia[/B]
[B]Current rating:  [/B]                   114                 133
[B]Possible series outcomes: 	[/B]
England wins by 2 Tests 3-1 	    121                 126
England wins by 1 Test 2-1 	    119                 127
Series tied 2-2 	            117                 130
Australia wins by 1 Test 2-1 	    114                 132

Only five points in it if England win at The Oval, meaning they could conceivably be no. 1 by the end of the year.

 

[social]

My point was that the current england bowling attack contains 4 v good bowlers whilst the others i mentioned only had two, thus less pressure and variety. Secondly im over myself. Thirdly Gilchrist probably is the best in his position still doesnt make him a great batsmen, but a great keeper/batsmen.

Hayden has averaged over 50 but your not listening to what im saying, who has he averaged over 50 against? my point is that he hasnt come up against a consistent attack before. How can he be considered good if he can't bat against a better attack. Being a butcher of crappy attacks means nothing. Tres has averaged almost 50 in this test series against one of the best bowling attacks in the world. Who has hayden averaged 50 against? Wasn't he at like 75 early on in his career around the time of that sparkling well achieved triple hundred against... ... zimbabwe cough. Thats come down a bit hasnt it. I think your right it may well be possible that Bell is out of sorts against a pressure inducing skilled attack compared to the county game, but um Strauss and Vaughan have both achieved hundreds in this series whilst hayden has got a wacking 36 so far so don't quite know how you can compare that.

Bell has averaged 200 less than his career ave this series (artificially inflated as that may have been)

Strauss has averaged 20 less than his career ave despite having the benefit of a century where he was missed in single figures

Vaughan has averaged 10 less than his career despite having the benefit of scoring 166 after being missed twice in the 40s

Tresco has been considered a resounding success depite only maintaining his career ave of 44.

All this against a team that has fielded a first-choice, fully fit attack exactly once in the entire series

Gilchrist has scored 3 centuries this year and 4 from 5 innings prior to this series. Obviously, an ave of mid-50s, 14 or 15 hundreds (is that more than the total of the Eng team combined?), success the world over, and being voted the world's most dangerous batsmen by your test-playing peers doesnt count for much.

What's Hayden scored? 5000 runs at 52 in 71 tests. He is rated a great player universally yet is going through a slump (and not a horrible one at that).

Will he recover? Who knows but no-one in their right mind would ever rate the English duo as being even in the same neighbourhood as him class-wise.

England's top 3 bowlers have been excellent

Hoggard is ave as usual

Giles is very ordinary as usual

KP has been good but not outstanding

Jones still cant keep but has chipped in with the bat

That's been more than enough to see Eng dominate the last 3 tests but let's not get carried away with their performances either.

 

[Jamee999]

If he had won at OT, and win at the Oval, would we go top?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

The ICC Test Championship will look quite interesting after this series:

                                [B]  England           Australia[/B]
[B]Current rating:  [/B]                   114                 133
[B]Possible series outcomes: 	[/B]
England wins by 2 Tests 3-1 	    121                 126
England wins by 1 Test 2-1 	    119                 127
Series tied 2-2 	            117                 130
Australia wins by 1 Test 2-1 	    114                 132

Only five points in it if England win at The Oval, meaning they could conceivably be no. 1 by the end of the year.

That would involve an excellent series in Pakistan for England - at the moment, I'd think 1-1 or 2-1 England would be the outcomes of that series. Plus, Australia would have to lose to either WI or SA.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

well after england won the rugby world cup.....

Only posh twits and baffoons follow/play union over here. Anyone with any sense is a league fan (where we've won nothing really, granted).

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Great news... Channel 4 are trying to offload the ****ty horse racing which would interrupt the coverage of the final Test on the Saturday.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/217640.html

I'm at a bl00dy wedding on the Saturday so I'm having to invest in a LW portable radio for the ceremony/reception.

On the plus side, I'll be beastly drunk by 3pm