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

[honestbharani]

Doesn't really matter, guys. My comment "I don't think many batsmen hit their peak two months away from being 34, somehow.", was only supposed to counter an expectation that Hayden would be near his peak at 34. It's rare, but there are always gonna be exceptions, and you can usually count on Lara to be one.

His eventual retirement is probably one of the few (Steve Waugh was another) that is going to have me feeling very emotional, whenever it comes. I hope it's not soon.

Actually, we were just having a bit of fun with the word play, atleast that is what I thought. Nothing serious there. We were chilling out anyway, atleast, I was.


Yeah, I know. I am not sure how interesting cricket will be to watch once Lara retires. I might cry the day it happens.

 

[marc71178]

IMO Brett Lee has bowled well this series and has been very unlucky. He's had a host of drop catches, many near misses and he's bowled people off no-balls. I think his avg of 33 is a bit've a blow-out of what it really should be on.

Wickets off no balls are not bad luck, they are poor bowling.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Wickets off no balls are not bad luck, they are poor bowling.

Can anyone tell me how many no-balls Aus have bowled to England's, and how many wickets each side have taken from no-ies?

 

[Slow Love™]

Wickets off no balls are not bad luck, they are poor bowling.

I guess you could call it that - but aside from that issue, it seems more than likely that there is some small advantage in overstepping (particularly just how far over some of these no-balls are) that may just be the difference between a batsman getting beaten by pace or keeping the ball out.

 

[Dasa]

Can anyone tell me how many no-balls Aus have bowled to England's, and how many wickets each side have taken from no-ies?

Test by Test:
1st Test
England 19
Australia 8

2nd Test
England 28
Australia 23

3rd Test
England 35
Australia 29

4th Test
England 30
Australia 30

Going by memory, Australia have taken 3 wickets off of no-balls, England none as far as I can remember. Interesting that England have bowled more no-balls overall (112 vs Australia's 90) - they've just been less costly in terms of wickets, or so it seems.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Then why did you just pick out that one sentence from my post. In context that sentence makes sense when reading it in the whole post because I had reasons, I wasn't just stupidly making comments.

Force of habit, this snipping malarky. No offence intended.

 

[Slats4ever]

Wickets off no balls are not bad luck, they are poor bowling.

read dasa's post.
then you hopefully will reconsider

 

[vic_orthdox]

read dasa's post.
then you hopefully will reconsider

Especially (guessing here, but logical conclusion) considering that England have taken more wickets in the series and have bowled less overs. There is a fair element of luck involved - but it is still "poor bowling", no doubt. Both sides have been guilty of it, Australia punished for it more harshly.

 

[cameeel]

Especially (guessing here, but logical conclusion) considering that England have taken more wickets in the series and have bowled less overs. There is a fair element of luck involved - but it is still "poor bowling", no doubt. Both sides have been guilty of it, Australia punished for it more harshly.

Which says a lot about the quality of Australia's batting so far this series, full credit to the poms though

 

[Dasa]

read dasa's post.
then you hopefully will reconsider

I agree with Marc... no-balls are poor bowling, and both sides have bowled far too many. I think though, a lot of Australia's no-balls have been at the beginning of the innings (i.e. to Strauss and Tresco), and have been 'more expensive' in the context. I remember a lot of English no-balls coming from Flintoff especially when he's been bowling at the middle-order and tail.

 

[age_master]

Wickets off no balls are not bad luck, they are poor bowling.

no no-balls are bad bowling, wickets off them are not.

 

[Slats4ever]

of course they're poor bowling, but still suggests that Australia has got the roughest results out've bowling less

 

[Craig]

This is essentially what I just posted (although point (b) is pretty impossible to measure, and I DO think that side under Waugh was one of the best sides to play, if not the best).

What I find irritating (apart from the barrage of new trolling) are the constant extrapolations being made of the past, rather than the comments being made about the current series.

I will be interested in what you thought of Ian Chappell's opinion on Steve Waugh that was on A Current Affair tonight (if you saw it)?

For those who didn't see it he said Waugh was selfish, over-rated, and ran out of ideas too quickly when was under the pump and Bradman wasn't the greatest bloke compared with his cricket talents (those two never got on).

 

[Slow Love™]

I will be interested in what you thought of Ian Chappell's opinion on Steve Waugh that was on A Current Affair tonight (if you saw it)?

For those who didn't see it he said Waugh was selfish, over-rated, and ran out of ideas too quickly when was under the pump and Bradman wasn't the greatest bloke compared with his cricket talents (those two never got on).

Actually, I had heard about Chappelli's comments, mate, I think he just wrote an autobiography (or someone wrote his bio, one of the two). He's never been backwards in his opinions on these two men.

What Bradman and Waugh share is a sense of aloofness - and perhaps a level of distance between themselves and the team. I remember from watching the "Cricket in the 70's" doco that Chappell and Bradman banged heads over pay issues back when Ian was captain - by some accounts Bradman was somewhat elitist and had a touch of the "let them eat cake" about him.

It's no secret that Chappell always wanted Warne to captain Australia - and that, combined with his perception that Waugh wasn't really "one of the boys" (although I genuinely don't believe he thought himself better than anybody he played with, and I believe his conduct and support for the players under him establishes that pretty neatly) just spawned an intense dislike in Chappell. Obviously I disagree completely with his assessment of Waugh's captaincy and character, particularly the "selfish" part. I think Waugh was always very focussed, and socially, fairly shy, unlike the larrikins Chappell tends to favor.

Ponting was heavily favored initially by Chappell when he first got the captaincy, probably because he (Chappell) was so ecstatic that Waugh was gone. I think he's really cooled on Punter by now though.

Chappell's one of those strange characters of the game - I don't think he's a bad guy, but if you rub him up the wrong way (no matter how nebulous), he will hold a grudge forever. He was one of the best captains Australia have had though.

 

[Craig]

good news for Håkon, from cricinfo

"Such has been the global interest in the series that Channel 4 have been approached a number of countries, including Norway and Japan, to take coverage of the fifth Test. "

Fantastic

 

[cameeel]

Great news for the game in general

 

[Dasa]

What Bradman and Waugh share is a sense of aloofness - and perhaps a level of distance between themselves and the team. I remember from watching the "Cricket in the 70's" doco that Chappell and Bradman banged heads over pay issues back when Ian was captain - by some accounts Bradman was somewhat elitist and had a touch of the "let them eat cake" about him.

I remember that. It was quite amusing the way Chappell spoke about Bradman - even mocking his manner of speaking.

 

[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.

...well I thought this was a good point.

 

[Top_Cat]

Test by Test:
1st Test
England 19
Australia 8

2nd Test
England 28
Australia 23

3rd Test
England 35
Australia 29

4th Test
England 30
Australia 30

Going by memory, Australia have taken 3 wickets off of no-balls, England none as far as I can remember. Interesting that England have bowled more no-balls overall (112 vs Australia's 90) - they've just been less costly in terms of wickets, or so it seems.

Now that is strange. In our local rag, they said England had bowled 113 to Australia's 130..........

Either way, there's been too many no-balls from both sides but with bowlers trying their guts out as all of the bowlers have been, it must be tough to stay behind the line every time.

Chappell's one of those strange characters of the game - I don't think he's a bad guy, but if you rub him up the wrong way (no matter how nebulous), he will hold a grudge forever. He was one of the best captains Australia have had though.

Conversely, he always backed the players to the hilt, even to his own detriment. He had plenty of tactical nous but I always felt that his ability to inspire confidence in players by backing them, no matter what, was what set him apart. Certainly he does the same as a commentator; you're right about his opinion of Warne and he never has a bad word to say about him. Probably because Warnie would have fit right in with Chappelli's team in the 70's!

Chappelli was always straight down the line, positive and aggressive as a captain from what I've read. Whether he had positive or negative feedback for a player, he was always honest apparently. What more could anyone ask in a captain?

 

[Nate]

Looking at those numbers, they`re both bowling way too many.