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

[superkingdave]

He's on Graham Norton's show on BBC1 now, wearing a white suit

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I dont care even if Australia thrash us by an innings. 2-2 would be beyond my wildest dreams coming into this series. Apparently the weather forcast is not good for friday, although its great for thursday.

 

[marc71178]

I'm starting to think the Aussie tour bus must have run over a few black cats during the trip back from Lord's.

No more so than the England problems in previous series.

 

[honestbharani]

definatley, but Australia is still in a position to draw the series, which says something about both teams

It is true that England have faltered two times when victory has been in sight and Australia have grabbed that opportunity and made the most of it. But, they were also extremely lucky to have gotten away with a draw at OT.

 

[tassietiger]

It is true that England have faltered two times when victory has been in sight and Australia have grabbed that opportunity and made the most of it. But, they were also extremely lucky to have gotten away with a draw at OT.

Looking at it from another angle...there have been three close tests and none of them have gone Australia's way. We've wasted our opportunities with victory in sight IMO. The first Test, however, once Glenn got involved England were well and truly out of it.

 

[Storer123]

Looking at it from another angle...there have been three close tests and none of them have gone Australia's way. We've wasted our opportunities with victory in sight IMO. The first Test, however, once Glenn got involved England were well and truly out of it.

I think it was not Australia wasting oppurtunities but just running out of luck. They should not have had even the slightest chance in the last three Tests. I feel the reason for this is that the Australians have a reputation they have built up over the last 6 years that they don't wish to relinquish and England dont quite have the same winning mentality that the Australians have. Although in time i'm sure it will come.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think it was not Australia wasting oppurtunities but just running out of luck. They should not have had even the slightest chance in the last three Tests. I feel the reason for this is that the Australians have a reputation they have built up over the last 6 years that they don't wish to relinquish and England dont quite have the same winning mentality that the Australians have. Although in time i'm sure it will come.

What luck is that? At Edgbaston, Australia worked back into the game by knocking England over for a small score in their second innings. At Old Trafford they batted well despite difficult conditions, good bowling and a poor decision against Martyn and saved the game. At Trent Bridge, Australia batted well in the second innings and set a target and almost bowled England out. I don't really see how not quite getting enough wickets at TB or enough runs at Edgbaston is "running out of luck", it's Australia working their way back into the game by outplaying England and falling short, after England outplayed Australia earlier.

All three tests have followed that pattern really. England bat first on a good wicket and make a good score, Australia struggle with the bat and fall well behind and then fight their way back into the game and almost snatch it from England at the end. Australia isn't unlucky not to win and England aren't dominating Australia totally either, they're just close test matches between two good teams. If Australia bat first at The Oval there's no particular reason why you can't see a reversal of the trend, and if that does happen and Australia make a good score first up I don't think England will lie down and give up a series victory easily either.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Looking at it from another angle...there have been three close tests and none of them have gone Australia's way. We've wasted our opportunities with victory in sight IMO. The first Test, however, once Glenn got involved England were well and truly out of it.

This is only true of the second test, I think. Actually, I'm having some trouble working out how people are putting that down to England "totally outplaying" Australia. Australia were set a very gettable target on a pretty decent wicket in that game and totally fell apart. England got the first innings lead of course, but they were what, 9/130 in their second innings before Flintoff's innings? And even after Flintoff Australia only needed 282 to win, which was certainly an even-money scenario on a third day pitch. It wasn't until after Katich and Gilchrist got out in quick succession with about 150 to get that England looked to have the game in the bag.

The third and fourth tests were largely dominated by England, and Australia had to try and snatch a result from an almost certain defeat - they made an excellent fist of that on both occasions and fought back into the match, but I don't think you can say they were unlucky not to win at all. In the second test, there were times when I think England looked very likely to lose.

 

[Linda]

I dont care even if Australia thrash us by an innings. 2-2 would be beyond my wildest dreams coming into this series. Apparently the weather forcast is not good for friday, although its great for thursday.

Good, good. Just enough time to score 500 and then whip out Tresco and Strauss just before stumps.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

What luck is that? At Edgbaston, Australia worked back into the game by knocking England over for a small score in their second innings. At Old Trafford they batted well despite difficult conditions, good bowling and a poor decision against Martyn and saved the game. At Trent Bridge, Australia batted well in the second innings and set a target and almost bowled England out. I don't really see how not quite getting enough wickets at TB or enough runs at Edgbaston is "running out of luck", it's Australia working their way back into the game by outplaying England and falling short, after England outplayed Australia earlier.

All three tests have followed that pattern really. England bat first on a good wicket and make a good score, Australia struggle with the bat and fall well behind and then fight their way back into the game and almost snatch it from England at the end. Australia isn't unlucky not to win and England aren't dominating Australia totally either, they're just close test matches between two good teams. If Australia bat first at The Oval there's no particular reason why you can't see a reversal of the trend, and if that does happen and Australia make a good score first up I don't think England will lie down and give up a series victory easily either.

I agree that England have played the better cricket first up, and Australia have worked their way back into the games, to their credit. I disagree (again ) that the toss has much effect; reverse swing doesn't just materialise in the secong innings of a match, if England had bowled first they still would've made Aus struggle with the Irish ball IMO.
Clearly Warne would've been more lethal in that situation, which might have negated Jonah and Fred a little, but I still reckon you'd have struggled to post 400+ which leaves the door ajar.

All ifs and buts of course.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I agree that England have played the better cricket first up, and Australia have worked their way back into the games, to their credit. I disagree (again ) that the toss has much effect; reverse swing doesn't just materialise in the secong innings of a match, if England had bowled first they still would've made Aus struggle with the Irish ball IMO.
Clearly Warne would've been more lethal in that situation, which might have negated Jonah and Fred a little, but I still reckon you'd have struggled to post 400+ which leaves the door ajar.

All ifs and buts of course.

I wasn't really talking about the toss, just the fact that all three games have indeed had the same patten, which begins with England batting first on a good wicket and making 400+. Whether or not Australia batting first would have changed very much is anybody's guess, but that's what has happened.

 

[andyc]

Does anyone know how an oxygen chamber is meant to help Simon Jones get fit?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Does anyone know how an oxygen chamber is meant to help Simon Jones get fit?

Science.

 

[Linda]

Science.

Haha, its funny when Brits have a whizz at sports science.

 

[Hoggy31]

Haha, its funny when Brits have a whizz at sports science.

It's also funny when they try and eat pie

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Just on Sky Sports News, Jonah is officially out of the Oval Test.

Clicky

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

 

[twctopcat]

Son of a ...!!! That is savage news. All i can say is JIMMY!!!!!!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ahh well, was probably to be expected. The choice is there between Collingwood and Anderson now I guess. I'm guessing most here would rather Collingwood?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Ahh well, was probably to be expected. The choice is there between Collingwood and Anderson now I guess. I'm guessing most here would rather Collingwood?

Yeah I expected it TBH. Not sure about whom I want in. Colly isn't much of a bowler, so it wouldn't be like-for-like. Jimmy has taken a good haul this season, at 32 a piece but on a flat track, he can swing it at pace but is wayward at times.

Colly the "safe" option, an extra bat, but against Warne he might struggle.

I'll go for Jimmy.

 

[simmy]

Hell yes.

Anderson could get spanked... and Collingwood's inclusion would leave Jones at number 8, which in turn is a serious batting line up.

Flintoff is going to have a lot of work to do with Jonah missing. He's set up to be the hero again.