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

[social]

Yes I am - the plan England were enacting was to get him to play that sort of shot.



Runs were not more important than time when he was batting on the 2nd afternoon in the 3rd innings of the match.

Agree with Marc here.

Clarke had raced to 91 and Hoggard was bowling his usual non-new ball rubbish. There was unlimited time left and the only answers that Vaughan had at the time was to have his bowlers bowl 2 feet outsite off and hope Clarke chased it - which he did.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes I am - the plan England were enacting was to get him to play that sort of shot.

yes and his plan throughout the inning was to play aggresively, and it worked until that point.

Runs were not more important than time when he was batting on the 2nd afternoon in the 3rd innings of the match.

runs are more important than time unless you're playing for a draw or you've just come in, neither of which was happening at the time.

 

[tooextracool]

Caddick is struggling with shin splints.

hmm i did not know that. cricinfo put him down as a possible option though, so i thought he would be fit.

 

[tooextracool]

hahaha you are a harsh critic TEC , but please give Mr.Anderson some praise he is a lancastrian.......

tell me, given that i havent watched much of anderson since SA and you probably have, have you seen any improvement in anderson since then? does anderson look like a better bowler than what he was when he first made his debut?

 

[aussie]

tell me, given that i havent watched much of anderson since SA and you probably have, have you seen any improvement in anderson since then? does anderson look like a better bowler than what he was when he first made his debut?

well i'll have to face it, NO anderson hasn't looked the bowler that made his debut at all this season his form for Lancashire has been very incosistent (something like 1 or 2 5 for's this season), sturggling for consistency etc & i for one didn't expect him to play at all this summer......

 

[vic_orthdox]

Alright, I did this little piece on the 2nd May. Thought I'd look back on it.

Alright. Being dead bored and all, here are my thoughts on the Ashes.

1. England bowlers, not batmen, hold the key. Australia loves to be the bullys, especially with the bat. When they post a big score in their first innings, they are rarely beaten. It doesn't matter if you post a 350+ score against Australia when your batting first. So many times we've seen Australia pile on scores of 500 plus to demoralise their opponents.

Hmmm, sort of right. I think that the bully part has been shown up a little bit - when Australia have had the added pressure of the opposition having a big total on the board, they're batsmen have struggled in the first innings. When they've been well behind, with not much to lose, they've been a bit better.

If England can roll Australia cheaply the first time around, it places a lot more pressure on Australia than making a big score, IMO.

Probably wrong on this count. It's been the pressure of the big scores that the England bats have put on the board that have placed Australia under pressure, and in the one case where Aus got rolled quickly first up, they fought back and won the Test easily.

While it is a lot easier said than done, rarely have Australia faced a five man bowling attack in recent times, and even when they attack one of them, and it will invariably come off during stages of the series, they are able to cover that and employ another fully-recognised bowler, something that most teams have not been able to do successfully so far.

That's one to me! The five bowlers have provided an enoromous advantage to England, and one of the key reasons why they are up at this stage. It has also re-emphasised to the rest of the world the importance of a high quality all-rounder, and I'd expect to see more of them played in the next year or two - most of them not up to standard, but tried anyhow.

It also damages the psyche of the bowlers, suddenly they aren't able to attack so freely because they don't have runs behind them, fields are more defensive and starts easier to come by.

Another thing that has had a massive effect on the bowlers. Rarely have Australia been able to attack for sustained periods due to England's aggresive nature with the bat, and the advantage they've carried from early on in each of the last three Tests.

Therefore in my eyes, the key to England winning the Ashes lies in the hands of Hoggard and Harmison. This is because a number of the Australians (Langer, Hayden, Clarke, and even Ponting) have had problems in the past against the swinging ball (supplied mainly by Hoggard), while some (Clarke, Hayden vs Shoaib last series) do seem worried about pace and more so bounce (supplied mainly by Harmison). If these two are on song, then England will win 2 tests.

My theory was OK, but in terms of who would be executing it, I was wrong. It's been mostly Jones (and Hoggard on occassion) who has done the damage with swing - at above 90mph to boot, while Flintoff has provided pace, bounce and movement from the other end to be a main destroyer.

2. Singles. Many people talk about how vulnerable Australia looked in that series against New Zealand in 2000/01. Not many talk about how many singles New Zealand took during that series. While they may have left a lot more of McGrath and Gillespie alone than normal, what they also didn't allow them to do was settle in on a line and length, they were all over any chance to drop and run. It is even more so important against Warne, who adores the chance to work over a batsman, which can be denied especially when the field is attacking, with two men close in, etc. If England can do this, then suddenly they're making 400 instead of 290 - 320.

England's running this series has been exemplary, and has been very important in Australia's bowlers seemingly struggling for rhythm. They've been denied the chance to work over a batsmen, and then when the four ball comes (more regularly as a result, too) then they're scoring at a much higher rate - we've seen the Poms score at 5 an over for extended periods regularly this series.

3. Gilchrist. So many times against Australia they are at 5 for "not enough" only for Gilchrist to blast runs. Maybe not 100, but enough to make sure Australia has a competitive total. Gilchrist does not have the greatest record in England (re: 1999 world cup, last Ashes he was giftwrapped a lot of runs), so if any team has a chance of curbing Gilchrist, it is this English side over in the mother country.

Another one on the money! Flintoff has bowled exceptionally well to him - many other countries have similar plans to what England has had for Gilchrist, but thus far it's really only been one bowler who has had the discipline and skill to make it work since Gilchrist's Test career has begun. And as such, Australia have struggled to post competitive scores.

4. Ashley Giles. Against so many teams, he churns out overs, building pressure from one end. Historically, Australia does not let that happen. If Australia get on top of hiim, and take him "downtown", suddenly a lot more pressure is put on England's fourth seamer, Jones/Anderson/whoever, who is yet to be proven and will also be targetted.

Giles has been massively important this series, having not leaked runs too easily in any match since the First Test. His building of pressure has had an immeasurable effect on the series thus far, and has bowled at a length that has really worried the Australian batsmen - we've seen him take a large percentage of his wickets where the batsman has been unsure of whether to go forward or back.

Once again, historically, younger pups don't succeed versus Australia. Even look at Pathan, who everyone raved about when he played them in 02/03. Look at the Pakistani players (in the tests) this year at home. If they are exposed, then you'd back Australia to savage them, England would be taking in these bowlers thinking htat if they go for 4 an over but take 2 wickets, its probably a win for them. If they do get taken to, your suddenly down to three bowlers, one of them batting at 6, who has the responsibility of saving a batting lineup when its in trouble, as well as shouldering much of the bowling. Something's gotta give there, and its more likely to be England.

Importantly, Jones has stood up for England. And Freddie has been able to stand up to the massive workload put on him. That's a fresh air shot by me then

However, if Giles is sending down overs, then this gives England the chance to rotate its bowlers and ensure that each one is fresh at the start of each spell, meaning that Australia is copping a more relentless and consistent bowling attack all day, and less likely to have one of those one hour bursts which take the game away from the opposition like we see so often (e.g. clarke and gilchrist, vs new zealand at the Gabba).

We've seen England control the game and the tempo for the majority of the series, and Giles has played a major role in this. When he's come on, he's gotten through his overs quick, giving the Aussies the least amount of respite possible as he gets through a maiden in three minutes, and suddenly you have Flintoff/Harmison/Jones coming at you from the other end again. He's helped make the four prong pace attack even more relentless.

5. Finally, luck. England needs to take screamers, have a few lucky poles at crucial times and for decisions to go their way. And as the saying says, fortune favours the brave. They have to be entering each game in an attacking frame of mind. And no matter the circumstance, at the end of the hour they can always reassess, and continue attacking. No team seems to have done that to Australia since India in 2002/03.

England have had luck go there way at some crucial stages, but so have Australia. Importantly, England have capitalised on their luck in better fashion, and as such it seems as though they've been much more fortunate, when they probably haven't been. They've been ultra attacking all series, have planned extremely well, and thus results have paid off for them.

Here's hoping for a wonderful series. And that this is the last of my nonsensical ravings at 3:17 in the morning.

It's been a well wonderful series. And there's been plenty more rants and raves at 3:17 AM since

In fact if you compare Aust in 89 to Eng now, its a lil the sameish...(if i rig around with the English line up). Not always in class, but often in teh type and stage of development of the players.

G. Marsh = M. Trescothick
M. Taylor = A. Strauss
D. Boon = M. Vaughan
D. Jones = K. Pieterson
A. Border = M. Butcher??? (bit of a difference there)
S. Waugh = A Flintoff
I. Healy = G. Jones
T. Hohns = A Giles
M. Hughes = S. Harmison
T. Alderman = M. Hoggard
G. Lawson = S. Jones/anyone else you'd like

That looks even better now And the result is looking like a similar upset!

 

[tooextracool]

for a captain, ponting certainly does have his way with words doesn't he?
"It would be unfair if it was my fault if we lost this Ashes series"
good to see how positive he is that even before the last test, hes defending his captaincy for losing the series.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The latest speculation seems to be that Australia will pick five bowlers including Clark if McGrath isn't fit, meaning I guess Lee/Kasprowicz/Clark/Warne/Macgill. I'm not sure what on earth Tait has done to be dropped when he was clearly a lot more dangerous than Kasprowicz at Trent Bridge, but if they're going to pick Clark I don't think Tait will play, which seems like a big mistake. I wouldn't be totally opposed to Clark coming in for Kasprowicz if the selectors really back him to do well, since Kasprowicz hasn't been effective and Clarke's in decent form, but I don't think he's a particularly brilliant bowler and I doubt he'll take many wickets on a flat pitch.

Hopefully McGrath plays, sanity prevails and Lee and Tait are picked. Macgill wouldn't be a totally awful option either, but as the pitch is likely to be flat I'd rather see Tait in there, particularly with McGrath as he will be more effective when he can be replaced or accompanied by an accurate, economical seamer.

 

[honestbharani]

there'd be questions about whether collingwood would actually be good enough to edge some of them.

That won't be necessarily bad, esp. if he were not good enough to nick them with 2 overs to go and he has Anderson at the other end.

 

[honestbharani]

Alright, I did this little piece on the 2nd May. Thought I'd look back on it.

Hmmm, sort of right. I think that the bully part has been shown up a little bit - when Australia have had the added pressure of the opposition having a big total on the board, they're batsmen have struggled in the first innings. When they've been well behind, with not much to lose, they've been a bit better.

Probably wrong on this count. It's been the pressure of the big scores that the England bats have put on the board that have placed Australia under pressure, and in the one case where Aus got rolled quickly first up, they fought back and won the Test easily.

That's one to me! The five bowlers have provided an enoromous advantage to England, and one of the key reasons why they are up at this stage. It has also re-emphasised to the rest of the world the importance of a high quality all-rounder, and I'd expect to see more of them played in the next year or two - most of them not up to standard, but tried anyhow.
Another thing that has had a massive effect on the bowlers. Rarely have Australia been able to attack for sustained periods due to England's aggresive nature with the bat, and the advantage they've carried from early on in each of the last three Tests.

My theory was OK, but in terms of who would be executing it, I was wrong. It's been mostly Jones (and Hoggard on occassion) who has done the damage with swing - at above 90mph to boot, while Flintoff has provided pace, bounce and movement from the other end to be a main destroyer.


England's running this series has been exemplary, and has been very important in Australia's bowlers seemingly struggling for rhythm. They've been denied the chance to work over a batsmen, and then when the four ball comes (more regularly as a result, too) then they're scoring at a much higher rate - we've seen the Poms score at 5 an over for extended periods regularly this series.

Another one on the money! Flintoff has bowled exceptionally well to him - many other countries have similar plans to what England has had for Gilchrist, but thus far it's really only been one bowler who has had the discipline and skill to make it work since Gilchrist's Test career has begun. And as such, Australia have struggled to post competitive scores.


Giles has been massively important this series, having not leaked runs too easily in any match since the First Test. His building of pressure has had an immeasurable effect on the series thus far, and has bowled at a length that has really worried the Australian batsmen - we've seen him take a large percentage of his wickets where the batsman has been unsure of whether to go forward or back.


Importantly, Jones has stood up for England. And Freddie has been able to stand up to the massive workload put on him. That's a fresh air shot by me then


We've seen England control the game and the tempo for the majority of the series, and Giles has played a major role in this. When he's come on, he's gotten through his overs quick, giving the Aussies the least amount of respite possible as he gets through a maiden in three minutes, and suddenly you have Flintoff/Harmison/Jones coming at you from the other end again. He's helped make the four prong pace attack even more relentless.
England have had luck go there way at some crucial stages, but so have Australia. Importantly, England have capitalised on their luck in better fashion, and as such it seems as though they've been much more fortunate, when they probably haven't been. They've been ultra attacking all series, have planned extremely well, and thus results have paid off for them.

It's been a well wonderful series. And there's been plenty more rants and raves at 3:17 AM since

That looks even better now And the result is looking like a similar upset!

Comparing Jones to Healy is too much. Parthiv Patel would be a much better comparison.

 

[luckyeddie]

and jones can outswing the new ball and did it plenty of times at trent bridge.
unfortunately he isnt going to be playing at the oval, and thanks to the folly of the english selectors yet again, we can choose between the 'big match garbage' from anderson or the 'i can provide a bit of everything without actually being good at anything' from paul collingwood.

The same selectors whose consistent selection have (in part) enabled this England side to go to the Oval leading 2-1, when you would have made half a dozen changes after Lord's.

Not a lot more to say, really.

Edit:

I didn't realise you were making a (later) point about Caddick - but you probably weren't to know that he was struggling for fitness. He would have been my first choice as replacement too, but in his absence either Anderson or Collingwood are NB.

 

[tooextracool]

The same selectors whose consistent selection have (in part) enabled this England side to go to the Oval leading 2-1, when you would have made half a dozen changes after Lord's.

Not a lot more to say, really.

Edit:

I didn't realise you were making a (later) point about Caddick - but you probably weren't to know that he was struggling for fitness. He would have been my first choice as replacement too, but in his absence either Anderson or Collingwood are NB.

and as i said a fair few times after the 1st test at Lords, i would have made no changes to the test side. you can keep hoping for something that i didnt say after Lords because its not really going to change. and yes the selectors did get it right then, but that changes the fact that they got it wrong plenty of times before and during this series how?

 

[greg]

and as i said a fair few times after the 1st test at Lords, i would have made no changes to the test side. you can keep hoping for something that i didnt say after Lords because its not really going to change. and yes the selectors did get it right then, but that changes the fact that they got it wrong plenty of times before and during this series how?

It's a long time since i can remember our selectors making any arguable selection errors, let alone any clear and glaring ones. You make it sound like they're doing it all the time.

My main recent gripe would be the way they have managed the middle order situation from the SA tour onwards, not because I object particularly to any of the individual decisions (Key over Bell in SA, Bell vs Bangladesh and then Pietersen over Thorpe) but because taken together they smack of a little bit of a lack of confusion in their longterm planning.

 

[reverseswing]

Why is Hayden playing?? Its been 120 years since an Australian player has gone 20 innings(or something like that) without passing 70. he either fails again or scores a hundred and keeps Hussey or Rogers or Jaques out of the team longer

 

[Barney Rubble]

McGrath is in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4219520.stm

Bugger.

 

[luckyeddie]

McGrath is in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4219520.stm

Bugger.

I don't care one jot.

I suggest that England just carry on sticking it to Australia (or trying to) - and let the team whose captain is ALREADY looking for excuses to get himself off the hook do all the worrying.

 

[luckyeddie]

and as i said a fair few times after the 1st test at Lords, i would have made no changes to the test side. you can keep hoping for something that i didnt say after Lords because its not really going to change. and yes the selectors did get it right then, but that changes the fact that they got it wrong plenty of times before and during this series how?

No, sorry, you are right. It was BEFORE the first test that you wanted Trescothick, Strauss and Hoggard's heads served up on a platter. I forgot.

It was Langeveldt, not you, who won July's "D'Oh Of The Month" with his "If England win a single test match I'll have Kevin Pietersen as my avatar for a month" prophecy to rival Nostradamus.

 

[tooextracool]

It's a long time since i can remember our selectors making any arguable selection errors, let alone any clear and glaring ones. You make it sound like they're doing it all the time.

My main recent gripe would be the way they have managed the middle order situation from the SA tour onwards, not because I object particularly to any of the individual decisions (Key over Bell in SA, Bell vs Bangladesh and then Pietersen over Thorpe) but because taken together they smack of a little bit of a lack of confusion in their longterm planning.

so dropping their best batsman at the start of this series and causing him to retire isnt a glaring mistake then? and just because england are 2-1 up it wont change the fact that it was a very poor move. collingwood in SA was pure genius, and then dropping him despite not playing a single game takes real guts. Pietersen not playing against b'desh, and then playing against australia thereafter. and the countless ODI blunders they've made in the last year.
and if you think that key over bell was a poor move, then you obviously didnt watch a ball of last summer.

 

[tooextracool]

No, sorry, you are right. It was BEFORE the first test that you wanted Trescothick, Strauss and Hoggard's heads served up on a platter. I forgot.

i'd really like you to point out where exactly i said that hoggard needed to be dropped before the first test. no really.
same with strauss, who i only criticised for his inability to play inswing but never asked for his head.and its not like hes been a outstanding success this series either.
my side for the series was:
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Thorpe
Pietersen
Flintoff
Jones
Giles
Harmison
Hoggard
Jones

and believe it or not that is only 1 change from the side that has played in all the tests so far this series. and if you honestly think that the inclusion of Thorpe wouldnt have made this side better,then you'd be quite deluded.

 

[marc71178]

It was Langeveldt, not you, who won July's "D'Oh Of The Month" with his "If England win a single test match I'll have Kevin Pietersen as my avatar for a month" prophecy to rival Nostradamus.

Did he ever follow up that?