*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[91Jmay]

None of the main batsmen except Pietersen were taking excessive risks in the second innings, they were pretty much playing normally. And that was their game plan - they were trying to go along at a pretty standard rate, and then would try and go for the chase when they knew wickets were in hand. Funnily enough as well I actually think Eng looked all the better for it.

And they lost 4 wickets in 39 overs (aside from KP). That really undermines your point

"But at the beginning of the day we knew we had to make it as difficult as we could for Australia to push home what they were trying to do. We knew they were going to push for the win, and the harder we made it the easier it would've been for us to win, and that was proven."

That's a quote from Cook, and it sums up why England played how they did. Its not only about playing the match situation but playing the opposition captain, they knew he would set them a declaration if they got close enough to Australia's score. For the record I think they were over conservative and could have upped the scoring rate a little, particularly against Starc who bowled some filth, but they play hard nosed cricket.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This stemmed back to talk of a declaration and a 'losing culture' didn't it? Australia's decision to declare, bringing about the possibility of defeat in an attempt to win, bear no resemblance to what you're talking about though.

And as for the techniques and abilities of minnows, is the lack of a batting technique and being a one-dimensional bowler simply down to how hard they work? Surely there are other things at play, like regular exposure to top-class opposition all through your development, opportunities to work with good coaches, access to academies that actually help you to develop your game, your governing body having the money to invest in development programs, no outside distractions, living in a country where war and other things don't interfere with your ability to fully realise your talent, and so on.

When you get two players with equal opportunities then, yes, a large part of it is a mix of talent and how hard you work.

Edit: This is a reply to Flem by the way.

 

[GIMH]

Thanks to most of the ****s round these parts for the discussion throughout the series.

Can't wait to be sleep deprived and posting bollocks in three months...

 

[Flem274*]

Thanks to most of the ****s round these parts for the discussion throughout the series.

Can't wait to be sleep deprived and posting bollocks in three months...

you'll post bollocks long before november.

 

[Flem274*]

This stemmed back to talk of a declaration and a 'losing culture' didn't it? Australia's decision to declare, bringing about the possibility of defeat in an attempt to win, bear no resemblance to what you're talking about though.

And as for the techniques and abilities of minnows, is the lack of a batting technique and being a one-dimensional bowler simply down to how hard they work? Surely there are other things at play, like regular exposure to top-class opposition all through your development, opportunities to work with good coaches, access to academies that actually help you to develop your game, your governing body having the money to invest in development programs, no outside distractions, living in a country where war and other things don't interfere with your ability to fully realise your talent, and so on.

When you get two players with equal opportunities then, yes, a large part of it is a mix of talent and how hard you work.

Edit: This is a reply to Flem by the way.

I agree with all of this. That's why I said half of it is learning and practising the right things.

Looks like we've lost each other in translation somewhere.

 

[GIMH]

you'll post bollocks long before november.

Yeah but I won't be sleep deprived

 

[Son Of Coco]

I agree with all of this. That's why I said half of it is learning and practising the right things.

Looks like we've lost each other in translation somewhere.

We must have. Let's agree to agree.

 

[Ruckus]

*Sigh* Lets use a different example shall we. Remember the first test of the England v New Zealand series in May? England scored at two an over for the duration of the first day. Two an over. Now it wasn't a particularly impressive batting display, people regularly threw away starts, but New Zealand bowled well in what were at times helpful conditions. Fast forward a few days though, and when New Zealand got bowled out in 20 overs, no one was criticising England's approach.

Can you honestly say, that you think England were playing for a draw first day against New Zealand, just like you think they were playing for a draw from day two onwards here? England are a slow scoring side, particularly their top order, so the fact that they occasionally don't score at a rate that'll see them win in three days, is no reflection of their desire to win or not. The worst thing to happen when an opposition puts up a huge score is to lose early wickets. That's a stage where you really can't win. Scoring slowly but getting close to the score puts you in a much better position. It's how Australia won the Adelaide test of 06 (sure they scored a bit quicker, but it was also with a late charge from Gilly, they used up 160odd overs).

I can't comment on the NZ match, I didn't see it. I'm sure what point your trying to make with it either tbh, the comments I've been making have been in the context of this match and series alone.

As for the bolded part, I haven't based my opinion of them playing with a negative mindset simply because they were batting slowly. It's because I think given the pitch conditions and bowling, they could have scored at a better rate without a significant increase in the risk of losing wickets. I think it was a deliberate attempt to bat slower than normal, either because they were playing for a draw or they were simply wanting Australia to force a result upon them (in effect it's pretty much the same though).

I mean, the quote 91Jmay provided above from Cook completely vindicates that. He was putting the game on Australia's shoulders, instead of trying to play positively and bring about a result himself. It's a negative tactic. Clarke could have easily just decided to bat out a draw in the second innings, or declare with a completely token chase. For a side that's 3-0 up in a series, I just reckon it's a pretty pissweak attitude to have. England will never be anything more than a good side if they are going to be content with letting the opposition bring the game to them.

 

[Spikey]

hey guys did you ever consider that maybe clarkeh just wanted to have some fun

 

[andyc]

hey guys did you ever consider that maybe clarkeh just wanted to have some fun

Heard about PEWS' bet no doubt.

 

[Prince EWS]

Heard about PEWS' bet no doubt.

Would've bowled Harris for more than five overs in the second dig if he had, WAC.

 

[91Jmay]

Would've bowled Harris for more than five overs in the second dig if he had, WAC.

He got injured didn't he?

 

[theegyptian]

I reckon yesterday was pretty gutting for australia even though they got away with a draw. They probably thought we'd declare and England wouldn't go for it, we'd take a few wickets and end the series on a +ve. Instead as England have done throughout the series they stepped it when they needed to and basically produced a perfectly timed runchase on a wearing wicket.

For as close as Aus have been through the series, England have been pretty clutch in the key moments or maybe Australia have choked or a mixture of both. Regardless England know how to win, Australia don't right now.

 

[wpdavid]

For as close as Aus have been through the series, England have been pretty clutch in the key moments or maybe Australia have choked or a mixture of both. Regardless England know how to win, Australia don't right now.

Not 100% convinced, apart from at Durham maybe. Certainly wasn't their fault that it rained at Old Trafford. And if anything, we were the ones who almost couldn't seal the deal at Trent Bridge given how many their 10th wickets added in each innings. At Lord's they were simply stuffed and I'm not drawing many conclusions from events at The Oval given the artificial nature of their 2nd innings and the declaration. But they were never going to bowl us out in 44 overs, I think.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm not sure if you could come up with a consistent standard. I don't know if a light meter reading in one country would reflect the same conditions as the same reading in another. There are also other considerations dependent on individual ground conditions - quality of sightscreens, size of stands etc. Especially if you are taking into account the conditions for the fielding side.

Some of the cant produced by the talking heads on this is IMO ridiculous. The only reason the crowd were booing was because it was England who were 'robbed'. Had Australia been on the verge of victory they would have been cheering. Remember 2005? Or, another occasion i recall - when Ramprakash and Atherton were offered the light at Lords vs Windies in 2000 (the day we bowled them out for 54).

No doubt there should be something done about the slow over-rates - it simply should not be acceptable to deliberately slow the game down when in trouble - but all talk about never going off under flood lights etc is nonsensical with a red ball. Maybe one solution would be to revert to "offering the light", but offer it to both teams, but with the offer only being made to the fielding side once they have bowled the overs they were expected to bowl at the time of the offer (eg. if they have been in the field for 3 hours when the light offer is made, then they can't accept until they have bowled 45 overs). Umpire's discretion could be employed on any time-wasting by the batsmen.

I think this post has gone under-appreciated - seems like a very valid suggestion and should do a better job of striking a balance between ensuring fairness and avoiding gamesmanship.

 

[swede]

Sorry but why are we discussing England's negative batting from days ago? Don't know if people have noticed but that's allowed.

Pathetic time-wasting, constantly harassing and crying at the umpires isn't. And that was what cheated England out of a Test victory, and it was yesterday not 3-4 days ago.

We should be discussing what length of ban Clarke should be getting.

Then Cook should be banned as well for endless timewasting to secure the draw at Old Trafford.

They both did it, it worked perfectly, and there is absolutely no chance that they will not do it again. Its cheating and cheating of the very worst kind as it also cheats everyone in attendance.

Its done because the umpires and/or the ICC just cant be bothered to deal with it. football is often ridiculed but something like that would never be allowed in football. Waste ten seconds at a throw-in or goal kick and its a yellow card. another ten secs, and your off with automatic ban and the whole lot. and the seconds lost will be added. In cricket, well waste an hour, fine, who cares. The overs will most likely be lost, so good tactics. it works.

Its absolutely astonishing that cricket doesnt care. And all those flat pitches as well.. Half the test teams barely play tests any more but how can anyone really be surprised when cricket, alone among sports, allows tactica that ruin the game.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah I agree with the post above me. Time wasting should be fined with penalty runs, that would stop it dead.

I have also been having a think about some positive rule tweaks recently, one I think would be useful is something along the lines of 'If combined 1st innings scores exceed 1200 runs, that venue is barred from hosting Test cricket for the following two summers'. Not sure if that is doable or even desirable but it may spice up a few pitches. I know in England that a venue wouldn't risk missing out on test cricket for two years and would produce more result pitches.

 

[theegyptian]

The wicket would have been fine if the five days were played imo.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah I agree with the post above me. Time wasting should be fined with penalty runs, that would stop it dead.

I have also been having a think about some positive rule tweaks recently, one I think would be useful is something along the lines of 'If combined 1st innings scores exceed 1200 runs, that venue is barred from hosting Test cricket for the following two summers'. Not sure if that is doable or even desirable but it may spice up a few pitches. I know in England that a venue wouldn't risk missing out on test cricket for two years and would produce more result pitches.

The idea of penalty runs has been nrought up a number of times and it seems a pretty good one. How many runs would you penalise the offending team? In my opinion it would have to be reasonably substantial to deter captains from trying to waste time. With the second suggestion I think there's a difference between deliberately creating flat, dry tracks and having a pitch normally play that way. You'd be asking a curator to attempt to artificially create a playing surface that might not be possible in certain areas. Although I'd be very surprised if many grounds had an issue with the combined 1st innings total being more than 1200 runs. How many times has that happened in the past 20 years?

I think the better approach would be to come down heavily on grounds where the surface is noticably different to what it normally is if there's no apparent reason for it being that way (changing/unusual weather conditions being a good reason for a change in playing surface conditions). It would be a pretty hairy area to have to make a decision on though. You'd create more issues than you'd fix I reckon.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Just read a positive tweet Michael Vaughan twatted about the Australian cricket team(reposted via S.Warne)...he must've fallen down the stairs at The Oval and bumped his head. Very unlike him.