*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[Hooksey]

Full points to Michael Clarke for turning what England was doing it's best to make a boring draw, into a very exciting final day of test cricket to end the series.

 

[Ruckus]

Anyone else think England batted too slowly on day three?

yes, pretty much every single article/item on cricinfo mentions it:

England v Australia, 5th Investec Test, The Oval, 3rd day Report : England forced to grind as Australia chip away | Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

The Huddle : England v Australia, 5th Investec Test, The Oval, 3rd day | 'This is unusually slow' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

England v Australia, 5th Investec Test, The Oval, 4th day : Daniel Brettig on England and Australia's Ashes intelligence files | Cricket Features | England v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

Count the drinks, not the runs | Cricket News | England v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

The Stands : Fan Following: England v Australia, 5th Investec Test, The Oval, 3rd day | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Cabinet96]

I've heard they were playing for the draw. Some effort given they nearly won inside four days play despite conceding 500 in the first dig.

 

[Ruckus]

and michael vaughan Former England captain Michael Vaughan gives his verdict on day three of fifth Ashes Test | News.com.au

 

[MW1304]

Is that the former England captain Michael Vaughan?

 

[morgieb]

Is that the former England captain Michael Vaughan?

*professional troll.

 

[Ruckus]

na just some guy they found of the street, equally ugly too

 

[Hooksey]

England scores slowly in most tests. For the most part of the just completed series they scored at around 2.5 runs per over. To win doing that you need to be able to run through your opposition, or the game is heading for a draw most times.

 

[wiff]

I've heard they were playing for the draw. Some effort given they nearly won inside four days play despite conceding 500 in the first dig.

I agree, their tactic of batting slowly is good because you eliminate the possibly of losing. However, it also diminishes the possibility of winning, therefore making a draw the most likely. Of course, all three possibilities are still on the table, especially with Clarke as captain. I give the English credit for utilising an impetuous opponent. If I was Australian captain, I would have waited until there was 6 runs to win, then complained about the light, then get Forkers to change his boots, change the wicket keeper, bring in all the fielders, make sure they all have padding and helmets on, then decide to put them all on the boundry, then complained that the ball was wet. Get the ball checked, make a fielding substitute, then pretend that I had fainted. Get back to my feet after flopping around a bit, call for a drink. Remind the umpire about the light again. While still going for the win of course.

 

[Howe_zat]

I like you, wiff

uvelocity deserves a little credit in this case

 

[wiff]

Is that a good or bad thing?

 

[wiff]

Nah, Mt Colah Mustangs. I'll take that as a no anyway.

Ahhh yeah, I've been living here for 10 years, so I'm not a local yet. Played my cricket at Campbelltown, where I got my nickname from the sound of willow missing ball.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've heard they were playing for the draw. Some effort given they nearly won inside four days play despite conceding 500 in the first dig.

 

[Riggins]

I think England batted too slowly on day 3.

 

[Riggins]

I agree with Cabinet, also.

 

[Maximas]

whatever the real tactics were, it was dire to watch from day 2 till day 5

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

whatever the real tactics were, it was dire to watch from day 2 till day 5

I just don't understand the complaints. The majority of cricket used to be played like this and on tough wickets, a good chunk of batting is still like this.

Maybe it's an Australian thing - and that's not an insult. If I grew up feasting on the run rate of guys like Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting etc. then maybe I would have higher expectations of a player's strike rate. I, however, had to watch Chris Tavare.

This batting display was positively a joy to watch compared to some.

 

[hendrix]

They saved a test after the opposition scored 500, and then they almost won it. That alone absolves criticism of their tactics. Add in the broader context of them being 3-0 up in the series, and the mind boggles...

 

[Hooksey]

They saved a test after the opposition scored 500, and then they almost won it. That alone absolves criticism of their tactics. Add in the broader context of them being 3-0 up in the series, and the mind boggles...

Cook & England made absolutely no attempt to play for a result for 4 and a half days. The only reason the final day became a contest was because Clarke was prepared to roll the dice by re-jigging his second innings batting order and sending them out to slog their way to a declaration enticing enough for England to have a go at.

 

[hendrix]

Cook & England made absolutely no attempt to play for a result for 4 and a half days.

They just decided that they'd let Watson and Smith notch up centuries right?

And it wasn't that they chose to respect good bowling from Harris and co, they just didn't want to win?

smh

This is the way you play test cricket. When you're behind, you fight hard to get in front.