*Official* Fifth Test at the Oval

[Cabinet96]

Yeah Wood 8 and Haze 3.5 is ridiculous. Didn't think there was much to separate them, just that there was a lot more hype about Haze. Also, not sure why Siddle was included when Ballance, Haddin and Watson weren't.

 

[Pothas]

Wood seems to get an 8 because Swann likes him. I mean sure, I like him as well and I think he is pretty good as well but there is no way he is getting an 8.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah Wood is a 5 realistically. Bowled some great spells but also some trash and his figures are poor.

 

[burr]

Haha, those rankings are astoundingly bad. Surely he wrote them drunk celebrating an England series win.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah Wood 8 and Haze 3.5 is ridiculous. Didn't think there was much to separate them, just that there was a lot more hype about Haze. Also, not sure why Siddle was included when Ballance, Haddin and Watson weren't.

I think there was.

As in Hazlewood was a lot better.

Wood probably got more out of his ability potential than Haze though, as Haze could be much, much better.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Only 3 Aussies have been standouts and would be first picked in a joint team. Rogers, Smith and Lyon. That indicates poor bowling on top of poor batting.

4 of the top 5 wicket takers and 3 of the top 4 run scorers were Australians weren't they?

No doubt England won the series deservingly and dominated 3 out of the 5 tests but to be honest a "joint team" would have more Australians then Englishmen

It comes down several things for mine:
(1) lack of batting application, failure to adapt to conditions (or cbf adapting)
(2) lack-luster, tired bowling
(3) imperfect selection (Johnson and Starc in these conditions that do not suit either of the at all)

Neither side was great, Australia was just a little more worse imo

 

[GIMH]

 

[Viscount Tom]

BBC Sport - Ashes 2015: Graeme Swann's England-Australia player ratings

Swann's ratings are dire. Mitch higher ranking than Haze and Starc? Clarke should be getting no more than 1 and Voges and Buttler getting six? Eh no.

Wood averaging 40 getting an 8 as well? Then surely Finn should be getting 10 out of 10 and not just an extra .5?

Smith a 6, Buttler 6.

Heck LYth getting even a 3 seems generous given he averaged about as much as I do in OD cricism.

 

[Spark]

I'm pretty sure he didn't catch that well at slip either, dropped at least one or two that I can remember.

Love him saying Smith isn't a number 3 having scored 500+ runs at number 3, btw.

 

[Cabinet96]

I'm pretty sure he didn't catch that well at slip either, dropped at least one or two that I can remember.

Love him saying Smith isn't a number 3 having scored 500+ runs at number 3, btw.

I've noticed a lot of English pundits, media people, fans, etc, are quite snobbish about Smith supposedly not being able to play the moving ball. They put asterisks next to his two big scores because the pitches were quite flat, then forget that 90% of international cricket is played on those pitches.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Its also worth mentioning that our batsman scored sweet fa on those same supposedly flat pitches. They seem to be under the impression that Smith hasn't changed from the bloke who was brought in to tell jokes back in 2010-11 down under.

Wonder if we can get him for a season for us.



Also bit of a giggle.


Press Conference : Eng v Aus, 5th Investec Test | 'I'm trying to do a serious interview here, Joe' - Cook | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Spark]

I've noticed a lot of English pundits, media people, fans, etc, are quite snobbish about Smith supposedly not being able to play the moving ball. They put asterisks next to his two big scores because the pitches were quite flat, then forget that 90% of international cricket is played on those pitches.

It's just straight up absurd as well. He got out two times nicking off at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, batting at the top of the order having come in early, as if nicking off against good bowlers in very helpful conditions automatically means you can't play the moving ball - and it's even more ridiculous when you consider that he made 140-odd on a pitch where we'd been sent in.

I mean, ask anyone who faced Siddle in this match if this pitch was a complete road a la Lord's. Okay for batting, sure, but there was enough movement throughout the match for a bloke who is "technically suspect" to have scored almost twice as much as the next top scorer to be a... strange proposition.

It's not like he hasn't scored runs in England before either. Often looked our most composed batsman in swinging conditions (when they appeared) in 2013.

EDIT: Oh, and there's also the "only scored when the team was on top" thing - he's the reason Australia were on top ffs. It just doesn't happen by magic.

 

[mullarkey]

well the series is over now. Well done England for winning back the Ashes, well done Australia for winning at the Oval. Highlight for me was seeing Finn york Clarke at Edgbaston. Well done all of the lads who played in the series. I wish Micheal Clarke well, I think he was saddened by the death of Phil Hughes and I wish him well.

 

[adub]

The big thing about Smitteh's 140 was that he'd made obvious technique corrections. At Lords he was just ****ing with the bowling and getting ridiculously outside off and he took that bad habit to Edgbaston and Trent Bridge and got caught out. He ****ed up and tried to keep doing what he was doing at Lords in conditions that demanded more circumspection. So he goes away, identifies what has occurred, fixed it and made The Oval look a lot easier than it was. If that's not what you're looking for in a No.3 then you're probably looking for the wrong thing.

The **** came into this series with a test average of 56 and actually improved it (very slightly). That's up there with the best no.3s of all time.

 

[adub]

I think there was.

As in Hazlewood was a lot better.

Wood probably got more out of his ability potential than Haze though, as Haze could be much, much better.

Exactly. For all the rubbishing Haze has got (and no he wasn't as good as we'd hoped) the **** took 16 wickets in 4 tests @ 25 with a sr of 42. If that's what he's like when he's below his best then the McGrath comparisons aren't out of order at all.

Wood in 4 tests took 10 @ 39 with a sr of 71. He bowled a couple of good spells, but mostly was pretty innocuous. If that's worth an 8 to Haze's 3.5 then I hope whatever Swannie's chugging down is available down under because it's powerful gear.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah you could tell after Edgbaston he was working his socks off. From what I saw of tweets he was spending hours in the nets working on stuff. I always like when that stuff pays off.

 

[mr_mister]

good stuff smithy, was worried for a moment after your 4th sub-10 score


and lol at that pic of root and warner. glad therye mates now

 

[OverratedSanity]

Haha this is awesome

 

[Top_Cat]

No comment on Clarke having a go at the pitches? Reads like an Onion article in parts...

Clarke claims English groundsmen unhappy taking orders | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

It's not as if Trent Bridge became a raging seamer overnight, as I said a while back the last Aussie to ton up there was Boon in '93. The seaming decks in this series were playing pretty much entirely in character, that is, slow with some sideways movement. They weren't spitting monsters destroying Test cricket. These are literally the sorts of pitches Lehmann challenged England to provide.

Fact is, both sides were basically unable to cope with the other side having a good day 1. ****, even having a good couple of hours was enough for some in the oppo to drop their bundle, as England showed when they turned day 1 at Cardiff into their day when it was looking pretty one-sided for a while there. Both sides are full of blokes who can crash it when their tail is up but can't find a way to minimise the damage caused by the opposition having a good session.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That is so lame from Clarke. Maybe the tests you lost would've gone longer if your batsmen weren't muppets when the ball moves.