• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Fourth Test (Old Trafford, Manchester) 19-23 July

the big bambino

the big bambino

International Captain
This summer Australia will be walking away with the WTC and Ashes. Since ashes81 doesn’t know what that’s like let me tell him it’s freakin fantastic.
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
Gob said:
Reading some comments on Stokes declaration here. IMO he significantly hampered England's chances of winning this game with the late declaration and you don't need to be a Bazball denier or Stokes hater to admit that.

Possibility of absolutely no play on Saturday and very little on Sunday were there before the start of the game (and I think Australia also picked a team with an eye on draw) and England had to make all the moves. They should have swung from the hip towards the stumps on day 2 and probably 7 to 8 overs of the same on the start of day 3 to get the lead up to 150 and put Australia in and try to get them out for 300 over the course of the day or bit in the next day and you have a chase of 150 in 25-15 overs on Sunday. Not easy obviously but if there is a team who would thrive in that situation, its England. Its not even hindsight its just seem like the way to win even at the stumps on day 2.

I could probably live with them playing till lunch on day 2 to get the lead up to 200 plus but burning out more than a half a session for Jonny feel good campaign was horrible move given the circumstances. If anything its the opposite of Bazball
Click to expand...
England needed to knock the aussies over and quite quickly, don't need hindsight to know that. Had England declared under 200 ahead at lunch and had the full two sessions they might have gotten close to bowling aussies out, I certainly doubt but can't say for sure they would have been held up by the aussies more than the weather in the last two days

maybe Stokes had a target and win batting once in mind, maybe he didn't think England could win it so let Bairstow get on with it, maybe he doesn't have a plan at all other than bat last and hope bazballs works


even if England had declared it may not have been enough anyway, 3-4 sessions left maybe, aussies out for under 250 maybe, aussies only needed not to be knocked over quickly to avoid defeat really although could have been on for a T20 run chase


gotta love Michael Yawn though, his "bold" forecast that IF England won the 4th Test they'd win the series 3-2, how that clown is still with beeb I'll never know, no smoke without fire and he may have gotten away with some of his remarks, whether he is R or not he is the kind of prat would say something like that and hide behind any ambiguity
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
Spark said:
Yeah I've always been confused why people talk about the deflected boundary, that's always been an accepted part of the game. But the boundary countback rule was extremely stupid and it was only the presumption that it would be never be needed that allowed it to persist.
Click to expand...
got to say the some elements make no real sense, leg byes for lucky deflections, byes I can kind of understand, those two parts of the final were totally wrong though.

- boundary countback, stupid idea much like the suggestion a few years ago that most sixes wins most T20s, well actually most runs win any game barring of course worthless duck method, but why should two sides who both scored 241 be separated by who scored most boundaries!?!?! The other side got more runs via wides, no balls, quick ones and twos etc.

much fairer and more sensible would be the old rule, fewest wickets lost, that would have given the crown to kiwis

- overthrows/"deflected boundary", well I can understand it if the fielding side mess up but not from an unlucky deflection off the batsmen whether they deliberately block the ball's path or not. They've changed that law now though. I can see why people discuss it, not least because of said change after the event

then again it's not unusual for batsmen to leave their crease when they think the ball is dead yet people don't see that as "an accepted part of the game", they only jump on the bandwagon because of the Bairstow CareyCad incident as if Bairstow is the only man ever to presume the over is over and throwing in what such and such did - I saw some yank youtube video and he was comparing it to a batsman lifting his foot and being stumped by Bairstow, well actually not comparable yanky boy, if you understood the game and you even admit you don't really, you'd know (not) keeping your foot behind the line is part of how stumpings are made, not leaving the crease as the over is over but in playing the shot. It's not as if the ball had gone dead and he just jumped in the air and the keeper whipped off the bale, but hey ho, someone on a mission to vindicate CareyCad or maybe as much make Bairstow out to be not so innocent would make a meal of it.

only thing the yank did get right, as far as I could stand the accent and ignorance of his video, was those talking of not trying for a run which in the case of a run out is kinda valid but he was decreed stumped which I found bemusing at the time given he'd finished playing the shot a couple of weeks earlier
 
wpdavid

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
I deliberately missed the Bairstow stumping debate, so apologies if this has been said before. But it reminded me of Kallicharran being run out by Greig when walking towards the dressing room after the final ball of the day during the 1973/74 series. On that occasion, the batsman was reinstated overnight, not least because the locals were likely to riot if he wasn't.

Here it is, if anyone hasn't seen it.
 
Last edited:
wpdavid

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
CartyDurham said:
1972 was the last time Australia won the last test in England to retain the ashes/win the ashes
Click to expand...
I'm afraid not. They won the last test to draw the series, but England retained the Ashes that they had won in Australia 18 months previously.
I think we're talking pre-WWI.

EDIT
Nope, make that 1934.
www.espncricinfo.com

The Ashes 1934 Schedule | The Ashes Fixtures & Results

Get 1934 The Ashes schedule, fixtures, scorecard updates, and results on ESPNcricinfo. Track latest match scores, schedule, and results of The Ashes 1934.
www.espncricinfo.com www.espncricinfo.com

I was surprised actually, as I'd thought that Aus always won easily over here when Bradman was playing. Not so on this occasion, although they didn't mess around in the final test.


And the same thing happened in 1930 too.
www.espncricinfo.com

The Ashes 1930 Schedule | The Ashes Fixtures & Results

Get 1930 The Ashes schedule, fixtures, scorecard updates, and results on ESPNcricinfo. Track latest match scores, schedule, and results of The Ashes 1930.
www.espncricinfo.com www.espncricinfo.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top