***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[howardj]

I saw all I needed to see in the Final. England will get comprehensively rolled this summer. Scoring 500 runs in the match, is the cornerstone of beating of Australia in Tests. On the evidence to date, England won't get near it on a consistent basis. It wasn't just last night, but the pattern of dismissals throughout the series - Strauss with the fuller, quicker ball; Trescothick with the flirt on the off stump. During the Tests, their number 3 and 4 may as well stand next to the square leg umpire when the England innings starts.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I saw all I needed to see in the Final. England will get comprehensively rolled this summer. Scoring 500 runs in the match, is the cornerstone of beating of Australia in Tests. On the evidence to date, England won't get near it on a consistent basis. It wasn't just last night, but the pattern of dismissals throughout the series - Strauss with the fuller, quicker ball; Trescothick with the flirt on the off stump. During the Tests, their number 3 and 4 may as well stand next to the square leg umpire when the England innings starts.

I saw all I need to see in the final. Australia will get comprehensively rolled this summer. Scoring 500 runs in the match, is the cornerstone of beating England in Tests. On the evidence to date, Australia won't get near it on a consistent basis. It wasn't just last night, but the pattern of dismissals throughout the series - Harmison and Flintoff come on, off go several Aussie batsmen. During the Tests their batsmen may as well just sit on a football dugout style bench just behind the boundary rope to save a bit of time as Flintoff and Harmison slice through their top order.

 

[Neil Pickup]

well Glenn McGrath played apropriatley for probably his last ODI innings.

also Mike Hussey finished the series with a higher average than Pieterson for the person that suggested it would be the other way around

hopefully the new rules will see Katich coming into the side for the next match to strengthen the well out of form Aussie top order.

So Australia will never be bowled out batting first again?

 

[luckyeddie]

There was a clown yesterday who said something along the lines of 'Well, I NEARLY said before the game started that Australia would roll England for under 100 and look - it's happening'.

I mentioned at the time that this game has a habit of turning up the unexpected, and that it is often folly to make bold, sweeping statements.

Howardj, your post (above) has been duly stored for posterity. If you are wrong, I shall make your life an utter misery because I despise know-it-all arrogance - and your post reeks of it. If, however, you are right (and I presume by 'comprehensively rolled' we are talking 4-0 or 5-0 and easy victories to boot) then I shall bow to your astute reading of the game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think howardj has a point in that England's batting was always going to be the key to the series and they don't seem to be up to the challenge. Having said that, Australia have problems of their own.

I'm sticking to 3-1.

 

[Gloucefan]

I saw all I needed to see in the Final. England will get comprehensively rolled this summer. Scoring 500 runs in the match, is the cornerstone of beating of Australia in Tests. On the evidence to date, England won't get near it on a consistent basis. It wasn't just last night, but the pattern of dismissals throughout the series - Strauss with the fuller, quicker ball; Trescothick with the flirt on the off stump. During the Tests, their number 3 and 4 may as well stand next to the square leg umpire when the England innings starts.

I think much like the England fans after Australia were embarrassed by Bangladesh some Aussies think England are out of form or have been sussed. Wishful thinking on both fans part, the natwest series and challenge will have very little if any bearing on the test matches. Innevitably both teams will approach the tests in a totaly different way. The only Batsman I'm worried about Australia having sussed or worried is Tresc, Macgrath has him I think.

 

[King_Ponting]

I Havent Seen Much Of Strauss So I Wouldnt Know But When Hes In Form Does He Use His Feet? Cause It Seems To Me That He Just Gets Stuck On The Crease

 

[howardj]

I think howardj has a point in that England's batting was always going to be the key to the series and they don't seem to be up to the challenge.

I'm sticking to 3-1.

Exactly. Look at the only team to trouble Australia recently - India in 2001 and 2003/04. The cornerstone was their batting. They were able to apply pressure by banking a minimum 300 runs in the first innings, and scoring at least 500 in the match. Furthermore, and probably just as importantly, they were able to keep Australia out in the field for prolonged periods, like in Calcutta and Adelaide. By the time it was Australia's turn to bat, they were weary from spending a day and a half in the field, and were needing a few hundred runs to break even. Make no mistake, no matter how good Harmison and Flintoff are, England's batting is the key.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think howardj has a point in that England's batting was always going to be the key to the series and they don't seem to be up to the challenge. Having said that, Australia have problems of their own.

I'm sticking to 3-1.

So am I - I have said 3-1 for what seems like for ever, and I see no reason to change my opinion - nothing to do with the fact that McGrath has sussed the openers - more to do with the general overall strength. How many England players would make the Australian side? Two certainties, but I'd be hard pressed to make it 3.

What is certain though - if the Australian players exhibit the same amount of sheer arrogance and ****iness displayed by some of the supporters, they might have to come from behind to win tests or series.

Howardj suggested that 'only India' have troubled Australia in recent years. I think his selective memory has kicked in - Sri Lanka held first innings leads in all 3 tests in a series as recently as March 2004 - and but for their own lack of belief and application, should have cakewalked the first 2 tests. I appreciate that Australia didn't have McGrath and Murali was on fire, but wouldn't anyone consider that to have 'troubled' Australia?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Howardj suggested that 'only India' have troubled Australia in recent years. I think his selective memory has kicked in - Sri Lanka held first innings leads in all 3 tests in a series as recently as March 2004 - and but for their own lack of belief and application, should have cakewalked the first 2 tests. I appreciate that Australia didn't have McGrath and Murali was on fire, but wouldn't anyone consider that to have 'troubled' Australia?

Yes, they troubled them... but it was still a whitewash. Only India have come close to beating Australia in test series in recent years, while plenty of teams have got on top at times, they've not been able to go on with it, excluding India.

Having said that, it's not really relevant I don't think. Australia have the weight of an awesome history behind them, but it's not going to be deciding factor. If England are a better side they will still win, regardless of the history, just like Australia eventually beat the West Indies in 1995, and almost did it in 93. I just don't think England have a better team just yet. Give it until 2005 or 2007.

Hoping for a good series though.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, they troubled them... but it was still a whitewash. Only India have come close to beating Australia in test series in recent years, while plenty of teams have got on top at times, they've not been able to go on with it, excluding India.

Having said that, it's not really relevant I don't think. Australia have the weight of an awesome history behind them, but it's not going to be deciding factor. If England are a better side they will still win, regardless of the history, just like Australia eventually beat the West Indies in 1995, and almost did it in 93. I just don't think England have a better team just yet. Give it until 2005 or 2007.

Hoping for a good series though.

Of course it was a whitewash, because that's what the record books say, but the result isn't everything - it was the inference that BECAUSE the series was a whitewash, therefore it was easy that was misleading. That's akin to saying that the operation was a success but the patient died. True, but totally missing the point.

This time around, I would be more than happy to see England put up a spirited yet improved performance, provided that improvement in itself becomes the yardstick for the next push.

There's a saying 'what goes around comes around' - from what I've seen in the last couple of years, the margin between Australia and the rest is still a gulf, but it's narrowing all the time (it had to for the good of the game). That may be because the air of invincibility no longer exists in the minds of the opponents (inferiority complex), or it might be that the gap is really closing, either by improvement in the standards of their opponents or (shock horror) that the current Australian team isn't as good as it was.

Not ripe for the picking - well, not yet anyway.

Edit - check your last but one line - a Freudian slip if ever I saw one.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yes, they troubled them... but it was still a whitewash. Only India have come close to beating Australia in test series in recent years, while plenty of teams have got on top at times, they've not been able to go on with it, excluding India.

Having said that, it's not really relevant I don't think. Australia have the weight of an awesome history behind them, but it's not going to be deciding factor. If England are a better side they will still win, regardless of the history, just like Australia eventually beat the West Indies in 1995, and almost did it in 93. I just don't think England have a better team just yet. Give it until 2005 or 2007.

Hoping for a good series though.

If you're going to include India there then you should also include NZ at the end of 2001.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Edit - check your last but one line - a Freudian slip if ever I saw one.

Haha, true. I've been doing a few of those on here today.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If you're going to include India there then you should also include NZ at the end of 2001.

Eh, they didn't win a test. It was a fairly close series, as was the Sri Lankan series, but New Zealand can claim one game of three where they were on top but couldn't win, while Australia dominated the other two. New Zealand were very competitive of course.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Eh, they didn't win a test. It was a fairly close series, as was the Sri Lankan series, but New Zealand can claim one game of three where they were on top but couldn't win, while Australia dominated the other two. New Zealand were very competitive of course.

NZ were 3 wickets away from winning the series in the last game - fits the requirements as you'd defined earlier:

Only India have come close to beating Australia in test series in recent years

 

[aussie]

I think howardj has a point in that England's batting was always going to be the key to the series and they don't seem to be up to the challenge. Having said that, Australia have problems of their own.

I'm sticking to 3-1.

Definately 3-1, i think most people have that has the result now.

 

[aussie]

If you're going to include India there then you should also include NZ at the end of 2001.

the kiwis came close at the Gabba but Australia but the aussies dominated the next 2 test.

 

[tooextracool]

That's where you and I differ. I'm primarily interested in the game as a spectacle and have no wish whatsoever in taking anything away from people who have proved that they can do something which I (and more than likely you) can only dream about.

For me, the game yesterday was first and foremost, and will remain in my memory for a long time. I suspect that Trescothick's indiscriminate wafting at balls leaving him will keep you awake for a long, long time, because he will remain part of England's set-up for a while.

the game will remain in my memory for a while too. but for me nothing in cricket is worth more than winning the ashes. i couldnt have cared less if england lost every ODI this summer, fact is i'd gladly even trade losing every ODI in the next 2 years just to see england win the ashes. with that in mind, while you may bask in the temporary glory of how exciting the game was and how england competed, i look at the relevance of each player's performance yesterday to the ashes series. if england were to win the ashes i can guarantee you that i'd be the first person here to be singing praises for all the england players and wouldnt even bother with the criticism.

One question - are you old enough to have seen David Gower bat? I bet he drove you bonkers too. Perhaps it's part of a left-hander's make-up, but there's probably never been one (well, an English one) who really knew where his off peg was.

other than the odd highlight package, no i havent. but while gower like tresco lacked consistency, i doubt he played with such poor footwork, and i really wonder if he was exposed by certain bowlers. as far left handers not know where their off stump is, well theres one in the current england side, whos probably about as good as it gets when it comes to that.

 

[aussie]

other than the odd highlight package, no i havent. but while gower like tresco lacked consistency, i doubt he played with such poor footwork, and i really wonder if he was exposed by certain bowlers. as far left handers not know where their off stump is, well theres one in the current england side, whos probably about as good as it gets when it comes to that.

from clips i saw of Gower his technique is much better than Tres, but he seemed to have the same weakness outside offstump that was exposed byt the likes of Marshall & co, a la McGrath v Tres.

 

[luckyeddie]

as far left handers not know where their off stump is, well theres one in the current england side

Simon Jones.

Do I win 5 points?