What's new

Ashes 4th Test | Aug 6 | England thrash Australia by an innings and 78 runs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another for starc and another failure for Buttler.

320/7
 
Sam1 said:
Can't believe you're actually suggesting the Aussies batted too defensively. Swinging outside the off stump constantly is exactly what you shouldn't be doing on the first morning of a test on a typically English pitch. Leaving a few more and seeing it out to lunch where they could have then exploited an older ball and more favourable conditions.
Click to expand...

Clarke was literally the only guy who got out trying to score.

If 9/10 dismissals not trying to score isn't defensive I don't know what is.

It's inevitable when people would apparently prefer 0 (50) to 30 (15).
 
IndianWillow said:
The concept in test cricket is that the longer you last, the runs will come anyway. If they leave most of the deliveries outside the off, they won't get reduced to 0/8. If Australia had batted out the first session even at 15/2, they would have reached 200/4 by close because batting got easier. Mindless attacking is not test cricket. If batting conditions are tough you have to patiently weather it out. 60 all out is pretty much unacceptable on any batting surface against any bowling unit in a test match especially when it happened in 18 overs.
Click to expand...

They won't come "anyway" you actually have to play a shot.

In fact in these conditions the only thing that was happening 'anyway' was a ball with their name on it.

It isn't easy to know for sure the ball is missing the stumps.

They tried to bat out and they got skittled for 60.

If they all had tried to hit a few would have got going, the field would have moved out and they could have batted normally like England did.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Clarke was literally the only guy who got out trying to score.

If 9/10 dismissals not trying to score isn't defensive I don't know what is.

It's inevitable when people would apparently prefer 0 (50) to 30 (15).
Click to expand...

I reckon the Aussies should sign you up straight away... Clearly they're doing it all wrong, they should be trying even harder to nick off to slip than they already are.
 
hahaha another one gone, this is garbage from England :))
 
Big Mac said:
Pitch seems pretty decent for batting now so the Aussies shouldn't get bundled out too cheaply in the next innings. Depends if they're going to carry on following CricketAnalyst's strategy or whether they decide to bat like proper test players though.
Click to expand...

If they decide to play like "proper Test players" aka don't play any shots and don't try to score, they will be bundled out for under 200.

If they play my way, Warner might get going and you never know.
 
Such a weird feeling as early wickets just mean we hand back the ashes today instead of saturday and we get the 2 day test we nearly had last time.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
I really like that Clarke stood up to the mob and pointed out that his entire team was out playing defensively (the way they wanted his team to play).

You guys really don't realize that defensive play can't guarantee you don't get out. It's just over-rated. The entire team tried it and it didn't work.

When everyone attacks and it WORKS people still slag it, but when the team defends and it doesn't work people are blamed for not being even more defensive. Such total fail logic in this thread and among so-called experts.

Australian cricket is in for dark days if they go for Mickey Arthur-esque logic and defensive cricket.
Click to expand...

Test cricket is won session by session, perhaps even hour by hour. You may have to bat defensively in some sessions and attackingly in other sessions depending on how the wicket is and who the bowlers are. You may have to combine both defense and attack sometimes - like letting one batsman dominate and letting the other batsman consolidate. Playing defensively is a sensible tactic on the first morning hour on a greenish English wicket, against the likes of swing bowlers like Jimmy and Broad. Throwing the bat at every ball is not batting at all (it is a good idea to play only deliveries that you absolutely must, during the first hour of play on a tough wicket). All out attack rarely works in test cricket (except on flat decks) and any team that has tried it has failed most of the time.
 
Sam1 said:
I reckon the Aussies should sign you up straight away... Clearly they're doing it all wrong, they should be trying even harder to nick off to slip than they already are.
Click to expand...

In reality they should.

I am able to see beyond group-think and skewed incentives which is why I realize how ludicrous cricket strategy is at the moment, and this is a very rare skill. Not many people can realize the dominant strategy is stupid in real-time, though plenty of people can write amazing articles about why it died out 20 years later.

They should be trying to hit. All the nicking off is because apart from Clarke they are tentative and more scared of being branded irresponsible than they are of losing.

The exact same thing happened to India last year, and I called it in real time. Once a team is behind and the Test match mob start calling them T20 guys, they will rather socre a duck than be out trying to score runs.

After Rahane and Rohit Sharma slogged Moin Ali and got out, only 3 Indians were out trying to score while they were hammered in the series.

This is what will happen to Australia.
 
IndianWillow said:
Test cricket is won session by session, perhaps even hour by hour. You may have to bat defensively in some sessions and attackingly in other sessions depending on how the wicket is and who the bowlers are. You may have to combine both defense and attack sometimes - like letting one batsman dominate and letting the other batsman consolidate. Playing defensively is a sensible tactic on the first morning hour on a greenish English wicket, against the likes of swing bowlers like Jimmy and Broad. Throwing the bat at every ball is not batting at all (it is a good idea to play only deliveries that you absolutely must, during the first hour of play on a tough wicket). All out attack rarely works in test cricket (except on flat decks) and any team that has tried it has failed most of the time.
Click to expand...

You're just regurgitating stuff that you've heard 'experts' say and they also regurgitated it. No one's able to explain why any of this is necessarily true. Defensive batting is awful in these conditions, because you WILL get out anyway.

Use any statistical metric you like. Australia WERE DEFENSIVE yesterday. It's why they were bundled out.

It's telling that establishment commentators are having to resort to the literal extreme conclusion; they shouldn't have played a single shot, including defensive ones. It's group-think gone mad.

England have been far more 'irresponsible' and that's why they are winning. They reacted from their huge defeat by playing big shots anyway, and they've won. The Aussies have blinked and deviated from the proper gameplan first.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They won't come "anyway" you actually have to play a shot.

In fact in these conditions the only thing that was happening 'anyway' was a ball with their name on it.

It isn't easy to know for sure the ball is missing the stumps.

They tried to bat out and they got skittled for 60.

If they all had tried to hit a few would have got going, the field would have moved out and they could have batted normally like England did.
Click to expand...

Except England were able to bat normally because the openers left as much as they could outside offstump and forced the bowlers to bowl straighter and give them easy runs off their pads.

You're saying Australia needed to hit out so they could bat like England, totally ignoring the fact that England did the exact opposite.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They won't come "anyway" you actually have to play a shot.

In fact in these conditions the only thing that was happening 'anyway' was a ball with their name on it.

It isn't easy to know for sure the ball is missing the stumps.

They tried to bat out and they got skittled for 60.

If they all had tried to hit a few would have got going, the field would have moved out and they could have batted normally like England did.
Click to expand...

There have been innumerable instances in cricket where a batting team made runs at a slow pace during a session and then counterattacked in a later session. You seem to be assuming that if a team bats defensively they will inevitably get skittled for a low score - this is not true at all in test cricket. I have not advocated leaving each and every delivery, nor have I suggested throwing the bat at every delivery. Runs will eventually come if you can survive long enough.
 
Still quite abit in pitch for the bowlers, i can see Aussies folding tamely in the 2nd inns as well here today.
 
Big Mac said:
Except England were able to bat normally because the openers left as much as they could outside offstump and forced the bowlers to bowl straighter and give them easy runs off their pads.

You're saying Australia needed to hit out so they could bat like England, totally ignoring the fact that England did the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

They didn't bat defensively. Neither of them scored at less than 3 RPO and both hit boundaries.

Also, England have players bat their way. Cook and Lyth are the blockers, the rest are free to bash the ball as they prefer, irrespective of whether it worked the last time or not.
 
IndianWillow said:
There have been innumerable instances in cricket where a batting team made runs at a slow pace during a session and then counterattacked in a later session. You seem to be assuming that if a team bats defensively they will inevitably get skittled for a low score - this is not true at all in test cricket. I have not advocated leaving each and every delivery, nor have I suggested throwing the bat at every delivery. Runs will eventually come if you can survive long enough.
Click to expand...

No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying in such bowler friendly conditions you have to attack, because the bowlers will get you out sooner or later unless you can force a defensive field and lines.

In moderately tough conditions or dead wickets you can certainly grind a team down if that's your style. The problem is this has now become a moral issue where regardless of what the batsman's strength is or what will actually work, the media hounds are going to execute anyone who doesn't defend.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
You're just regurgitating stuff that you've heard 'experts' say and they also regurgitated it. No one's able to explain why any of this is necessarily true. Defensive batting is awful in these conditions, because you WILL get out anyway.

Use any statistical metric you like. Australia WERE DEFENSIVE yesterday. It's why they were bundled out.

It's telling that establishment commentators are having to resort to the literal extreme conclusion; they shouldn't have played a single shot, including defensive ones. It's group-think gone mad.

England have been far more 'irresponsible' and that's why they are winning. They reacted from their huge defeat by playing big shots anyway, and they've won. The Aussies have blinked and deviated from the proper gameplan first.
Click to expand...

They weren't defensive. 60 off 18 overs is 3.33 runs per over - hardly defensive for test cricket for the first hour of play on a green wicket. Heck, at the end of the first over they were 10/2, second over they were 15/3 and were beginning to stare down the barrel!! Talk about defensive cricket. 0/0 would be a much better score after two overs compared to 15/3.
 
England living off the benefit of having moeen ali so low down in the order, he always seems to get vital runs.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They didn't bat defensively. Neither of them scored at less than 3 RPO and both hit boundaries.

Also, England have players bat their way. Cook and Lyth are the blockers, the rest are free to bash the ball as they prefer, irrespective of whether it worked the last time or not.
Click to expand...

It's not about batting defensively or aggressively, it's about batting sensibly. When the ball is moving laterally you don't play at ball you don't need to.

Australia tried getting bat on ball as much possible, England's openers left as much possible, cashed in on freebies from frustrated bowlers and it meant the middle order could come in and make hay while the sun shone and batting became easier.
 
IndianWillow said:
They weren't defensive. 60 off 18 overs is 3.33 runs per over - hardly defensive for test cricket for the first hour of play on a green wicket. Heck, at the end of the first over they were 10/2, second over they were 15/3 and were beginning to stare down the barrel!! Talk about defensive cricket. 0/0 would be a much better score after two overs compared to 15/3.
Click to expand...

It was defensive. They scored much slower then their regular scoring rate of around 4, and that number is compounded by a very large number of extras.
 
Big Mac said:
It's not about batting defensively or aggressively, it's about batting sensibly. When the ball is moving laterally you don't play at ball you don't need to.

Australia tried getting bat on ball as much possible, England's openers left as much possible, cashed in on freebies from frustrated bowlers and it meant the middle order could come in and make hay while the sun shone and batting became easier.
Click to expand...

Please try and understand it's incredibly difficult to realize what you "need to" play.

Batting conditions always look easy when batsmen bat well. It's just as overcast now and the English batsmen are scoring lots of runs despite 'irresponsible' play and good bowling.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying in such bowler friendly conditions you have to attack, because the bowlers will get you out sooner or later unless you can force a defensive field and lines.

In moderately tough conditions or dead wickets you can certainly grind a team down if that's your style. The problem is this has now become a moral issue where regardless of what the batsman's strength is or what will actually work, the media hounds are going to execute anyone who doesn't defend.
Click to expand...

This is wrong. All early Australian wickets were caught behinds and all of them could have been avoided by leaving those deliveries. At least the Aussies should have raised their guard following the loss of two early wickets, but they kept edging one after the other. In swinging conditions you cannot attack without risking getting bowled out cheaply. The first hour was one to see off with patience and the Aussies failed here because they were attacking.
 
I'm glad that Australia didn't pay heed to PakPassion experts and stuck with Starc.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
It was defensive. They scored much slower then their regular scoring rate of around 4, and that number is compounded by a very large number of extras.
Click to expand...

Once so many early wickets are lost due to reckless play, no team will score at regular rates.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
You're just regurgitating stuff that you've heard 'experts' say and they also regurgitated it. No one's able to explain why any of this is necessarily true. Defensive batting is awful in these conditions, because you WILL get out anyway.

Use any statistical metric you like. Australia WERE DEFENSIVE yesterday. It's why they were bundled out.

It's telling that establishment commentators are having to resort to the literal extreme conclusion; they shouldn't have played a single shot, including defensive ones. It's group-think gone mad.

England have been far more 'irresponsible' and that's why they are winning. They reacted from their huge defeat by playing big shots anyway, and they've won. The Aussies have blinked and deviated from the proper gameplan first.
Click to expand...

some are forgetting technique and temprament too. the aussies temprament was suspect and some of the technique was really bad..also ignoring some really good bowling..in test cricket its about all of these. I felt the aussies just didnt try anything. I eman nothing..they just continued to try and play their game but i didnt see any of their players try to adapt and do something, either defensive or attacking!
 
Hazelwood continues to bowl gash deliveries, he should have been dropped in this test for siddle. Hes been pretty poor all series/

373/8
 
20 runs off the over! Mooen and broad seems to enjoy batting together!
 
what really annoyed me before this series was how pundits were overestimating this aussie side. After watching them in the uae surely england knew they were there for the taking? english pundits should watch more cricket!
 
the Great Khan said:
what really annoyed me before this series was how pundits were overestimating this aussie side. After watching them in the uae surely england knew they were there for the taking? english pundits should watch more cricket!
Click to expand...

If Harris were fit it would be a somewhat different story I think.
 
IndianWillow said:
Once so many early wickets are lost due to reckless play, no team will score at regular rates.
Click to expand...

They should, that's what works.

And by the way, England had acceptable results after multiple early collapses because their 5,6 and 7 position players are hitters who keep hitting.

Can't tell you how much it showed in that last ODI against NZL when Morgan walked in at 26/2 and slogged his first ball down mid-wicket's throat. Terrible result, but it showed they really understood intent, aggression and probability and they won anyway despite being 45/5.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They should, that's what works.

And by the way, England had acceptable results after multiple early collapses because their 5,6 and 7 position players are hitters who keep hitting.
Click to expand...

I'm sure their ability to keep hitting has nothing to do with the fact that the ball isn't still brand new at the time that they're smashing it around. Nothing at all. Nope. No connection whatsoever.

Can't tell you how much it showed in that last ODI against NZL when Morgan walked in at 26/2 and slogged his first ball down mid-wicket's throat. Terrible result, but it showed they really understood intent, aggression and probability and they won anyway despite being 45/5.
Click to expand...

So now one day games on flat pitches are the template for batting in the first session of a test on a pitch with some juice in it?

Your analysis just keeps getting better and better.
 
You know what's going to happen don't you? In the last Test the Aussies will play Siddle and he will take 10 wickets in the match and everyone will say "why wasn't he playing all along!"
 
Some so called experts here think all cricketers , captains, who have played this game all their life are or were fool, and they know better than them without even playing a single match at that difficult elite level. Talk about nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Plot twist- Aussies to make 570 in the 2nd innings and bowl England out for under 100. we can all dream for an exciting finish, in reality england will probably win by the end of today.
 
Big Mac said:
I'm sure their ability to keep hitting has nothing to do with the fact that the ball isn't still brand new at the time that they're smashing it around. Nothing at all. Nope. No connection whatsoever.



So now one day games on flat pitches are the template for batting in the first session of a test on a pitch with some juice in it?

Your analysis just keeps getting better and better.
Click to expand...

It's the mindset I was speaking of, and you fail to get it. Unplayable conditions are a REASON TO ATTACK, not a reason to defend. Defence can work in balanced or batter favored conditions. In unplayable conditions, you need to force defensive fields or lines or you will be out sooner or later.
 
Robert said:
If Harris were fit it would be a somewhat different story I think.
Click to expand...

true but even when he pulled out there was a general consensus that england were going to lose..i'm the only one at work who gave them a chance!! lol
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They should, that's what works.

And by the way, England had acceptable results after multiple early collapses because their 5,6 and 7 position players are hitters who keep hitting.

Can't tell you how much it showed in that last ODI against NZL when Morgan walked in at 26/2 and slogged his first ball down mid-wicket's throat. Terrible result, but it showed they really understood intent, aggression and probability and they won anyway despite being 45/5.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought. This is T20 analysis. You are mixing up ODI (perhaps T20) and test match strategies. In a five day match, you don't throw your bats around if you lose early wickets. You see out the new ball and then build the innings. Were the English #5,6,7 hitters dealing with the brand new ball on a juicy pitch like this?
 
the Great Khan said:
true but even when he pulled out there was a general consensus that england were going to lose..i'm the only one at work who gave them a chance!! lol
Click to expand...

By the way, I was one of the few here who predicted the English would win (and with this exact reason) and now that I'm proved right, people still disagree.

No matter what the evidence so called purists will never admit the old ways are outdated.
 
if we last wicket falls now Aussies could end up with a very tricky over or two to bat before lunch!
 
CricketAnalyst said:
By the way, I was one of the few here who predicted the English would win (and with this exact reason) and now that I'm proved right, people still disagree.

No matter what the evidence so called purists will never admit the old ways are outdated.
Click to expand...

one could argue the aussies played the "new way"..
 
CricketAnalyst said:
It's the mindset I was speaking of, and you fail to get it. Unplayable conditions are a REASON TO ATTACK, not a reason to defend. Defence can work in balanced or batter favored conditions. In unplayable conditions, you need to force defensive fields or lines or you will be out sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Yet you said that Australia needed to ATTACK in order to be able to bat like England did.

Except England weren't attacking at all and have already proved your hypothesis wrong.
 
IndianWillow said:
Just as I thought. This is T20 analysis. You are mixing up ODI (perhaps T20) and test match strategies. In a five day match, you don't throw your bats around if you lose early wickets. You see out the new ball and then build the innings. Were the English #5,6,7 hitters dealing with the brand new ball on a juicy pitch like this?
Click to expand...

They did do this in Tests and it worked.

My point is not that you have to assault in Tests. My point is you have to assault when the situation is very bad because you will be bowled out otherwise and yes, the ball was newish when these guys walked out at 30/3 or 4 very often.

Defence in Tests is a huge and undeserved luxury you have compared to the better forms of cricket. It's best used when it's very likely to work and the bowler can't expect wickets anyway. As yesterday showed, even desperate defence won't work when conditions are favourable and bowlers are on top.

The guys did what you wanted them to, it didn't work and now you don't want to admit it, so you're claiming that they didn't do it. When a team genuinely attacks and it fails (rarely happens) I admit it. You should as well.
 
smart move by england if they can take 4/5 wickets in 2 overs by lunch they will be happy.
 
Big Mac said:
Yet you said that Australia needed to ATTACK in order to be able to bat like England did.

Except England weren't attacking at all and have already proved your hypothesis wrong.
Click to expand...

Only 2 batsmen did not attack.

And they were hardly the most successful ones either.
 
Predictions of when game will be over?

Tea today?
End of Today?
Tomorrow?

I reckon game will be over today.
 
Basically, a lot of people here are now saying they whatever their advice is, if you succeed it has been followed and if you fail it means the advice has been ignored. Beyond that, they will not be definitive about what their advice even is.

But if you fail, inevitably their advice is "you should have been more defensive".
 
you don't need to play at every ball, that was the reason for the Aussies demise. attacking is one thing, throwing your bat around at everything is another. some times you need to apply yourself get a feel of the pitch play yourself in, leave a few deliveries get a feel of the bounce, out of 120 deliveries only 8 would have hit the stumps in Aussies innings. the conditions were not so bowler friendly as everybody is making it out to be. Australia came out with an attacking plan and got found out simple as that.
 
Extras off the mark for Aussies, might be top scorer again in this inns
 
Wow. I wrote before Rogers debut that he struggles around the wicket to the right arm bowler. 2 years later commentators speaking about it. Trying to find my post but cannot! :(
 
Another run for extras moves onto 5, looking in good touch like 1st inns.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They did do this in Tests and it worked.

My point is not that you have to assault in Tests. My point is you have to assault when the situation is very bad because you will be bowled out otherwise and yes, the ball was newish when these guys walked out at 30/3 or 4 very often.

Defence in Tests is a huge and undeserved luxury you have compared to the better forms of cricket. It's best used when it's very likely to work and the bowler can't expect wickets anyway. As yesterday showed, even desperate defence won't work when conditions are favourable and bowlers are on top.

The guys did what you wanted them to, it didn't work and now you don't want to admit it, so you're claiming that they didn't do it. When a team genuinely attacks and it fails (rarely happens) I admit it. You should as well.
Click to expand...

Which in fact they did not. If I were an Australian fan, I would have hated my batsmen slashing every ball outside the off stump and giving catching practice to the slips - on a juicy track first day morning hour. Ask Rahul Dravid how to survive these morning hours of English conditions and he will he glad to tell you how - it is by not throwing your bat at every thing.

Six slip catches in the first five overs, mind you. They played exactly as you claim they should have, and they got bowled out cheaply. They did not get the runs because they did not have wickets in hand. If they had seen out the first hour with a score of say 30/0 or 30/1, they had all the time in the world to score runs post lunch. No, they would not have been dismissed for 60 if they had avoided giving the slips catching practice.
 
Rogers gets two boundaries in an over.. that will make him feel a lot better...
 
IndianWillow said:
Which in fact they did not. If I were an Australian fan, I would have hated my batsmen slashing every ball outside the off stump and giving catching practice to the slips - on a juicy track first day morning hour. Ask Rahul Dravid how to survive these morning hours of English conditions and he will he glad to tell you how - it is by not throwing your bat at every thing.

Six slip catches in the first five overs, mind you. They played exactly as you claim they should have, and they got bowled out cheaply. They did not get the runs because they did not have wickets in hand. If they had seen out the first hour with a score of say 30/0 or 30/1, they had all the time in the world to score runs post lunch. No, they would not have been dismissed for 60 if they had avoided giving the slips catching practice.
Click to expand...

No. You are falling into the same trap. You are saying your advice is "get a good result" that's meaningless.

And no, they did not attack. Their SR was low, and 9 out of 10 of them got out trying not to score. I don't want the ball to go the slips either. I want it go to the boundary. They played those balls defensively because they thought they might be bowled if they attacked those balls, they might have scored.
 
Well done Aussies survived 3 overs without losing a wicket.
 
To be more clear, I want them to attack. If they do that and get out, no problem. Like Clarke.

You're just don't get out, which is not in their control at all. It's not advice. It's just meaningless, and no you can't leave every ball, some of those might have got them bowled.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
To be more clear, I want them to attack. If they do that and get out, no problem. Like Clarke.

You're just don't get out, which is not in their control at all. It's not advice. It's just meaningless, and no you can't leave every ball, some of those might have got them bowled.
Click to expand...
Thats just it only 8 balls out of 111 would have hit the stumps. So if they had left most of the balls they would still have two wickets in hand. Attacking for attacking sake just doesnt always work. Like Mccullum captaincy in the 1st test versus England.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jeetu
Stats: Rating players by their performance against each country
Replies
12
Views
479
jeetu
jeetu
jeetu
Stats - Rating Test batsman by taking Peer Factor into account
Replies
6
Views
2K
jeetu
jeetu
UN talkz
England [514/8d] beat West Indies [168 & 137] by an innings and 209 runs in the first Test
2 3
Replies
163
Views
8K
Aman
Aman
Abdul
ICC CT 2017 | England [310] beat New Zealand [223] by 87 runs
2 3
Replies
224
Views
10K
Ashraful_Rox
Ashraful_Rox
Abdul
ICC Champions Trophy, Group A : England [308/2] beat Bangladesh [305/6] by 8 wickets
6 7 8
Replies
629
Views
39K
jnaveen1980
J
Back
Top