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

[Stallion__]

Umpires didn't check for no ball btw

 

[Junaids]

Four Ashes series since 2010. England have won 3 of the 4 series.

Scores so far

Australia 1 England 3
England 3 Australia 0
Australia 5 England 0
England 3 Australia 1

10 Tests in Australia, 9 in England
England have won 9
Australia have won 7

 

[Junaids]

Pup's just announced The Oval is his last Test.

 

[Junaids]

A Sandgroper like [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] won't care, but at least Australia is only 6-3 down in the Rugby Championship Final against the All Blacks.

Here on the East Coast it's a case of "cricket match? Nah mate, the rugby's on."

 

[anuk]

is warnie 'thirsty' again?

such an unlikable commentator

 

[IndianWillow]

There have been bigger win margins, but this is one of the most one sided tests in recent memory. The match outcome was clear by tea on day one! Even when the match is one sided you think the match can change course (or perhaps head for a draw), but this match was practically over by the end of the first day's play.

 

[Junaids]

There have been bigger win margins, but this is one of the most one sided tests in recent memory. The match outcome was clear by tea on day one! Even when the match is one sided you think the match can change course (or perhaps head for a draw), but this match was practically over by the end of the first day's play.

The outcome was a foregone conclusion after 4 overs!

I often knock ODIs for too often becoming foregone conclusions, so I had better shut up!

 

[Markhor]

Pretty emotional post-match interviews from both Clarke and Cook.

Well done Cook, been through an almighty barrage of criticism from the English media. Its been a rough journey from the 5-0 debacle Down Under and the defeats to Sri Lanka, New Zealand and West Indies. That's combined with the loss of personal form and the Pietersen controversy.

O Captain My Captain.

 

[Robert]

Pretty emotional post-match interviews from both Clarke and Cook.

Yeah. Well impressed with Clarke in particular who was honest and dignified. Hope he gets a ton at the Oval (as long as Australia lose).

 

[CricketAnalyst]

What DoesnstUnderstandTestCricket isn't getting is that long innings (in the early part of the match) usually win tests and in a long innings there will be periods when test match bowlers get on top, so the batter has to dig in and survive for a bit. All the great batters of the past knew this. These young Aussies do not seem to. They are stuck in ODI mode and that is why they are losing.

Similarly, experienced test bowlers know that sometimes the batters will be on top and they have to spread the field and bowl for containment. Then when a wicket goes down the slips come back and the bowler can come in at full power for a bit. Over several days the constant effort thing doesn't work - you have to know when to attack and when to defend.

They aren't stuck in ODI mode, on the contrary, they aren't being allowed to play in ODI mode.

I'd gladly be proven wrong if some team actually played positively and lost a series, but sides really don't play very positively. NewZealand did so against England (oddly because they are turgid and negative in ODIs and T20s) and they did pretty well, though the usual suspects were howling about how it's not Test Cricket.

What you may not understand is that refusing to score doesn't make sure your innings will be long. Exhaustion of bowlers is a factor, but not such a huge one that it over-rides the imperative to score. When your highest average guy is the one who cops the most blame because he's positive, you need to look in the mirror (Warner I mean).

Also, you're strawmanning my position. I'm not saying always attack. I'm saying "never criticize batsmen who do attack". You selected them for a reason, they are the best judge of the ball; shut up and let them bat.

I don't see football fans second guessing a mistrapped ball or misplaced pass like this, and the ones that do just put their players on edge. I don't actually object to Cook playing as slow as he wants. My objection is to the idea that Stokes might score more and you'll still blame Stokes because he was out hitting and Cook was out blocking.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Brilliant posts by [MENTION=50394]IndianWillow[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION].

[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] is so used to limited overs and Test cricket on roads - as are the Aussies - that he imagines that this wicket was a minefield.

It wasn't. England scored 274-4 on Day 1.

The whole reason why Australia is losing is because its batsmen think like [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] and play expansive shots at balls that they should be leaving, and get caught in the slips.

This wicket was a 60-2 at Lunch on Day 1 wicket. And the only wickets should have been LBW with the batsman leaving the ball.
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] for some reason has mentioned Strike Rate several times, as if it is a positive in Test cricket on sporting surfaces. It isn't: the bottom line is that the team which wins in Test cricket is the one which bats for longer, not the one which scores faster.

And for exactly the same reasons listed above: the longer you bat, the flatter the wicket gets, the softer the ball gets and the more tired the bowlers become.

I will write a separate post on this, but you couldn't be more wrong.

In the 16 decisive Test matches this calendar year, the side scoring faster has won 14 of them. The side batting longer has won 12 (even after I've considered a side that actually faced fewer overs to have batted longer, if their first innings was longer than the opposition first innings because they won by chasing down quickly).

What this shows is a) The side scoring faster tends to also bat longer. This is a fact and there is an overwhelming correlation here.

b) When there is a divergence between the two, the side scoring faster tends to have done better and that faster scoring is more valuable.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

This underpin the really big claim I've been making here.

I refuse to agree with the idea of the Test Match mob that merely batting slowly will ensure you last long. All the evidence is showing that this is not at all true.

 

[IndianWillow]

I will write a separate post on this, but you couldn't be more wrong.

In the 16 decisive Test matches this calendar year, the side scoring faster has won 14 of them. The side batting longer has won 12 (even after I've considered a side that actually faced fewer overs to have batted longer, if their first innings was longer than the opposition first innings because they won by chasing down quickly).

What this shows is a) The side scoring faster tends to also bat longer. This is a fact and there is an overwhelming correlation here.

b) When there is a divergence between the two, the side scoring faster tends to have done better and that faster scoring is more valuable.

Can you do the stats for two conditions? 1. A non phatta wicket 2. A team winning away.

Let me know how many times a visiting side has toppled a home team on bowling conditions favouring home bowlers with a ODI approach to batting.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Can you do the stats for two conditions? 1. A non phatta wicket 2. A team winning away.

Let me know how many times a visiting side has toppled a home team on bowling conditions favouring home bowlers with a ODI approach to batting.

Can you give me any metric by which I can assess "non-phatta wicket"?