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

[CricketAnalyst]

Shocking shot from such an over rated batsman. As a captain such cowardice should not be forgiven or tolerated.

It was the ONLY dismissal that tried to score runs. That's what they need. The rest would rather be shot out for 60 than play shots, it seems.

That's what this absurd old-school mentality does to teams.

 

[Juansar_07]

Bell LBW.Brilliant delivery by Starc.

Spoiler

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Excellent post, Australia just trying to always play ultra fast test cricket and trying to make something happen every delivery wether they are batting or bowling and in the end you cant play cricket like that sometimes you have to be attritional at times.

The Aussie batsmen were in fact too negative.

Whenever a side collapses it's just absurd how they are blamed for being too aggressive even if the problem was the EXACT OPPOSITE.

 

[AlphaFighter]

It was the ONLY dismissal that tried to score runs. That's what they need. The rest would rather be shot out for 60 than play shots, it seems.

That's what this absurd old-school mentality does to teams.

In all the dismissals I am seeing open drives against a swinging seaming ball. You have to get through the new ball and avoid losing too many wickets early on. Attritional cricket where you show respect for the opposition, conditions.

 

[Juansar_07]

Starc unplayable.Gets third - Cook.

Spoiler

 

[Sam1]

Watching that again it looks like a ball youd just expect Cook to clip off his legs. Bit overpitched and not doing anything at all really.

 

[Haroon786]

They haven't batted recklessly. Just badly. They would have scored a lot more if they did bat 'recklessly'. In fact the whole problem is that this whole thing becomes moralistic, so people start demanding they play defensively, whether or not that will help (which it won't).

Wafting your bat at balls that should be left well alone is reckless batting. The rest of your post is just tripe.

 

[the Great Khan]

It's not doctored, it's a perfectly normal English wicket. These Australians lack the understanding of how to bat and bowl on it. Put Alderman on this deck and England would be in bother. Or, y'know, Siddle even.

absolutley. all they had to do was leave leave and get to lunch without losing too many. then cash in during the rest of the day as the sun was going to come out. They got a few jaffas but you will get those on these type pf pitches but the way they capitulated was a joke. I mean i go back to the voges dismissal, the way he played away from his body, the way they all did..

their style of play is a joke for test cricket. You have to grind out sessions at times and then counter attack..I feel this aussie side are there to be given a good few beatings in the coming years..Mitch isnt as effective and they have no spinner. England could once again emerge as a hard to beat side in all conditions..

The advent of the IPL is destroying aussie cricket. they need to take a step back and stop their players from going over there and looking at things like the kookaburra ball as well as their own domestic comps

 

[Sam1]

Today has been absolutely boring day of Test Cricket, it can't get any worse than this!

Now we know you're deluded.

 

[soso_killer]

Pathetic display from the Aussies.
The ICC should vacate the number 2 ranking ATM. No team is worthy #2 TBH.
Congratulations England for walking the Ashes, coz that's what it's been, a walk in the park.

 

[MarkCooper]

Man Of Steel is from Lancashire

 

[Big Mac]

Now we know you're deluded.

It took until now for you to come to that conclusion?

300+ runs and 13 wickets = boring

 

[soso_killer]

you can't win a test on day 1, but you can lose it.
Australia have lost two consecutive tests on day 1, within 3 days to boot.

 

[Stallion__]

If England won this test, they would surpass Pakistan in ICC rankings, so Pakistan would be 4th after this series

 

[Juansar_07]

Aussies finally get their 4th.Good knock by Bairstow.

Spoiler

 

[trogger]

you can't win a test on day 1, but you can lose it.
Australia have lost two consecutive tests on day 1, within 3 days to boot.

We outdid ourselves with this one, forget a day it was lost in the first 45 minutes.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Ashes slipping through Australia's hands unless the wickets gets very very flat and in second innings 2 Australians get hundred and one gets double .

If English players remain focussed and determined next 2 days than it's finished for Aussies.

 

[AlphaFighter]

absolutley. all they had to do was leave leave and get to lunch without losing too many. then cash in during the rest of the day as the sun was going to come out. They got a few jaffas but you will get those on these type pf pitches but the way they capitulated was a joke. I mean i go back to the voges dismissal, the way he played away from his body, the way they all did..

their style of play is a joke for test cricket. You have to grind out sessions at times and then counter attack..I feel this aussie side are there to be given a good few beatings in the coming years..Mitch isnt as effective and they have no spinner. England could once again emerge as a hard to beat side in all conditions..

The advent of the IPL is destroying aussie cricket. they need to take a step back and stop their players from going over there and looking at things like the kookaburra ball as well as their own domestic comps

I saw so many dismissals, batsmen playing away from their body. People complaining about the run rate, lack of runs if they don't play shots fail to understand that even if Australia had gone into lunch at 20/2 or 20/3, they would have been able to capitalize on the pitch flattening out later on.

 

[AlphaFighter]

If England won this test, they would surpass Pakistan in ICC rankings, so Pakistan would be 4th after this series

I think its fair enough. Pakistan has not played any test matches in Australia, NZ, England for a while now. The last time we played in South Africa, we saw the result.

 

[MMHS]

I think, AUS is extremely successful playing a different brand of cricket in ODI & they are trying to follow the same pattern in longer format as well, which is back firing on a slightly alien condition - be it in UK, UAE or IND. It's not only on seeming wicket, last year on slow turners at UAE they kept a RR of 4, but couldn't bat out 4 sessions in any of the innings (5 in total, if we take the A Side match).

Tour preparation definitely has a positive impact as [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] said, but here I don't think is applicable - Aussies are in UK for over a month now & this is their 6th or 7th FC match. Modern game has definitely changed the approach of batting, more than technique, but I think it's more of Aussie batsmen's failure to cope with a bit of movement rather than anything else - last year Rahne played a gem of a knock when condition (& bowling) was arguably more testing.

I think, ENG 'll bat well here, Aussies are a bit Hit the Deck type pacers - Josh should bowl well here but he had a poor last match on similar surface.

Boy, I missed the fun today - Poms scored 260+ for 4 in 2 sessions on a wicket where Aussies got packed for 60!!!!!!

Ideally, ENG 'll like to bat for whole day tomorrow at a good rate & get all-out/declare with 5 overs left, so that they can bowl on 3rd morning. Unless, AUS cleans the last 6 before lunch (which 'll be extremely difficult, ENG don't have much of a tail) AUS 'll struggle to make ENG bat again.

 

[honeybadger]

Good to see you back [MENTION=137821]Juansar_07[/MENTION]. Appreciate the good work.

 

[Juansar_07]

Good to see you back [MENTION=137821]Juansar_07[/MENTION]. Appreciate the good work.

Feels good to be back home.Pleasure.

 

[IndianWillow]

you can't win a test on day 1, but you can lose it.
Australia have lost two consecutive tests on day 1, within 3 days to boot.

18 overs is all they lasted. Not good even for a hit-and-giggle T20 match. This is the shortest completed first innings ever in test cricket, both in terms of minutes played and overs played.

 

[Robert]

I can see a rested Starc blowing a hole in the middle order tomorrow, and England topping out at about 380 after another fifty from the Beard.

We could have another two-day tests on our hands.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

In all the dismissals I am seeing open drives against a swinging seaming ball. You have to get through the new ball and avoid losing too many wickets early on. Attritional cricket where you show respect for the opposition, conditions.

They weren't trying to score. Nobody except Clarke was out trying to score.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

absolutley. all they had to do was leave leave and get to lunch without losing too many. then cash in during the rest of the day as the sun was going to come out. They got a few jaffas but you will get those on these type pf pitches but the way they capitulated was a joke. I mean i go back to the voges dismissal, the way he played away from his body, the way they all did..

their style of play is a joke for test cricket. You have to grind out sessions at times and then counter attack..I feel this aussie side are there to be given a good few beatings in the coming years..Mitch isnt as effective and they have no spinner. England could once again emerge as a hard to beat side in all conditions..

The advent of the IPL is destroying aussie cricket. they need to take a step back and stop their players from going over there and looking at things like the kookaburra ball as well as their own domestic comps

Actually Australia are losing because of thought process like yours.

They actually played too defensively, not too attackingly.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Wafting your bat at balls that should be left well alone is reckless batting. The rest of your post is just tripe.

All of your analysis is tripe, and not trying to score is defensive. In a positive frame of mind, many of those balls would have been whacked to the boundary instead of prodded to slip and keeper.

Old-school guys just don't understand sport or analytics.

 

[IndianWillow]

They weren't trying to score. Nobody except Clarke was out trying to score.

Rogers, Warner, Smith, Marsh, Voges lasted only 3,2,3,4 and 4 deliveries each. They were all dismissed before they could decide whether to score or not. A typical collapse in the past (say the 80s) would still last 40 overs even if the conditions were hostile. 20 over collapses are going to happen more often than in the past.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Rogers, Warner, Smith, Marsh, Voges lasted only 3,2,3,4 and 4 deliveries each. They were all dismissed before they could decide whether to score or not. A typical collapse in the past (say the 80s) would still last 40 overs even if the conditions were hostile. 20 over collapses are going to happen more often than in the past.

My point is that people calling this reckless, aggressive etc are just being stupid and reactionary. Their hatred for T20 means anything, and I mean anything can be blamed on T20.

In fact, the one common thread nowadays is that when a team lands in a situation where the management doesn't want them to play positively, they simply collapse, because they are not allowed to score.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis CricketAnalyst.

I'm watching the highlights now and after six overs the Aussies have a RR just around 5 (fast by Test standards) yet they've lost 6 wickets and at this point the game was lost.

On a pitch like this mornings I think they'd have been better off playing defensively for the first session or two and then playing aggressively when a) a partnership is built or b) the pitch flattened out. Sky showed that only 8 deliveries in the entire innings were going on to hit the stumps, which shows most of the wickets came from balls that didnt need to be played at at such a delicate stage of the match.

I dont see how the Aussies playing more aggressively or having a more aggressive mindset would've made much difference, I mean as it was their innings didnt last 19 overs

 

[AlphaFighter]

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis CricketAnalyst.

I'm watching the highlights now and after six overs the Aussies have a RR just around 5 (fast by Test standards) yet they've lost 6 wickets and at this point the game was lost.

On a pitch like this mornings I think they'd have been better off playing defensively for the first session or two and then playing aggressively when a) a partnership is built or b) the pitch flattened out. Sky showed that only 8 deliveries in the entire innings were going on to hit the stumps, which shows most of the wickets came from balls that didnt need to be played at at such a delicate stage of the match.

I dont see how the Aussies playing more aggressively or having a more aggressive mindset would've made much difference, I mean as it was their innings didnt last 19 overs

On this pitch, even if the Aussies were 15/2 or 20/3 at lunch time with leaving a vast majority of deliveries, they would have been better equipped to take advantage of better batting conditions later on.

 

[Haroon786]

All of your analysis is tripe, and not trying to score is defensive. In a positive frame of mind, many of those balls would have been whacked to the boundary instead of prodded to slip and keeper.

Old-school guys just don't understand sport or analytics.

My analysis may well be tripe - but it certainly isn't to me or the rest of PP, unfortunately the same can't be said of that post of yours though.

Just a basic lesson - a run rate of 2 is considered slow, RR of 3 is average and anything over 3.5-4 quite fast for Test Cricket - thus Australia were being aggressive but they were being aggressive to the point of reckless, where deliveries that could have been left alone weren't and hence more prudence in dealing with the wide balls would have given Australia a fighting chance.

 

[AlphaFighter]

Rogers, Warner, Smith, Marsh, Voges lasted only 3,2,3,4 and 4 deliveries each. They were all dismissed before they could decide whether to score or not. A typical collapse in the past (say the 80s) would still last 40 overs even if the conditions were hostile. 20 over collapses are going to happen more often than in the past.

Extremely poor technique. You do not drive so openly against the swinging ball knowing that the conditions are in favor of the bowling side. You have to leave the ball as much as possible. Martin Crowe used a beautiful technique against Wasim and Waqar in 1990 and Imran Khan called it the best approach to play against fast bowling in difficult conditions. He would show the full straight face of the bat and never use an angular blade. If Wasim and Waqar bowled inswingers, he would play them out, if they moved the ball away from him. He would just present a straight bat in line with the stumps and would not chase any delivery remotely outside off stump and he would avoid drives unless he was sure he could put it away. The technique took him a lot of time to score runs but atleast he survived. Even Wasim Akram in his autobiography rated Martin Crowe as one of the toughest batsmen he ever bowled too and the fact he was massively under rated.

This is the technique and mindset the Aussies needed to show for the first 30 overs of the match.

 

[Haroon786]

Extremely poor technique. You do not drive so openly against the swinging ball knowing that the conditions are in favor of the bowling side. You have to leave the ball as much as possible. Martin Crowe used a beautiful technique against Wasim and Waqar in 1990 and Imran Khan called it the best approach to play against fast bowling in difficult conditions. He would show the full straight face of the bat and never use an angular blade. If Wasim and Waqar bowled inswingers, he would play them out, if they moved the ball away from him. He would just present a straight bat in line with the stumps and would not chase any delivery remotely outside off stump and he would avoid drives unless he was sure he could put it away. The technique took him a lot of time to score runs but atleast he survived. Even Wasim Akram in his autobiography rated Martin Crowe as one of the toughest batsmen he ever bowled too and the fact he was massively under rated.

This is the technique and mindset the Aussies needed to show for the first 30 overs of the match.

Good post, but I don't think it is strictly to do with technique because it's more of a temperament issue - I mean if the Aussies actually looked to cave in and be gritty, then instead of chasing balls they would look to leave the wide balls and only punish the bad balls and hence reuse their reckless approach but of course having a sound technique helps in being able to combat the swinging ball.

 

[IndianWillow]

Extremely poor technique. You do not drive so openly against the swinging ball knowing that the conditions are in favor of the bowling side. You have to leave the ball as much as possible. Martin Crowe used a beautiful technique against Wasim and Waqar in 1990 and Imran Khan called it the best approach to play against fast bowling in difficult conditions. He would show the full straight face of the bat and never use an angular blade. If Wasim and Waqar bowled inswingers, he would play them out, if they moved the ball away from him. He would just present a straight bat in line with the stumps and would not chase any delivery remotely outside off stump and he would avoid drives unless he was sure he could put it away. The technique took him a lot of time to score runs but atleast he survived. Even Wasim Akram in his autobiography rated Martin Crowe as one of the toughest batsmen he ever bowled too and the fact he was massively under rated.

This is the technique and mindset the Aussies needed to show for the first 30 overs of the match.

Australians have typically batted at 4rpo since the late 90s. They don't leave too many balls. While their ATG team had players who could score in swinging conditions, this team isn't technically proficient. This Australian team needs to learn to build an innings in tough conditions - by leaving out as many balls as possible. A score of 40/3 off 30 by lunch would have been infinitely better than 60/10 after 18.

 

[Shah]

60 all out. Is this stupid batting, brilliant bowling or match fixing?

 

[Random Aussie]

Actually Australia are losing because of thought process like yours.

They actually played too defensively, not too attackingly.

You should apply to be an analyst for our team, they'd like you

 

[Mamoon]

All Australia needed today was to know where their off-stump is and forget about the run rate in the first session, and they would have ended the day at 200-4.

Flashing hard outside the off-stump with has resulted in this, so I am not sure if their supposed lack of aggressiveness is to be blamed here. Simply idiotic cricket by them.

The conditions were much easier to bat in the last two sessions as exhibited by England, and Captain Clarke clearly led the way with that shocking shot.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

This Test is already over.

 

[Big Mac]

England bowled 114 deliveries (18.3 overs + 3 no balls).

Of those 114 deliveries only eight would have gone on to hit the stumps.

The idea that they needed to be more attacking is ludicrous. What they needed was some of this:

 

[ChachaCricket]

It's nothing to with the approach just lack of ability. Apart from Rogers, Warner and Clarke(finished), there's no one on the roster that has a strong off stump game. Those two have been baring the brunt of the bowling until now, one failure and everyone was exposed.

Steven Smith's 200 in the middle of an atrocious series has to be the most deceiving innings a batsman's played.

 

[AlphaFighter]

Would Shane Watson do any worse?

 

[FreakCricket]

Desperate Clarke and desperate shot

 

[Anuj25]

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[MMHS]

All Australia needed today was to know where their off-stump is and forget about the run rate in the first session, and they would have ended the day at 200-4.

Flashing hard outside the off-stump with has resulted in this, so I am not sure if their supposed lack of aggressiveness is to be blamed here. Simply idiotic cricket by them.

The conditions were much easier to bat in the last two sessions as exhibited by England, and Captain Clarke clearly led the way with that shocking shot.

Had they gone to lunch at say 55/1 - AUS would have ended the day at least at 270/4 & if that wicket before lunch is not Warner, probably would have reached 350/5. This is a beautiful Test wicket, which probably 'll be best for batting after Lunch Day 2 & spinners 'll also come into play in Day 4 & 5. AUS played awfully reckless & before realizing the damage, they were 5 or 6 down. This match probably won't go to Day 4; but a couple of hours "appropriate" batting would have taken this match to a tight finish in 14th or 15th session.

 

[larkykid]

Arguably, Oz's darkest day in Ashes history having been Broadsided before lunch. At stumps, their Ashes campaign all but Rooted.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

i kinda feel bad for Clarke tbh, he doesnt deserve to go out like this

 

[larkykid]

Desperate Clarke and desperate shot

Aye, shot of man, who's just surrendered.

 

[AlphaFighter]

Aye, shot of man, who's just surrendered.

Disgraceful shot for an international captain, that also in the ashes. He is their main and most experienced batsman which is what makes his shot unpardonable.

I cannot understand why Watson has been benched vs voges, why was Mitchell marsh not played as well.

 

[pinger]

Very, VERY poor by Australia. All our guys playing front foot heavy with the bat well in front of the pad. You cannot play like that on a swinging and seaming deck.

Joe Root, who is basically a back foot player, has shown how to play in these conditions. He has played beautifully.

Rogers, who is probably our only back foot dominant player has also been one of the most reliable, unsuprisingly.

 

[MMHS]

Very, VERY poor by Australia. All our guys playing front foot heavy with the bat well in front of the pad. You cannot play like that on a swinging and seaming deck.

Joe Root, who is basically a back foot player, has shown how to play in these conditions. He has played beautifully.

Rogers, who is probably our only back foot dominant player has also been one of the most reliable, unsuprisingly.

I have also noticed that, probably Warner also a back-foot dominant player, but WHY? I mean Aussie players play on hard & bouncy wickets & traditionally every Aussie great had been a back-foot dominant player. I am also surprised to see this. Apart from swing, seem, I think these players 'll be even more vulnerable on turning tracks with this front-foot forward technique.

 

[Vayuu]

This has innings and more than 150 run defeat written all over it.

 

[pinger]

I have also noticed that, probably Warner also a back-foot dominant player, but WHY? I mean Aussie players play on hard & bouncy wickets & traditionally every Aussie great had been a back-foot dominant player. I am also surprised to see this. Apart from swing, seem, I think these players 'll be even more vulnerable on turning tracks with this front-foot forward technique.

Because Warner is the shortest player on the Australian team. A midget really at 1.70m. Rogers is 1.77 m.

How tall you are often has a major impact on your play style, as it changes the place on the crease; and the height on the crease where you meet the ball, all other things being equal. You obvioulsy develop your game to your strengths depending on where you meet the ball.

Shorter players tend to be better back foot players, taller players better front foot players, as a very basic, rough rule of thumb.

 

[MMHS]

Because Warner is the shortest player on the Australian team. A midget really at 1.70m. Rogers is 1.77 m.

How tall you are often has a major impact on your play style, as it changes the place on the crease; and the height on the crease where you meet the ball, all other things being equal. You obvioulsy develop your game to your strengths depending on where you meet the ball.

Shorter players tend to be better back foot players, taller players better front foot players, as a very basic, rough rule of thumb.

No mate, there has to be other reason - Greg Chappell was 6'2", so was Dean Jones, Mark Waugh 6'1", his twin probably 6'0", Panta 5'11", at least 5'10", Hayden 6'3-4", Martin ~6', AB 5'11", Walters was probably 5'11"; I Chappel ~ 6', Gilly 6'1", Moody was 6'7", Hussey ~6', Lawry was parallel to Simpson & both looked at per with Ian, my memory tells Redpath was taller than Ian ............... 6' = 183cm ..... you +/- 2.54cm with every inch. I might be missing few figures but, surely every one was much, much taller than 170cm.

Taller players are indeed better front-foot player, but they can be great back-foot player as well. Add Lloyd, Barry Richards, G Pollock with the above list......

It must be somewhere else - may be changing Aussie wickets, may be coaching method, may be too many LO on flat belters, may be declining pace of domestic pacers, may be too much control on short staff in domestics/nets ....... but it can't be height.

 

[pinger]

No mate, there has to be other reason - Greg Chappell was 6'2", so was Dean Jones, Mark Waugh 6'1", his twin probably 6'0", Panta 5'11", at least 5'10", Hayden 6'3-4", Martin ~6', AB 5'11", Walters was probably 5'11"; I Chappel ~ 6', Gilly 6'1", Moody was 6'7", Hussey ~6', Lawry was parallel to Simpson & both looked at per with Ian, my memory tells Redpath was taller than Ian ............... 6' = 183cm ..... you +/- 2.54cm with every inch. I might be missing few figures but, surely every one was much, much taller than 170cm.

Taller players are indeed better front-foot player, but they can be great back-foot player as well. Add Lloyd, Barry Richards, G Pollock with the above list......

It must be somewhere else - may be changing Aussie wickets, may be coaching method, may be too many LO on flat belters, may be declining pace of domestic pacers, may be too much control on short staff in domestics/nets ....... but it can't be height.

Out of those the tallest were not back foot players - Hayden or Moody. 6 foot is not tall either in Australia, more slightly above average.

There is also a fair amount of the rest who are either Western Australian, or Queenslanders. They play on typically bouncy decks, and hence are typically better back foot players.

 

[Sadevdesai]

Never seen any team as far ahead at the end of First day as England is today !!! A total cleaning of the kitchen by the Englishmen ... whoa !!! Another two and a half day Test Match !!! Unless they bat like hell in the 2nd Innings or it pours for the next 4 days, it will be 3-1 ... easily.

 

[Robert]

Bairstow's backlift, so weird, never seen anything like it

Too young to remember Gooch, I take it?

 

[MarkCooper]

Let's make some predictions. What will have happened in 2 hours from now at Lunch?

I predict England all out with a lead of 300.

 

[Robert]

Let's make some predictions. What will have happened in 2 hours from now at Lunch?

I predict England all out with a lead of 300.

I reckon they will get 380.

Australia will be 200-5 by the close.

 

[Robert]

Here we go. Come on Roooooooooooooot, Hobbit, Butters, Beard!

 

[Amjid Javed]

I guess england will look to just bat all day today and get 500-600 and really destroy the Aussies here!

287/4 currently...

 

[CricketAnalyst]

You should apply to be an analyst for our team, they'd like you

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.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

England bowled 114 deliveries (18.3 overs + 3 no balls).

Of those 114 deliveries only eight would have gone on to hit the stumps.

The idea that they needed to be more attacking is ludicrous. What they needed was some of this:

Clarke pointed out in a presser how ludicrous that is.

Leaving everything would be 0/8. 60 all out is better.

Not to mention it isn't easy to tell what can be left or not at 150kmph in swingy conditions.

It's much easier to hit HARD and leave room for error, as Clarke did.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Aye, shot of man, who's just surrendered.

That was the shot of the only man who wanted to win more than he cared about his image and looking respectable.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

By the way, ChachaCricket is 100% right. This failure is more execution than effort. This is by the way, why I like attacking strats. They leave a lot more room for error.

Also, people need to not knee-jerk. If any individual batsmen has a 25% chance of failure, do the math, once in a very long while, every single one of your nine batters will have an off-day.

 

[Sam1]

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.

 

[Sam1]

The torture continues Whats England waiting for? They should declare ASAP and let Aussies bat, This piling of unnecessary runs just reflects their defensive mentality and lack of courage (which btw isn't surprising to see from English side).

Defensive mentality....? Theres 4 days left buddy, what's the point in declaring now when a draw is already out of the question... Someone still appears to be a bit sour.

 

[IndianWillow]

Clarke pointed out in a presser how ludicrous that is.

Leaving everything would be 0/8. 60 all out is better.

Not to mention it isn't easy to tell what can be left or not at 150kmph in swingy conditions.

It's much easier to hit HARD and leave room for error, as Clarke did.

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.

 

[Usman Chadda]

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.

To me it seemed like they were really confused as to what to do. Did not attack with a positive frame of mind nor were they playing defensively by leaving some of those deliveries. This Australian batting line-up is technically very poor in my opinion and that is exactly the reason they are found wanting more of than not in foreign conditions.

 

[Robert]

Rooooooooooooooooot couldn't get going this morning. Leading batter in the series, averaging 78.

Fun to see Invisible Horse giving Sloop Mitch J some tap though.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Wood giving some hammer here to MJ )

 

[Big Mac]

Clarke pointed out in a presser how ludicrous that is.

Leaving everything would be 0/8. 60 all out is better.

Not to mention it isn't easy to tell what can be left or not at 150kmph in swingy conditions.

It's much easier to hit HARD and leave room for error, as Clarke did.

So the only options are either leave every single delivery regardless of where it's headed or to go hard at every ball no matter how wide it is?

That's some top notch analysis.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Starc gets 5 for... wood gone.

I can see game being over today.

 

[Big Mac]

Oooof, that's a hell of a delivery.

Australia have a chance to wrap England up for under 350 here.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Both stokes and buttler in on zero and in need of some runs here...

 

[Big Mac]

Starc gets 5 for... wood gone.

I can see game being over today.

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.

 

[Big Mac]

Can't see them get past 300!

England 310/6 (73.0 ov)

Another sterling prediction from Man of Steel. This time you decided to save everyones time and made sure you were wrong the moment you hit Post Reply.

 

[Robert]

Well done old Horse, that was a fine effort!

Good job the Aussies have only got one bowler.

 

[Big Mac]

Well done old Horse, that was a fine effort!

Good job the Aussies have only got one bowler.

That one guy isn't doing a bad job though. That's a great ball, albeit poorly played.

 

[JibranAnsari]

What a great delivery again.


Starc would have gotten australia out under 50.