What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plenty of positive intent shown before tea, can't let englands pressure put us off playing our natural games.
 
MarkCooper said:
"England won't come close to us" - Steve Smith
Click to expand...

lol this lot were so far up themselves they couldnt see past their own..well you know..who says a team that gets hammered 3-0 by a decent side like Pakistan, goes to the windies, almost loses, should be so cocky? why? make no bones about it this side got smashed by us, and now england have smashed them. And if India play them theyll do the same (in india).

can some aussie posters tell me if there are any better bowlers than this lot? or batsmen in oz?
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Both you and Convict have both just repeated to me the dominant and accepted strategy. I know perfectly well what that is and the logic it's based on.

You guys seem incapable of understanding that a dominant strat can just be flat-out wrong and everyone can be wrong. To say that no one agrees with me is true, but to conclude that I'm therefore wrong is false. What's more every batsman now has innings of the kind that only Richards used to play in the past. Batsmen are just much much better at aggressive batting and much less proficient at defensive batting, but because cricket is so traditional people fail to realize that strategies based on the competences they used to have in 1970 are just not valid now.
Click to expand...

Not on these type of wickets. These batsmen can sometimes play like Richards on phattas. This Australian side (applies to other teams as well) is better off playing cautiously when there is lateral movement. I can agree with you on the need for showing positive intent, but you don't seem to grasp the idea that sometimes you have to take a step back to advance two forward steps. When you are 3/15 after 2 overs on a lively wicket, there is no justification for your approach.
 
Clarke still not comfortable, fishing outside offstump in a manner that would make Yasir Hameed proud.
 
IndianWillow said:
Not on these type of wickets. These batsmen can sometimes play like Richards on phattas. This Australian side (applies to other teams as well) is better off playing cautiously when there is lateral movement. I can agree with you on the need for showing positive intent, but you don't seem to grasp the idea that sometimes you have to take a step back to advance two forward steps. When you are 3/15 after 2 overs on a lively wicket, there is no justification for your approach.
Click to expand...

Look I'd kind of get your point of view, if you said don't attack no matter what in seaming conditions (I totally disagree, but still I can see where you're coming from even if you can't see my point).

The problem here is the score has nothing to do with it. The approach most likely to get you runs is the best approach to take whether it's 192-1 or 22-4. I just don't understand the idea that because you are 15-3 you artificially handicap yourself by deciding to do only certain things.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Look I'd kind of get your point of view, if you said don't attack no matter what in seaming conditions (I totally disagree, but still I can see where you're coming from even if you can't see my point).

The problem here is the score has nothing to do with it. The approach most likely to get you runs is the best approach to take whether it's 192-1 or 22-4. I just don't understand the idea that because you are 15-3 you artificially handicap yourself by deciding to do only certain things.
Click to expand...

At 192/1 you very likely have two set batsmen at the crease (who know what to expect, have gauged the pitch very well, who see the cricket ball like a football etc), and probably it is a flattish wicket as well. If you are 22/4 you are probably playing on a hostile wicket and/or against hostile bowlers and you have new batsmen at the crease. Do you really think these two set of batsmen are capable of playing the same way? Do you know what is meant by "getting the eye in"? You seem to think that a new batsman at the crease and a batsman who has batted at the crease for 40 overs have the same ball negotiation levels. On a flat wicket you can get away with some impudence, but on a lively wicket if you don't respect the bowlers and conditions you are going to be toast.
 
Gooooooooood Hobbit, takes wickettses against nasssty Southronsss!
 
IndianWillow said:
At 192/1 you very likely have two set batsmen at the crease (who know what to expect, have gauged the pitch very well, who see the cricket ball like a football etc), and probably it is a flattish wicket as well. If you are 22/4 you are probably playing on a hostile wicket and/or against hostile bowlers and you have new batsmen at the crease. Do you really think these two set of batsmen are capable of playing the same way? Do you know what is meant by "getting the eye in"? You seem to think that a new batsman at the crease and a batsman who has batted at the crease for 40 overs have the same ball negotiation levels. On a flat wicket you can get away with some impudence, but on a lively wicket if you don't respect the bowlers and conditions you are going to be toast.
Click to expand...

I mean coming in at the same time. Your argument isn't just about being new to the crease. If you come in at 22/4 and come in at 192/1 conditions apart there is nothing different. That's why I said I could understand if your point was only about seaming conditions.

Peter Nevill's faced 16 balls and he hasn't even tried to score yet. Meanwhile people have their knives into Warner who scored 64 valauble runs.
 
Robert said:
Yeah, come on Clarke, have a go and get out like CrockedAnalyst says! It's much better than crease occupation!
Click to expand...

13 (37) blocking and "battling" as the comms said. So much more useful than the first innings 10. Thank goodness English analysts do a better job than Robot.
 
How much do you want to bet that Finn overstepped in most of the balls leading up to that wicket?
 
Poms trolling us with the no balls, yeah we get it you could get them all out nicking to the slips twice if you wanted now just finish it.
 
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] you have a hopelessly black and white view on being aggressive vis a vis being defensive. Its not an either or thing that you keep flip flopping between. It's also why you're engaging in straw man arguments.
 
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

I think, you are trying to put a logic from the total number of runs scored rather than the overall impact of the game. Everyone can understand 100 is higher than 60; but would that have saved AUS? You are not considering the role of a position or call of the hour.

I think, over 150 years the fundamentals of the game is still the same for longer format. Top order (1-3) has a particular role which is to protect the middle order, so that they can dominate the old ball & tired attack. That's why I always think that No 3 is the most important position - a player has to play in different gears.

I am trying to explain with 2 classic examples, just about a decade back & I think many of us here had seen those, so it 'll be easier to relate.

Sometimes in 2002, PAK was put in by NZ at Hamilton (?) on a green top with a bit of moisture - PAK openers (Farhat was one, I believe) put 35 at run a ball, but by the time Kiwi pacers got the length correct & PAK went to lunch 70/6 or so & ~120 all out. Openers didn't do their job of surviving the 1st hour - even 17/0 after 15 overs would have allowed middle order to build on. That was nothing wrong on the track, as later Kiwis put 400/4 or so & declared. Same thing happened 2nd time - PAK was 50/5 or so in 15 overs & lost the match by innings with Kiwis losing just 3 wickets to bowlers.

Similar time, Ganguly won the toss & on a gloomy, green Headingley track opted to bat. Viru didn't last long, but Rahul & Banger batted for 80+ overs to finish the day 220/2 or so. Next morning, against 2nd new ball, that pair batted 1st hour for <20 - by that time sun came out, Caddick & Co were 100+ overs tired & next 70 overs IND went at run a ball to declare 650+ with 5 or 6 down - few overs of Day 2 still remaining to aim at the openers & went on to win the match by innings, on a track later Anil took 7 or 8 in the match.

I don't think the fundamentals of Test has changed much. AUS got away with this hunkey-dory tactics last summer at home for IND had none to support Ashwin - just another quality spinner & a pacer to be half decent in 2nd spell onwards - IND would have troubled Aussies, still almost gave Aussies a scare at Gabba on slightly juicy wicket.

When you are put-in, in a Test, actually the fielding Captain hardly bothers for few boundaries or run rate as long as you are feeding him with regular wickets. Yesterday morning was special, but I am sure Cook would have enjoyed his sandwich had AUS gone to lunch 151/5 rather than 70/0 yesterday. If AUS keep on doing this, I see Kiwi opening pair giving them a real hiding.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
So do you agree or disagree with the way they are batting now?
Click to expand...

Rogers gone going after a wide ball.

Smith gone hitting a wide ball.

Marsh gone trying to hit a wide ball.

Clarke gone driving at a wide ball.

Are you getting the idea?
 
Adam Voges is 42* - the highest score by an Australian between numbers 4-6 in this series... bbc.in/1K6JFgM pic.twitter.com/nRx4zCKZAl

Just wow.
 
Nevill :))

Waiting for CricketAnalyst to come in and proclaim that dismissal proves he's correct :))
 
Big Mac said:
Rogers gone going after a wide ball.

Smith gone hitting a wide ball.

Marsh gone trying to hit a wide ball.

Clarke gone driving at a wide ball.

Are you getting the idea?
Click to expand...

Clarke's was not a wide ball by any stretch, he had to play it, and he played the exact negative cricket I criticized.

Warner and Rogers played well.

Meanwhile Nevile should have been out three times and finally gave you what you wanted. Out leaving a ball that hit middle stump. People are probably happy because he left the ball....
 
CricketAnalyst said:
I mean coming in at the same time. Your argument isn't just about being new to the crease. If you come in at 22/4 and come in at 192/1 conditions apart there is nothing different. That's why I said I could understand if your point was only about seaming conditions.

Peter Nevill's faced 16 balls and he hasn't even tried to score yet. Meanwhile people have their knives into Warner who scored 64 valauble runs.
Click to expand...

There is difference apart from the conditions, as well. It is about the batsmen themselves. Batsmen are coached from early days to allow some time before they launch into the attack. Occupying the crease allows the batsman to take stock of several things such as speed/bounce/form. You think that leaving deliveries is a wasteful strategy but leaving the deliveries early in the game is not done just for the sake of playing defensively - it allows you to judge several factors regarding the pitch, bounce, speed, extent of swing and seam, your own reflex/form on that day and so on. I guess you have never played as a batsman, which is why you think batsmen can go after the bowling from the word go without the high risk of getting dismissed. Once a batsman has had the opportunity to measure the conditions, he becomes better suited to play freely and play according to the merit of the ball and the bowler. As a fresh batsman, there is a higher probability of getting dismissed. Most batsmen get dismissed in the digit scores or go on to make a big fifty or hundred. When batsmen get dismissed in the 30s we often rightly accuse them of wasting good starts. We do expect batsmen to play cautiously in the beginning and get used to the conditions, this aspect of test cricket has not changed in 100 years - this may be important even for flat pitches. There may be some exceptions like Sehwag or Warner who may play attackingly from the outset, but in general most batsmen can't play that sort of innings.
 
IndianWillow said:
There is difference apart from the conditions, as well. It is about the batsmen themselves. Batsmen are coached from early days to allow some time before they launch into the attack. Occupying the crease allows the batsman to take stock of several things such as speed/bounce/form. You think that leaving deliveries is a wasteful strategy but leaving the deliveries early in the game is not done just for the sake of playing defensively - it allows you to judge several factors regarding the pitch, bounce, speed, extent of swing and seam, your own reflex/form on that day and so on. I guess you have never played as a batsman, which is why you think batsmen can go after the bowling from the word go without the high risk of getting dismissed. Once a batsman has had the opportunity to measure the conditions, he becomes better suited to play freely and play according to the merit of the ball and the bowler. As a fresh batsman, there is a higher probability of getting dismissed. Most batsmen get dismissed in the digit scores or go on to make a big fifty or hundred. When batsmen get dismissed in the 30s we often rightly accuse them of wasting good starts. We do expect batsmen to play cautiously in the beginning and get used to the conditions, this aspect of test cricket has not changed in 100 years - this may be important even for flat pitches. There may be some exceptions like Sehwag or Warner who may play attackingly from the outset, but in general most batsmen can't play that sort of innings.
Click to expand...

You don't read.

I've said before on this thread. I was a specialist batsman. I benefited from every single bias I complain about here. And believe me, it isn't automatically difficult the moment you come in. I've hit my first ball for fours and sixes on occasion when it was in the right area. Some times it just is very easy (and I am a very poor batsman). When I can hit 130kmph balls out of the ground for six, I cannot even imagine how easy it feels when you are David Warner. The big problem is team managements coach their players to be afraid and not take risks.

Like I just can't believe you're repeating basic coaching book stuff as though I don't know it. I've watched (or seen scorecard/followed almost every game in the last couple of years. I've played cricket. I've done in-depth analysis which you haven't and you just don't get that it's even possible that all this manual stuff can be flawed or that everyone in a sport can sometimes be simultaneously wrong.

I know what you're saying. You and the establishment are just flat out wrong when you want to impose caution on players and treat aggressive failures as worse than defensive ones, but guess what they aren't. Teams that are more rational or less stupid like this tend to win. That's why England's new mentality was so successful.

This dogma needs to die and that's why it was great to see the England captain come in at 26/2 in a series decider and slog the first ball down mid-wickets throat. They deservedly won the series and the negative NZL almost lost to Zimbabwe by aiming too low in their scores. I know it's not the same format, but I can't believe a sport where people treat the only existing strat as gospel.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Clarke's was not a wide ball by any stretch, he had to play it, and he played the exact negative cricket I criticized.

Warner and Rogers played well.

Meanwhile Nevile should have been out three times and finally gave you what you wanted. Out leaving a ball that hit middle stump. People are probably happy because he left the ball....
Click to expand...

Again, I'm still waiting for you to show a single post where someone said the Aussies should have left every ball.

CricketAnalyst said:
You don't read.
Click to expand...


Bit rich coming from the guy who is constructing imaginary strawmen to argue against.
 
Batted Voges - showed some ticker.

Bowled Hobbit! I am so pleased for him!
 
Maybe Ozgod, Random Aussie can best answer this question but why was Ben Hilfenhaus not taken or even considered? His style of swing bowling at decent pace is ideal for English conditions. His test record is not that bad either. Siddle is more or less finished so not sure why he has been persisted with.
 
Voges finally scoring with the pressure gone. I thought he'd do well against the moving ball but the pressure got to him.
 
Robert said:
Quite right. There's only pride to play for now. The first goal is to survive to the close, take it into the third day.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean.

Any sport is about maximizing win chance. Even if it's slim you play to win. Not to protect your emotions and feelings. His approach was a disgrace. He scored 15 of 60 balls, and was practically dismissed thrice, while barely trying to score, but the ones you guys blame are the ones who actually tried.
 
MMHS said:
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

I think, you are trying to put a logic from the total number of runs scored rather than the overall impact of the game. Everyone can understand 100 is higher than 60; but would that have saved AUS? You are not considering the role of a position or call of the hour.

I think, over 150 years the fundamentals of the game is still the same for longer format. Top order (1-3) has a particular role which is to protect the middle order, so that they can dominate the old ball & tired attack. That's why I always think that No 3 is the most important position - a player has to play in different gears.

I am trying to explain with 2 classic examples, just about a decade back & I think many of us here had seen those, so it 'll be easier to relate.

Sometimes in 2002, PAK was put in by NZ at Hamilton (?) on a green top with a bit of moisture - PAK openers (Farhat was one, I believe) put 35 at run a ball, but by the time Kiwi pacers got the length correct & PAK went to lunch 70/6 or so & ~120 all out. Openers didn't do their job of surviving the 1st hour - even 17/0 after 15 overs would have allowed middle order to build on. That was nothing wrong on the track, as later Kiwis put 400/4 or so & declared. Same thing happened 2nd time - PAK was 50/5 or so in 15 overs & lost the match by innings with Kiwis losing just 3 wickets to bowlers.

Similar time, Ganguly won the toss & on a gloomy, green Headingley track opted to bat. Viru didn't last long, but Rahul & Banger batted for 80+ overs to finish the day 220/2 or so. Next morning, against 2nd new ball, that pair batted 1st hour for <20 - by that time sun came out, Caddick & Co were 100+ overs tired & next 70 overs IND went at run a ball to declare 650+ with 5 or 6 down - few overs of Day 2 still remaining to aim at the openers & went on to win the match by innings, on a track later Anil took 7 or 8 in the match.

I don't think the fundamentals of Test has changed much. AUS got away with this hunkey-dory tactics last summer at home for IND had none to support Ashwin - just another quality spinner & a pacer to be half decent in 2nd spell onwards - IND would have troubled Aussies, still almost gave Aussies a scare at Gabba on slightly juicy wicket.

When you are put-in, in a Test, actually the fielding Captain hardly bothers for few boundaries or run rate as long as you are feeding him with regular wickets. Yesterday morning was special, but I am sure Cook would have enjoyed his sandwich had AUS gone to lunch 151/5 rather than 70/0 yesterday. If AUS keep on doing this, I see Kiwi opening pair giving them a real hiding.
Click to expand...

Look, I take your point.

A lot of what you say makes sense.

Most of what is here EXPRESSLY ADMITS that it's not about winning. They are worried about imaginary things like salvaging pride etc. I mean they are praising Peter Neville for giving up and playing the kind of innings that no player representing his country should ever produce.

A lot of your examples are fine, I'll engage with this discussion if you treat my counter-examples equally. My whole problem with most of the Test match brigade is double standards. They have one rule for an aggressive failure and another for a defensive one. In fact most of these idiots actually prefer defensive failures like 15 (70) to attacking success like 64 (70).
 
Warne is criticising everyone except his best friend (and the man he loves to visit the beauty parlour with) Clarke.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Look, I take your point.

A lot of what you say makes sense.

Most of what is here EXPRESSLY ADMITS that it's not about winning. They are worried about imaginary things like salvaging pride etc. I mean they are praising Peter Neville for giving up and playing the kind of innings that no player representing his country should ever produce.

A lot of your examples are fine, I'll engage with this discussion if you treat my counter-examples equally. My whole problem with most of the Test match brigade is double standards. They have one rule for an aggressive failure and another for a defensive one. In fact most of these idiots actually prefer defensive failures like 15 (70) to attacking success like 64 (70).
Click to expand...

I probably understand a bit your point. Even in olden days, I have seen (read) on low scoring/sticky dog wickets players trying to blast around & get whatever they can get - rather than struggling for 150 in 70 overs, try to score quickly & get runs on board. Actually, that's a good strategy on wickets that are deteriorating - I think, one Test I can recall was Madras 1988-89 against WI. That was those WI team & they got IND in tight corner, even batting on day 1, Kapil came on a double paced wicket & smashed ~120 probably in 3 hours. I didn't see the match, but few years later got the explanation from Kapil in a TV show. His said that, since we were batting first on a disintegrating wicket, runs on board was the key - we already had a decent total & even had I failed, we would have the upper-hand & had the 2nd innings to recover. A lot of cases teams often becomes too defensive & actually hand-over the momentum to fielding side.

But, here the context was different. You see, I have hardly said anything against Aussies' 2nd innings - once you are 330 behind, there is no point trying to see through the 3rd new ball - get going & try to erase the deficit, it's either innings defeat or Eden 2002 or Headingley 1981.......... if AUS could have gone to tea say at 345/6 tomorrow (that's 14/6) with one of the top 6 set, trust me, we would have seen smiles diminishing from Cook's face. My problem is the 1st Innings of the Aussies - it was never a wicket for a top Test side going down ~35/7 in 9th over. ENG did bowl well, caught even better, but most of those wickets were because of a fundamental batting flaw - reach out for the ball, rather than waiting for it to come on to bat. Still AUS would have been 4 or 5 down by lunch, BUT had someone hanged on there with tight lips - had 1, just 1 of top 6 survived through lunch, this side has Josh at 10 - probably would have added another 200 with that 60.

I was reading about Viv, mentioned few times here - he was extra ordinary, shouldn't be used as an example. BUT, he was never a slogger & he 'll never do what Aussies did on 1st morning. I can give 1 example - in that 1987-88 Series, 1st Test was at Kotla & after Day 2 lunch, scores were IND 75, WI 127, IND ~40/2..... Dulip played an outstanding 102 & WI was left to chase 275 on Day 4 & 5 Kotla wicket with IND having Ayub (those few years he was probably best finger spinner in world) & couple of other spinners + Kapil. Coming at 110/4, Viv struggled to probably 20 in 80 minutes & then his next 90 runs came at run a ball, on a squire turner with double pace & bounce ....... At his prime, even Viv 'll avoid the best bowlers for few overs as much as possible, 'll avoid % shots, until he is in - that's batsman ship - you survive to dominate when the time is yours.

Aggressive batting is the ultimate deciding factor in Test match, because that shows the attitude (In LO, there is no option, you have to score at a rate) & that's where you win the match. I rate KP's 187 as one of the best ever Test innings; but there is a fine line between being aggressive/positive/counter attacking & being stupid/reckless/coward - Aussies didn't play positively, didn't play aggressively, neither they played defensively - they played cowardly, which is very much non Aussie like. They were at sea in that condition & instead of trying to fight it out, escaped through the easy route, which is not the way Australia plays. This is the team for whom, some of the ugliest Test hundreds were scored by Steve Waugh - in winning efforts.

My problem is there - unconditional surrender by AUS. I always knew ENG 'll regain Ashes at home, probably among very few - you can check Ashes related posts few months back, even when Harris was available & I predicted ENG 'll win with a clear margin, that's before Oval, but I never thought this unconditional surrender by the Aussies against Dukes ball & a bit of movement. I wonder what they would have done against Jimmy on Day 1.............
 
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] Are there any balls a batsman should defend or leave?

What balls should they attack?
 
MarkCooper said:
Warne is criticising everyone except his best friend (and the man he loves to visit the beauty parlour with) Clarke.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the speed at which words would be pouring out his mouth if this was Cook in place of Clarke? Warne may be a fun commentator with a lot to offer on the technical side of the game but he is clearly biased towards and against certain players.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Look, I take your point.

A lot of what you say makes sense.

Most of what is here EXPRESSLY ADMITS that it's not about winning. They are worried about imaginary things like salvaging pride etc. I mean they are praising Peter Neville for giving up and playing the kind of innings that no player representing his country should ever produce.

A lot of your examples are fine, I'll engage with this discussion if you treat my counter-examples equally. My whole problem with most of the Test match brigade is double standards. They have one rule for an aggressive failure and another for a defensive one. In fact most of these idiots actually prefer defensive failures like 15 (70) to attacking success like 64 (70).
Click to expand...

The whole problem with the Mickey Mouse brigade is them shooting themselves in the foot with comments like these. Chill out man, it's just a game and we couldn't care less if you enjoy the IPL more than Test Cricket.
 
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

One factor you are not considering properly is time. The longer a bowler bowls for generally his bowling deteriorates as he gets tired. So there is the tactic of wearing out the bowler and the ball so you can score more heavily later on.

In this game because we didn't take enough time England had much better batting conditions, it would have been better if we scored 60 runs in TWO sessions.

Pakistan showed this in the UAE, they basically blocked for almost a day, then destroyed our exhausted bowlers when the time was right. Not the same cobditiobs obviously but that is an extreme example.

The second thing is if everyone before you in the order is playing and edging, a vaguely intelligent batsman would consider trying to leave as many as possible until things calmed down a bit.
 
Random Aussie said:
Don't care much for a six wicket haul when we are getting thrashed. He bowls too much garbage when it matters.
Click to expand...
Random Aussie any idea why hilfenhaus was not considered when his style of swing bowling at 85-88 mph would have been very handy on these English wickets.

Australia need to decide between Johnson and starc. Both are all out flat wicket takers, they will only look for wickets and cannot do a holding job. Hazelwood was expected to do the McGrath, Stuart Clarke job but he failed miserably. Starc can bowl real brutal jaffers but given his bowling style will also concede plenty of boundaries as well. Same problem with Johnson, he is not effective on these seaming tracks, needs bounce and pace in the wicket.

I think not persisting with Watson and Mitchel marsh was a blunder. They would have done no worse than Shawn marsh and vogues and could have given a breather to the likes of starc and Johnson with the ball.

Extremely poor planning by Clarke and Lehman
 
Hazelwood hasn't failed miserably, he's our leading wicket taker. He's taken 38 wickets in eight Tests at an average of 20.
He's a kid, he's inconsistent and lost sone confidence.
 
AlphaFighter said:
Random Aussie any idea why hilfenhaus was not considered when his style of swing bowling at 85-88 mph would have been very handy on these English wickets.

Australia need to decide between Johnson and starc. Both are all out flat wicket takers, they will only look for wickets and cannot do a holding job. Hazelwood was expected to do the McGrath, Stuart Clarke job but he failed miserably. Starc can bowl real brutal jaffers but given his bowling style will also concede plenty of boundaries as well. Same problem with Johnson, he is not effective on these seaming tracks, needs bounce and pace in the wicket.

I think not persisting with Watson and Mitchel marsh was a blunder. They would have done no worse than Shawn marsh and vogues and could have given a breather to the likes of starc and Johnson with the ball.

Extremely poor planning by Clarke and Lehman
Click to expand...

I agree, an allrounder should have played instead of Voges/S Marsh

Hilfenhaus hasn't played for Australia in years man. Forget about him. Calling for him to play, you might as well call for Fred Spofforth.

Hazlewood has been pretty good in the face of some atrocious batting over the last couple of tests. There's only so much you can do as a bowler when you're defending a molehill of a total. No matter how well they bowled, they were only going to keep the pressure on England until England got to a lead of 20 or 30, and from then on, England would accelerate and there's nothing you can do to stop that from happening. Australia could have had McGrath, Wasim, Warne, and Murali out there for them on day 1 and England would still have finished with 270 on the board, maybe for the loss of an additional one or two wickets.
 
@ Random Aussie, bro any news on how soon can we see Cummins, petterson and Zampa in beggy green.
 
Vayuu said:
@ Random Aussie, bro any news on how soon can we see Cummins, petterson and Zampa in beggy green.
Click to expand...

Cummins should play the next Test seeing as we have lost the series.

Pattinson is with the A team in India trying to get fit again, he will be back when he can string together a few games.

Zampa don't think he'll make it.
 
Vayuu said:
@ Random Aussie, bro any news on how soon can we see Cummins, petterson and Zampa in beggy green.
Click to expand...

Cummins - Hopefully after a few shield seasons
Pattinson - Hopefully after he proves he is fit
Zampa - We're not that bad
 
Vayuu said:
Any upcoming promising spinner apart from fawad Ahmed.
Click to expand...

Agar
Boyce is a better prospect than Zampa.

But yep, mainly Agar.

We need to score more than 60 for our bowling to be relevant though
 
Pride to play for today. Let's see if Voges and the bowlers can make England bat again.
 
Aussie kids were writing letters to their dads in kindy

11813527_1051316308236367_8001085220251592749_n.jpg
 
Convict said:
There's no pride regardless
Click to expand...

Starc was talking about how losing the ashes is "not ideal" but that it's only a game of cricket.

Even if their was pride at stake these pampered softies wouldn't waste their energy fighting for it, save the passion for the big bash and ipl.
 
trogger said:
Starc was talking about how losing the ashes is "not ideal" but that it's only a game of cricket.

Even if their was pride at stake these pampered softies wouldn't waste their energy fighting for it, save the passion for the big bash and ipl.
Click to expand...

Well he's right isn't he? It's just a game.
 
trogger said:
Starc was talking about how losing the ashes is "not ideal" but that it's only a game of cricket.

Even if their was pride at stake these pampered softies wouldn't waste their energy fighting for it, save the passion for the big bash and ipl.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. You expect that of modern Indian players but surely the IPL disease has not spread to the Aussies too? I hope that after most nations stop playing tests, the Ashes will go on.
 
Convict said:
It's also his profession.
Click to expand...

Which he's representing his nation at.

I wonder if they will be so demoralised that England can win 4-1. The Oval is likely to be the third road of the series, and with some August sun and the dead rubber effect and perhaps winning the toss then perhaps Australia can come back to a creditable 3-2.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
You don't read.

I've said before on this thread. I was a specialist batsman. I benefited from every single bias I complain about here. And believe me, it isn't automatically difficult the moment you come in. I've hit my first ball for fours and sixes on occasion when it was in the right area. Some times it just is very easy (and I am a very poor batsman). When I can hit 130kmph balls out of the ground for six, I cannot even imagine how easy it feels when you are David Warner. The big problem is team managements coach their players to be afraid and not take risks.

Like I just can't believe you're repeating basic coaching book stuff as though I don't know it. I've watched (or seen scorecard/followed almost every game in the last couple of years. I've played cricket. I've done in-depth analysis which you haven't and you just don't get that it's even possible that all this manual stuff can be flawed or that everyone in a sport can sometimes be simultaneously wrong.

I know what you're saying. You and the establishment are just flat out wrong when you want to impose caution on players and treat aggressive failures as worse than defensive ones, but guess what they aren't. Teams that are more rational or less stupid like this tend to win. That's why England's new mentality was so successful.

This dogma needs to die and that's why it was great to see the England captain come in at 26/2 in a series decider and slog the first ball down mid-wickets throat. They deservedly won the series and the negative NZL almost lost to Zimbabwe by aiming too low in their scores. I know it's not the same format, but I can't believe a sport where people treat the only existing strat as gospel.
Click to expand...

Every one can't be a Warner. There can be one or two batsmen in the team like that unless you are playing T20. Like I said before, either you have never played cricket or you want every one to bat like Richards. The attacking strategies (after a collapse) on disintegrating wickets that you talk about may work in the 3rd or 4th innings when the wicket has eased out. But they will rarely work against a decent bowling side on a lively wicket on the first day morning.

Even the brutal batsmen in Richards was very intelligent. He would not play recklessly like you advocate. He averaged 50+ for a good reason. Richards would often take his time to get his eye in. For example he may get only 20 off the first 40 balls he faces, but once he got his eye in he would tear apart the bowlers. So if he got to a 100 it was usually at a healthy strike rate. And Richards would not usually charge the bowlers on a lively wicket on a first day morning. He was too good to take the bait from the bowlers. Richard's career S/R was around 69, but if you consider all his knocks where he got less than 30, the strike rate is only 56. Richards was not the batsman who would take chances early in the innings. He would buy some time to get his eye in. Then it was carnage. That is how all good batsmen play. Hitting a six off the first ball may look granddaddy on paper, but such a batsman is very unlikely to become a successful batsman (unless he plays mostly on phattas against club standard bowling).
 
Pantani said:
Then he is required to be professional.

Not wrist-slit over poor performance because it's "shameful", or whatever.
Click to expand...

Agreed but it should burn (as it probably does).

It always burned Steve Waugh when the teams he played in got smashed
 
IndianWillow said:
ards was very intelligent. He would not play recklessly like you advocate. He averaged 50+ for a good reason. Richards would often take his time to get his eye in. For example he may get only 20 off the first 40 balls he faces, but once he got his eye in he would tear apart the bowlers.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Convict said:
Agreed but it should burn (as it probably does).

It always burned Steve Waugh when the teams he played in got smashed
Click to expand...

Starc is a proud man, he won't be happy with defeat. None of them will be. I think the reason he said what he said, in those exact words, is because he was told that the team was being heavily criticised in Australia by the media. So you can understand why he would want to downplay it.
 
Robert said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is it really 'ODI mode', or is it just technical deficiency? Lots of those wickets on day 1 came from defensive shots where they pushed hard at the ball like they were playing in Australia. I don't think Australia got the mentality wrong, they got the technical aspect of playing a forward defensive in seaming and swinging English conditions wrong.
 
Robert said:
Which he's representing his nation at.
Click to expand...

The media like to overreact. It's how they make money!

Media: omg australia suck at cricket lets all jump off a cliff!!
Starc: it's just a game

Fair enough.
 
Pantani said:
Starc is a proud man, he won't be happy with defeat. None of them will be. I think the reason he said what he said, in those exact words, is because he was told that the team was being heavily criticised in Australia by the media. So you can understand why he would want to downplay it.
Click to expand...

Well he did the opposite of downplaying it.
 
Robert said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep. CricketAnalyst is underestimating the ability of international bowlers. He brings in his own example of how he used to hit sixes in club cricket. He claims these were 130kph bowlers but he does not seem to realize that it is not all about speed here. How many of these 130kph bowlers CricketAnalyst faced represented India and were half comparable even to the likes of bowlers like Vinay Kumar?

A batsman cannot control how much he scores or the rate of scoring because the bowlers he is facing are trying to do exactly the opposite - they are trying to block his runs as well as trying to dismiss him. It is a tug of war. Some times batsmen dominate and sometimes the bowlers dominate. A good batsman is the one who will make maximum use of the period he is on top. Test cricket is a bowler's game. A bowler needs just one good delivery to polish off a batsman. So the batsman must always be wary of getting that nasty delivery and be prepared to negotiate it. If a batsman can do this, he can make lots of runs by punishing the odd loose balls. But if you don't have the patience and skills to survive those good balls, you have no future as a batsman at this level. If you are facing a bowler like McGrath who don't give any loose balls, sometimes you need to be prepared to see off the bowler to make runs (which might even mean an entire session without scoring much). Haste makes waste, and it applies perfectly to test cricket.
 
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 can scarcely believe how much Stokes and Wood are swinging it. This ball is sixty overs old!
 
Congratz England!

No repeat of two years earlier Oval incident plz.
 
Last edited:
I tell you what, apart from Trevor Bayliss I think that a huge amount of credit should go to Paul Farbrace.

It's only three months since this team was massacred in Barbados. They have introduced a lot of common sense and calm, especially in the context of the Pietersen issue.

Well done!
 
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