England vs Australia | 5th Ashes Test |The Oval|20-24th Aug| Australia won by an innings and 46 runs

[IndianWillow]

They do bat slow from the sake of it.

This might be an unpopular view but cricket is by nature a batsman's game (and especially Test Cricket).

People from cricket backgrounds don't look at it this way, but from an esports or chess perspective you try and understand the fundamental nature of the game.

The best ball in the world, played by the best batsman in the best possible way is not a dismissal. It's probably a boundary. Obviously, no batsmen or bowlers are near being able to execute the theoretical best option perfectly every time, but the point remains. Inherently, unless someone makes a mistake (defined here as deviation from absolutely optimal play) no one ever gets out. Unless mistakes occur lots of runs are scored. So when batsmen bat well bowlers can do nothing. This is a fact. Hence, so many batsmen are lethal when set.

Certain sorts of analysis just do not occur to typical sports jocks, and in this case of Stokes and Bairstow, the rational way to analyze is to do whatever is most +EV given their game. (I am really not going to deign the explain +EV to you. Research it please). The EV does not depend on whether 4 wickets are down or none. Their choices should be to maximize their scores whether it's 161/0 or 61/4. There's nothing about the scoreboard situation that would make positive batting less optimal, if that was what normally maximized their scoring likelihood.

This idea to play defensively when wickets are down is designed around protecting the emotions of the viewers rather than seriously considering which option is optimal.

What are you talking about? England when they were four down had all the time in the world to build an innings. Why do you think a test match is played over five days? If you can't defend your wicket, you are a blind slogger, not a test batsman. Batsmen who think they will lose their wickets when they bat watchfully shouldn't be playing test cricket at all, instead they must go an play gully cricket where every batsman practically throws his bat at every delivery.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] doesn't recognise the -EV of unnecessary risks with attacking strokes.

Think of Ben Stokes. He failed to recognise when he came in at 64-4 that it would be fine for England to shut up shop and close at 80-4, and that being 100-5 (or 101-8) was much worse than 80-4.

In their situation much better to secure a draw than go down trying to win.

 

[Markhor]

Bit of a Chance to Shine love in today hence all the blue suits the commentators are wearing. Granted they and the other cricket charities do a great job with the kids but if they REALLY want to inspire the next generation of cricketers - get some cricket back on free-to-air television.

Dressing up in blue suits once a year ain't gonna cut it.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

What are you talking about? England when they were four down had all the time in the world to build an innings. Why do you think a test match is played over five days? If you can't defend your wicket, you are a blind slogger, not a test batsman. Batsmen who think they will lose their wickets when they bat watchfully shouldn't be playing test cricket at all, instead they must go an play gully cricket where every batsman practically throws his bat at every delivery.

This is the sort of non-analysis that puts me off commenting on this thread.

The fact that you can bat slowly doesn't mean you have to or should.

The only question is whether this will improve their expected score. Almost all Stokes' best innings have been attacking innings that started quickly. There's no reason to believe that just because it is 64/4 doing something different will lead to Stokes performing better.

Now if all you have remaining is to say things like "blind slogger, go play gully cricket", that's not even analysis. It's like the guys who keep insulting Misbah for tuk-tuk instead of analyzing the impact of what he's doing.

 

[JaDed]

When was the last time Aus enforced follow on?

 

[CricketAnalyst]

[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] doesn't recognise the -EV of unnecessary risks with attacking strokes.

Think of Ben Stokes. He failed to recognise when he came in at 64-4 that it would be fine for England to shut up shop and close at 80-4, and that being 100-5 (or 101-8) was much worse than 80-4.

In their situation much better to secure a draw than go down trying to win.

Ok. That is a valid point.

And by the way, I wasn't aware when I typed those comments about rain forecasts. If it really will rain a day or more, then batting defensively was more appropriate, but that would only be because of the special case of rain.

On the analysis overall. Stokes has only ever scored big when he plays positively and started relatively quick. Sure 80-4 is better than 100-5 or 101-8, but you have to consider whether blocking would render getting out very unlikely, and I say an emphatic no, having seen these guys bat, and moreover 200-4 was also very realistic having seen some of Stokes' efforts.

 

[Junaids]

Ok. That is a valid point.

And by the way, I wasn't aware when I typed those comments about rain forecasts. If it really will rain a day or more, then batting defensively was more appropriate, but that would only be because of the special case of rain.

On the analysis overall. Stokes has only ever scored big when he plays positively and started relatively quick. Sure 80-4 is better than 100-5 or 101-8, but you have to consider whether blocking would render getting out very unlikely, and I say an emphatic no, having seen these guys bat, and moreover 200-4 was also very realistic having seen some of Stokes' efforts.

Fair comments, but I think that Stokes and Buttler need to learn to adapt so that they can dig in and survive when conditions dictate.

I am a Lancashire member, but I'm not convinced that Buttler is a Test class keeper or batsman.

 

[Robert]

Going on the attack is still better than lamely hanging out your bat outside off.

If you're going to play a shot you may as well play a shot.

You have to be positive in defence - work it around and run the ones - rather than get stuck on the crease and bowled at.

 

[Convict]

Ian Bell 3/13 against Marsh in that innings

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Ian Bell 3/13 against Marsh in that innings

England bat much better than it looks.

Their entire order has been undermined and placed under gigantic pressure by the diabolical play of Bell and Lyth. Once these two are replaced, it's actually scary how good they will be without the deep lineup playing under the pressure of two guranteed top order failures early in the innings.

 

[Markhor]

Australia bowling so much more accurately than before, hitting the right lengths consistently. Why couldn't they do this when it counted ?

 

[CricketAnalyst]

It's scary that 62/2 is relatively an excellent start that offers potential because the two strongest batsmen are playing with a few runs on the board.

 

[Convict]

England bat much better than it looks.

Their entire order has been undermined and placed under gigantic pressure by the diabolical play of Bell and Lyth. Once these two are replaced, it's actually scary how good they will be without the deep lineup playing under the pressure of two guranteed top order failures early in the innings.

To be honest I still don't rate Bairstow, Ali or Buttler

 

[Junaids]

I'd much rather recall Nick Compton than pick a slogger-who-gives-his-wicket-away like Alex Hales.

 

[IndianWillow]

This is the sort of non-analysis that puts me off commenting on this thread.

The fact that you can bat slowly doesn't mean you have to or should.

The only question is whether this will improve their expected score. Almost all Stokes' best innings have been attacking innings that started quickly. There's no reason to believe that just because it is 64/4 doing something different will lead to Stokes performing better.

Now if all you have remaining is to say things like "blind slogger, go play gully cricket", that's not even analysis. It's like the guys who keep insulting Misbah for tuk-tuk instead of analyzing the impact of what he's doing.

But your analysis reminds me only of gully cricket, honestly. A test match is played over five days precisely because the objective is to dig in, bat deep and make huge scores. If we play test cricket the way you suggest, most matches would be over by 2-3 days and would be just longer versions of an ODI game.

First of all you have all your analysis screwed when you assumed that playing carefully does not guarantee a longer stay at the wicket. There is ample historic evidence to prove that the less risks you take, greater the chances of surviving at the wicket, and greater the chances of making a taller score. There are some match situations where you have to take calculated risks, that is understandable. A 50(50) is a much inferior knock compared to 100(200) in test cricket. Once you get your eye in, runs will automatically come. But if you go for the big shots immediately upon arrival at the crease, you will be susceptible for a dismissal.

 

[Convict]

Bairstow is better off attacking Johnson and getting him dragged from the attack. Can't play the short ball at all

 

[IndianWillow]

This is the sort of non-analysis that puts me off commenting on this thread.

The fact that you can bat slowly doesn't mean you have to or should.

The only question is whether this will improve their expected score. Almost all Stokes' best innings have been attacking innings that started quickly. There's no reason to believe that just because it is 64/4 doing something different will lead to Stokes performing better.

Now if all you have remaining is to say things like "blind slogger, go play gully cricket", that's not even analysis. It's like the guys who keep insulting Misbah for tuk-tuk instead of analyzing the impact of what he's doing.

Look at how nicely India batted out the day today to finish with 1/70. If they listened to you they would probably be 4/100 now. Now if they see off the first hour of tom morning, they would be in a strong position to accelerate. Classic test match cricket.

 

[Convict]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] who comes in for Lyth and Bairstow?

Lyth isn't up to it and Bairstow is never going to do anything in Australia and South Africa. He looks even worse against the short ball than before.

 

[Justcrazy]

Cook batting really well .

 

[Justcrazy]

Siddle bowling beautifully here , absolutely on target.

 

[Justcrazy]

Partnership 40 runs

 

[MarkCooper]

The weather is supposed to be horrible days 4 and 5. Can Cook pull off a miracle?

 

[Justcrazy]

Lyon gone.

 

[trogger]

The weather is supposed to be horrible days 4 and 5. Can Cook pull off a miracle?

Not really a cook miracle if two days of rain saves england.

 

[Justcrazy]

Its over for poms ....... lyon gets two in one over.

 

[Convict]

All hail King Gazza

Putting rangas to the sword

 

[trogger]

How did bairstow get 26?

His in form batting looks about as good as the crippled clarke's attempts this series.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Lyon has bowled rather well this match.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] who comes in for Lyth and Bairstow?

Lyth isn't up to it and Bairstow is never going to do anything in Australia and South Africa. He looks even worse against the short ball than before.

Alex Hales or Jason Roy for that Yorkshire Hack Lyth and James Taylor for Bairstow

 

[shaz619]

Wow, this could end today

 

[shaz619]

Minor, who cares? The Ashes have been retained anyway, mind you in record time

 

[ChachaCricket]

Cook has almost played 200 balls. #success

 

[Firebreaker]

England going with the tradition of this of ending match in 3 days

 

[Justcrazy]

Cook battling in a lost battle.

 

[Mamoon]

Masterclass by Cook, best Test opener by a mile when he is in form.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Its hard to find motivation when nothing is at stake and no score means anything.

Respect to Cook to stick on and score those runs even if they are meaningless.

These kind of knocks are more harder cos you are mental battle to just ease up, give away your wicket and get over with this pointless farce.

 

[The_KING]

Its hard to find motivation when nothing is at stake and no score means anything.

Respect to Cook to stick on and score those runs even if they are meaningless.

These kind of knocks are more harder cos you are mental battle to just ease up, give away your wicket and get over with this pointless farce.

Cook is eyeing another century. That should be enough motivation for any batsman.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Cook is eyeing another century. That should be enough motivation for any batsman.

Yeah that's one motivation. When you don't have runs, it can be a motivation.

Still its hard to not give in.

 

[ChachaCricket]

200 balls for Cook.

 

[Mamoon]

200 balls for Cook.

That's three full innings of Warner on average.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Hey guys look Clarke doesn't know how to play attritional cricket. He's overattacking again with 5 slips and two silly points and three short legs. So one dimensional.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Starc needs to come around the wicket. Change the angle, becoming too predictable.

 

[Bilal7]

You guys do realize that England can draw this game, right? Last I checked, Sunday and Monday are going to be plagued by showers and England still have a batsman and a couple of tail-enders who can bat, in the tank. Still, it's quite the long-shot.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Hey guys look Clarke doesn't know how to play attritional cricket. He's overattacking again with 5 slips and two silly points and three short legs. So one dimensional.

Nothing wrong with overattacking cos run rate is still 2.5 now.

If last 2 days can be rained out, its better to attack now.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Clarke you bloody genius. :chummi:

200 balls gone.

 

[Convict]

After all that effort to get out to the lousy part time leggy just short a 100 and just before stumps

LOL

 

[Firebreaker]

Cook gone and that too on Smith

 

[Firebreaker]

After all that effort to get out to the lousy part time leggy just short a 100 and just before stumps

LOL

He still have the urn and got it in 14 days

 

[Convict]

He still have the urn and got it in 14 days

Your point?

 

[trogger]

So since his amazing 10/11 ashes cook has gone the next 3 ashes series without a single ton.

His ashes stats are quite odd actually, average of 49 with 4 tons in his 15 tests in australia but an average of just 29 with no tons in his 15 ashes tests at home.

 

[Convict]

This series 330 runs at 36.66 is by far Cook's second best series against Australia

 

[Robert]

You guys do realize that England can draw this game, right? Last I checked, Sunday and Monday are going to be plagued by showers and England still have a batsman and a couple of tail-enders who can bat, in the tank. Still, it's quite the long-shot.

Very unlikely now Cook is out. If he had made 150 and Buttler or Moeen a 100 then there might have been a way out.

 

[Bilal7]

Very unlikely now Cook is out. If he had made 150 and Buttler or Moeen a 100 then there might have been a way out.

What is Buttler and Moeen score hundreds?

 

[Robert]

What is Buttler and Moeen score hundreds?

Most unlikely as they would have to be slow hundreds and these guys are shot-players. If they can get through to lunch then the afternoon session will be lost and it will chuck down on Monday. This test was easy to save with a bit of first-innings grit but they kept on attacking and that's wrong-headed.

The ease at which the Ashes were regained has papered over some serious cracks in the England side - Chef still not on best form, no other opener, Bell on the way out, Bairstow not convincing, Stokes still with lots to prove, Buttler unable to make runs against a good test attack, no credible spin option.

 

[Random Aussie]

Most unlikely as they would have to be slow hundreds and these guys are shot-players. If they can get through to lunch then the afternoon session will be lost and it will chuck down on Monday. This test was easy to save with a bit of first-innings grit but they kept on attacking and that's wrong-headed.

The ease at which the Ashes were regained has papered over some serious cracks in the England side - Chef still not on best form, no other opener, Bell on the way out, Bairstow not convincing, Stokes still with lots to prove, Buttler unable to make runs against a good test attack, no credible spin option.

Neither team has covered themselves in glory this series. England have just been better at the important moments which decided the Ashes.

 

[Robert]

Neither team has covered themselves in glory this series. England have just been better at the important moments which decided the Ashes.

Too few players on both sides have put their hands up, I'm afraid. I reckon that if Siddle had played in all five tests then Australia would have retained the Ashes 2-2.

 

[Convict]

Too few players on both sides have put their hands up, I'm afraid. I reckon that if Siddle had played in all five tests then Australia would have retained the Ashes 2-2.

Nah.

Siddle wouldn't do anything when we're getting bowled out for 60.

 

[Stallion__]

Nah.

Siddle wouldn't do anything when we're getting bowled out for 60.

He could have created some impact on first test. Would have made no difference in Birmingham and Trent Bridge though.

 

[James]

Siddle has had 481 runs to play with and it's a dead rubber, he is getting well overrated by everyone this weekend for bowling some maidens.

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] the current England side might as well be Cook + Root + Broad + Anderson + 7 inanimate carbon rods, it will generally perform to a similar level over the course of a Test series no matter what the carbon rods are called. Plus I'll admit that I don't follow the domestic game particularly anymore - maybe [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] can provide a better answer.

 

[Junaids]

I'm angry with Buttler.

This is Test cricket, needing to bat until it rains. That was a horrible shot.

 

[Big Mac]

"Rain on the way, let's throw away my wicket!"

It seems that England have hired a certain analyst after the Aussies sacked him

 

[Robert]

Siddle has had 481 runs to play with and it's a dead rubber, he is getting well overrated by everyone this weekend for bowling some maidens.

Maiden create pressure and induce false shots, though. I think Sid was an unsung hero in the 0-5 demolition. Bowled brilliantly to KP.

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] the current England side might as well be Cook + Root + Broad + Anderson + 7 inanimate carbon rods, it will generally perform to a similar level over the course of a Test series no matter what the carbon rods are called. Plus I'll admit that I don't follow the domestic game particularly anymore - maybe [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] can provide a better answer.

I would try Ballance in his proper position at #5 instead of Bairstow. It's time for a clear-out of the batters. Taylor could come in for Bell, and I'd like to see Hales given a go at the top. Not sure who else is coming through though, if any. The complete lack of credible spin options is scary in a system with about 400 professional players and goodness knows how many coaches.

 

[Robert]

So frustrating, as England could so easily have made AUS bat again and then the draw would have been sealed with all this rain coming.

 

[James]

Meant to be throwing it down for much of the remainder of the match.

If play resumes this evening for an hour or so though, Australia should be able to win.

 

[SL_Fan]

Enforcing the follow-on was spot on. Without that Eng may have somehow escaped with a draw.

 

[Robert]

Meant to be throwing it down for much of the remainder of the match.

If play resumes this evening for an hour or so though, Australia should be able to win.

Most likely.

So cross with England for throwing this match away. Wrong decision at the toss, then terrible batting, trying to smash their way out of trouble rather than just graft and make the match safe.

 

[shaz619]

Choosing to bowl first at the Oval was criminal, it's something you never do irrespective of the weather. The pitch flattens out and aids the spinners typically as the test progresses. Would be miraculous if Mo/Broad and the Rain pull of a draw from here.

 

[Robert]

Choosing to bowl first at the Oval was criminal, it's something you never do irrespective of the weather. The pitch flattens out and aids the spinners typically as the test progresses.

I concur.

 

[James]

Choosing to bowl first at the Oval was criminal, it's something you never do irrespective of the weather. The pitch flattens out and aids the spinners typically as the test progresses. Would be miraculous if Mo/Broad and the Rain pull of a draw from here.

It was arrogance IMO, thinking they could bowl out Australia for a low score again and then just canter to a 4-1 victory. Bowling first at the Oval on a sunny weekend lol. Disgraceful devil-may-care approach and they have paid for it.

 

[Robert]

The Sun is out over west London.....

 

[shaz619]

I concur.

It was arrogance IMO, thinking they could bowl out Australia for a low score again and then just canter to a 4-1 victory. Bowling first at the Oval on a sunny weekend lol. Disgraceful devil-may-care approach and they have paid for it.

So guys, Ashes retained 3-2 then.....and you must be very happy; but were England to win the World Cup in Australia would the euphoria be greater or not?

 

[Pantani]

I think England fans will only begin to rate the World Cup after they win it for the first time.

 

[trogger]

So batting collapse after batting collapse, multiple allrounders who can't score a run to save themselves and playing our best when it matters the least...if half our team were born overseas you would swear we were 1990's england.