What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
8/92

See, the bowling was never Australia's problem. They just needed decent first innings scores, not 60 and 130.
 
"England are already on the coach home to celebrate with the families - they have checked out of the series" - commie
 
ChachaCricket said:
Had Smith scored a 50-70 in the in either of the two previous matches, Australia would be on their way to an Ashes win.
Click to expand...

I wonder what would have happened if Haddin held onto Root. It could have gone 3-2 in Australia's favour
 
MarkCooper said:
"England are already on the coach home to celebrate with the families - they have checked out of the series" - commie
Click to expand...

Soft excuse. Why didn't Australia take their foot off the pedal after going 3-0 up last series?
 
Siddle can't bowl they said. Shouldn't be in the team they said.
 
International cricket needs more vegetenarian bowlers.
 
SL_Fan said:
Siddle can't bowl they said. Shouldn't be in the team they said.
Click to expand...

He's a trundler :nehra

I never got that logic. So what if he lacks pace. The two Mitchells provide plenty of pace. You don't need three 90mph bowlers.
 
SL_Fan said:
Siddle can't bowl they said. Shouldn't be in the team they said.
Click to expand...

Bowled rubbish for a few years and deserved to be dropped.

This has much to do with scoreboard pressure and how Australia are a bunch of front runners
 
Pantani said:
He's a trundler :nehra

I never got that logic. So what if he lacks pace. The two Mitchells provide plenty of pace. You don't need three 90mph bowlers.
Click to expand...

Yeah after Harris retired Siddle should have come in straight away. More than the players I think the Aus selectors have a lot of explaining to do. They have been all over the place.
 
And this is why Clarke is the best captain in the world. Nobody maximizes their bowlers' potential better.
 
SL_Fan said:
Yeah after Harris retired Siddle should have come in straight away. More than the players I think the Aus selectors have a lot of explaining to do. They have been all over the place.
Click to expand...

They backed the better bowler in Hazlewood
 
Convict said:
Bowled rubbish for a few years and deserved to be dropped.

This has much to do with scoreboard pressure and how Australia are a bunch of front runners
Click to expand...

Years? As I recall he had an ordinary series in South Africa in 2014, then got dropped for not being fast enough. He was Australia's best bowler in the 2013 Ashes and did alright in 2013/14 too.
 
Convict said:
Bowled rubbish for a few years and deserved to be dropped.

This has much to do with scoreboard pressure and how Australia are a bunch of front runners
Click to expand...

C'mon he wasn't that bad. Obviously no where near Harris as a bowler but the perfect guy to take over his role imo.
 
England have totally checked out mentally. Painful and also a bit funny.

Would be one of the all-time worst performances if it wasn't in a dead rubber.

As it is, it's just very poor.
 
Pantani said:
Years? As I recall he had an ordinary series in South Africa in 2014, then got dropped for not being fast enough. He was Australia's best bowler in the 2013 Ashes and did alright in 2013/14 too.
Click to expand...

SL_Fan said:
C'mon he wasn't that bad. Obviously no where near Harris as a bowler but the perfect guy to take over his role imo.
Click to expand...

He was stuck trundling at low 30s and barely moving the ball at all.

Hazlewood is now a better bowler.

Let Hazelwood bowl after Australia score 481 and let Siddle bowl after Australia get bowled out for 60.

Much the same.

Siddle is a good depth bowler and nothing more
 
Convict said:
They backed the better bowler in Hazlewood
Click to expand...

That's fair enough. But wouldn't have played both MJ and Starc. MJ/Starc, Siddle, Hazlewood, Lyon and Marsh. Much more well rounded attack imo.
 
SL_Fan said:
C'mon he wasn't that bad. Obviously no where near Harris as a bowler but the perfect guy to take over his role imo.
Click to expand...

He was trundling in South Africa and that's why he was dropped. Anyway Hazlewood is a better long term option I think.
 
SL_Fan said:
That's fair enough. But wouldn't have played both MJ and Starc. MJ/Starc, Siddle, Hazlewood, Lyon and Marsh. Much more well rounded attack imo.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have picked Starc but Starc had had a better series than Johnson.

Of course Marsh is also very underbowled in my opinion.

And I don't get why Warne was complaining. Siddle was a much better option than Cummins who shouldn't be anywhere near a test squad
 
Convict said:
He was stuck trundling at low 30s and barely moving the ball at all.

Hazlewood is now a better bowler.

Let Hazelwood bowl after Australia score 481 and let Siddle bowl after Australia get bowled out for 60.

Much the same.

Siddle is a good depth bowler and nothing more
Click to expand...

Yeah Hazlewood's more talented all round as a bowler but Siddle offers more control. Given that not being able to stem the flow of runs was a big contributor to the loss in Cardiff Siddle should have played the last test.
 
People need to calm down over Siddle-Hazlewood debate.Hazlewood is much better bowler.Siddle performed for the first time in 2-3 years
 
Convict said:
He was stuck trundling at low 30s and barely moving the ball at all.

Hazlewood is now a better bowler.

Let Hazelwood bowl after Australia score 481 and let Siddle bowl after Australia get bowled out for 60.

Much the same.

Siddle is a good depth bowler and nothing more
Click to expand...

Nikhil_cric said:
He was trundling in South Africa and that's why he was dropped. Anyway Hazlewood is a better long term option I think.
Click to expand...

What Aus has lacked this series is not pace tho. It's the control which has let them down.
 
As SL_Fan said the problem was to do with balance. If you're going to pick both Mitchells then the other seamer has to keep it tight. Hazlewood hasn't done that this series.
 
Bob Willis should be fun tonight.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P-dFLF2f78s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bYhZDeIUo1Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Pantani said:
Yeah Hazlewood's more talented all round as a bowler but Siddle offers more control. Given that not being able to stem the flow of runs was a big contributor to the loss in Cardiff Siddle should have played the last test.
Click to expand...

Blame Clarke's fields for that.
 
So it's currently 3-2 for England v Australia test matches in England this season and this should draw it 3-3.

Australia to retain the Ashes
 
Awful performance by the English batters. Most of the English batting line up has failed this series.

This series hasn't been that exciting tbh. All the games have ended as a convincing win for Aus or Eng. The Ashes series is really getting boring. 2005 Ashes series was more entertaining than all the ones followed it.
 
A see-saw of a series. Don't remember any series swinging fortunes like this. There have been 3-2 results but those are usually hard fought contests. This series has been a one way street either way.
 
Convict said:
Blame Clarke's fields for that.
Click to expand...

Hazlewood focused too much on swing rather than his bread and butter, more to do with the bowling coach than Clarke. Mcgrath talked about his arm dropping and losing that bounce and accuracy.
 
Last edited:
hahaha, I left home with England 30/0 or something and get home to see them eight down :))

It seems that Cook's England has adopted the Tubby Taylor approach to tests, win the series in devastating fashion and then let your vanquished opponents win the dead rubber so they feel better
 
Big Mac said:
hahaha, I left home with England 30/0 or something and get home to see them eight down :))

It seems that Cook's England has adopted the Tubby Taylor approach to tests, win the series in devastating fashion and then let your vanquished opponents win the dead rubber so they feel better
Click to expand...

I think what we have seen all series is that modern test players don't know how to get their heads down and graft when they are behind in the game. They try to hit their way out of trouble (which is fine if your name is Viv Richards or Adam Gilchrist).
 
Robert said:
I think what we have seen all series is that modern test players don't know how to get their heads down and graft when they are behind in the game. They try to hit their way out of trouble (which is fine if your name is Viv Richards or Adam Gilchrist).
Click to expand...

England may have won the Ashes, but only Joe Root has averaged 40.

Victory makes all questions go away. But the failure of every single batsman apart from Root really shows that Kevin Pietersen would have strengthened this team. Andrew Strauss' vendetta is an expensive one to indulge.
 
A very good sign from England.

A whole evening to talk over a collapse and listen to tirades about T20 cricket and grafting.

Instead of blocking, they have corrected the error from yesterday. They are playing aggressively and reaping the reward.
 
The Beard and the Invisible Horse are making the rest of the batting order look useless.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
A very good sign from England.

A whole evening to talk over a collapse and listen to tirades about T20 cricket and grafting.

Instead of blocking, they have corrected the error from yesterday. They are playing aggressively and reaping the reward.
Click to expand...

You have it 100% wrong, as usual. They didn't block yesterday, they went for their shots and collapsed. After 60-3 what they needed was someone to get a long, slow hundred.
 
Robert said:
You have it 100% wrong, as usual. They didn't block yesterday, they went for their shots and collapsed. After 60-3 what they needed was someone to get a long, slow hundred.
Click to expand...

They blocked to go from 1-46 in 12 overs and cruising to 4-64 in the 24th over, with Bell and Root playing a prolonged spell of blocking that put themselves under pressure. That caused the collapse.

What they needed was a big score (whether slow or not). Slow innings are just not translating to success here, and only Cook's game works like that for the English.

Buttler is destroying his game with this responsibility mindset where bowlers aren't even scared of bowling to the most destructive bat in England because he's decided not to do anything.
 
Robert said:
You have it 100% wrong, as usual. They didn't block yesterday, they went for their shots and collapsed. After 60-3 what they needed was someone to get a long, slow hundred.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I respectfully suggest that [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] reads the Geoff Boycott and Jonathan Agnew articles on the BBC Sport website.

All five defeats in this series have been caused by too many shots and too few leaves.
 
It's due to rain from lunch onwards tomorrow.

That means that England need to bat 95 overs to save the match. If they can be 250-2 from 95 overs the weather will save them.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They blocked to go from 1-46 in 12 overs and cruising to 4-64 in the 24th over, with Bell and Root playing a prolonged spell of blocking that put themselves under pressure. That caused the collapse.

What they needed was a big score (whether slow or not). Slow innings are just not translating to success here, and only Cook's game works like that for the English.

Buttler is destroying his game with this responsibility mindset where bowlers aren't even scared of bowling to the most destructive bat in England because he's decided not to do anything.
Click to expand...

You seem to have no clue that dictating the scoring rate is not within a batsman's control, especially when the batsman is new at the crease. If that were true every team would be scoring at 5rpo every innings. No team bats slow these days just for the sake of it. After the early collapse to 4/64 England needed a big partnership through careful batting - instead Stokes and Bairstow were playing cameos and got out.
 
Junaids said:
Exactly.

I respectfully suggest that [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] reads the Geoff Boycott and Jonathan Agnew articles on the BBC Sport website.

All five defeats in this series have been caused by too many shots and too few leaves.
Click to expand...

I actually have.

They tried it Boycott's way for years and got pummeled in all formats.

They are now doing the diametric opposite and doing well against strong sides like Australia and NewZealand.

The problem is Boycott would rather lose playing the 'proper' way than win doing unorthodox 'rubbish'. (Phrased the way he would think of it) And I rather suspect that people like you and Robert would as well.

"Then Ben Stokes came in - almost every second or third ball he was whooshing at it, almost as if he was trying to win the match."

Gee. A professional sportsman wants to win the match. Who could ever have anticipated that? This quote pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with the mentality.

On Jos Buttler ""He hasn't shown any application whatsoever. It looks to me like his mind and confidence is shot for Test cricket - it's pathetic."

Yes. That's exactly the problem. If you don't tell him to go out and hit it like he does in ODI's (where he scores more) how will he succeed? This guy's game is built on attacking and he's trying to succeed by blocking. It's like Boycott being instructed to play like Glenn Maxwell, what do you think would happen?

They've won the Ashes playing attackingly, and after one bad innings, (precipitated by a lot of blocking) and at an overall slow rate, he wants them to go back to the tried and tested negativity.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
I actually have.

They tried it Boycott's way for years and got pummeled in all formats.

They are now doing the diametric opposite and doing well against strong sides like Australia and NewZealand.

The problem is Boycott would rather lose playing the 'proper' way than win doing unorthodox 'rubbish'. (Phrased the way he would think of it) And I rather suspect that people like you and Robert would as well.

"Then Ben Stokes came in - almost every second or third ball he was whooshing at it, almost as if he was trying to win the match."

Gee. A professional sportsman wants to win the match. Who could ever have anticipated that? This quote pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with the mentality.

On Jos Buttler ""He hasn't shown any application whatsoever. It looks to me like his mind and confidence is shot for Test cricket - it's pathetic."

Yes. That's exactly the problem. If you don't tell him to go out and hit it like he does in ODI's (where he scores more) how will he succeed? This guy's game is built on attacking and he's trying to succeed by blocking. It's like Boycott being instructed to play like Glenn Maxwell, what do you think would happen?

They've won the Ashes playing attackingly, and after one bad innings, (precipitated by a lot of blocking) and at an overall slow rate, he wants them to go back to the tried and tested negativity.
Click to expand...
When were England pummelled in Tests?

They did lose the last Ashes 5-0, but they have won 4 of the last 6 Ashes series.
 
It's been three years, but England are yet to replace Strauss.

From Root to Compton to Carberry to Lyth, none of them have proved to be an able partner for Cook.

I think they showed lack of patience with Root, or perhaps didn't want their best young batsmen to play out of his comfort zone - he did get a 180 at Lord's in 2013, and is too good a batsman not to adjust.
 
Mamoon said:
It's been three years, but England are yet to replace Strauss.

From Root to Compton to Carberry to Lyth, none of them have proved to be an able partner for Cook.

I think they showed lack of patience with Root, or perhaps didn't want their best young batsmen to play out of his comfort zone - he did get a 180 at Lord's in 2013, and is too good a batsman not to adjust.
Click to expand...

Carberry was cool.

They treated him unfairly.
 
IndianWillow said:
You seem to have no clue that dictating the scoring rate is not within a batsman's control, especially when the batsman is new at the crease. If that were true every team would be scoring at 5rpo every innings. No team bats slow these days just for the sake of it. After the early collapse to 4/64 England needed a big partnership through careful batting - instead Stokes and Bairstow were playing cameos and got out.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Is this the first time Australia have enforced it since Calcutta?

I understood that led to a knee-jerk reaction of "never, ever enforce a follow on"?
Click to expand...

Possibly is.

Clarke only did it this test because of the weather forecast
 
Junaids said:
I'm pretty sure that Rahat Ali, Wahab Riaz and Yasir Shah hope so too!
Click to expand...

Pakistani bowlers don't like being attacked. They gobble defensive batsmen alive but can't handle heat because they are just utterly unused to the idea of batsmen trying to maul them. If you watched the Pakistan-NZL and Pakistan-Aus series, you would have realized this.
 
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.
 
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION],
It's going to rain from Sunday lunchtime.

So when England was 64-3, there were 140 overs left in the match.

Scoring runs was irrelevant. They just needed to bat long enough to tire out the Aussie bowlers and ensure that the follow-on was not enforced.

At 64-3 they needed to ensure that they closed at 90-3, reached lunch today at 170-4 and batted until Tea today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jeetu
Stats: Rating players by their performance against each country
Replies
12
Views
481
jeetu
jeetu
MenInG
England [294 & 329] beat Australia [225 & 263] by 135 runs in the 5th Ashes Test to draw series 2-2
2 3 4
Replies
291
Views
12K
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
jeetu
Stats - Rating Test batsman by taking Peer Factor into account
Replies
6
Views
2K
jeetu
jeetu
A
Australia [649/7d] beat England [346 & 180] in the 5th Test by an innings & 123 runs; Win Ashes 4-0
2
Replies
120
Views
6K
Amjid Javed
Amjid Javed
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
Back
Top