Where did Australia go wrong after the fall of the 9th wicket?

[jnaveen1980]

Is it the field set, is it the inability to bowl on one side of the wicket to Stokes, Is it the angle Is it the length of the ball? 64 balls bowled to tail. only 17 were faced by Leach. One would surely back the bowling side to win this one.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Take this as a case study as our own teams could face such a scenario. Who knows? West Indies might try to hunt whatever the target India sets.

 

[Junaids]

By having only three quick bowlers, who were worn out.

They needed Mitchell Marsh to have bowled 20 overs so that the others retained their pace and accuracy.

 

[Mamoon]

They were one-dimensional against Leach. They kept bowling short instead of attacking his stumps.

 

[aloo paratha]

Everywhere. Bowled way too many short balls at Leach when he's obviously not gonna pull, needed to attack the stumps. Poor fielding, dropped catches, missed runout chance. Probably the most costly yet most easily fixable mistake was taking that review. Everybody knew it was not out, it was a brainless review and it cost them in the end.

 

[aloo paratha]

Also, play Siddle for the remaining 2 matches, he looks a lot better than Pattinson.

 

[Last Monetarist]

That review off Cummins. They would have retained the Ashes today if Paine hadn't lost his mind and used that review out of sheer desperation.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Hazlewood channel bowler. When batsman in slogging mode he is the guy you would want to face
Cummins - back of the length bowler. Hard to nip out tailender with that approach.
Pattinson has a good yorker. Wonder why he didn't attempt after that
Lyon - biggest mystery. He could hardly get the ball to grip and turn like he does. He looked mediocre.

There was sameness about their attack. Batsmen can get used to it in easier batting conditions.

 

[jnaveen1980]

That review off Cummins. They would have retained the Ashes today if Paine hadn't lost his mind and used that review out of sheer desperation.

He took that review with 1 second to go if i remember right.

 

[moghul]

That review off Cummins. They would have retained the Ashes today if Paine hadn't lost his mind and used that review out of sheer desperation.

That was the stupidity which might cost them Ashes.

 

[Sam99]

Nothing went wrong. Joel wilson went right for eng. Like Dharmasena did in wc.

 

[sindhiboy]

main reason was they did not bowl enough full deliveries. as junaid said, aus need a 5th bowler, the 3 pacers were exhausted towards the end.

im a big fan of cummins, but i think starc was very much needed instead as he removes the tail quickly with his yorkers and this pitch flattened and dried out . cummins only bowled one yorker

pattinson bowled better and extracts alot of swing also bowled a good yorker, but stopped doing that for some reason.

 

[Manunited18]

Remember it's taken arguably one of the greatest knocks ever to win England this game, a combination of poor captaincy and umpiring and bottling in crucial times, however can't paper the gaping gaps in the England side, openers are inept, buttler a walking wicket, root and bairstow far to inconsistent

 

[aloo paratha]

Nothing went wrong. Joel wilson went right for eng. Like Dharmasena did in wc.

Yes it was a bad decision, but reviews are a part of the game, they wasted their review, it is their fault in the end.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Yes it was a bad decision, but reviews are a part of the game, they wasted their review, it is their fault in the end.

The decision was almost like he was rooting for Ben stokes to pull it off. He went right across the stumps. I think Joel knew it was more out than not out. But chose not to give anyway.

 

[Sam99]

Yes it was a bad decision, but reviews are a part of the game, they wasted their review, it is their fault in the end.

If it's only reviews then why keep umpires? to favour eng important matches all time?

 

[aloo paratha]

If it's only reviews then why keep umpires? to favour eng important matches all time?

That is an argument for another day. The fact is Australia blew it themselves.

 

[jnaveen1980]

That is an argument for another day. The fact is Australia blew it themselves.

Without a doubt. First they were a bit complacent. Second it took a while for them to realize how damaging Stokes was becoming. Also they were not focused enough in the 5th and 6th ball of every over. That is where they should have been better.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Australia nearly pulled one off against India in the first test in Australia. Ashwin took out hazlewood eventually. These days tailenders hang around a lot more than you thin (except India).

 

[AAli98]

Icc are on a mission to give the world cup & ashes to eng by hook or by crook.. even if that means giving stokes extra runs or plum lbws not out.

 

[big_gamer007]

Attack the stumps of tailender. They missed starc.

 

[Major]

Fielding.

If you look at the world cup final, the fielding was top notch. Every ball that was fielded, they would return it back to the keeper with a strong throw and at an accurate place.

Look at the super over, the throws to the keeper were amazing, every throw was near the stumps for the keeper.

AUstralia didnt do bad in field placement wise, the mistake was they couldn't catch it. To get Stokes out they needed to pull a blinder.

Than the run out chance, a messed up throw andd Lyon could hold on to it.

The lbw decision, wont blame the umpire as in real time it looked it would miss as the ball making contact with pads was very near.
Australia should not had wasted that review

 

[sindhiboy]

Remember it's taken arguably one of the greatest knocks ever to win England this game, a combination of poor captaincy and umpiring and bottling in crucial times, however can't paper the gaping gaps in the England side, openers are inept, buttler a walking wicket, root and bairstow far to inconsistent

foakes is a much better keeper and an excellent batsmen, dont know why is he not picked. ollie pope is also a promising talent who should get a chance.

burns is still a good opener, roy is just not fit for tests. but that would mean, bairstow would have to open, dont know if he can do that either.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Even though Stokes has smashed Lyon around, he was more likely to take the wicket of Stokes.

Stokes most dismissal by bowlers

Ashwin 7
Lyon 5
Perera 5

All 3 offies. Even in this innings Stokes didn't exactly connect the ball cleanly. May be the pitch became a flat pancake and offered nothing for Lyon. Lyon is one of the biggest tweaker. He could hardly get any purchase.

 

[Firebat]

Icc are on a mission to give the world cup & ashes to eng by hook or by crook.. even if that means giving stokes extra runs or plum lbws not out.

Did the ICC make Lyon drop that ball in the run out chance at the end? Did the ICC make Harris drop that catch? Did the ICC make Paine blow a review on the most clear not out LBW decision I've ever seen? Yes that was a bad decision by Wilson to give it not out, but bad umpiring decisions are not a new thing in cricket, and is part of the game. The fact is that had Australia taken their many chances to win that game, they would never have needed to rely on an umpiring decision they can't control. They have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[AAli98]

Eng will carry Dharmasena & wilson with there luggage, bottom line is theyv cost nz the world cup & aus the ashes.

 

[Cricketrenew]

Eng will carry Dharmasena & wilson with there luggage, bottom line is theyv cost nz the world cup & aus the ashes.

Dharmasena checked with the other umpire before giving the runs, after all the other umpire was standing at square to see if the batsman had crossed. For Stokes to do it once you can say he was lucky but twice then you make your own luck.

Not sure why Wilson is on the elite list of umpires, he continuously makes mistakes. they should have a league table for umpires..with promotion and relegation.

Neutral umpires is the best thing to happen to cricket so I don't buy the argument that English and Aussie umpires are the best and should umpire home series. I don't like the fact that players only get two reviews maybe every decision should be reviewed by the third umpire. Getting the right decision should outweigh other concerns.

Australia went wrong with having a very poor captain and leaving Starc out of the starting lineup.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I concur with what the others said. Starcs yorkers were missing. Its a bit of a dilemma for OZ i think. Hazlewood, Cummins and Pattinson are more about hitting that good length with the odd bouncer and that means less runs given and that seems to have been the plan all series - to deprive England of free scoring opportunities.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I concur with what the others said. Starcs yorkers were missing. Its a bit of a dilemma for OZ i think. Hazlewood, Cummins and Pattinson are more about hitting that good length with the odd bouncer and that means less runs given and that seems to have been the plan all series - to deprive England of free scoring opportunities.

yes . You need a shock factor in your line up. Spin or pace.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Eng will carry Dharmasena & wilson with there luggage, bottom line is theyv cost nz the world cup & aus the ashes.

If anything, this win only assures England are for real. Won the World cup and this test fair and square!

One of a lifetimes kinda game by England. Stokes, what a player.

Aussies had no clear plan against Leach!

 

[Manunited18]

If anything, this win only assures England are for real. Won the World cup and this test fair and square!

One of a lifetimes kinda game by England. Stokes, what a player.

Aussies had no clear plan against Leach!

I dontagree, whilst stokes played a once in a life time innings yet the win just papers the cracks, Roy is not a opener, burns has been worked out short ball, root not consistent, buttler a glorified odi hitter, So is bairstow, broad and Anderson are ageing, leaves archer stokes to carry the team

 

[Mr.jain]

I dontagree, whilst stokes played a once in a life time innings yet the win just papers the cracks, Roy is not a opener, burns has been worked out short ball, root not consistent, buttler a glorified odi hitter, So is bairstow, broad and Anderson are ageing, leaves archer stokes to carry the team

Root is alright,everyplayer decline in thier career at somepoint period.
Stokes is cool,they have to work with bairstow denly since they are average

They need to replace roy and butler asap

Hell even moeen ali will be better than these 2 in team as he is somewhat predictible to perfome here n there

What happenee to stoneman guy? He was doing alright last i saw

For bowlers archer,broad,wakes are alright with help from stokes its good.moeen would be cherry on top
Dont know why they picked leech,he didnt bowl in 1st innings and only bowled 11 in 2nd,very very poor for specialist picked bowler.

 

[Manunited18]

This ashes series is good veiwing because of the fact in which the weaknesses of both teams keep on getting exposed, average to poor batting line ups are lamb's to the slaughter against decent attacks

 

[The Viper]

I think they missed Starc's toe crushing yorkers which would have been perfect in this scenario.

 

[Cricketrenew]

If anything, this win only assures England are for real. Won the World cup and this test fair and square!

One of a lifetimes kinda game by England. Stokes, what a player.

Aussies had no clear plan against Leach!

England and Stokes played great but that does not hide the fact New Zealand and Australia would have won if the umpires didn't make such awful mistakes at critical times. If technology was used to clear up obvious errors then things would look different.

Would cricket be poorer, I think it would Stokes deserves all the plaudits.

 

[James]

Who cares

 

[jnaveen1980]

I think they missed Starc's toe crushing yorkers which would have been perfect in this scenario.

He was the one who dismissed Stokes in the world cup in the first encounter vs Australia.

 

[shah_1]

Starc should always play

Siddle, Hazlewood, Cummins, and Pattinson have shown their limitation when it comes to removing tail throughout the series.

 

[barah_admi]

I dont think they did much wrong. Cummins, Pattinson and Hazlewood are all very similar bowlers and when the conditions and pitch help, they can be very dangerous but they are far too monotone. I think this is why Starc is so useful he can get reverse and he has a striking yorker, along with the left arm angle. Its like England's attack without Archer.

Plus take nothing from Stokes, he played every ball on its merit AND allowed Leach to play a ball an over. It was perfect batting with the tail.

Oh and the Aussies should have taken their chances!

 

[Savak]

Stokes played a freak innings.

There was far too much short of a length stuff from the pacers. They probably got over confident early on and then panicked and had zero answers when Stokes went berserk

 

[sweep_shot]

Aussies could've bowled more yorkers. They probably took it lightly after fall of 9th wicket.

 

[Firebat]

I think Paine's captaincy was atrocious after the 9th wicket fell. It was clear what Stokes' strike hogging tactic was. For about 6 or 7 overs in a row, he took a single off the 5th ball and let Leach face one. Surely at some point, this dawned on the Aussies and they could've brought the field up for the 5th ball and prevent him from taking the single.

Yes, that would've meant giving Stokes practically free boundaries for the 5th and 6th ball, but when 50 was required it was worth biting the bullet to be able to get a whole over at Leach. Even if Stokes would've been able to get the singles with the field up, as he did once, it would've been extremely hard for him to do this consistently. It may have encouraged Stokes to take the single on the 4th ball instead, thereby giving the Aussies 2 balls rather than 1 against Leach.

Either way, doing this would've given the Aussies a lot more deliveries vs Leach therefore increasing their chances of winning a lot more.

This is not just my opinion either, all the commentators were baffled as to why Paine was not doing this and Nasser Hussain even wrote about this in an article for the Mail. This was very poor captaincy and one of the many reasons Australia threw this match.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Australia may have been unfortunate after being on the threshold of retaining the Ashes but to ressurect from the depths of despair like England did made them deserving winners.Australia plyed much the better cricket for most of the game before the great resilience showed by England yesterday and the spectacular counter attack
By Ben Stokes like an army batallion rising like a Phoenix from the Ashes.With 2. Needed I totally rooted for England so forget about misers run out or umpiring blunder.At that juncture England deserved to win.Above a Lit was test match cricket which won the day whose glory was taken to depths of divinity.

 

[Abdullah]

The only thing they could have done was try am off cutter from around the wicket to leach plus Yorkers.
Otherwise they couldn't have done more.
I'm talking about the bowling purely here ( not reviews, catches, fumbles, umpire cock ups the etc)

 

[Hasan123]

Paine should have kept the field up to Stokes. Australia bowling success has been due to keeping things tight, why change this? Also they should have bowled more fuller to Leech. The dropped chances didn’t help of course.

 

[QalandarFan]

This is why you needed Starc to play you ***** makes no sense to me why he's not playing.

 

[QalandarFan]

I think Paine's captaincy was atrocious after the 9th wicket fell. It was clear what Stokes' strike hogging tactic was. For about 6 or 7 overs in a row, he took a single off the 5th ball and let Leach face one. Surely at some point, this dawned on the Aussies and they could've brought the field up for the 5th ball and prevent him from taking the single.

Yes, that would've meant giving Stokes practically free boundaries for the 5th and 6th ball, but when 50 was required it was worth biting the bullet to be able to get a whole over at Leach. Even if Stokes would've been able to get the singles with the field up, as he did once, it would've been extremely hard for him to do this consistently. It may have encouraged Stokes to take the single on the 4th ball instead, thereby giving the Aussies 2 balls rather than 1 against Leach.

Either way, doing this would've given the Aussies a lot more deliveries vs Leach therefore increasing their chances of winning a lot more.

This is not just my opinion either, all the commentators were baffled as to why Paine was not doing this and Nasser Hussain even wrote about this in an article for the Mail. This was very poor captaincy and one of the many reasons Australia threw this match.

Dude they didn't "throw the match." They just lost because of their own incompetence.

 

[Firebat]

Dude they didn't "throw the match." They just lost because of their own incompetence.

The captaincy from Paine I agree was incompetency, but the other clear chances they had to win the game I call throwing the match. Every professional cricketer, let alone one playing in the Ashes, is competent enough to take a catch or collect the ball from a throw and break the bails.

 

[hadi123]

They can't blame the umpire. They wasted reviews out of desperation, bowled too short to leach, missed a couple of hard chances, but Lyon really really should have ran out Leach. Just needed to take the return throw cleanly and Leach was a goner

 

[QalandarFan]

The captaincy from Paine I agree was incompetency, but the other clear chances they had to win the game I call throwing the match. Every professional cricketer, let alone one playing in the Ashes, is competent enough to take a catch or collect the ball from a throw and break the bails.

Throwing a match means you lose it on purpose which is certainly not what happened. They didn’t miss chances or drop catches on purpose.

 

[Firebat]

Throwing a match means you lose it on purpose which is certainly not what happened. They didn’t miss chances or drop catches on purpose.

I'm sorry my terminology is wrong then, that was not my intended message. What I mean is that they made many easy mistakes and wasted chances to win the game. They lost the game just as much as England (or Stokes rather) won the game. My original point is that Paine's captaincy was one of the reasons why England won that game.

 

[QalandarFan]

I'm sorry my terminology is wrong then, that was not my intended message. What I mean is that they made many easy mistakes and wasted chances to win the game. They lost the game just as much as England (or Stokes rather) won the game. My original point is that Paine's captaincy was one of the reasons why England won that game.

I understand was just trying to point that out there, I get what you're saying though.