England v Australia, 3rd Test, Edgbaston, 29 July - 3 August, 2015

A draw at Trent Bridge would leave Australia with a chance of retaining the Ashes. Perhaps that's what he meant.

vilkrang wrote:Athers needs to check his maths, pretty sure a draw at Trent Bridge won't mean Australia retain the Ashes...

Man, a draw at TB would mean we can't lose a series at home to Aus, again. That would mean almost as much. Will be 18 years, by my maths, if so......

Brass Monkey wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Athers needs to check his maths, pretty sure a draw at Trent Bridge won't mean Australia retain the Ashes...

Man, a draw at TB would mean we can't lose a series at home to Aus, again. That would mean almost as much. Will be 18 years, by my maths, if so......

Yup. Whilst I would obviously love to regain the Ashes, that home record feels more important at this stage.

Finn MOTM, I agree

Anyway, it's not 0-5 at least.

Losing Jimmy could be a Pidge-foot-on-ball moment, however.

Brass Monkey wrote:F*ck.... f*ck... I can't believe we're 2-1 up. Cannot believe it. Fair play to us. Didn't think we had it in us. Yes!

Oh yeah? You and whose army?

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:Bell looks good at 3.  Why haven't they tried it before.

He didn't like it. It was scary. Like when he tried asparagus for the first time. There were tears.

But now the England management have told him to eat his vegetables or there'll be no Playstation for a week, it turns out he doesn't mind them at all.

That is f*cking awesome. Hilarious stuff Dello.

Been out all day (watching it at a boozer or a 'sports bar' as it likes to think of itself, does a dart board and ropey pool table make that defensible under the Trades Description Act) and just gone back through today's posts.

Outstanding tit for tat doom & gloom posting from both sides. It was like watching tennis for manic depressives. Hilarious to read after the event - had I been in and at my laptop I'd have no doubt been right in the thick of it, had I not been slashing my wrists at the crapulence of Moeen Ali's bowling and useless captaincy at the outset by Cook.

Well done England for being slightly less shit than Aus in this game. Still there's a chance to revert to type at TB, especially shorn of Jimmy.

Watching the last knockings this arvo I couldn't help but feel total hatred toward Michael Clarke for being a chippy, overly competitive nob’ead. Perhaps I’m out of line – so tell me what you think.

With 20 runs to go it was obvious it was all over - so why not be a good chap, get the buffet bowling on. Man up, accept the game is over and that you guys have disgraced the holy baggy green and disappear to the safety of the dressing room where you can sing that song you like to sing.

What was there to prove or gain by keeping the main guys on ‘til pretty much the bitter end. Take 1 more wicket or so – big deal. It would have had little to no value.

At that point I initially wished that for his arseyness that Mitch J pulled a hammie – but then I thought that’d be wholly unfair on the warrior that is Mitch (even though I thought in his spells today he kind of looked like he knew it was not going to happen and didn’t seem to be firing on full gas – who knows, maybe he thinks Clarke is a qunt as well).

So I then thought I hope Mitch induces an edge that Clarke goes for and busts his fingers whilst shelling it. That’ll teach him for being a qunt I thought. Then I thought, no, I don’t want him to miss a test as he’s practically a Lyth (or a walking wicket as it is more commonly known).

So I settled on hoping the edge would fall short but bounce up and break a few of his teeth instead.

Helped me wile away the final few moments.

You don't put joke bowlers on in a Test, except perhaps when there's no prospect of a result either way (see Cook's one and only wicket giving him the best bowling average ever, or something like that). If the opposition's 100-0 chasing 101 you have to believe you can get those ten wickets without conceding another run, and play accordingly.

beamer wrote:You don't put joke bowlers on in a Test, except perhaps when there's no prospect of a result either way (see Cook's one and only wicket giving him the best bowling average ever, or something like that). If the opposition's 100-0 chasing 101 you have to believe you can get those ten wickets without conceding another run, and play accordingly.

I wasn't advocating people coming on and doing their Bob Willis impressions a la Gooch and latterly Cook.

Smith bowls in tests - not a joke bowler as such even though he does bowl a lot of filth.

Clarke bowls too (presumably his dodgy back may excuse him - but he should have put his hand up to be the man responsible for giving up the losing runs seeing as how he's done pretty much sweet FA to help them this series).

Shit even Warner has bowled in tests.

All of them in live situations I might add.

I just thought his attitude was unnecessary - everyone knew it was done so why drag it out and risk injuring your primary weapons just to perhaps get one more wicket (and for what, put a veneer on top of the defeat in the hope of covering it up a bit?). And reviewing near the end too - really? It was about a mile away from the bat - and again it was pointless to even really bother with it.

Mitch bowled the best over in the match in England's first innings,so when did he come on to bowl? England were about 50/1IIRC.

Sometimes, Clarke is so far up his own arse that he forgets the bleedin obvious. Not that i'm complaining.

Brilliant brilliant day at Edgbaston.
Took a tad longer than I expected - but got there in the end.

Glad to see Huck get MOTM.
Bell is a born again batsman at #3.
No push and prod but crash bang wallop.
Roooooot was his majestic self.
Cook - batting on thin ice ... but he is captain of a winning team ... sighs ...
Lyth f**k off back to Yorkshire. Absolute baggage, ballast and sh*t.
BRING  IN  HALES  NOW.

Clarke is a mouthy qunt.... but I warmed to Mitch Johnson.
The crowd were on his case big time for the duration, but sh*t, did he wear it well.
Perpetual smile and the occasional cheeky bow in acknowledgement ... top man ...
but his bowling was off the radar today.

Song of the day
"Stand Up if your 2 -1 up, stand up if you're 2-1 up ...
Stand down if you're 2 -1 down, stand down if you're 2 - 1 down ..."
Repeat continuously ...

For England :
Hales and Woodsy in. Lyth and Jimmeh out.

For Aus ... wouldn't change a thing ...  I'd just reverse the batting order.

Roll on Trent Bridge.

So...does Wood get a recall to replace Jimmy?

Mixed opinions.

Wood is the man in possession - so logic says yes.

But the selectors might just look around for a swing bowler a la Jimmeh - and Footit fits the shoe.
Talk also of Woakes and Plunkett, but my money's on Wood.

Woakes has barely played a game since his comeback from injury, but then Wood's fitness is questionable.

Masters it is then

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

beamer wrote:You don't put joke bowlers on in a Test, except perhaps when there's no prospect of a result either way (see Cook's one and only wicket giving him the best bowling average ever, or something like that). If the opposition's 100-0 chasing 101 you have to believe you can get those ten wickets without conceding another run, and play accordingly.

I wasn't advocating people coming on and doing their Bob Willis impressions a la Gooch and latterly Cook.

Smith bowls in tests - not a joke bowler as such even though he does bowl a lot of filth.

Clarke bowls too (presumably his dodgy back may excuse him - but he should have put his hand up to be the man responsible for giving up the losing runs seeing as how he's done pretty much sweet FA to help them this series).

Shit even Warner has bowled in tests.

All of them in live situations I might add.

I just thought his attitude was unnecessary - everyone knew it was done so why drag it out and risk injuring your primary weapons just to perhaps get one more wicket (and for what, put a veneer on top of the defeat in the hope of covering it up a bit?). And reviewing near the end too - really? It was about a mile away from the bat - and again it was pointless to even really bother with it.

Well, you might injure one of the opposition I suppose...

I've never heard anyone even suggest throwing in the towel like that even when you know you're going to lose. You play as hard as you would if it was 0-0 on the first morning, until the final run or wicket. About the only thing Clarke did right...

As for reviews, if your last man is clean bowled and you have one left, I'd say review it for a no-ball. Even to a spinner.

beamer wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

beamer wrote:You don't put joke bowlers on in a Test, except perhaps when there's no prospect of a result either way (see Cook's one and only wicket giving him the best bowling average ever, or something like that). If the opposition's 100-0 chasing 101 you have to believe you can get those ten wickets without conceding another run, and play accordingly.

I wasn't advocating people coming on and doing their Bob Willis impressions a la Gooch and latterly Cook.

Smith bowls in tests - not a joke bowler as such even though he does bowl a lot of filth.

Clarke bowls too (presumably his dodgy back may excuse him - but he should have put his hand up to be the man responsible for giving up the losing runs seeing as how he's done pretty much sweet FA to help them this series).

Shit even Warner has bowled in tests.

All of them in live situations I might add.

I just thought his attitude was unnecessary - everyone knew it was done so why drag it out and risk injuring your primary weapons just to perhaps get one more wicket (and for what, put a veneer on top of the defeat in the hope of covering it up a bit?). And reviewing near the end too - really? It was about a mile away from the bat - and again it was pointless to even really bother with it.

Well, you might injure one of the opposition I suppose...

I've never heard anyone even suggest throwing in the towel like that even when you know you're going to lose. You play as hard as you would if it was 0-0 on the first morning, until the final run or wicket. About the only thing Clarke did right...

As for reviews, if your last man is clean bowled and you have one left, I'd say review it for a no-ball. Even to a spinner.

Heehee.

I hear you beamer - I just wonder if in say, '84 Lord's test, when Greenidge was flaying England round the park as they chased down 344, for the loss of one wicket, whether Beefy and co were really giving it 100% when the last 20 or 30 runs were in sight. I'd imagine Beefy's mind was already thinking about getting off the park and having a few Red Stripes and chilling out with Viv and co.

Yeah, but presumably the captain (Gower?) was still bowling him, rather than Allan Lamb...

I think it was Lamb who once had the figures of 0-0-1-0 as a bowler though, one "delivery" which was a no-ball and the winning run... was one of the late 80s WI series when they had a second innings target of about 5 to win. I suppose you maybe draw the line at giving the impression you're trying to defend that!

True - but perhaps they were going through the motions a bit rather than still trying to squeeze the game. Just looking it up on cricinfo the run rate suggests that things were certainly rattling along at a serious pace.

And the non-bowler bowling options in that team certainly fit the joke bowler description, in a way that Smith, Clarke and even Warner really don't.

beamer wrote:I think it was Lamb who once had the figures of 0-0-1-0 as a bowler though, one "delivery" which was a no-ball and the winning run... was one of the late 80s WI series when they had a second innings target of about 5 to win. I suppose you maybe draw the line at giving the impression you're trying to defend that!

Haha - that's awesome. Never knew of that one.

Still reckon Clarke would go through a full-on funky field set up and change for 5 runs, just to prove he's an Aussie battler.

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

beamer wrote:I think it was Lamb who once had the figures of 0-0-1-0 as a bowler though, one "delivery" which was a no-ball and the winning run... was one of the late 80s WI series when they had a second innings target of about 5 to win. I suppose you maybe draw the line at giving the impression you're trying to defend that!

Haha - that's awesome. Never knew of that one.

Still reckon Clarke would go through a full-on funky field set up and change for 5 runs, just to prove he's an Aussie battler.

This is the match. Unfortunately before the days of text commentary, so no idea what he actually bowled (overstepping or something more comical?)

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63424.html

beamer wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

beamer wrote:I think it was Lamb who once had the figures of 0-0-1-0 as a bowler though, one "delivery" which was a no-ball and the winning run... was one of the late 80s WI series when they had a second innings target of about 5 to win. I suppose you maybe draw the line at giving the impression you're trying to defend that!

Haha - that's awesome. Never knew of that one.

Still reckon Clarke would go through a full-on funky field set up and change for 5 runs, just to prove he's an Aussie battler.

This is the match. Unfortunately before the days of text commentary, so no idea what he actually bowled (overstepping or something more comical?)

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63424.html

I reckon Beefy probably said to Gower if you even think of asking me to bowl I'll smack you. Then went down into Kingston to get himself a bit of herbal action.

Going back to the Aussie situation today, they could still have landed the odd blow in a lost cause, such as potentially getting Bairstow cheaply again. Always some psychological advantages to be taken when the series is still up for grabs.

By the way- How good is Edgbaston? The atmosphere there for an Ashes test is unparalleled. The ECB are foolish (well we already know that) if they don't allocate a test there every year.

I'm a little bit with Lindsay here. I would have given Rogers the ball when scores were tied at the end, rather than risk Mitch Marsh pulling a hammy. If Buck could take 8 for 0, good luck to him, but I reckon it would have been a nice move ... he's not going to get another chance to bowl in a Test; and it's not everyone who gets to bowl the last ball of a Test.