How Badly Will England Lose the Fifth Ashes Test?

Off to The Oval, its rubbish backdrop of whatever the hell that thing is always in the background. It looks like a typically tragic London kind of place, really, in that it is a dump to everyone who doesn't live there and paradise to anyone who does. England are so rubbish now that it seems as if they might as well just arm wrestle for the urn to make it a contest, though one suspects it would still be very much a case of England losing by an innings because their wanking hands aren't strong enough. Although Graeme Swann would put up some brave resistance because he seems like that kind of guy, eh? Eh? Don't tell me you haven't seen the weird, pervy 'if I met him on a train I'd swear he was a paedo' look in his eyes?

Innings defeat.

Unless Fred comes back, and Strauss racks up a first-innings 150, they will tamely accept another hiding.

I've always liked the Gasometer next to The Oval, but I think the new stand looks horribly out of place.

The stand follows an arc yet the pitch is aligned on the far side, making the whole thing look really, really awkward.

They could have done something similar to Trent Bridge and the whole place would be better of for it.

Stick a fork in it - this series is done.

I suppose England did well to hang on for as long as they did, given that they can't bat, bowl, field, coach, select or anything.

With this side we'll certainly lose heavily again. If the selectors make a couple of brave gambles then there's half a chance. Although this particular Aussie side is more than capable of cocking it up as well.

Dello wrote:Stick a fork in it - this series is done.

I suppose England did well to hang on for as long as they did, given that they can't bat, bowl, field, coach, select or anything.

Yes they can, they're just inconsistent.

Anyone hear TMS when Jim Maxwell was ripping into the Aus fans faction, who claimed to be responsible for the England team's hotel fire alarm in the early hours of Friday morning? He didn't believe they were.

filosofee wrote:

Dello wrote:Stick a fork in it - this series is done.

I suppose England did well to hang on for as long as they did, given that they can't bat, bowl, field, coach, select or anything.

Yes they can, they're just inconsistent.

Haven't won a series against anyone remotely decent since 2005.

That's not inconsistent - that's a constant flow of rubbish.

Quite badly.

I suspect the fast bowlers will have much more to work with on the Oval pitch. Everytime I see Tests or ODI's on there, I get the impression that the strip used gives more purchase to the faster bowlers.


Is this still the case? Any demons in the pitch?

Not every pitch at the Oval is a road.

Last years against SA wasn't. And 2005 there could have been a result but for rain.

Some great cricket has been played this summer, it's a scintillating 1-1 going into the last test and here we go again; How very dull! A load of whinging dross about how England are rubbish and will lose. Don't bother watch if that's how you feel. Such unimaginitave doom merchants might as well write for the Mail or Sun newspapers.
Filosofee's right; they're not rubbish, they're just inconsistent. and also unconventional. For instance, England often get their runs from unexpected quarters, or throw up backs- to-the-wall heroes when you least expect it (as at Cardiff).
Admittedly some of my recent posts have been...er.... not entirely related to reality, but anyone who ASSUMES England can't win at the Oval is a fool. Of course they can. Anything might, and probably will, happen. Much worse sides than England can beat Australia on their day. Should be a great match.

England often get their runs from unexpected quarters, or throw up backs- to-the-wall heroes when you least expect it (as at Cardiff).

The tail, you mean.

Maybe we should start picking some batsmen to help the tail out a bit - hang in there for an hour whilst their partner gets on with the run scoring.

Dello wrote:

England often get their runs from unexpected quarters, or throw up backs- to-the-wall heroes when you least expect it (as at Cardiff).

The tail, you mean.

Maybe we should start picking some batsmen to help the tail out a bit - hang in there for an hour whilst their partner gets on with the run scoring.

I take your point, but there is no law which says the tail can't get the runs. They all still count after all. Would you really like it if the top six of each team always got 300, the tail made it up to 400 and the bowlers all took a couple of wickets each? How boring would that be? The best matches are usually when total f@ck-ups get dramatically turned around against all the odds.
Watch England and you'll soon see another such game.

I think EH, the general frustration is not that England stand no chance of winning back the Ashes (they plainly do) but that we have a current system that buries its head in the sand - we must have days like we had on Friday more than any other country.

102 all out FFS, following the 51 in Jamaica.

JKLever wrote:I think EH, the general frustration is not that England stand no chance of winning back the Ashes (they plainly do) but that we have a current system that buries its head in the sand - we must have days like we had on Friday more than any other country.

102 all out FFS, following the 51 in Jamaica.

But the 102 didn't follow the 51; there were some good days in between. Yes, England are more unpredictable and less consistent than other nations' teams. That's England for you, but it makes for exciting matches. You just have to learn to accept the bad days. They're always going to crop up; it's just how we are. I think it's because we think about it too much instead of just getting on with it.

EH is definitely PCS.

I do like the cut of your jib, EH. I don't think you can blame people for being pissed off with some of the abject play in the first and third tests, though, or just accept it as England's caprice. Nor the reactionary selection of Bell and Harmison.
But it is a malaise that has afflicted England as long as I can remember, so you're not alone in being fatalistic about it!
I think that, were it not for the piss-poor performances of Hughes and Johnson we'd have already lost the series. And the Aussies would appear to have sorted that out..

DJ_Smerk wrote:EH is definitely PCS.

I had the same suspicions....

http://www.flamingbails.com/the-flaming-bails-cricket-forum-f1/england-2005-v-england-2009-t6804.htm?highlight=england+2005



His posts have similar quality to PCS' in this particular thread.

Current odds in Oz:

Eng 5.25
Draw 2.50
Aus 2.17


Draw looks attractive - Aust are hardly going to give England a sniff if they get ahead.

JKLever wrote:

DJ_Smerk wrote:EH is definitely PCS.

I had the same suspicions....

And what are Pete's motives for getting a lotta balls? And his "absence" seems rather too co-inky dental.

It's the spineless way England fall apart that winds everyone up. It's not that they aren't a particularly good side - we're used to that - it's the way that they completely fall over in such spectacular fashion that infuriates and leads people to want them lined up against a wall and shot.

Just out of curiousity how is it possible to have anything more than an innings defeat?

England will find a way.