England v Australia, 4th Test, Chester-Le-Street, 9-13 August, 2013 (II)

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:With England, it often seems a case of "e pluribus unum (or duum)".

If they pull off a win, it's often because of one or two rising from the pack and raising the effort of the team. You can never be entirely sure who it will be - though of late least likely to be Trott or Bairstow, perhaps! Though even they have contributed something, in the field for example. Urgency, a catch ...


The odd thing being that in a couple of the recent Ashes series England have won (still sounds odd saying that ~ ~ ~ ), Australia have had the better averages but lost the series.


Of course some luck, and not least the support of the crowd (home or away) have played a part in that sort of "England win by surge" as well.

But it can't be too much a question of luck. Luck is proverbially fickle, after all. But maybe luck does favour the surge, if not the brave.

At the risk of yet again being accused of picking on a point, I am at a loss as to how you rate Trott and Bairstow on the same level. Troot looked particularly fluent in this test and Bairstow looked clunky in both innings.

Point taken, but I wasn't actually equating their batting.

I "reported" from OT even that Trott looked very good, despite not getting runs. He has improved further in this match, at the risk of overrushing things perhaps, though still no big score on the board.

What I was comparing was that, though in their primary function they have both underachieved - I'm all too ready to believe Trott will turn the corner soon, he's a fine batsman in a poor patch, who will work on his weaknesses, whereas with Bairstow it's not at all clear he will make it (though I still don't think he's terminally hopeless!) - both have lifted the team in the field by excellent run-saving, speedy accurate arms, catches, and ... that cliche', but anyway - their energy and efforts for the team's cause.

Bit confused by that. At OT all the Sky "experts" were pointing out Trott's technical problem of his head falling over on the offside with the result his bat not coming through straight. They all agreed that he had sorted that out by Durham. It might surprise you that Trott has the best S/R of the English batsmen in this series.

I think Trott was actually pretty well on the way to getting the head and bat presentation sorted out by the "second set of two tests" (i.e. OT). He was for example strangled down the leg when he was looking pretty good to go on, which was a separate issue.

And on the second point, it doesn't surprise me a bit that Trotty has been galloping. He has certainly created that impression, that air of urgency. Been bloody racing away like a greyhound, in fact!   ~ ~ But my point was underachievement. Scores on the board. Strike Rate doesn't count for that much as a Test Number 3, if you are not putting up the scores. His scores have improved, but I don't think anyone but the Aussies would be glad of his scores this whole series.

Having just mentioned his head, I think that has been his core problem in this series, of which the crooked stance has been a (hazardous) symptom. He clearly felt aggrieved at a couple of decisions in the first two Tests. And not being one of life's great extraverts, he at first appeared to turn doubt and preoccupation inwards, if you see what I mean. A brooding Trott is not a productive run machine.

The technical correction is one (important) thing. Even more important is that his mind is clear, unscrambled. I think he's getting there. And certainly hope so.

Hass wrote:Well, well, well.

At the start of this series I said I thought we would probably play better than England over the summer but that two or three epic batting collapses would end up costing us victory.

And so it has come to pass.

In Australia's defence Broad's bowling was amazing. Someone must have slipped a proton pill into his drink at tea because he looked like a changed man.

But the real turning point was Warner's dismissal. If Warner stayed out there he could have knocked off the runs in pretty quick-smart time. It was a great delivery from Bresnan.

But how could we get through the day without an important cameo from DRS? The Umpire's Call rule on LBWs is a steaming pile of donkey droppings. For Haddin to be given out while Bresnan was given not out makes the system a total sham. These things tend to go against you when you're the inferior team, but it really could have made all the difference today.

Congratulations England. The score might read 3-0, but I'm actually more confident than not of winning the urn back in the return series on more familiar pitches.

embee wrote:

JGK wrote:To be fair to DRS - both decisions were umpires call.

As I said earlier in the thread, Dar farked us royally today.

As an umpire I am totally amazed how Dar could give Bresnan "not out" ...from an umpiring perspective it was probably a worse decision than missing the Broad hit to slip

lardbucket wrote:the bitter shattering disappointment wouldn't be so intense without the teasing prospect of redemption that always comes first

horace wrote:

lardbucket wrote:the bitter shattering disappointment wouldn't be so intense without the teasing prospect of redemption that always comes first

all the way through the opening stand Lardy offered many sage observations along the lines of the above....meanwhile the pomgolians were wringing their hands and sobbing like a bunch of Mudges,,,Lardy of course knew the inevitable was to occur...that the middle order offered the resistance of a shredded birthday card against a pie chucker like Malfoy was no surprise...put any other military medium bowler on and the result would have been the same...

congrats to England on another easy win

beamer wrote:

skully wrote:Have now read the commentary. Interesting that Dar gave Brezzy not out in single figures to one that hit the top of leg but then gave both Watson and Haddit to ones barely clipping leg. Oh well, when you are not good enough, these things always happen. I see Sturat got Clarke with another pitches-middle-hit-off snorter.

Well, it was Benny Hill who gave the second Australian one, but fair enough... none of them were absolute howlers but Bresnan's probably looked the "outest" of the three at full speed and when things aren't going for you I guess "umpire's call" tends to go the other way.

JGK wrote:Just woke up.

Turns out that it wasn't a bad dream after all.

Off the Edinburgh today.  Might throw myself off the walls of the castle.

Blackadder wrote:Well done to England on the win.
Once again the Australia batting lineup is shown to be as fragile as a Tissue, at the least Rhino seems injury free for now, and a decent effort by Lyon.

JGK wrote:To be fair to DRS - both decisions were umpires call.

As I said earlier in the thread, Dar farked us royally today.

JGK wrote:Hughes gets in by default as there are no other batsman in the squad (Cowan is shite too).

skully wrote:

Blackadder wrote:Well done to England on the win.
Once again the Australia batting lineup is shown to be as fragile as a Tissue, at the least Rhino seems injury free for now, and a decent effort by Lyon.

In the upshot, this team is performing exactly like most of us Aussies expected i.e. the bowlers would hold their own and the batsmen would let us down. And so it has come to pass.

While gutted, I am not prepared to throw myself under a bus just yet. We are at the bottom of the inevitable cricket cycle. The mid-80s are back and we have to work hard to make our way back to the top of that cycle. Let's not forget, it took us 10 years from back-to-back series losses to NZ in the mid-80s to the point that we took Frank and become world no. 1.

It'll take another 10 years again.

Henry wrote:Another problem Aus has at the moment is being compared to the great teams of the past. Ex players, the media, and most fans find it hard to accept that the problems can't be solved with a few team changes here and there, when in truth the problems are much more deep-rooted.

Honestly, the problems in Australian cricket can be traced back to the early 2000s (ironically when the team itself was at its peak), when England, South Africa, and India were making serious changes to improve their cricketing systems, whilst Australia was smirking at them and thinking they would remain ahead of the rest forever.

Basically, Australia stood still whilst the others moved forward. Now it's Australia who have to catch up to the others.