England v Australia, 4th test, Leeds, August 7-11 (II)

embee wrote:

Red wrote:

Bradman wrote:

Red wrote:

Hass wrote:To tell you the truth Clark was the Man of the Match.

He was the best bowler in the first innings and the man who ripped the heart out of England's middle order.

That is where the test was won.

It might seem odd giving the gong to a man who only took three wickets in the match, but hey, figures aren't everything.

Punter has hinted that his selection could have been a horses for courses one.

It certainly will be once the pitch doctor comes in.

Will they go with a dustbowl?

What...like Cardiff?

What Cardiff was purported to be. Strangely enough some of the English press were hinting that they should prepare a dustbowl as they need a result pitch but there doesn't seem to be any reason why that should particularly favour England. If their seamers get it right and they enjoy the more favourable bowling conditions they have some chance of forcing a win but Swann and Panesar have failed to impress.

The other interesting aspect of today's play will be whether or not England's late flurry has resulted in a slight momentum shift from their hopeless position of the night before. The whole trend of this series has been that the team who was dominated yet finishes the match off with a bit of a confidence boost seems to go into the next test in a positive frame of mind.

The Aussie win has set up the best possible finale for the series but with us just having to draw to hold the Ashes, we're in a position where at least we don't have to take undue risks.

If Aus go with the current 4 seamers, it won't matter what sort of wicket they produce at The Oval. These 4 seamers are far more likely to take 20 wickets in any conditions than with Haurie in the side.

Interesting stats from last county game. Draw after 5-500 dec v 600-6 dec.

Anyhow, well done Aus for squaring the series. Let's not make any silly selection decisions to cock the whole thing up from here.

Brett Lee is available

Current stats:

Aus:
Batsmen:
Clarke 445 @ 89.00
North 349 @ 69.80
Haddin 243 @ 60.75
Watson 166 @ 55.33
Ponting 311 @ 51.83

Bowlers:
Milf 18 @ 26.83
Cot 16 @ 29.50
Midge 16 @ 32.62

Eng:
Batsmen:
Strauss 344 @ 49.14

Bowlers:
Onions 10 @ 30.30
Broad 12 @ 36.33
Anderson 12 @ 38.91


Hmmmmmmmm....

embee wrote:Brett Lee is available

So is Horrors.

Bradman wrote:

Hass wrote:As usual, when more than one bowler have a claim on Man of the Match they just give it to the batsman who made the highest score.

Sad but true.

If they did have to give it to a batsman it should have been Ponting who played a gem.

skully wrote:
Anderson 12 @ 38.91


Hmmmmmmmm....

He's the best swing bowler in the world, you know.

Rob I wrote:

skully wrote:
Anderson 12 @ 38.91


Hmmmmmmmm....

He's the best swing bowler in the world, you know.

And one of the most useless when it doesn't swing.

One look at those stats and we're doing well to be level 1-1

beamer wrote:

Rob I wrote:

skully wrote:
Anderson 12 @ 38.91


Hmmmmmmmm....

He's the best swing bowler in the world, you know.

And one of the most useless when it doesn't swing.

And sometimes when it does swing.

I'm not saying he can't bat. Only he can't captain. I'd kill to be able to bat like him, but my only saving grace is I know how to use my side to thoroughly humiliate a side.

He let this one go.

Anderson's bowling average is under 30 against NZ, WI and Zim.

It is currently 51.76 against Australia.

skully wrote:Current stats:

Aus:
Batsmen:
Clarke 445 @ 89.00
North 349 @ 69.80
Haddin 243 @ 60.75
Watson 166 @ 55.33
Ponting 311 @ 51.83

Bowlers:
Milf 18 @ 26.83
Cot 16 @ 29.50
Midge 16 @ 32.62

Eng:
Batsmen:
Strauss 344 @ 49.14

Bowlers:
Onions 10 @ 30.30
Broad 12 @ 36.33
Anderson 12 @ 38.91


Hmmmmmmmm....

We don't deserve to draw this series, let alone win it...

vilkrang wrote:We don't deserve to draw this series, let alone win it...

Well it's not the averages that matter, it's actually winning the matches. The main reason why most of Australia's batting averages are that high is because of the 600-plus they scored at Cardiff, and they failed to win that game. England I'm sure dominated the series in the Caribbean earlier this year in terms of statistics, but didn't manage to close out a single victory and so didn't deserve anything more than we got.

Yes, but England's statistics are absolutely awful, and Australia have had comfortably the better of two matches, have probably been about level in one after a good third innings batting display at Edgbaston, and were soundly beaten in another. So they've been the better side in most senses. Though I think it would be fair to say that England's batsmen have simply been much, much worse in largely batsman friendly conditions. People say bowlers win you matches, but England's batsman, collapsing in a heap at Cardiff and here, have lost or done their very best to lose them matches. Which just reiterates what most of us on here have been saying for a while - England's batsman are rubbish. Their bowlers aren't brilliant, but it's hard to win matches off the back of consistently below par scores. Par is obviously relative to the pitch and the opposition - for my money, England made par at Edgbaston and at Lord's. Every other innings, they've failed to make the most of things.

At least Andy Flower is honest about it.

"We have to think about the middle order. We've got one ton in this series - Andrew Strauss is holding us together - they've got eight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/8192337.stm

Although he then goes on to talk exclusively about Ravi Bopara which suggests that, in truly delusional style, England think that replacing just one of their many failing batsmen will make all the difference.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Yes, but England's statistics are absolutely awful, and Australia have had comfortably the better of two matches, have probably been about level in one after a good third innings batting display at Edgbaston, and were soundly beaten in another. So they've been the better side in most senses. Though I think it would be fair to say that England's batsmen have simply been much, much worse in largely batsman friendly conditions. People say bowlers win you matches, but England's batsman, collapsing in a heap at Cardiff and here, have lost or done their very best to lose them matches. Which just reiterates what most of us on here have been saying for a while - England's batsman are rubbish. Their bowlers aren't brilliant, but it's hard to win matches off the back of consistently below par scores. Par is obviously relative to the pitch and the opposition - for my money, England made par at Edgbaston and at Lord's. Every other innings, they've failed to make the most of things.

Yes, it's fair enough that England have been pretty poor a lot of the time, and Australia of 5 years ago would probably have won this series 5-0. But all I was saying is that generally the team who wins a major Test series is the team who deserves to do so, and the scoreline is generally a fair one - winning Test series is about coming through all the twists and turns and winning the key sessions. If you lose two matches by an innings and 200 and win the other three by one run, you've still won the series 3-2 and the margins become irrelevant.

Re: dello

Well, Cook, Bell and Bopara all average 29 or less on batting pitches. Collingwood averages a smidgen over 30. It's hard to believe, against what is by world standards only an above average attack, that there are not three men who can do better. Bell is lucky to have got a 50 in all that - Johnson has made him his bunny and has got him out five times in three innings with all the dross decisions the Umpires have made. Most of his runs have been streaky.

I'm still bigging up the in-form Michael Carberry who's a bit like a Trescothick, he's just a guy I fancy to do well in international cricket. I'm happy with Trott, I think he'll do well. I'm obviously still burning a torch for Samit Patel, though I'd settle for Mark Wagh .

Re: beamer

If it comes down to it, no-one will care who should have and could have won the series if we take it 2-1. But the thing is, we've never looked convincing in this series, it's been another paper over the cracks sort of effort just like the four years before it. We've done some things well, but even at Lord's when it was all going for us, it says a lot that Australia were able to get back into the game and worry us a little. It obviously didn't happen but it all looked very down. We always seem to be waiting to lose. And if we're not waiting to lose then we're waiting for fate to stop us from losing. Australia might be a poor simulacrum of what they were, and you see it in Ponting that he's setting fields for a McGrath that isn't there, but they still believe they can force victories whereas England need the other side to suggest to them that maybe they can win this. Maybe.

I'll take papering over the cracks for one more match if we can somehow scrape a result at the Oval. Then the rip it up and start again job can take place after we get whitewashed in SA!

Well fought Broad and Swann, bad luck England, well done Australia. What a cricket feast the Oval should offer next week.

Scyld Berry on the match:

The Ashes: England act out Justin Langer's script

Justin Langer was pretty accurate, in other words, when he summarised the shortcomings of English cricketers: good when the going was favourable, and all too easily downcast when the going was hard.

Langer’s document was written for the consumption of the Australian players, from the perspective of someone who had spent more than two full years in county cricket. It contained plenty of home truths. And it is just about conceivable that Langer’s words will fall on deaf official ears.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/5999535/The-Ashes-England-act-out-Justin-Langers-script.html


"Langer dossier rips England apart":

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25905597-5001505,00.html


Was Langer too harsh? "Massive ego" Prior and "Strut" Bopara

Not harsh enough.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:

If it comes down to it, no-one will care who should have and could have won the series if we take it 2-1. But the thing is, we've never looked convincing in this series, it's been another paper over the cracks sort of effort just like the four years before it.

But then we're not going to change that in the space of a couple of tests are we? It's the system that needs an overhaul to produce world class players. We dont produce them anymore - SA do it for us. As much as I think Roebuck was a twat for including Strauss & Prior in his 'african contingent' - I do agree with his overall message. The counties and therefore the english game do pick the easy way out.

It will probably take a test series defeat at home to Bangladesh to get anything done but even then I wouldn't bank on it.

Dello wrote:Not harsh enough.

regarding English cricket - it was like he'd been reading some of the thoughts on this forum. Wouldn't have been shocked to learn that Anderson has a cycle. 'Pussy' seems fair enough though...

JKLever wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:

If it comes down to it, no-one will care who should have and could have won the series if we take it 2-1. But the thing is, we've never looked convincing in this series, it's been another paper over the cracks sort of effort just like the four years before it.

But then we're not going to change that in the space of a couple of tests are we? It's the system that needs an overhaul to produce world class players. We dont produce them anymore - SA do it for us. As much as I think Roebuck was a twat for including Strauss & Prior in his 'african contingent' - I do agree with his overall message. The counties and therefore the english game do pick the easy way out.

It will probably take a test series defeat at home to Bangladesh to get anything done but even then I wouldn't bank on it.

The only way to really change things for the better is a six-team first class setup. With 10 international grounds to keep happy that's never likely to happen though!