The Ashes 2015
Discussion
johnfm said:
el stovey said:
Normal service resumed and another great victory for England. Totally outplayed Australia in every department.
... not sure you 'totally outplayed' in every department though...
Good job the Aussies weren't outplayed else it would have been all over in under 2
Great result made even better for me the best ground for atmosphere by miles. No where in England and almost certainly elsewhere will you hear noise like that today. The Hollies stand is one of the best in the business and even as an proud Worcestershire man it is staggering. The England players comments clearly reflect that too.
Looking forward to Tremt Bridge if not slightly concerned about having a Day 3 ticket....
Looking forward to Tremt Bridge if not slightly concerned about having a Day 3 ticket....
Gargamel said:
Probably best not to be too cocky, a good win for sure. But I suspect kicking an Aussie when he is down is a dangerous thing. CF What happened at Lords.
Good Win, funny match, but looking forward to the next one.
Yeah the Aussies surely can't roll over in 3 Tests can they?Good Win, funny match, but looking forward to the next one.
zygalski said:
Gargamel said:
Probably best not to be too cocky, a good win for sure. But I suspect kicking an Aussie when he is down is a dangerous thing. CF What happened at Lords.
Good Win, funny match, but looking forward to the next one.
Yeah the Aussies surely can't roll over in 3 Tests can they?Good Win, funny match, but looking forward to the next one.
Very good win, particualry bouncing back after Lords. Funny how a win can carry poorly performing players and paper over the cracks. I don't suspect Lyth will be dropped for TB, but think he should be as no point dropping him for the last game-he does average 69 at TB though.
Buttler's keeping has been good IMO, no chance to really look at Bairstow, Moeen is much more valuable as a batsman in this series, I'd still like to see Rashid in but not sure at who's expense.
Australia have bigger problems as they seem to have to stick with what they've got? That or bring others back who've tried and failed?
Buttler's keeping has been good IMO, no chance to really look at Bairstow, Moeen is much more valuable as a batsman in this series, I'd still like to see Rashid in but not sure at who's expense.
Australia have bigger problems as they seem to have to stick with what they've got? That or bring others back who've tried and failed?
DJRC said:
For Aus to level at Lords:
Rogers needs to bat better than Chef.
Smith needs to bat better than Root.
Pup needs to bat better than Bell.
Watson/Mitch needs to bat & bowl better than Stokes.
Brad needs to outperform Joss.
Lyon needs to out bowl Ali & Root.
Johnson needs to out bowl Jimmy.
Starc needs to out bowl Broad.
How many of the above would you bet the mortgage on?
Let's revisit post Edge:Rogers needs to bat better than Chef.
Smith needs to bat better than Root.
Pup needs to bat better than Bell.
Watson/Mitch needs to bat & bowl better than Stokes.
Brad needs to outperform Joss.
Lyon needs to out bowl Ali & Root.
Johnson needs to out bowl Jimmy.
Starc needs to out bowl Broad.
How many of the above would you bet the mortgage on?
1. Yes.
2. No
3. No
4. Mitch & Mitch now! Well the irony is that you can arguably say Mitch J has batted better than Stokes.
5. Brad & Nev are probably equal with Jos. Nev had a decent game with bat, Joss is keeping better than both.
6. Yes
7. No
8. No
I suppose we should add Pup needs to out Captain Cook - and we all know how that is going!
DJRC said:
The lack of Rhino was a big big blow for Aus, he is their best non-Aus conditions bowler. Starc is a good bowler, but his ankle injury was obviously affecting his control all test. Rhino and Starc in tandem with Johnson as a strike/shock bowler is a very good attack. Starc on his own, semi injured and Johnson with his nuts cut off - are there for the taking.
Johnson will never offer you control, he doesn't have it. What he has is shock n awe. When you have fast, hard, bouncy tracks that is a brutal weapon, esp when you have other guys tying up/stifling and hassling batsmen at the other end. In British conditions you need control first of all.
I think I'll quote this one again - just to hammer the point home. All bluff & bluster shock n awe - jack sJohnson will never offer you control, he doesn't have it. What he has is shock n awe. When you have fast, hard, bouncy tracks that is a brutal weapon, esp when you have other guys tying up/stifling and hassling batsmen at the other end. In British conditions you need control first of all.
t control. Yes I know he bowled two good balls: see the shockN awe bit. The rest of his balls were dross and was duly panned, beaten, bullied and by tea on a 3rd day in Brum - utterly mullared.
Starc isn't fully fit, hasn't got full strength in his body - watch him, his core stength/rigidity/tensile torque isn't there. That is why he isn't offering the control and consistency.
In English conditions control is everything. Peter Siddle has always done well in England because of this.
johnfm said:
Definitely worth crowing about - as a win is a win. The least st team has won this week (recall your side made 280 on a good batting track). Neither team playing great cricket - your team playing less st than ours this week.
Too true.t team has won this week (recall your side made 280 on a good batting track). Neither team playing great cricket - your team playing less st than ours this week.In any case, let's move on. Nothing to see here...
I found it amusing that every "Expert" at least those I heard made it expressly clear that the team that won the toss would win the game. They'd opt to but, rack up 500 and then skittle the others out.
They couldn't have been more wrong which begs several questions.
Do the pundits say things just because they have to?
Do they actually believe in what they say?
Does a pitch make much difference ( unless it's appalling )
How much of an expert are they?
Have they been led to believe the pitch is do important that they'll trot this out without actually asking why?
I hope an expert will reply!
They couldn't have been more wrong which begs several questions.
Do the pundits say things just because they have to?
Do they actually believe in what they say?
Does a pitch make much difference ( unless it's appalling )
How much of an expert are they?
Have they been led to believe the pitch is do important that they'll trot this out without actually asking why?
I hope an expert will reply!
Australia batted pretty poorly - not taking anything away from Eng. Anderson was excellent. But there was little determination to see him off and wait for the ball to be older and make hay from overs 40-80 when the ball is past its best.
I don't think the wicket was an unplayable green top.
I don't think the wicket was an unplayable green top.
Edited by johnfm on Saturday 1st August 14:29
Thankyou4calling said:
I found it amusing that every "Expert" at least those I heard made it expressly clear that the team that won the toss would win the game. They'd opt to but, rack up 500 and then skittle the others out.
They couldn't have been more wrong which begs several questions.
Do the pundits say things just because they have to?
Do they actually believe in what they say?
Does a pitch make much difference ( unless it's appalling )
How much of an expert are they?
Have they been led to believe the pitch is do important that they'll trot this out without actually asking why?
I hope an expert will reply!
I think the problem is they look at the stats for the ground, previously 10 of the last 12 matches at Edgbaston were won by the team batting first. - So there's your odds and the prediction right there. They couldn't have been more wrong which begs several questions.
Do the pundits say things just because they have to?
Do they actually believe in what they say?
Does a pitch make much difference ( unless it's appalling )
How much of an expert are they?
Have they been led to believe the pitch is do important that they'll trot this out without actually asking why?
I hope an expert will reply!
Trouble is the pitch can vary, and of course Cricket is littered with statistical anomalies.
Do pundits believe what they say ? No idea, I think they like the sound of their own voice, and are paid for insight/content. They are often brilliant Monday Morning quarterbacks, whereas we know that actually they may have made the same decisions.
You can't blame Clarke for batting first, it is the 80% default choice, and remember in a previous series Ponting made a big call to bat second after winning the toss, and Aussies lost heavily and Punter was absolutely slated for it (Cardiff?)
Pitch doesn't make a massive difference overall - it should transistion in how it plays fairly consistently , however the conditions and time that you bat on it will make a big difference. Day one pitch, bit green/damp and overcast conditions, versus a day three pitch, dry and in sunlight, versus a day five pitch with roughed up footmarks, cracks, dust often lower bounce too etc etc
Problem is the Austalians as the visitors are simply less adept at playing a ball that swings late, as you don't see that movement as often in Australia, and we play with Duke balls, not Kookaburra - so the ball in the UK moves a little bit more.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff