The Ashes
-
This has been a bloody boring test series. Had as many twists, turns and nuances as a ruler
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in The Ashes:
This has been a bloody boring test series. Had as many twists, turns and nuances as a ruler
I'm sure the commentators pulling each other off at Marsh finally 'fulfilling his potential' and other such wank was amusing to hear though.
-
@chester-draws said in The Ashes:
With modern ODI and T20, the game is already set up for batsmen.
Cut the bowlers some slack and give them "worse" test pitches. Then a genuine attacking bowler is worth having.
Currently too many bowlers are aiming to be run savers, because that's where all the money is.
Yup, perfectly happy for the ODIs and T20s to be roads. Preferably teams bat their overs and the run chase is "can they get there in time". That's great viewing and gives people going to the game value for money. But tests should be a genuine contest between bat and ball.
-
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@chester-draws said in The Ashes:
With modern ODI and T20, the game is already set up for batsmen.
Cut the bowlers some slack and give them "worse" test pitches. Then a genuine attacking bowler is worth having.
Currently too many bowlers are aiming to be run savers, because that's where all the money is.
Yup, perfectly happy for the ODIs and T20s to be roads. Preferably teams bat their overs and the run chase is "can they get there in time". That's great viewing and gives people going to the game value for money. But tests should be a genuine contest between bat and ball.
India's utter obsession with batting over bowling doesn't help the world game either.
-
-
-
I've been listening to a few English cricket podcasts the last few weeks - their pain brings me great pleasure.
Anyway, they seem fixated on their lack of a genuine quick bowler. And while that's definitely something they don't have, I think it's a bit much to blame the series loss on that factor.
While they bemoan Anderson and Broad bowling mid-130s, they forget that Glenn McGrath bowled between 125-135 his entire career, and fucking dominated on Aussie tracks.
England have largely lost this series with insipid batting and gutless bowling at crucial periods. If Anderson could summon the energy and accuracy he did on day 3 in Adelaide then England would be right in this series.
-
-
You often hear commentators talk about unplayable deliveries. Generally, they're ones that batsmen like Bradman or Tendulkar or Boycott etc, would have patted harmlessly back down the track.
That one Vince got was genuinely unplayable. Hits a crack and deviates viciously to knock out his off stump.
-
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I've been listening to a few English cricket podcasts the last few weeks - their pain brings me great pleasure.
Anyway, they seem fixated on their lack of a genuine quick bowler. And while that's definitely something they don't have, I think it's a bit much to blame the series loss on that factor.
While they bemoan Anderson and Broad bowling mid-130s, they forget that Glenn McGrath bowled between 125-135 his entire career, and fucking dominated on Aussie tracks.
England have largely lost this series with insipid batting and gutless bowling at crucial periods. If Anderson could summon the energy and accuracy he did on day 3 in Adelaide then England would be right in this series.
We had this useful bowler in the 80’s, took a few wickets here and there. Started as a tear away quick bowler but soon realised with less pace came greater control. No idea what his general pace was but I assume it would have been in the 130’s. Certainly not fast enough to give opposition batsmen the shits but he did alright, especially in Australia where his 9/52 at the Gabba is still considered one of the finest examples of bowling you will ever see
Pace can be handy but it can also be over rated. It’s not how fast the ball travels but where you put it and how often you can put it there.
-
You often hear commentators talk about unplayable deliveries. Generally, they're ones that batsmen like Bradman or Tendulkar or Boycott etc, would have patted harmlessly back down the track.
That one Vince got was genuinely unplayable. Hits a crack and deviates viciously to knock out his off stump.
Watching it live my first reaction was to wonder why he'd played so far down the wrong line. Then on the replay it became clear just how unplayable it was, especially at that pace.
I reckon we'll see that one replayed a few times over the years...
-
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I've been listening to a few English cricket podcasts the last few weeks - their pain brings me great pleasure.
Anyway, they seem fixated on their lack of a genuine quick bowler. And while that's definitely something they don't have, I think it's a bit much to blame the series loss on that factor.
While they bemoan Anderson and Broad bowling mid-130s, they forget that Glenn McGrath bowled between 125-135 his entire career, and fucking dominated on Aussie tracks.
England have largely lost this series with insipid batting and gutless bowling at crucial periods. If Anderson could summon the energy and accuracy he did on day 3 in Adelaide then England would be right in this series.
Dunno that you can really blame the English for not being as good as McGrath.
Anderson is possibly approaching his league - if the ball is swinging - but, McGrath had a few crucial inches in height over Anderson that make a big difference in terms of bounce.
Overall, if you were picking a joint Ashes team at the start of the series you might pick six Aussies and five poms - but five of the first six names on the card would be Australian IMO.
Starc, Smith, Root, Hazlewood, Warner, Lyons - Anderson (but, possibly Cummins), Cook, Bairstow, Khawaja +Another (Stokes if he was available).
Realistically, I think the Aussie bowling is the largest point of difference - if the pace attack fails then Lyons is much better than Ali. The batsmen are facing a better attack, so even if they're equal to the Aussies, the Aussies have got an easier task. Smith has definitely outbatted Root though and for England to have any chance that couldn't happen.
Overall, I'd back the England batsmen with the Aussie bowlers to beat the Aussie batsmen with the England bowlers. Have to get Smith though!
-
On the plus side for England, Overton has shown just how much he wants to be out there playing Test cricket..
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21781305/craig-overton-plays-cracked-rib
-
I still think pace matters. Batsmen are really good; piches are benign, overhead in aus doesn't help, you need something. And that extra 5-10 everyh delivery can be the point of difference. At least from one of them.
People always say it's a shit era for bowling, it could just be that even the greats would average mid-20s these days.
-
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I've been listening to a few English cricket podcasts the last few weeks - their pain brings me great pleasure.
Anyway, they seem fixated on their lack of a genuine quick bowler. And while that's definitely something they don't have, I think it's a bit much to blame the series loss on that factor.
While they bemoan Anderson and Broad bowling mid-130s, they forget that Glenn McGrath bowled between 125-135 his entire career, and fucking dominated on Aussie tracks.
England have largely lost this series with insipid batting and gutless bowling at crucial periods. If Anderson could summon the energy and accuracy he did on day 3 in Adelaide then England would be right in this series.
Dunno that you can really blame the English for not being as good as McGrath.
Anderson is possibly approaching his league - if the ball is swinging - but, McGrath had a few crucial inches in height over Anderson that make a big difference in terms of bounce.
Overall, if you were picking a joint Ashes team at the start of the series you might pick six Aussies and five poms - but five of the first six names on the card would be Australian IMO.
Starc, Smith, Root, Hazlewood, Warner, Lyons - Anderson (but, possibly Cummins), Cook, Bairstow, Khawaja +Another (Stokes if he was available).
Realistically, I think the Aussie bowling is the largest point of difference - if the pace attack fails then Lyons is much better than Ali. The batsmen are facing a better attack, so even if they're equal to the Aussies, the Aussies have got an easier task. Smith has definitely outbatted Root though and for England to have any chance that couldn't happen.
Overall, I'd back the England batsmen with the Aussie bowlers to beat the Aussie batsmen with the England bowlers. Have to get Smith though!
I think I saw a stat somewhere that Root only has 3 tons outside of England. Compared to the chosen 4, he's the weakest in performing away from home.
Kane and Kohli have proven themselves in Australia vs their pace attack. Root not so much.
