The Ashes
-
Innings defeat after putting on 400 must fucking hurt.
Pitch helped but Malan was the only bloke with a bit of ticker in that second innings. Bairstow might have helped but got cut off by an unplayable ball.
3-0. Urn is back. Don't care how. That's cricket.
-
-
Up to December 2016, 4 tests had been lost by an innings after scoring 400. Since then England have done it 3 times ......
Actually, I think it is only twice before England made it a regular thing unless I have misunderstood the stat.
1930 Eng v Aus (Aus win after Eng score 405 batting first)
2011 SL v Eng (Eng win after SL score 400 batting first)then
8/12/16 India win after Eng score 400 batting first
16/12/16 India win after Eng score 477 batting first
26/12/16 Aus win after Pak score 443 batting first
14/12/17 Aus win after Eng score 403 batting firstEither England or Aus involved every time.
Edit: Just realised that the other 2 are probably just scoring 400+ in first innings rather than 'batting first'
My stat makes it sound even worse.
Usually getting 400+ as first side out secures the match as a draw at least.
-
@crucial Lost or lost by an innings?
-
@catogrande lost by an innings
-
@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.
Anderson and Broad seem to be at that stage where Harmison and Hoggard were on the 2007 tour of NZ. Got beat in the first test, and bravely put a fork in those two (despite obvious affection for them following their Ashes heroics) - in come Broad and Anderson and that's all she wrote.
The issue with England's attack at the moment is they don't have a legitimate threatening, attacking wicket taking bowler - outside of Anderson when the ball is swinging. It doesn't really matter if that is an out and out quick or an attacking legspinner they just need some threat with the ball to offset the rest of their team. Same goes with McGrath on tracks where Warne and Lee were neutralized he bought his wickets at a very high price.
Even Flintoff-type bowler at 85%, capable of bowling 10 overs max per day would transform this attack.
-
@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.
Anderson and Broad seem to be at that stage where Harmison and Hoggard were on the 2007 tour of NZ. Got beat in the first test, and bravely put a fork in those two (despite obvious affection for them following their Ashes heroics) - in come Broad and Anderson and that's all she wrote.
The issue with England's attack at the moment is they don't have a legitimate threatening, attacking wicket taking bowler - outside of Anderson when the ball is swinging. It doesn't really matter if that is an out and out quick or an attacking legspinner they just need some threat with the ball to offset the rest of their team. Same goes with McGrath on tracks where Warne and Lee were neutralized he bought his wickets at a very high price.
Even Flintoff-type bowler at 85%, capable of bowling 10 overs max per day would transform this attack.
You mean they need an angry ginga?
-
Yes it isn't just bowling fast. It is an attacking threat. England's default mode seems to be to be consistent and wait for mistakes. Australian bowlers have been expensive at times because they're bowling to take wickets, pitching it up or pitching it short.
Broad and Anderson don't have a great record in Australia anyway. It was always expecting a lot for them to win games here without the batsmen adding some scoreboard pressure.
Finally, what does Trevor Bayliss actually do?
-
Playing Australia at home has a lot of parallels with playing India at home.
You need to bring bowlers for those conditions
Non star home batsmen will play huge innings from time to time
You need to be constantly taking the game to the home side, never sitting back and waiting
You need the right attitude for the pitches and type of bowling you'll face
The crowd and hero worship and support is a huge factor
Most teams get smashed by both India and Australia, despite having the odd commanding session
India and Australia have a lot in common at their respective homes
Fair enough and well done Aussies
-
-
Question for English ferners or residents in England:
Do English people ever refer to themselves as "Poms" or pommys?
I've noticed the media and radio commentators call the English team poms almost continually over here
We don’t tend to refer to ourselves much at all really. 😇 However if forced I’d say as Brits or perhaps the constituents thereof.
-
@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.
Anderson and Broad seem to be at that stage where Harmison and Hoggard were on the 2007 tour of NZ. Got beat in the first test, and bravely put a fork in those two (despite obvious affection for them following their Ashes heroics) - in come Broad and Anderson and that's all she wrote.
The issue with England's attack at the moment is they don't have a legitimate threatening, attacking wicket taking bowler - outside of Anderson when the ball is swinging. It doesn't really matter if that is an out and out quick or an attacking legspinner they just need some threat with the ball to offset the rest of their team. Same goes with McGrath on tracks where Warne and Lee were neutralized he bought his wickets at a very high price.
Even Flintoff-type bowler at 85%, capable of bowling 10 overs max per day would transform this attack.
Transform the attack....in other words give the aussies someone different to score loads of runs against?
-
-
Ben Stokes was a huge loss, and following from what Siam said you really need all your big guns firing to compete in Australia. He's arguably their best player, and they've really missed his fire with both bat and ball.
He's the aggressive cnt the Poms needed. Ultimately this aggression cost him his place on tour...
You throw him at 6 and all of a sudden you've got a loaded batting lineup and a lot of bowling depth. Without him they are insipid.
-
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
Ben Stokes was a huge loss, and following from what Siam said you really need all your big guns firing to compete in Australia. He's arguably their best player, and they've really missed his fire with both bat and ball.
He's the aggressive cnt the Poms needed. Ultimately this aggression cost him his place on tour...
You throw him at 6 and all of a sudden you've got a loaded batting lineup and a lot of bowling depth. Without him they are insipid.
I think you're just trying to make them feel better cos your team is 3-0 up.
Boycs is a bit of a cantankerous old dick who talks funny but I reckon he's bang on here, particularly about Stokes bowling. He's taken 95 wickets in 39 tests. The Black Caps have three guys with far better ratios than that.
-
-
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'm not saying they would have won if he was there, but he's a very good player and you can't tell me he wouldn't have at least helped.
We'll never know but certainly not the impact some would have you believe.
Mind you being an 'all rounder' does give a player more leeway to being ordinary for longer periods of time.
-
Stuff
