The Ashes 2009

Washout

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I wonder what England lowest total in an Ashes innings is? They look to be on course for that today.

englands lowest total is 45 in sydney in 1888

there are a ton of scores under 70

http://www.itsonlycricket.com/entry/1204/

Euro_Kraut

Washout wrote: »

englands lowest total is 45 in sydney in 1888

there are a ton of scores under 70

http://www.itsonlycricket.com/entry/1204/

Ah okay. Guess its not that bad so.

toomevara

purple_hatstand wrote: »

Cook gone for 30 (63-5). This is a shockingly bad morning for England! Headingley is a proper Test wicket and England's shortcomings with the bat are being found out all too easily.

Bad toss to win. loss of KP keenly felt. Be interesting to see how the aussies cope. ****e there goes Broad....would've loved to see Freddie have a crack at headingley ,always does something.....got tickets for tomorrow,should be interesting...

purple_hatstand

Lunch. 72-6. Broad gone for 3 to a slightly dodgy-looking 'catch' at Short Square Leg.

Washout

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Ah okay. Guess its not that bad so.

Its still bad..you win the toss and decide to bat you expect to make at least 300.

I'm not sure this wicket is going to suit Harmison either.

toomevara

purple_hatstand wrote: »

Lunch. 72-6. Broad gone for 3 to a slightly dodgy-looking 'catch' at Short Square Leg.

looked fair and square to me [alas]

Sandeman

Check out Stuart Clark stats for this session, 7 overs, 3 wickets, 3 maidens and 7 runs...could this Ashes be looking differently right now if he had been brought in earlier?

purple_hatstand

Sandeman wrote: »

Check out Stuart Clark stats for this session, 7 overs, 3 wickets, 3 maidens and 7 runs...could this Ashes be looking differently right now if he had been brought in earlier?

That's very impressive - he's been bowling well today.

Euro_Kraut

98-8! Harmission equals the English test cricket recorded for ducks!

Euro_Kraut

England 102-9. That didn't take long.

Mysterypunter

Poor From England, not that surprising though 102 all out, they seem to do that a lot

Euro_Kraut

102 all out. 4 ducks! Third top scorer for England is Extras.

Stev_o

Massive pressure on England's batting line up soon enough.

purple_hatstand

Maybe England's bowlers can apply some pressure of their own!

Stev_o

Good start by England let's see if they can rattle Ponting. Someone drag up that fool who called cricket boring and make him watch this!

Euro_Kraut

Wow Aussies 57-1 after just 7 overs. Just 45 runs behing already..

purple_hatstand

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Wow Aussies 57-1 after just 7 overs. Just 45 runs behing already..

England's bowlers have to pitch it up. That's what the Australian bowlers did.

Washout

purple_hatstand wrote: »

England's bowlers have to pitch it up. That's what the Australian bowlers did.

was going to say exactly the same thing. lengths are completely wrong.

eigrod

I like watching cricket but don't always understand the scoring, particularly in relation to how the number of overs played becomes relevant.

Could someone answer a couple of questions relative to this test please (hope they don't sound too silly) ?

1) Is the number of overs (33.5) that the Aussies bowled England out relevant to the overall test, and if so, how ?

2) Is there a set number of overs to be played each day in a test match ?

3) If rain stops play, does the number of overs played then become more relevant, and if so, how ?

Thanks,
eigrod.

TrueDub

eigrod wrote: »

I like watching cricket but don't always understand the scoring, particularly in relation to how the number of overs played becomes relevant.

Could someone answer a couple of questions relative to this test please (hope they don't sound too silly) ?

No such thing as a silly question, ask away.

eigrod wrote: »

1) Is the number of overs (33.5) that the Aussies bowled England out relevant to the overall test, and if so, how ?

No. This is a test match, and as such each side can bat for as long as they want.

eigrod wrote: »

2) Is there a set number of overs to be played each day in a test match ?

There is a set number (95 to 100, afaik), but it's not hard and fast. Lots of things can affect it & alter it.

eigrod wrote: »

3) If rain stops play, does the number of overs played then become more relevant, and if so, how ?

Rain stopping play is just a stoppage in test cricket.

There two main types of cricket are test cricket, played over 5 days, with no over restrictions, and limited-overs cricket, played in one day/evening, where both sides have a set number of overs beyond which they cannot bat, 50 overs in One-Day International cricket and 20 overs in 20/20 cricket.

Hope this clears it up a little - feel free to ask more if not!

boccy23

eigrod wrote: »

I like watching cricket but don't always understand the scoring, particularly in relation to how the number of overs played becomes relevant.

Could someone answer a couple of questions relative to this test please (hope they don't sound too silly) ?

1) Is the number of overs (33.5) that the Aussies bowled England out relevant to the overall test, and if so, how ?

2) Is there a set number of overs to be played each day in a test match ?

3) If rain stops play, does the number of overs played then become more relevant, and if so, how ?

Thanks,
eigrod.

Generally the no. of overs is not relevant in test cricket until it gets towards the end of the game when there will be a set no. of overs to be bowled in the last day.

As a rule there are 90 overs to be bowled in a day, 30 overs per session (Morning/Afternoon/Evening) or 15 per hour. This is nearly never met now and hence the day will run after 6PM weather permitting.

If overs are lost early in a game they attempt to make these up later in the test by adding overs to subsequent days play.

Complicated but hope it helps.

boccy23

Interesting what Nasser said at tea. All 10 England wickets were caught. Last year at Headingly 9 were out the same way. They seem to have the problem of the ball being pitched up themselves despite being "English" conditions.

eigrod

Thanks TrueDub. That's certainly enlightened me.

boccy23 wrote: »

Generally the no. of overs is not relevant in test cricket until it gets towards the end of the game when there will be a set no. of overs to be bowled in the last day.

Ah ! Thanks also to you boccy. This is one thing that I was confused about in the previous test. Obviously the weather had stopped play quite a bit over the weekend.

Then, on the final day, Australia were batting and knew that as long as they weren't bowled out, if they got to a certain point then they would draw.

That raised 2 questions for me :

1) When starting out on that final morning, was it to a certain time of the day or to a certain number of overs that the Aussies knew they had to get to (and remain intact) to ensure the draw ?

2) Was there not a certain amount of unfairness in that England thus never got to bat a 2nd innings ? (or is this an accepted part of a draw ?)

cheers guys.
eigrod.

boccy23

Firstly, yes, they know at the start of the day what the number of overs to be played (weather permitting as always) will be. So as in the first test that was drawn in Cardiff (not sure if you saw it), but you would have seen a count down of no. of overs left for the English tail enders to survive.

The second point is that it lasts 5 days. No more no less. If it rains for 5 days then that it.

eigrod

boccy23 wrote: »

Firstly, yes, they know at the start of the day what the number of overs to be played (weather permitting as always) will be. So as in the first test that was drawn in Cardiff (not sure if you saw it), but you would have seen a count down of no. of overs left for the English tail enders to survive.

The second point is that it lasts 5 days. No more no less. If it rains for 5 days then that it.

Great....much clearer now, thanks boccy and thanks again TrueDub.

boccy23

There you go England. Pitch it up and see the results. 3 LBWs.

Right back in it now.

purple_hatstand

England's bowlers starting to figure it out (maybe) - a little late (definitely). They're amongst them now after 3 lbw's from full-length deliveries.

Euro_Kraut

This has been a very interesting day so far. Any one know what the shortest Ashes test has ever been? Ever had one decided in say a day and half or two days?

Rjd2

Wow guys I thought Australia were finished and were now crap according to this thread?:rolleyes:

Beasty

Rjd2 wrote: »

Wow guys I thought Australia were finished and were now crap according to this thread?:rolleyes:

They are - today was a blip:D
Currently sat at Leeds Bradford Airport awaiting Ryanair back to Dublin having witnessed the most woeful batting performance I heve ever seen by England.

Hopefully they will sort themselves out in time for the ODI at Stormont later this month, otherwise I may have to emigrate!

dfx-

Marcus North now 102n.o. being protected by a wielding bat of Stuart Clark As far as I remember, North now has more hundreds in the series than England?

418-8 plays 102 coming towards tea on the second day...

Edit: Two succesive Clark 6s off Broad makes that 434-8

Washout

great batting helped by rubbish bowling.

hoping to see aussie come out and stick to those same lines and lengths that they did in the first innings.

great test cricket wicket though. if you get in you can make runs but there is that something in it for the bowlers.

dfx-

Almost 77-5 there..:eek:

58-0 to 75-4. Good stuff to get Collingwood out and Bopara's last chance gone?

Edit: Cook gone to Johnson 78-5.

Washout

excellent bowling from Johnson/Hillfenhaus

Could be over by lunch tommorow. ONe where you defo cannot blame the pitch

Royale with Cheese

Australia were about 6/1 to win the series before this match. If I was a betting man I probably would have stuck some money on that.

WhiteWashMan

sweet, Anderson gone first over of the day for 4

Marshy

Australia win by an innings and 80. One each going into the 5th Test at the Oval then. Roles reversed from 2005, England must win there to get back the urn.

Good resistance from Swann and Broad, England scored at almost 7 an over in the morning session but game was basically lost in the first session on Friday.

JacksonHeightsOwn

englands middle order batsmen where a complete shambles, Bopara must be dropped now, the fella is just not clicking in this test at all, and the only thing keeping collingwood in, is his fielding skills, because even though he`s gotten in a few times, he just looks like its such an effort, and you can see any ball could out do him

looking forward to the last test, hopefully england can muster up something

Beasty

chrisbonnie wrote: »

englands middle order batsmen where a complete shambles, Bopara must be dropped now, the fella is just not clicking in this test at all, and the only thing keeping collingwood in, is his fielding skills, because even though he`s gotten in a few times, he just looks like its such an effort, and you can see any ball could out do him

Agree Bopara has had enough chances, although he was clearly given out incorrectly in the second innings at Headingley. Collingwood is different, and proved his worth at Cardiff. It would be a big mistake to drop him now.

The real question is whether Bell gets another chance. He has not taken this opportunity, but would be expected to do well at the Oval, which is much better suited to batsmen.

The other question is over the bowling, particularly if Freddie is still injured (I would not be surprised if this is the case). England made a big mistake in choosing Harmison ahead of Sidebottom for Headingley. However Harmison is a better bet for the Oval. Sidebottom brings variety and stability to the attack. He could play if Anderson is injured, but as England need a win, they may be forced to stick with Harmison if Anderson does play. Another interesting point will be whether they bring back Monty. This will entirely depend on whether the pitch is expected to take spin. This would probably be a last minute decision - if he does come in it would probably be for Onions, or Anderson (if injured)

HonalD

Beasty wrote: »

Agree Bopara has had enough chances, although he was clearly given out incorrectly in the second innings at Headingley. Collingwood is different, and proved his worth at Cardiff. It would be a big mistake to drop him now.

The real question is whether Bell gets another chance. He has not taken this opportunity, but would be expected to do well at the Oval, which is much better suited to batsmen.

The other question is over the bowling, particularly if Freddie is still injured (I would not be surprised if this is the case). England made a big mistake in choosing Harmison ahead of Sidebottom for Headingley. However Harmison is a better bet for the Oval. Sidebottom brings variety and stability to the attack. He could play if Anderson is injured, but as England need a win, they may be forced to stick with Harmison if Anderson does play. Another interesting point will be whether they bring back Monty. This will entirely depend on whether the pitch is expected to take spin. This would probably be a last minute decision - if he does come in it would probably be for Onions, or Anderson (if injured)

Not sure how England should approach the game. The batting was woeful but must improve, the Aussies weren't special in the field but did the job. Bopara should drop down the lineup but I cant see what use it is throwing a new guy in (Trott) for such an important game...they've made their bed etc.

Bell and Collingwood somehow get the nod so major surgery on the team is not expected (I wouldn't have them in the squad let alone the team - they only seem to perform when it doesn't matter or they are on their last chance or am I being unfair!)

Bowling has been Englands problem for the series, they have rarely seemed confident of bowling out the Aussies twice in a match. Monty won't add to the firepower, Anderson may be injuired, Sidebottom should have played in Leeds but.......

I notice Nasser H blames the absence of Flintoff and Peterson for the loss....and no mention of how the Aussies perform so well without Lee.......:)

Beasty

HonalD wrote: »

Monty won't add to the firepower...

The reason I suggested Monty is the Oval will be a very different pitch from any they have played on so far. It's normally a batsman's paradise. As England need to win, the pitch may be prepared to try and deliver a result. The best way to do this at the Oval is to ensure it takes spin in the second innings, and hope they win the toss allowing them to bat first. Hence I would not be surprised if England play rwo spinners, and Monty is the obvious choice behind Swann.

Marshy

BBC seem to be playing up the idea of Ramprakash being drafted in at the Oval. Would like to see him given the chance but can't really see it happening. Most people seem to be calling for Key.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/8192597.stm

England desperately need Flintoff fit I think, don't see them winning without him.

Judgement Day

Is it to late to recall Beefy?
His spirit is sadly lacking in the English team today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNggUD_MrNY&feature=related

Royale with Cheese

I'm not a fan, but I'd probably go with Key. They're best off calling up somebody with some experience if it's just going to be a one off appearance in a huge game like this. Ramprakash may have been in good form for his County in the last few seasons, but his Test record is fairly awful.

A few pundits saying England shouldn't chop and change, I'd agree, with the exception of Bopara. England might as well turn up with 10 players if they're going to play him again. He may be talented, one for the future etc. but he's in dreadful form.

Most squad selections are made taking future games, series etc. into account. They need to just treat it as a once off and pick the best team they can to win the match, even if that means calling up players for just one game.

subfreq

I don't think the brits should change the team at all. Just move Bopara down to 5 and let the others bounce up.

If Freddie is fit then just drop Harmison again. That was the big mistake. Freddie had been holding up the middle order and I was totally shocked when they brought Harmison in for the last test.

Changing it now will set a ripple of panic through the team.

ArmaniJeanss

I'd love to see Ramps drafted in, and win the game single handedly.
Then walk off into the sunset with his bat slung over his shoulder.

What a last minute redemption to a test career it would be.

Beasty

Freddie declared fit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/6006498/The-Ashes-Andrew-Flintoff-fit-for-Oval-Test.html

Big risk in my view. Clearly he wants to sign-off in style, and what better than coming back to win the Ashes. However I am very surprised how quickly they have come to this conclusion, given his recent history of break-downs. My concern is this is more about him than what is necessarily best for the team. Hope I am wrong, but I am concerned he could end up limping through the Australian second innings when England are desperately seeking inspiration from somewhere.

Royale with Cheese

Freddie has to play even if he's not 100%. If he's limping through the second innings when England need inspiration then it's worth the risk as it would only be Steve Harmison on the pitch instead of him. He's not going to provide any inspiration either.

Beasty

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Freddie has to play even if he's not 100%. If he's limping through the second innings when England need inspiration then it's worth the risk as it would only be Steve Harmison on the pitch instead of him. He's not going to provide any inspiration either.

Harmison is much better suited to the Oval than Headingley, although he is very unlikely to play if Freddie is in the team, as Anderson has also been declared fit

purple_hatstand

IMO, England's problems in the Headingley Test were to do with application rather than ability.

The reason the batsmen were so bad (16 of 20 wickets were out caught) was a lack of concentration and discipline and some very poor shot selection. At Headingley, you have to play every ball on its own merit no matter how 'in' you think you are.

The reason England's bowlers were ineffective was again a lack of concentration and discipline. On the rare occasions they bowled a proper line and length, they were rewarded with wickets. Ponting, Clarke and North batted really well but were helped by lots of short, wide stuff from England's bowlers. Conversely, Australia's bowlers (Clarke and Siddell in particular) were relentlessly on-target and were rewarded accordingly.

I don't think there is as vast a gulf between the ability or technique of the two sides as the result and standard of play at Headingley would seem to suggest. Rather, Australia are mentally tougher and better able to read the ongoing state of play and state of wicket and adjust their game accordingly.


If true, I'm not sure what this means. Is it possible that the England players are not smart enough to do the right things and learn from the game as it progresses? Or were they so desperate to take wickets after being knocked over for 102, control, discipline and clear-thinking went out the window?

If either of these is the answer, Strauss (as captain) has some tough questions to answer IMO.

Thoughts?