The Ashes
-
NZ didn't bowl bouncers on day 3. They didn't bowl any.
I never criticised the players. I said I fully understand the use of short bowling. I've played and coached the game as a job in the past
I find it odd that the commentators and match participants are all gung ho for short bowling up until someone gets hit then it's all "I hope he's alright. We don't like to see anyone hurt bla bla bla" then it's "right well we all know where this next one will be short again"
It's a strange situation.
Particularly when bowling short to tailenders
It's a highlighting of how quickly emotions and compassion dulls over time. Until the next injury.
Solution: let the grass grow for tests and go around bunnies not through them. Give the bowlers some conditions to work in
Stop fishing for outrage just because you can't grasp context. And stop making shit up to back your outrage. NZ did not bowl short in that test, nor did they celebrate wickets
Sorry, to get back to this crap from earlier.
But NZ did eventually bowl some bouncers in that test, and it was all a bit awkward.
Can see the hawkeye pitch maps from cricinfo if you're interested.
First innings (all those bouncers would be from Day 1, the delayed second morning after news of his death they didn't bowl any).
Pak Second innings, bouncers eventually crept back in:
Hawkeye: Select seam bowlers, then go to Pitch Map.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11534/hawkeye/742615/new-zealand-vs-pakistan-3rd-test-new-zealand-tour-of-united-arab-emirates-2014-15 -
@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.
A minor point is that he never lost the ability to send a fast one down, so 140+ was an option in the toolkit, even if it wasn't deployed much. Legend has it he even put a few bouncers past Joel Garner...
-
-
Will they get that at the new stadium? I guess so if they are heat & soil related? Not much heat in this test, surprised to see the big cracks so early.
Nope. Drop in pitch.
Smart choice. Really smart.
That pitch is just shite. All the commentators blowing the load over Starks dismissal of Vince are muppets. The guy hit a crack, there was nothing special about that delivery at all.
Stark is a excellent bowler who has bowled tens of thousands of better balls than that. I rate some of his deliveries as some of my favourites in cricket, that aint one of them. -
All over rover. Aussie too good.
-
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
