The Ashes
-
Its a series between a home team with two really good batsmen and 3 really good bowlers and the rest pretty meh against a team playing away with two really good batsmen and 2 really good bowlers and the rest pretty meh. So in theory it should be close but the reality is the Aussie good 'uns are far more reliable than the Pommy ones - some of whom are also getting long in the tooth / have shit previous form in Oz (or both).
-
4 really good bowlers. Cummins is fucking good as well.
And boom, it's over by the 3rd over of the day. 5-0 is still the favourite.
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
Those thinking this was close, or in the balance, were deluded before. Now that they have lost one after 2 balls it's over.
England have at least shown they can knock Aus over, but they are still not good enough with the bat to seriously challenge for a win.
Root gone now. 2-nil coming up.
@Virgil is about to have his period
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
Those thinking this was close, or in the balance, were deluded before. Now that they have lost one after 2 balls it's over.
England have at least shown they can knock Aus over, but they are still not good enough with the bat to seriously challenge for a win.
Root gone now. 2-nil coming up.
@Virgil is about to have his period
I see the angry lesbian has snuck his average over 61.
That's not a bad effort.
-
@nta fair play, you can have all teh fun you want, winners = grinners and all that
BUT
Smith has made a couple of ordinary captaincy decisions in this that has made it a shit load closer than it has any right to be. Are he and Root in a contest to see who can make the biggest blunder of the summer?
-
@mariner4life the DRS decisions last night - both the failure to pin Cook early, then the two dud calls for caught behind and LBW on Root - need to be harshly treated. That was poor.
I'm a bit more sanguine about the follow-on decision.
Its very easy to say "send the Poms back in against a swinging ball at night" but there has been little evidence that Starc is bowling well enough to do it. You have the game at your mercy if you survive the evening session with the bat, and if you don't there is still all sorts of records to tumble for England to win.
Risking 130 overs back-to-back might not have delivered the crushing blow we wanted, and then we might have to bowl first in Perth on a deck that hasn't offered a lot lately. Throw in Cummins' injury history and you might go from a potential 2-nil up to maybe 1-all in Perth, with your pace attack cracking at the edges.
As it is, Hazelwood is having a decent spell here, and Lyon is all over the English left-handers no matter where they bat in the order. Cummins is firing at pace. Just Starc needs to tighten his shit up really and we're unassailable.
-
Nick I also think the controversy of the follow-on call obscures just how well Anderson bowled that night.
I was there at the ground and it was the best spell of bowling I've seen live. 11 straight overs of pure quality. Not a ball wasted. He had three wickets by the end, but should have had six.
The assumption in the criticism of Smith is that we could have done similar, when last night showed that bowling at night isn't quite as easy as Anderson made it look.
-
that fat lady, she is out the back warming up
-
I wonder if there are many people as genuinely despised as Piers?
Anyway, this test has been entirely predictable, despite the chicken little's panicking about missed opportunities to enforce an unnecessary follow on. England lucky to get within 150.
-
Broad gone and it's down to 130 runs with 1 wicket remaining...
-
Ok. So it wasn't as close as I tthought ...
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
Nick I also think the controversy of the follow-on call obscures just how well Anderson bowled that night.
I was there at the ground and it was the best spell of bowling I've seen live. 11 straight overs of pure quality. Not a ball wasted. He had three wickets by the end, but should have had six.
The assumption in the criticism of Smith is that we could have done similar, when last night showed that bowling at night isn't quite as easy as Anderson made it look.
But that's equally an argument in favour of the follow on. And regardless ofc result i still think it was wrong.
It's not just about your bowlers. It's what can one of the best ever swing bowlers in history do with a pjnk ball under lights? Can he tear us to shreds?
I maintain he opened a door he didn't have to.
But well done Aussie.
-
And that's what. Won by 120.
Its an interesting thing I've noticed about Starc: when required to do some hard yards, he seems to get a bit erratic. Once the ball is swinging he looks peerless. He gets a 5-wicket haul here, while for the match was rather toothless IMHO.
-
@booboo Fair point.
It's why cricket is such a great game. The first two tests have thrown up a thousand talking points, despite both ending in relatively comfortable Aussie victories (on paper).
I see the point behind Root's decision at the toss, like I do with Smith's to bat instead of enforcing. I think both were proven incorrect, but neither were particular howlers.
Ultimately the winning and losing of the game was, like the first test, the success of Australia's middle/lower batting order and the inability of the English batsmen to make anything close to a match-winning score.
-
-
I think the call to not follow on was the right one not only in the context of the test but also for the Aussie team.
Yes Anderson is quality and what a spell, but I think there was a decision to try and bat some of the Aussies into a bit of form and give them some time.
Hopefully England can bounce back.
