The Ashes
-
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
That's that with Root not coming back out. Pretty poor series to watch.
Remember the knighthoods
-
You can say a lot of things about Jimmy Anderson, but he's not scared. Even though he knows everything is going to be short and at his body, every ball he gets himself in line and takes what's coming. That's pretty tough.
Great team effort from Australia. Steve Smith is obviously the dominant player, but they got hundreds from 4 other blokes. And just to show how balanced their attack is, their 4 main bowlers took all their wickets, and all took between 21 and 23.
Owned
-
@antipodean without all the hype that series might as well have been Sri Lanka vs Bangladesh sometime somewhere.
Not a compelling series at all
-
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
-
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
They played well but all this does is highlight yet another pummeling by the home side over the visitors.
Something we did to the West Indies recently, put this same Australian side in Asia or even England and i guarantee a vastly different result. (nothing against you guys, just showing theres a onesidedness at the moment regarding Home teams vs visitors) -
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
They played well but all this does is highlight yet another pummeling by the home side over the visitors.
Something we did to the West Indies recently, put this same Australian side in Asia or even England and i guarantee a vastly different result. (nothing against you guys, just showing theres a onesidedness at the moment regarding Home teams vs visitors)They're not unlike NZ in the 80s relying on one legend to do well and others to chip in although some of the batting by the rest of them was brilliant at times.
@Virgil I get the feeling the Black Caps would beat the Windies in the Windies, possibly not by as much though.
-
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
They played well but all this does is highlight yet another pummeling by the home side over the visitors.
Something we did to the West Indies recently, put this same Australian side in Asia or even England and i guarantee a vastly different result. (nothing against you guys, just showing theres a onesidedness at the moment regarding Home teams vs visitors)They're not unlike NZ in the 80s relying on one legend to do well and others to chip in although some of the batting by the rest of them was brilliant at times.
@Virgil I get the feeling the Black Caps would beat the Windies in the Windies, possibly not by as much though.
that first paragraph, do you mean Australia?
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
They played well but all this does is highlight yet another pummeling by the home side over the visitors.
Something we did to the West Indies recently, put this same Australian side in Asia or even England and i guarantee a vastly different result. (nothing against you guys, just showing theres a onesidedness at the moment regarding Home teams vs visitors)They're not unlike NZ in the 80s relying on one legend to do well and others to chip in although some of the batting by the rest of them was brilliant at times.
@Virgil I get the feeling the Black Caps would beat the Windies in the Windies, possibly not by as much though.
that first paragraph, do you mean Australia?
To some extent although Oz have better players than NZ did in the 80s.
-
@virgil While I agree with you on the surface (test cricket has become pretty one-sided in favour of home nations), in 2017 we saw two really good, evenly-matched series against India and Bangladesh. Though unfortunately those series are a rare exception to the usual procedure.
I think England win the next Ashes, but I'd back us to compete better over there than they do over here.
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
They played well but all this does is highlight yet another pummeling by the home side over the visitors.
Something we did to the West Indies recently, put this same Australian side in Asia or even England and i guarantee a vastly different result. (nothing against you guys, just showing theres a onesidedness at the moment regarding Home teams vs visitors)They're not unlike NZ in the 80s relying on one legend to do well and others to chip in although some of the batting by the rest of them was brilliant at times.
@Virgil I get the feeling the Black Caps would beat the Windies in the Windies, possibly not by as much though.
that first paragraph, do you mean Australia?
To some extent although Oz have better players than NZ did in the 80s.
fucking no shit! jesus and i was under the impression you at least knew a little bit about cricket
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
They played well but all this does is highlight yet another pummeling by the home side over the visitors.
Something we did to the West Indies recently, put this same Australian side in Asia or even England and i guarantee a vastly different result. (nothing against you guys, just showing theres a onesidedness at the moment regarding Home teams vs visitors)They're not unlike NZ in the 80s relying on one legend to do well and others to chip in although some of the batting by the rest of them was brilliant at times.
@Virgil I get the feeling the Black Caps would beat the Windies in the Windies, possibly not by as much though.
that first paragraph, do you mean Australia?
To some extent although Oz have better players than NZ did in the 80s.
fucking no shit! jesus and i was under the impression you at least knew a little bit about cricket
The heat makes you very angry. Go and have a cold drink.
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
They played well but all this does is highlight yet another pummeling by the home side over the visitors.
Something we did to the West Indies recently, put this same Australian side in Asia or even England and i guarantee a vastly different result. (nothing against you guys, just showing theres a onesidedness at the moment regarding Home teams vs visitors)They're not unlike NZ in the 80s relying on one legend to do well and others to chip in although some of the batting by the rest of them was brilliant at times.
@Virgil I get the feeling the Black Caps would beat the Windies in the Windies, possibly not by as much though.
that first paragraph, do you mean Australia?
To some extent although Oz have better players than NZ did in the 80s.
fucking no shit! jesus and i was under the impression you at least knew a little bit about cricket
The heat makes you very angry. Go and have a cold drink.
just accept you made a ridiculous assertion, own it, and move on.
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
I'll give this Australian side a bit of credit for what they managed to do. They aren't a great side, though in 2-3 years time they may be very good.
The most pleasing aspect for me was our ability to fight back when we were put under the pump. In the last five years the biggest knock on this team was their propensity to collapse in a heap with the bat, losing 4-7 wickets in quick succession.
Bar one session in Adelaide under lights (where Anderson bowled an all-time spell), they didn't have one collapse all series. People will look at the 100s, but also important were S.Marsh's 50-odd and Cummins' 40-odd in Brisbane, Paine's 50-odd in Adelaide, and M.Marsh's 30-odd in Melbourne. It meant the Poms never really got a sniff of victory.
And our bowling was consistently great - there wasn't one innings in the series where Lyon, Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood went wicketless.
South Africa promises to be a great series. One of the weirdest rivalries in world sport - we can't beat them here, and they can't beat us over there...
They played well but all this does is highlight yet another pummeling by the home side over the visitors.
Something we did to the West Indies recently, put this same Australian side in Asia or even England and i guarantee a vastly different result. (nothing against you guys, just showing theres a onesidedness at the moment regarding Home teams vs visitors)They're not unlike NZ in the 80s relying on one legend to do well and others to chip in although some of the batting by the rest of them was brilliant at times.
@Virgil I get the feeling the Black Caps would beat the Windies in the Windies, possibly not by as much though.
that first paragraph, do you mean Australia?
To some extent although Oz have better players than NZ did in the 80s.
fucking no shit! jesus and i was under the impression you at least knew a little bit about cricket
The heat makes you very angry. Go and have a cold drink.
just accept you made a ridiculous assertion, own it, and move on.
I didn't though. Hadlee/Smith both far and away the best players in their team making them tough to beat at home.
-
@mn5 yea that's not really what you said though is it. And i think having 4 bowlers take more than 20 wickets at less than 25 probably had a fair amount to do with the direction of this series.
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
@mn5 yea that's not really what you said though is it. And i think having 4 bowlers take more than 20 wickets at less than 25 probably had a fair amount to do with the direction of this series.
Well yeah of course. England got obliterated, no two ways about it but as others have mentioned this is not what you'd call a 'great' Australian team. If Smith, Hazelwood or Starc get injured then they look pretty ordinary indeed.
-
-
-
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
you must have some pretty interesting search history on google..
don't we all
i dont know what your talking about.
Im married.
