Ashes I - 2013 - In England
- Thread starter ghaliboy
- Start date
David Warner's brother
Botham and Atherton having a laugh about it on the telly just now! About the subsequent press release from 'Cricket Australia' saying David Warner does not endorse the above comments.
You cannot make this up. The team is in freefall.
Can someone explain that replay decision for me?
It was hitting the wicket so what's this 'umpires decision' and sticking with not out?
It was hitting the wicket so what's this 'umpires decision' and sticking with not out?
It was marginal at best so it stays with the umpire's decision.
Surprised England reviewed that, it wasn't a clear cut out at all.
Surprised England reviewed that, it wasn't a clear cut out at all.
This series is making me reconsider my attitude to video refereeing in football.
One of the worst Ashes series I can remember.
KM, do you still think the Aussie batting lineup is underrated. 
As I said at the start of the series, this is the worst batting lineup Australia have brought here in my lifetime.
As I said at the start of the series, this is the worst batting lineup Australia have brought here in my lifetime.
Anderson is something else.
MoM a tough call.
I give it to Ian Bell as Roots innings is largely inconsequential to the final result. Bell came in with England in a very tight spot and delivered, plus a handy 70 in 2nd innings.
I give it to Ian Bell as Roots innings is largely inconsequential to the final result. Bell came in with England in a very tight spot and delivered, plus a handy 70 in 2nd innings.
you go as far back as when Derek Pringle was England's all rounder!
That Australia cant score 300 in 4 test innings is a statement in itself
Exactly, beat 7 kinds of shit outta them
That's exactly how I felt when we beat them as well. They've been smashing everyone for more than a decade, nice to see them at the receiving end for a change
Yep. Hoping for 10-0 with several innings wins.
Not with Cook as captain, he'll always choose to bat again rather than enforce the follow on
347 runs , love it.
, love it.........
I didn't argue with you!
David Warner's brother
They're turning out to be as entertaining as the real Warner Bros.
I saw it on Knittins(nitin sundar) twitter!
That was a smart decision, the pitch wore out more. You could have ended up with England chasing a total on a 5th day pitch.
Perhaps in this game it was a good decision, but say in the next test England score 500+ on a pitch doing nothing, Australia struggle to 250... Cook still wouldnt enforce the follow on, he'd bat again to get another 500+ lead and hope to bowl them out again.
There was a 15 min version but ECB removed it even though there were no dismissals against England in it
.If Watson could fix that part of his game he would be a fantastic batsman.
Following on isn't the only way to win by an innings.
I'm not saying you didn't know that, but we can be optimistic!
Get used to it, you won't see another good one ever again.
It will be interesting to see if this does end up 10-0 would kind of negative impact it will have on Test Cricket. It's becoming more harder to see how it's going to survive long term. The West Indies and Australia are lost, most nations barely care about it anymore and it's hard to see how it's going to get better when the 20-20 generation fully kicks in.
Talk about hyperbole. Oz are just going through a blip, their state is no where near that of Windies. Their bowling still has a lot of talent, if they don't find top class batsmen in this generation, they will in next.
Australia are struggling because a lot of their best players retired within a relative short space of time.
Langer, Ponting, Warne, Lee, Hayden, McGrath and probably a few more - hard to replace just like that and they probably have had a lack of quality coming through.
To be fair they could easily have won the first test, but it's been brilliant overall so far.
Langer, Ponting, Warne, Lee, Hayden, McGrath and probably a few more - hard to replace just like that and they probably have had a lack of quality coming through.
To be fair they could easily have won the first test, but it's been brilliant overall so far.
Thats their won fault for not properly succession planning. They were pathetic at managing transitions between one generation to the next. Because it was hard, they took the easy short term glory and so allowed the above players to play way too late into their careers, whereas they should have jettisoned them aged 33 or 34 and bedded in younger players a few at a time. Ponting's ridiculous over stay is a good example. Its their won fault.
Im not holding England up as the best case standard, but think back to players like Nasser Hussain who voluntarily retired stranded on 98 tests, because he did not want to stand in the way of progress.
Absoloutely destroyed cricket in England getting stuffed through the 90s every Ashes test didn't it?
Real shame test cricket never recovered here.
In all honesty it's impossible to say which way it will go, I imagine the reaction is just as likely to be 'never again' as it is to lose interest. Could completely galvanise cricket in Australia.
This is not cyclical FFS! The problems in Cricket in Australia are far deeper then most think. The whole system from when a kid first picks up a bat to grade to first class to rooted these days. This is not a 'blip'; this is a result of years of neglect from the people in charge. The first class competition is an afterthought nowadays too.
The sporting market in Australia is so competitive and Cricket is copping a battering these days. It's dying out with the younger generation. 20-20 is marketed to kids these days, not Test Cricket.
Cricket Australia is about as inept as you can get. It's not about team results or Test Cricket for them, it's all about money, 20-20 money. They've allowed grassroots to first class Cricket to rot on some many levels. All for short term profit at the expense of the longer form of the game sadly.
Those years England didn't win the Ashes weren't good for Test Cricket. The 5 day game was crying out for what happened in 2005. Times are different though. 20-20 is now in town and it's a whole new ball game.
Galvanise?
Nice try. A 10-0 result won't galvanise Test Cricket anywhere. It's more than likely to kill off interest with the younger generation.It's not impossible to say which way Test Cricket will go in Australia. It's pretty clear which way it is going.
Cricket's future in Australia does not lay with Test Cricket and the Ashes, it lays with 20-20 and the Big Bash League. That's were Cricket Australia are aiming the sport towards.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/654113.html
When this is happening to a Cricket nation like Australia you have got to seriously wonder what is going to happen to the 5 day game. When one of Test Cricket's heartlands is under huge threat things are pretty bad.
It's completely possible that a 10-0 drubbing will, call it galvanise if you want or a wake up call or whatever, change the organisation and make up of Cricket Australia and may force them to make the tough decisions that England made 10 years ago.
I really don't see T20 as a threat to test cricket, if it is used in the right way, T20 is good entertainment and it does appeal to kids whose attention span just isn't suited to test cricket at that age. That's not a bad thing, because without T20 cricket would just not appeal. They might grow up admiring Eoin Morgan, Glenn Maxwell and Chris Gayle over Hashim Amla, Alistair Cook and Michael Clarke but higher participation numbers amongst kids and exposure for the game at a younger age will only make the sport healthier. Furthermore, its a fantastic money maker for clubs and boards and the money should be invested straight back into cricket and the development of players.
Yes, I think it sets a dangerous precedent that too much money is being thrown at players to play it, but I think that we have to remember that it's a fairly new format, a fantastic money spinner and a bit of a novelty, but boards and players will get that balancing act.
I think the problem Australia have is that there just aren't enough talented cricketers coming through, regardless of T20 or otherwise, they were complacent at the time of their golden generation and, probably, arrogant. The likes of Shane Watson aren't consistently failing because they've played too much T20 cricket, they're failing because they have huge technical flaws that are being viciously exposed.
I also don't think players who are primarily shot makers coming through is terrible for the game either. Focus on creating talented cricketers, good batsmen and good bowlers and they can adapt to play any form of the game.
I really don't see T20 as a threat to test cricket, if it is used in the right way, T20 is good entertainment and it does appeal to kids whose attention span just isn't suited to test cricket at that age. That's not a bad thing, because without T20 cricket would just not appeal. They might grow up admiring Eoin Morgan, Glenn Maxwell and Chris Gayle over Hashim Amla, Alistair Cook and Michael Clarke but higher participation numbers amongst kids and exposure for the game at a younger age will only make the sport healthier. Furthermore, its a fantastic money maker for clubs and boards and the money should be invested straight back into cricket and the development of players.
Yes, I think it sets a dangerous precedent that too much money is being thrown at players to play it, but I think that we have to remember that it's a fairly new format, a fantastic money spinner and a bit of a novelty, but boards and players will get that balancing act.
I think the problem Australia have is that there just aren't enough talented cricketers coming through, regardless of T20 or otherwise, they were complacent at the time of their golden generation and, probably, arrogant. The likes of Shane Watson aren't consistently failing because they've played too much T20 cricket, they're failing because they have huge technical flaws that are being viciously exposed.
I also don't think players who are primarily shot makers coming through is terrible for the game either. Focus on creating talented cricketers, good batsmen and good bowlers and they can adapt to play any form of the game.
I think Nasser got it spot on regarding Australia. They also need to factor in attitude when they select a player.
Closest example I can find is of the Indian Cricket team right now. We dumped off Sehwag, Gambhir, Yuvi and Bhajji and replaced them with Dhawan, Rohit, Jadeja and Ashwin. There's no doubt in my mind that Sehwag and Yuvi talent wise are in different class than Jadeja and Dhawan but their attitude in the team was awful. They're replaced by less talented but much, much more committed team players and we've looked a much better side therefore.
Closest example I can find is of the Indian Cricket team right now. We dumped off Sehwag, Gambhir, Yuvi and Bhajji and replaced them with Dhawan, Rohit, Jadeja and Ashwin. There's no doubt in my mind that Sehwag and Yuvi talent wise are in different class than Jadeja and Dhawan but their attitude in the team was awful. They're replaced by less talented but much, much more committed team players and we've looked a much better side therefore.
Good point regarding India. Probably the team most impacted by the riches of T20 cricket but the current lot, Dhawan in particular, look immense and could form the back bone of a world Test number 1 side in the next couple of years.
This is not cyclical FFS! The problems in Cricket in Australia are far deeper then most think. The whole system from when a kid first picks up a bat to grade to first class to rooted these days. This is not a 'blip'; this is a result of years of neglect from the people in charge. The first class competition is an afterthought nowadays too.
The sporting market in Australia is so competitive and Cricket is copping a battering these days. It's dying out with the younger generation. 20-20 is marketed to kids these days, not Test Cricket.
Cricket Australia is about as inept as you can get. It's not about team results or Test Cricket for them, it's all about money, 20-20 money. They've allowed grassroots to first class Cricket to rot on some many levels. All for short term profit at the expense of the longer form of the game sadly.
Those years England didn't win the Ashes weren't good for Test Cricket. The 5 day game was crying out for what happened in 2005. Times are different though. 20-20 is now in town and it's a whole new ball game.
Galvanise?
It's not impossible to say which way Test Cricket will go in Australia. It's pretty clear which way it is going.
Cricket's future in Australia does not lay with Test Cricket and the Ashes, it lays with 20-20 and the Big Bash League. That's were Cricket Australia are aiming the sport towards.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/654113.html
When this is happening to a Cricket nation like Australia you have got to seriously wonder what is going to happen to the 5 day game. When one of Test Cricket's heartlands is under huge threat things are pretty bad.
You seem determined to have the most negative view possible of test cricket in this thread. It's all so exaggerated. Australia are awful at the moment, it happens to just about every team now and again. As people have said, the 90's didn't kill cricket in England, and there's plenty of competition from other sports here. Things like the 2005 ashes are special precisely because they're rare, like in any sport you're going to get boring matches, and one team utterly dominating the other one, that's not a problem of cricket, that's just how sport is. Australia already have the makings of a good potential bowling attack with great batting depth, they just need a few batsmen to come through now of the potential of their bowlers and suddenly things won't be looking so bad.
T20 is also surely a good thing if that's what attracts kids. If it brings their initial interest in cricket then what's the problem? It's a good way of introducing kids to the sport, plenty of whom will develop an interest in the sport and then go on to enjoy watching test cricket.
T20 is mickey mouse cricket, Tests aren't going anywhere. Not every test series is so closely fought. The first test was great anyway. I grew up watching the Aussies drub England 4-1 in 2001 and still was absolutely fascinated by it all. There's still so much to be fascinated by even in uneven contests. Watch how Anderson controls the ball and adapts to the conditions, admire how Bell accepts his limitations and plays within his confines. Watching the Aussies play Cricket and beat the piss out of England actually shaped a lot of views on how to play the game. I was so lucky to see Walsh and McGrath in back to back summers, before then I just wanted to bowl really fast. To play Test cricket there is an art to it, there's some guys in this Australian team who need to learn that 'art'. Accept your weaknesses and apply your strengths, try to avoid applying those weaknesses. Look at Bell being so reluctant to play wide outside off stump until well set these last two tests.