What does Bell have to do to get MotM though? I get Broad was the catalyst for our win in the end but we wouldn't have been in that position were it not for Bell's second innings at the crease.
Ashes I - 2013 - In England
- Thread starter ghaliboy
- Start date
He'll have to cope with Man of The Series.
Old Trafford was a real kicker for Australia, they need a win because they seem to have forgotten how to, it's been 10 tests or so hasn't it?
And that, my friends, is what is known as the reverse mockers.
Onions broke his finger yesterday apparently
Australia 
What the hell happened? I started watching the Athletics from 4pm as i felt Aussies had this one in the bag easily... guess not!
What the hell happened? I started watching the Athletics from 4pm as i felt Aussies had this one in the bag easily... guess not!
Well that was pretty rubbish.
don't feel for me I do enough moaning to piss anyone off! It was 0-10 when I went to sleep.Pretty miffed to see they got close again but bowled out in a day. Stupid stuff. Shows how precious that extra 60 from Bresnan and Swann was.
Aus at least could have made this series 2-2 and said well the rain fecked us from winning the series but nah, these gumbies don't deserve it .
Aussie have some quality fast bowlers, but how on earth do Smith and Khawaja keep getting a game? Phil Hughes should play in the next test.
Please, lets not go through this again.
I know this is slightly going back, but Australia should never have dropped Katich. I've copied and pasted his stats from his last 3 years in test cricket below, it was bizarre. They also should have stuck with Hughes back in 2009, he's lost that X-factor that made him great, and not sure if he'll get it back, he's a different player now. The administration should take a long hard look at themselves.
Ave SR
year 2008 11 20 2 1021 157 56.72 2064 49.46 4 4 0 114 1 
Ave SR
year 2008
year 2009
13 23 0 1111 122 48.30 2182 50.91 2 8 1 125 4 year 2010
9 18 1 796 106 46.82 1689 47.12 2 5 1 96 1 That's not come out right, basically he averaged 57, 51 and 47 in his last three years of test cricket.
My Australia team for Ashes Down Under:
Rodgers
Warner
S Marsh
Bailey
Clarke
Watson
Paine (Keeper)
Pattinson/Cummings
Siddle
Harris
Lyon
Madison is close but a couple years away, quite like Finch but hasn't scored enough FC runs yet. Even Quiney probably a better option than Smith and Hughes, and something about Kawaja just doesn't strike me as right. If you could convince Sam Robson to play drop Bailey and move Warner to 4.
Rodgers
Warner
S Marsh
Bailey
Clarke
Watson
Paine (Keeper)
Pattinson/Cummings
Siddle
Harris
Lyon
Madison is close but a couple years away, quite like Finch but hasn't scored enough FC runs yet. Even Quiney probably a better option than Smith and Hughes, and something about Kawaja just doesn't strike me as right. If you could convince Sam Robson to play drop Bailey and move Warner to 4.
Actually to be fair I haven't seen Paine for a couple of years since his finger op and apparently he's not the same player? Any other keepers around as Haddin and Wade are useless.
Haddin had a good series.
Sam Robson would rather play for England than Australia, wouldn't he?
England should give him a call up for the fifth test just to rub salt in the wound, anyway.
England should give him a call up for the fifth test just to rub salt in the wound, anyway.
Really? Averaging 25? And his keeping is the best I've ever seen it and its still bad, he just doesn't move well so has to dive for everything, making every catch much more difficult for him than it should be. Just series he's managed to pouch them, but usually he doesn't.
The wording of this story is quite funny ' it had been thought that Robson would qualify for England early in 2014 but his status was recently reviewed by Middlesex and the ECB have confirmed he is now eligible to play for England or England Lions in all formats.' - convenient....
http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2013/content/story/658449.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2013/content/story/658449.html
There was a poll on talksport this morning for who has been the England player of the series What a stupid idea. Ian Bell won it by a mile.
What a stupid idea. Ian Bell won it by a mile.Rogers is 38, surely it would have been better to go with some of the youngsters in this series and leave out the likes of Rogers and Haddin, that way they get the experience ready for the tests at home. Wade should be in the team, it would be good if Harris could play a few more tests consecutively. Maddinson is a good prospect and perhaps should be given a go at the top with Warner.
Thank feck for Broad and the lack of Aussie bottle, I thought England had lost that match. The Australians remind me of England back in the dark old days, except Australia has better bowlers.
Only three months away, may as well play Rodgers in this series as they will desperately want to regain the ashes. Despite the 3-0 lead we are not that much better than the Aussies and they will feel they have a chance.
Ah OK I thought it was more than that, but he still seems to have done alright to me. Smith and Khawaja have been worse. Khawaja especially has been tripe. They might give him one more test, though even if he does perform it will be hard to take any conclusions from it because of the current scoreline.
It doesn't matter who they are, if they don't have the technique to play the longer format of cricket then it won't make any difference. The same goes for all the international sides. Could you imagine this England or Australian side facing the West Indian bowlers of the 70's & 80's? They'd be bowled out for less than 10 runs.
Rogers isn't 36 for a couple more weeks but he's certainly not the future. The problem is that the Australian future doesn't seem that bright given the dearth of quality batting options so they have to make sure they're as solid as possible for the present. If someone with the record of Robson was available I'd agree that they should come in but Australia obviously don't have players with the requisite technique and mentality, there's no point in them putting in people who are even worse unless they have significant potential.
England have groomed Root for a while and trust that he will be an outstanding opener, Compton may be the safer option now but England have properly researched his character and his ability and also possess more quality around him to help him through the struggles he's currently having.
Australia need to start creating the conditions whereby their youngsters learn the correct way to bat. Not only in terms of technique, but also in terms of having the right mentality when batting in the longer format of the game. The only 2 players in this Australian batting line up who look like proper top order batsman are Clarke & Rodgers (and Rodgers looks no better than a very good county player). Even Warner looks more like a number 6-7 type player.
I'd not be surprised if they pick the players who tee off (Warner, Maxwell, Watson etc) and prepare complete roads to bat on.
Hartley imo should be there.
But to be fair to Haddin, he's worked on his keeping and it's been pretty top shelf. He's always just been someone to tee off with the bat and not really look like batting time. So imo when he was dropped it was because his keeping was awful. He had a bit of a break and worked on his game and imo it has helped a lot. I don't think he's made any or many mistakes this series.
But Hartley is the future (next 5 or 6 years ish) imo, Paine's hand apparently is completely fecked and he can hardly hold a bat and keeps in pain. Which is a real shame because he's a talented cricketer for sure.
This is a lot of the problem. The beautiful sunny roads of Australia are great for producing batsman who are hulks who sit on the back foot and just slay everything that is short. Even when you watch Watson drive who is a perfect example of this he doesn't put his weight through the ball at all. It's not head over, weight going forward driving extending through the front foot. It's foot planted, weight slightly forward but strong enough to muscle through the line from that position.
Rogers hopefully in this series has opened everyone's eyes at CA. To me? He just looks exactly like Justin Langer did. Only less cramped. Playing late and under his nose in these conditions is the perfect way to play. Clarke is kind of the same way but imo he has a problem with his 'half weight' (not sure if that is a genuine technical term) where his weight is forward on his lower half but his back and upper body are just a touch late which causes his front foot to straighten and he is not completely over the ball.
As far as 'technique' goes, Khawaja and Marsh have that Australian road style, technically correct and wanting the ball to come on. Loves to wrist on the on-side off the front foot and drive through the line. I can see why they would persist with Khawaja. Hughes.. Ugh, technique all wrong and awful. To me epitomizes the new problems with technique. Will crouch and slay at anything short and wide and pretty much can't get into any other positions to hit through the onside if it's pitched up. He's a mess of a batsman imo. Ed Cowan is not much better getting bogged down and batting time a little bit to much. If he always looked unmissable he'd be perfect but he looks like getting out.. a lot.
I am surprised they didn't try to persist Peter Forrest and dumped Callum Ferguson so quickly after he got injured. Quiney is Marcus North v.II.
There are real problems with the 'make runs at FC level and you'll get a shot' at the moment as well. Players play in Australia in comfortable conditions, like the Aus A team Maxwell and Marsh go to SAF and play on complete glass and score shitloads of runs. Then they get onto a tough strip and struggle.
If I was CA i'd pay 50-60 of the youngsters (u23) and sprinkle them throughout England county, India and SAF. Monitor their cricket for a few years and inject them into that country when given the opportunity at senior level. But CA just don't really have that kind of money to spend. I also get the feeling that England (after watching some of those Sky segments) have a far more advanced technique based facilities in place as well. I've been to the SCG facilities a heap of times and from what I have seen at a few of the English grounds on the Sky segments they just look to me to be a whole heap better.
Bottom line is for me - we're breeding athletes to handle not getting injured and then giving them a bat and ball after they've proven their fitness and asking them to be superstars. Not breeding cricketers in all shapes and sizes and tweaking their fitness here and there. There is also the problem of 'you've possibly got an injury developing here you will not play again this summer'. Not educating the players to manage their injuries through a match and break pain barriers to keep developing their cricket. But of course that is another story.
I dont get it.
Why are a lot of people complaining about extremely difficult pitches to bat on in the Sheffield Shield, then?
Why are you calling for people who bat time and knocking on Marcus North, who has 12000 first class runs, doing just that?
Why are a lot of people complaining about extremely difficult pitches to bat on in the Sheffield Shield, then?
Why are you calling for people who bat time and knocking on Marcus North, who has 12000 first class runs, doing just that?
I thought North looked a great player when he made his debut. Unfortunately, almost could never convert his starts.
I forgot Callum Ferguson, another I thought was going to be very good. He had a proper technique, need to try and get him involved.
Ian Bell has a pretty good article up on cricinfo.
Basically, England want to bat 140 overs in their first innings. They want to do this by their openers staying in and not necessairily scoring because the middle order will make up for it.
Is it only me that thinks that this is a rubbish tactic and overcomplicates a simple game?
You defend the good ball and you hit the bad ball, leave anything wide outside your offstump, take your scoring oppurtunities and see where it gets you. Value your wicket and rotate the strike, surely thats a far simpler idea than having a rigid idea about trying to score x amount of runs off y overs
Basically, England want to bat 140 overs in their first innings. They want to do this by their openers staying in and not necessairily scoring because the middle order will make up for it.
Is it only me that thinks that this is a rubbish tactic and overcomplicates a simple game?
You defend the good ball and you hit the bad ball, leave anything wide outside your offstump, take your scoring oppurtunities and see where it gets you. Value your wicket and rotate the strike, surely thats a far simpler idea than having a rigid idea about trying to score x amount of runs off y overs
I get if you bat 140 overs you should have a decent enough total but to me it's clear Root needs to play his natural game more rather than occupy the crease. As with most sports I always think players should just express themselves, obviously they need to adapt to situations but I think England are far too methodical.
Yeah I agree, Joe Root scores at virtually a run a ball in ODIs. He's got a lot of shots and his natural instinct is to play them.
I think it's dangerous to say to a player that because you're an England opener you must survive, because it puts them in a mindset where they get bogged down and then out.
At the end of the day 400 is 400, whether you get that in 100 overs or 140 it doesn't matter, but England haven't been managing that recently, and you have to wonder about the tactics.
Being positive actually makes it easier to accumulate easy runs, looks at Pietersen vs. Lyon, yes he got out twice last match but there's easy singles there for the taking. Batting to occupy just puts scoreboard pressure on batsmen unnecessarily. I think it's a confidence thing at the moment, Bell's flying and he's playing positively. Root didn't or hasn't kicked on since the 180 because of the 'occupy' mentality I feel. Trott, Cook, Prior all need runs IMO. Bairstow's had loads of starts but hasn't kicked on either.
I doubt England go into an innings thinking we shouldn't get more than 20 of the first 10 overs. They want their opening batsmen to be understandably cautious early on and once they do get in to make it count. Seems to be a very sensible approach to me.
Yeah, I think you just have to accept that there's two type of players. You have your Boycotts and you have your Pietersens. Asking a Pietersen to play a Boycott innings is going to end as badly as Boycott playing a Pietersen one.
Obviously there's shades of gray, but the point is that asking players to do anything other than what comes naturally to them has surely got to hurt their potential to impact the game.
It just doesn't make sense to me, especially when you drop Compton who could bat time as well as anyone then you could have Root and all of your shot makers coming in between 3 and 7.
That's fine but they could as a left-hand/right-hand combination rotate the strike much better. I still think Root should drop down to 6 and Compton should be 2.
Disagree. 400 in 140 overs means less time to bowl out the opposition. The great Aussie team (the only great test team I've seen) used to score pretty damn quick!
I was under the impression that what made England so good during 2010-12 was that they were able to use Cook, Strauss and Trott and see out the new ball with only just one of them out. Then Pietersen, Bell and Prior would come in with the flair with the ball gone old.
Problem isn't that players are getting bogged down but probably the top order has been worked out by a very fine Aussie attack.
Problem isn't that players are getting bogged down but probably the top order has been worked out by a very fine Aussie attack.
Yeah, but Cook and Trott and Strauss were all scoring runs. It goes without saying that if your top 3 put a partnership together for both wickets then you're halfway to a massive score.
You can't get round the fact that Root and Cook (and to a lesser extent Trott) are facing a lot of balls for very few runs. The Aussie's have bowled well, but not 30-3 well. Root and Cook seem uninterested in scoring runs and solely interested in survival.
I agree to an extent. The best way to survive is to apply scoreboard pressure, ity's what irks bowlers the most.
But I don't think Root and Cook are surviving for that long even in the amount of balls compared to Strauss and Cook. Getting the first wicket is too easy now for the Aussies.