Ashes II - 2013/14 - In Australia

I'm pretty convinced now that real-time snicko isn't ready. I'm sure that was the right decision, but the side-on view in the bottom left has to have been out of sync - it showed the ball level with the end of the bat at the point it hit half way down. If that camera is wrong, that also explains the Root decision and means it was probably also correct.
 
That isn't true. Between late 2010 and 2012, he bowled very, very well in Australia, UAE(flatter than India with respect to seam), India and Sri Lanka.

I think it's a case of too much cricket. He's played non-stop. Read a stat that only R Ashwin has bowled more deliveries than him in the last 12-18 months. And Ashwin is a spinner.

Plus, Anderson has been pretty inconsistent/mediocre even at home recently. He averaged >30 in the home Ashes and did nothing in 4 out of 5 tests. Against SA the previous summer, he was bad.

England have had adequate back-ups for the other 2 bowling slots but Anderson has played on and on.
 
Spoony said:
Perhaps I'm being too harsh.
Click to expand...


It was certainly true earlier in his career, but as he's become a better bowler its been less and less true. Obviously he's hamstrung when the ball isn't doing anything to a degree because thats the type of bowler that he is.

I think Zing's pretty much got it spot on.
 
I think Jarrod Kimber has summed it up pretty well.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/700807.html


At the top of his mark at Trent Bridge, there was a broken man. Jimmy Anderson had bowled and bowled and bowled, and somehow Australia still hadn't lost. There seemed to be a limp, but maybe you just expected one. Australia failed to pass 300, but he bowled more than 50 overs in the match. As Haddin and Pattinson inched Australia to victory, he was brought back.
His physical demeanor was more like a man who had just completed 10 straight Tests, not someone in the first of ten. He took the wicket of Haddin, and won the game. It was his tenth wicket of the game. He beat Australia on his own.
Since then, he's taken 19 wickets at 47. Since then, across both series, England are 3-2 down.
Click to expand...

 
Didn't see the game today but nice to see Stokes do well. Looks a very accomplished player with good technique. Could be the find of the series for England
 
Would be unfortunate for Stokes to miss his century but this is good bowling and the pitch is doing a lot today.

91.. 9 more...
 
Onto 93 now, really does deserve a century but with the way Harris is bowling, he's going to get a wicket very soon. He's put in a few unplayable balls now. First over after drinks is usually prime wicket time too, with a new ball in its 3rd over too.

Regardless of whether or not he gets it, he's certainly proved me wrong.
 
Stokes has played well enough to deserve a century. Aussies haven't had much luck today, bowled reasonably well.

Johnson lucky that wasn't a serious injury.
 
You think England can win? I always think(and am almost always wrong) that the batting side can do it but then it's just one wicket and then a bunch of them get knocked over and I end up being wrong..

Lucky for Johnson there.
 
England have a chance here.
 
ha_rooney said:
Stokes has played well enough to deserve a century. Aussies haven't had much luck today, bowled reasonably well.

Johnson lucky that wasn't a serious injury.
Click to expand...

Bit of an understatement that.. Australia bowling fabulously..

Reminds me of India tour of Aus last time. Relentlessly pitching in the right areas.
 
It was on this ground that Saffers chased 414 with ease.
 
I think we can safely say that England aren't going to get the highest winning 4th innings total of all time, 5 wickets down with over 200 to go when the tail is averaging 12. It's not like Australia are bowling badly either, they've been fairly unlucky, get a new batsmen in and I think they'll finish it inside an hour.

Best we can hope for is Stokes 100 and getting close to a double figures defeat.
 
And there it is, no point standing around waiting to get out now considering who's to come in. Play a few shots without being stupid and get that total down as much as possible.
 
I think England should consider Root, Bairstow, Stokes at 5, 6, 7 with Bell at 3.
 
Does not matter if it is good Mitch or bad Mitch, his short balls are some of the best you'll see. Cracking direction to them.

Remember him absolutely bullying Dean Elgar on debut.
 
JulesWinnfield said:
And there it is, no point standing around waiting to get out now considering who's to come in. Play a few shots without being stupid and get that total down as much as possible.
Click to expand...
I would've preferred Prior to be a bit restrained until Stokes either got out or made his century, to be honest. Need Bresnan to hang in now, so he doesn't get panicked.
 
If Johnson goes on a rampage Stokes may carry his bat and miss out on a century not that Prior is gone.
 
Well played by Stokes.
 
Well played to him. I've really criticized his selection but he's definitely surprised me with the bat.
 
"England's first century of the series and it's another ex-pat. This time a Kiwi," says Mark the Kiwi. "He went to high school down the road from me in CHCH, NZ till he was 16, couldn't believe he changed countries so fast, was in England youth team like 18 months later. NZ has let a goodie go here. Well done Ben."
 
zing said:
"England's first century of the series and it's another ex-pat. This time a Kiwi," says Mark the Kiwi. "He went to high school down the road from me in CHCH, NZ till he was 16, couldn't believe he changed countries so fast, was in England youth team like 18 months later. NZ has let a goodie go here. Well done Ben."
Click to expand...
Where's this from? I was under the impression Stokes had been in England since he was 12.
 
He's lying I suspect, as above he's been in England since he was 12. He has a North East accent anyway with no hint of a Kiwi accent, its pretty unlikely he'd have lost his accent so soon if he was still in New Zealand at 16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.