5th Test - Oval, Weds 21st August

First topic message reminder :

With England having won the series, I wonder what changes we will see to the teams.

England
The batting, barring Ian Bell, is misfiring. Too many times batsmen are getting in, but getting out for cameo scores. Prior is struggling a little with bat and gloves, but as the new boy and without a big innings, Jonny Bairstow is most at risk.
The wickets have been shared amongst the bowlers. Onions was unlucky to miss out at Chester-le-Street, but having now broken a finger is ruled out for two weeks. Monty's well publicised indiscretion will not endear him to the management and Steven Finn will probably be left to regain form and confidence with Middlesex. On his own ground, Chris Tremlett may get a run out, especially if they feel that Anderson or Broad need a rest.

all in all I suspect that changes are unlikely.


Australia
The good news is that they may have found an opening pair. The bad news is that the middle order is desperately fragile unless skipper Clarke scores runs. Khawaja and Smith are both batting at least two positions too high and unless he is able to bowl, Shane Watson looks a waste of a spot. Possible chances of recalls for Hughes or Cowan at 3 - and consideration has to be given to Faulkner lower down as an all-rounder.
Bowling has stood up well, but in another horses for course selection we may well see Starc replace Bird. Australia will be desperate for Harris to stay fit.




England have not played very well so far, especially the batters, yet are 3-0 up. Australia have shown they can compete but seem unable to win, even against a faltering team. If England can actually play well we could see a real thumping, but the money men at Ca will hope their team can sneak a win to create interest for the return series.

This certainly is a bat first track. But this certainly is not a win the toss win the match pitch. The ball wasn't doing a great deal today either for the Australian seamers or Nathan Lyon. It was a perfectly battable track today, and there was absolutely nothing great in England's performance today. And saying that a bit more positivity could have made it a good game rather than a dud one has nothing whatsoever to do with T-20!.

msp83 wrote:To talk about momentum at such length regarding a series that is to be played in 3 months from now under different conditions is a bit too premature for me. I am not saying Australia wouldn't be affected by the losses here and England wouldn't be a more confident outfit. But I don't think there is a momentum based case for England to have them playing the way they did today. If anything, England's defensive approach would only give the Australians that little bit of satisfaction that on the back of one good batting performance, they could force England so much to the backfoot. Don't think this one day's approach would make a world of difference 3 months down the line.

Its more about stopping aus turning the corner. Keeping the losing streak going. Once they get a win(any win) they will be ten fold more confident!. 3 months isn't relevant- The relevance is the next test both teams will play which is also against each other.

The play is immaterial really. its about england stopping the win. The play they played today worked very well. Only lost 4 wickets.. England are half way in keeping this despair hanging over the Australia camp(no win record)

msp83 wrote:To talk about momentum at such length regarding a series that is to be played in 3 months from now under different conditions is a bit too premature for me. I am not saying Australia wouldn't be affected by the losses here and England wouldn't be a more confident outfit. But I don't think there is a momentum based case for England to have them playing the way they did today. If anything, England's defensive approach would only give the Australians that little bit of satisfaction that on the back of one good batting performance, they could force England so much to the backfoot. Don't think this one day's approach would make a world of difference 3 months down the line.

I don't get why everyone's bothered about this match. You'd think that the outcome / standard of play here, was definitely going to define who wins in the Winter.

It's neurotic bonkers thinking - it will have no bearing, of any description, on the winter. The main significance is whether Woakes has enough batting in him to justify a spot and if so, then that actually strengthens England as having four seamers (i.e. Tremllet for Kerrigan) and no deterioration in batting strength, gives us the momentum if anything. But even here, I don't think they'll change their 3 seamers policy

So let's say the Aussies win this dead rubber. We did that in one series and still got whacked the next time.

Last time, we came back magnificently at Brisbane and then gave them a mauling at Adelaide. Didn't that give us the momentum shift? Course it did, which is why we got murdered at Perth

Actually our performance in the last test and now this has been far more solid than that complacent stuff of the first and third

"So let's say the Aussies win this dead rubber"

you mean say if Aus win there first test in how many tests.

Its massive to them. massive. Any win is a big deal when you are on such a losing streak. In any sport

mystiroakey wrote:The play is immaterial really. its about england stopping the win. The play they played today worked very well. Only lost 4 wickets.. England are half way in keeping this despair hanging over the Australia camp(no win record)

Post of the day for me.   

Imagine how the Aussies are going to feel if they don't win. According to Agnew, Maxwell and half of those on these boards they've been the better team and still can't get the better of this so called turgid England team

"It's neurotic bonkers thinking"

You may be right. The problem is though is that sportsmen are neurotic and partially bonkers. Very mentally driven, very superstitious and play on confidence or lack of. the mental game is so important at that level and without that first win you are nothing when you are on a lose streak.

mystiroakey wrote:"So let's say the Aussies win this dead rubber"

you mean say if Aus win there first test in how many tests.

Its massive to them. massive. Any win is a big deal when you are on such a losing streak. In any sport

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it would make a difference when each team lines up at Brisbane. England lost in Perth and then looked what happened. For me, there is a lot of nonsense talked about 'psychological edge' or whatever the excitable term is. England clearly have the mental edge, simply because they've played the big moments better and hence the Aussies will be acutely aware of this (hence Lehmann's ridiculously OTT go at the match winner of the last test) and would take a mauling at Brisbane and Adelaide for that to be shifted

India lost 4-0 to England in England. They then a home series against West Indies. Did that win make a world ofdifference in Australia in the next series? Or did the home series win against New Zealand saved the series against England?
Wins and losses matter, but it is more about the form and ability level of today that is most important, not past results. That is so even within a series, forget something separated by at least 3 months.

mystiroakey wrote:"It's neurotic bonkers thinking"

You may be right. The problem is though is that sportsmen are neurotic and partially bonkers. Very mentally driven, very superstitious and play on confidence or lack of.  the mental game is so important at that level and without that first win you are nothing when you are on a lose streak.

Ironically, I argue for this when it comes to Tennis (my other favourite sport) but I think it's less so in team sports and particularly Cricket, due to the slow nature of the game, i.e. it's taken 2 series for England to clearly have a mental hold - that's what got them over the line at Trent Bridge. Hence, whilst it would be a help to the Aussies, I still think a defeat here would be irrelevant to England's mental dominance - it's a dead rubber

But I actually love the way that England still don't want to lose, i.e. they won't give them an inch

This mental edge thing is much easier and probably more realistic in two other sports i foillow regularly. Football and rugby. We all new that once wales won that first game they would be trouble(after an 8 loss record) they bounced back and then bang crushed a very good england team.. My football team(palace are the most streaky team in existence to be honest. They loss and lose- then get a lucky win and then come out like a different team for the next 5 and win them all. Then they get a bad break- lose and down again- lose the next few and then the cycle happens again and again and again!!

sadly i can very much see this being the case with Aus- Once they get a win. Performance will rise 20% minimum. They are very patriotic , play with pride or lack off. Its a big deal being an aussie sportsman!

So if England grind Australia into a draw and mentally crush them and establish the all important mental superiority and carry the momentum here, perhaps the next series should be cancelled as the outcome is already known to us? Perhaps they could spend all the resources to fund economically struggling test teams so that they'd start playing some Proper Test Cricket?

"So if England grind Australia into a draw and mentally crush them"

they are already mentally crushed to an extent(not completely but certainly mentally hindered!

point being if they get a win they will believe they can win!! big thing in sport- Really deep down belief.

England are not however a streaky team- more like a chelsea(to SA's Man u)

A loss wont really affect us. But the win will aid Aus. And a draw/loss will just keep them on the same level mentally.

"perhaps the next series should be cancelled as the outcome is already known to us?"

How is the outcome known?

Agree with Mysti, brilliant from England. A draw now looks certain and no win in nine for Aus going into the return series. What Flower would have wanted and the batsman came up trumps yet again. Great Test cricket.

Certainly the England top order was brilliant in squandering away starts. Great test cricket indeed!.

msp83 wrote:Certainly the England top order was brilliant in squandering away starts. Great test cricket indeed!.

MSP, you can be as flippant as you wish, but this is a day that Flower would have asked for and the batsmen obliged. I would rather err with Flower personally.

msp83 wrote:Certainly the England top order was brilliant in squandering away starts. Great test cricket indeed!.

Test cricket, isn't just about the Top 3 - if it was, England would be 3-0 down. I assume you understand this  

I also think we've now got an opening pair for the next five years - something else the Aussies have given us

msp83 wrote:Certainly the England top order was brilliant in squandering away starts. Great test cricket indeed!.

Only lost 4 wickets in the whole day, on the way to a resounding 3-0 win. I rather like it.

Duty281 wrote:

msp83 wrote:Certainly the England top order was brilliant in squandering away starts. Great test cricket indeed!.

Only lost 4 wickets in the whole day, on the way to a resounding 3-0 win. I rather like it.

Eng have had their startegies ( defensive, attritional cricket).....and their theories ( denying Aus win even at the cost of a bore to death 2 RPO cricket ).......and to their credit they have stuck to their guns successfully so far.

these are startegies make either a world champion team or long term all round strength.
But I see that those may not even be Eng's objectives......their cricket is being cut out in Flower's personality.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

msp83 wrote:Certainly the England top order was brilliant in squandering away starts. Great test cricket indeed!.

Only lost 4 wickets in the whole day, on the way to a resounding 3-0 win. I rather like it.

Eng have had their startegies ( defensive, attritional cricket).....and their theories ( denying Aus win even at the cost of a bore to death 2 RPO cricket ).......and to their credit they have stuck to their guns successfully so far.

these are startegies make either a world champion team or long term all round strength.
But I see that those may not even be Eng's objectives......their cricket is being cut out in Flower's personality.

Probably the most sensible thing to do once you've conceded 500 in the first innings.

certainly our objective to be honest.

to be able to defend successfully is the single hardest thing to do in Cricket IMO. You have to be good to play this style.


If you don't think we played to this objective just look at the run rates of players like KP. thats all you need to know dude.

By some twisted logic, excessively negative batting is synonymous with "proper test cricket" and any criticism of it is being extrapolated to being a T20 fan.

It's because England are doing said batting.

Attrition has a significant place in test cricket. But there has to be a context for that. When Faf du Plessis played that absolutely attritional innings, there was glory written all over it. When AB de Villiers of all the batsmen, scored 30 of 230 balls in that same game, there was a context crying out for such attritional cricket. When Gautam Gambhir grinded out his best hundred in New Zealand to save a test match that was very nearly lost, there was magnificence panted on that knock. Stuart Broad remained scoreless for hours to help Matt Prior save a test in New Zealand, that was one of his best efforts with the bat.
But when encountered with a first innings total of close to 500 on not a difficult track, if your gameplan is just creeping into a shell, to call it great test cricket, well, decide for yourself.
And if some of us feel there could have been a more positive way, an alternative way to play good test cricket, please don't bring out the Test Cricket Snobbishness approach and bring in T-20 and all such nonsense.
Perhaps England are playing to a plan and a long term strategy. But was it quality test cricket today from them? Well, there is considerable space for difference there, and that is not a T-20 perspective.

Nail on the head, Msp.

I don't buy the momentum argument. 

Australia could very easily be tied at 2-2. Few batsmen have made some hundreds, and I doubt their bowlers will lose 2 much sleep over England diggin in a slow surface when we won't see one in Aus

Never thought I'd see cricket hipsters but there you go

ShankyCricket wrote:By some twisted logic, excessively negative batting is synonymous with "proper test cricket" and any criticism of it is being extrapolated to being a T20 fan.

totally incorrect dude.

Proper test cricket is playing to the in game or in series situation.. No one thinks otherwise do they. Surely.

I think many people have missed the point of what we are doing. I am the first to tell england to speed up when we need to push for a result. But in this situation it is beyond pointless. Its the perfect time to play attritional cricket

Everyone loves to knock England for something or other. Whether it's batting too slowly, batting with disdain, bowling too short, not walking, fixing the Hawk-eye system, not picking 5 bowlers, picking 5 bowlers, or putting a fielder in a wrong position - England have done something wrong.

Fact is, their batting today has taken the loss out of the equation and was near-perfect.
Fact is, England have won this series 3 nil.
Fact is, England have won 3 consecutive Ashes series.

Good old England, getting it right time and again.

But there always will be someone there to knock England. Someone to underrate their achievements. Someone to belittle Cook's leadership.

By the time the next Test rolls around, England won't have lost for a year.

Well done England. You'll get very little praise around here though.

"Test Cricket Snobbishness approach and bring in T-20 and all such nonsense"

I am not sure where these claims come from. chinese whispers are spreading. Any talk of the t20 fan would have been about a poster on the bbc site saying england never go at 7 an over first innings to a TEST match.

Seriously its all getting a bit hyperbolic on here!!

Duty281 wrote:Everyone loves to knock England for something or other. Whether it's batting too slowly, batting with disdain, bowling too short, not walking, fixing the Hawk-eye system, not picking 5 bowlers, picking 5 bowlers, or putting a fielder in a wrong position - England have done something wrong.

Fact is, their batting today has taken the loss out of the equation and was near-perfect.
Fact is, England have won this series 3 nil.
Fact is, England have won 3 consecutive Ashes series.

Good old England, getting it right time and again.

But there always will be someone there to knock England. Someone to underrate their achievements. Someone to belittle Cook's leadership.

By the time the next Test rolls around, England won't have lost for a year.

Well done England. You'll get very little praise around here though.

its going to be 13 games without a loss. That is some record tbh!! This place can be kind of crazy tbh.. What can england do right?

ShankyCricket wrote:By some twisted logic, excessively negative batting is synonymous with "proper test cricket" and any criticism of it is being extrapolated to being a T20 fan.

Well if we get people on these message boards moaning about the run rate (or pace) when a team is nearly 500 runs down on first innings and doesn't need to win the test, what do you expect?

I'm sorry, but there are people on these boards who appear not to relaise that the average run rate throughout Test history is little higher than what England have scored today and possibly lower.

If we're 2-1 down at Sydney and still batting like this, I'll be the first to criticise. We're not and we have no need to be goaded into been more 'entertaining' just becasue it's Australia's only chance of ever beating us, at present

Yep 13 games. Coming just after the mauling in the UAE, the struggle in Sri Lanka, and the humbling by South Africa, that is a bloody good achievement.

But England can do no right.

You are right that "proper test cricket" is about playing to the match situation. Not sure how crawling along at 2 runs per over in the first innings on a fairly docile surface against largely unthreatening bowling qualifies as "playing to the match situation" or indeed "proper test cricket", however.
To me, it came across as a rather diffident and negative approach.

Duty281 wrote:Everyone loves to knock England for something or other. Whether it's batting too slowly, batting with disdain, bowling too short, not walking, fixing the Hawk-eye system, not picking 5 bowlers, picking 5 bowlers, or putting a fielder in a wrong position - England have done something wrong.

You also forget that they are partialy responsible for the situation in Egypt. I've heard a rumour that because they elected to play in Dubai the other year, rather than Luxor - really stirred things up. Everyone wanted to go, but Broad allegedly said "If I can't be bothered to walk here, I sure as hell am not going to walk over there"

ShankyCricket wrote:You are right that "proper test cricket" is about playing to the match situation. Not sure how crawling along at 2 runs per over in the first innings on a fairly docile surface against largely unthreatening bowling qualifies as "playing to the match situation" or indeed "proper test cricket", however.
To me, it came across as a rather diffident and negative approach.

Have England lost this test? Nope.

Sounds alright to me then.

ShankyCricket wrote:You are right that "proper test cricket" is about playing to the match situation. Not sure how crawling along at 2 runs per over in the first innings on a fairly docile surface against largely unthreatening bowling qualifies as "playing to the match situation" or indeed "proper test cricket", however.
To me, it came across as a rather diffident and negative approach.

match situation.

opposition has 500, good chance of rain. Runs have become immaterial as long as we get past follow on, wickets = everything.

How could you come to a different conclusion?

banbrotam wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Everyone loves to knock England for something or other. Whether it's batting too slowly, batting with disdain, bowling too short, not walking, fixing the Hawk-eye system, not picking 5 bowlers, picking 5 bowlers, or putting a fielder in a wrong position - England have done something wrong.

:laugh:You also forget that they are partialy responsible for the situation in Egypt. I've heard a rumour that because they elected to play in Dubai the other year, rather than Luxor - really stirred things up. Everyone wanted to go, but Broad allegedly said "If I can't be bothered to walk here, I sure as hell am not going to walk over there"

   

ShankyCricket wrote:You are right that "proper test cricket" is about playing to the match situation. Not sure how crawling along at 2 runs per over in the first innings on a fairly docile surface against largely unthreatening bowling qualifies as "playing to the match situation" or indeed "proper test cricket", however.
To me, it came across as a rather diffident and negative approach.

Root, Cook and Trot all got out when they decided to do what you wanted them to do.
 
Few teams chasing 500, start off at 3 runs at over, simply because few teams have ever won from that position and so it's a gamble
 
The surface is taking spin so Lyon has to be respected and I'm not certain I'd describe Harris or the ever consistent Siddal as 'docile'
 
It was this "let's conquer all" attitude around 2006/7 which resulted in a deteriation of performance

Not sure anyone used the word "entertainment". Its not unreasonable though to expect a team to play in a more positive manner than England played today, even if a win in the test wasn't of utmost importance.

mystiroakey wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:You are right that "proper test cricket" is about playing to the match situation. Not sure how crawling along at 2 runs per over in the first innings on a fairly docile surface against largely unthreatening bowling qualifies as "playing to the match situation" or indeed "proper test cricket", however.
To me, it came across as a rather diffident and negative approach.

match situation.

opposition has 500, good chance of rain. Runs have become immaterial as long as we get past follow on, wickets = everything.

How could you come to a different conclusion?

Its the 1st innings FFS on a fairly flat surface. If they were chasing 500 in the 4th innings on a crumbling wicket and chose not to go for the target and instead play out the draw, I'd have felt differently

England should have gone at 4.5 an over, been bowled out for 270 just before tea, and to hell with the consequences! It would have been more 'entertaining' after all.

Hopefully Arsenal and Fulham will play with no goalkeeper tomorrow in the football - that will also be 'entertaining'.

I can see your point about entertainment and that people may view it as dead rubber - so putting on a game is good for fans.

However realistically. We are playing to not lose. Thats proper respect to aus and the game it self.


say we tried to win this game..

3 days left- realistically 2-2.5 days

opposition has almost 500.

we need to try and get 330 runs a day in two days. that puts us on 660- chances of england doing this considering we haven't hit that score for donkeys, Its on day 3 and 4 of a test match, with possible weather interuptions- maybe 1 in 75. Ok so say we get this figure- we know have to bowl aus out for under 170 and within half a day. chances of those both happening 1 in 10.

odds on a win from my POV 750/1

chances of a loss if we play this way. maybe 1/2, draw 1/2 win 750/1


Its not rocket science.

"Its the 1st innings FFS on a fairly flat surface. If they were chasing 500 in the 4th innings on a crumbling wicket and chose not to go for the target and instead play out the draw, I'd have felt differently"

 

you are joking i hope?

see my post above

There has only ever been 6 losses in the history of test cricket after a team has scored more than the aussies total first innings.


there has been 4214 test matches played.

Yes records are here to be beaten and improved but come on- the chances are so slim!

banbrotam wrote:If we're 2-1 down at Sydney and still batting like this, I'll be the first to criticise. We're not and we have no need to be goaded into been more 'entertaining' just becasue it's Australia's only chance of ever beating us, at present

Summed it up perfectly banbrotam  

England have done what they have to, but I feel sorry for those poor punters who have paid best part of £100 to watch that.

Duty, are you Tony Pulis by any chance? Loves a boring, defensive display....

Totally agree Dorothy, feel for the fans who paid that sort of money to watch block after block, maiden after maiden. Yawn.

msp83 wrote:Attrition has a significant place in test cricket. But there has to be a context for that. When Faf du Plessis played that absolutely attritional innings, there was glory written all over it.  When AB de Villiers of all the batsmen,  scored 30 of 230 balls in that same game, there was a context crying out for such attritional cricket. When Gautam Gambhir grinded out his best hundred in New Zealand to save a test match that was very nearly lost, there was  magnificence panted on that knock. Stuart Broad remained scoreless for hours to help Matt Prior save a test in New Zealand, that was one of his best efforts with the bat.
But when encountered with a first innings total of close to 500 on not a difficult track, if your gameplan is just creeping into a shell, to call it great test cricket, well, decide for yourself.
And if some of us feel there could  have been a more positive way, an alternative way to play good test cricket, please don't bring out the Test Cricket Snobbishness approach and bring in T-20 and all such nonsense.
Perhaps England are playing to a plan and a long term strategy. But was it quality test cricket today from them? Well, there is considerable space for difference there, and that is not a T-20 perspective.

good post. you diffrentiate well between the needed defensive cricket and the negative

Duty281 wrote:Yep 13 games. Coming just after the mauling in the UAE, the struggle in Sri Lanka, and the humbling by South Africa, that is a bloody good achievement.

But England can do no right.

as I said before....this negative , unexciting brand of cricket...making designer slow pitches, bolwing 10 overs an hour and scoring at 1.5 RPO serves Eng's strategy but is killing interest in test cricket