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.

KP_fan wrote:

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

Yet, England is one of the few countries where Test Cricket is still packing the crowds in.

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

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

Yet, England is one of the few countries where Test Cricket is still packing the crowds in.

Where does the incremental cricket revenue comes from? given that home rights are sold for a fixed price already.
 
1) Gate-Money --Crowds buying tickets and coming to watch in home games
2) Gate-Money Crowds buying tickets and coming to watch in away games
3) Money that other than home networks pay to buy your home series for eg. how much would SA network pay to buy ashes telecast rights.
4) Money that otehr boards pay for you to visit them whihc is dependent on how much the coverage rights for that series will sell for .
 
1) and 2) are peanuts......3) and 4) are money spinners for all concerened and depends on the flair / market value / excitment level that that team can generate.

Do you wonder why every year Aus is playing eitehr a test series or 7 bilateral ODIs in India ?
because their market value is so high.

KP_fan wrote:

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

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

Yet, England is one of the few countries where Test Cricket is still packing the crowds in.

Where does the incremental cricket revenue comes from? given that home rights are sold for a fixed price already.
 
1) Gate-Money --Crowds buying tickets and coming to watch in home games
2) Gate-Money Crowds buying tickets and coming to watch in away games
3) Money that other than home networks pay to buy your home series for eg. how much would SA network pay to buy ashes telecast rights.
4) Money that otehr boards pay for you to visit them whihc is dependent on how much the coverage rights for that series will sell for .
 
1) and 2) are peanuts......3) and 4) are money spinners for all concerened and depends on the flair / market value / excitment level that that team can generate.

Do you wonder why every year Aus is playing eitehr a test series or 7 bilateral  ODIs in India ?
because their market value is so high.

Never said that Test Match Income is what drives the game.

Just pointing out that I don't believe or to be honest see the logic in your argument that England's approach to Test Cricket is "killing the interest in test cricket".

Just pointing out that I don't believe or to be honest see the logic in your argument that England's approach to Test Cricket is "killing the interest in test cricket".
Dorothy_Mantooth

England is already amonsgt the least salebale teams in the market...inspite of having such quality their stars don't get bought in IPL.
 
Boards aren't queuing up to invite Eng for 7 ODIs in India or triangulars in WI or hurriedly arranged 2 test series soemwhere.....because Eng series don't sell for as much.

KP_fan wrote:

Just pointing out that I don't believe or to be honest see the logic in your argument that England's approach to Test Cricket is "killing the interest in test cricket".
Dorothy_Mantooth

England is already amonsgt the least salebale teams in the market...inspite of having such quality their stars don't get bought in IPL.
 

England are killing Test Cricket because their players are not that desirable for IPL franchises?  

If England's cricket is boring and predictable, then KP_Fan must be their Internet Troll equivalent.

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Just pointing out that I don't believe or to be honest see the logic in your argument that England's approach to Test Cricket is "killing the interest in test cricket".
Dorothy_Mantooth

England is already amonsgt the least salebale teams in the market...inspite of having such quality their stars don't get bought in IPL.
 

England are killing Test Cricket because their players are not that desirable for IPL franchises?  

If England's cricket is boring and predictable, then KP_Fan must be their Internet Troll equivalent.

because England are boring and defensive.....their players are not in demand in IPL....nor their team not called for various money spinning bilateral ODI and triangulars.......is what I said.
Twisting the words to prove your point......doesn't prove the point unfortunately

Who cares about 20/20 and the IPL? It's boring. A bunch of sloggers smashing a ball. Yawn.

In terms of getting crowds for Test matches, England are the best in the world. India's grounds are half empty most the time, like during the 'revenge' series unless there's hit and giggle going on. Australia seem to do well, but their fans are a touch fickle. Everywhere else it's empty, or half-empty. Unless England are the away side, in which case the ground is filled out more than usual, 'cos England have the best travelling support in the world.

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

Defiance and perseverance. I love it.  

Or are England players not bought in the IPL because they aren't going to be around for the whole season, the best players anyway?

the fact we are not desirable or seen of as being less value(due to not being available the whole time) only helps test cricket surely!!

anyway- root, prior, anderson, swan, broad would all be right up there if they made themselves available in the way kp and mogs have in the past. everyone knows it. But luckily the england set up is doing its best to keep the real form of the game desirable..

A sensible comment on Cricinfo just now by someone called Maksi:

"Let me see if I am understanding my fellow test match cricket fans correctly. Australia haven't won a test match in their last nine attempts. Australia can not take 20 English wickets even though we often have 5 batsman out of form in each innings. Australia are losing 3:0. But it is they that have the momentum going towards the Winter series? I just read my own post and nearly spat my tea out laughing."

True, very true.

Duty has turned in to a man!!

 

Have you only just noticed?

I do feel a bit old now you know.

When was your Bday?

mystiroakey wrote:When was your Bday?

Last Saturday.  

Congrats Duty.

So today looking dodgy then.

If it carries on then it all comes down to tomorrow. If eng reached the follow on it'd be tough to see a result being forced.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/23819831

What a load of entitled rubbish.  They are just never happy.

How about just admitting that eng lost the toss, experimented with some clearly unready bowlers and then had a massive total facing them and didnt want to lose.

Seems a lot of former players who were part of a crap side like Butcher are pretty bitter really.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/23820063

At least aggers who played the game has a more balanced view than moaning Fordyce who didn't.

Duty281 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:When was your Bday?

Last Saturday.  

Nice one dude

Happy returns , Duty...

Lots of rain so we can all have a lot of fun disagreeing for hours about all sorts of stuff.

Starting with the play yesterday : look I am sure we would all have rather seen a bit more enterprise from the England bats ; but we really ought to take a few things into account  1/ chasing 492 with two days already gone and a pretty dodgy forecast for the last two = a fair chance of losing but practically none of a win. 2/ Australia actually bowled well !  The opposition does that sometimes...3/ although this pitch is one on which most good players would fancy their chances of staying in , it is way too slow to be ideal for stroke making. 4/ Related to (2) , the Aussies set fields which were designed to make run scoring difficult - sensibly , I hasten to add , as the chances of running through England were remote : they set out to tie them down and profit from errors - with some success . Had England been too ambitious they may well have profited more...

Yes it wasn't exactly thrilling.  But in context , it all made sense.  And to a real cricket lover , it was far from boring.

Agreed alfie

Duty281 wrote:In terms of getting crowds for Test matches, England are the best in the world. India's grounds are half empty most the time, like during the 'revenge' series :laugh:unless there's hit and giggle going on. Australia seem to do well, but their fans are a touch fickle. Everywhere else it's empty, or half-empty. Unless England are the away side, in which case the ground is filled out more than usual, 'cos England have the best travelling support in the world.

The England who believed in themselves and turned around a difficult situation in the 4th test through some positive bowling can be a test match fan's delight. But the kind of negative cricket they played yesterday was atrocious from the point of view of a test cricket fan. If England Start from a negative approach and throw out the possibilities of a win the moment the opposition scores a few runs, if they play such dud cricket for 5 games, I can tell you people won't be lining up too much to watch the borfest anymore.
England may have played what can at best be called strategic cricket yesterday, by no means was it good test cricket.
When England toured India last year, the track that was prepared for the 4th test was an atrociously low and slow one where batsman or bowler had no hint of life. England played some terrific cricket on that bortrack when they grinded the Indians down there that was good cricket from them. But the track and whatever strategy that was behind that pathetic track was an absolutely borfest, absolutely unhealthy for test cricket.

"But the kind of negative cricket they played yesterday was atrocious from the point of view of a test cricket fan"

We agree on a lot of stuff bud- but this is just hyperbole. Way ott

I think it was appropriate in a situation where you are never going to win so you are ensuring you don't lose. Sensible test cricket.

Yeah completely trebs- we played to the situation at hand and IMO perfectly. I made that point more than once yesterday

I think we did ok given how many of the top order are out of form.

I've a funny feeling they will come into form down under.

Roots score deserves credit I feel. and even if the others didn't quite score enough. They took deliveries.

mystiroakey wrote:"But the kind of negative cricket they played yesterday was atrocious from the point of view of a test cricket fan"

We agree on a lot of stuff bud- but this is just hyperbole. Way ott

I always value a player who can grind the opposition down when needed and play a not so goodlooking but a very good test innings. AB de Villiers is one of my favorite players and we all know he can do some incredible things with the bat in his hand. As I mentioned above, the 30 odd he scored in the du Plessis test was one of his better efforts in my view. But there was a context to that. There was none that demanded such a dud approach from England yesterday. And I find it very difficult to take when people respond by blasting the T-20 drum every time when when people ask for some positive cricket. Alfie's post above was a different one, as there were a few entirely reasonable points in there.
But I would point out to a few other things. Even when playing a bit more positive cricket on even more demanding tracks, the England batsmen who got out, Cook, Trott and Kevin Pietersen had maintained performance levels similar to this. Root, it can be argued, has kind benefited from the slow go approach. But the rest of them haven't gone on to score big despite playing the slow go game. Say EEngland were 250-2 or something with Cook, Trott or Pietersen with a hundred to their name batting on, perhaps this could have been more meaningful. Now when the game restarts, one wicket is all that Australia need to reach the out of form Matt Prior and the England lower order, and they still can take a big lead. But if England managed to score another 50-60 runs with perhaps one more additional wicket down, Prior and co could have played with no follow-on pressure and cut down the lead further. the more the lead is cut down, the better England's chances of saving the game. With Australia never to far away from a collapse, an England win couldn't have been out of the question either.
I don't think the big fist innings total should automatically mean the opposition shut shop in the first innings itself and play for the draw from day 3. That for me is not really good test cricket. You could always play with positive intent, if it is a good test track, there could be more life for the bowlers on the last couple of days, you can always try to have a go at the other team in the 2nd innings.

The win would have been at best a 1 in 400 shot and if we tried the chances are we could have lost. We can judge the situation before and say- do we play positively and pride runs or do we play negatively priding wickets(we have to play the draw its the only option.No sense going for a win- It just couldn't realistically happen considering we only have at best 2-2.5 days of cricket left and 500 down on a slow scoring pitch)- the benefit of the first is that sometimes it gets you to a better score, the benefit of the second is that even if don't hit that score you time waste,, We can only then have a pop if the option picked failed. It worked in this case- So thats it really.

Hindsight tells us there were right. what else is there to say. Talking about the positive way of playing test is normal the angle I use.. I hate the way england sometimes play. Not this time. Spot on..

I don't think the big fist innings total should automatically mean the opposition shut shop in the first innings itself and play for the draw from day 3. That for me is not really good test cricket. You could always play with positive intent, if it is a good test track, there could be more life for the bowlers on the last couple of days, you can always try to have a go at the other team in the 2nd innings.

Exactly. Australia have had more than a few collapses in this series, England could well had set it up to a point where Australia have to bat a couple of tricky sessions on a spinning pitch.

The team selection and tactics to me are just overly negative, and suggest that despite the bravado, England were never really overly fussed about winning this test.

I think there are some subtle points still being missed...

It was not just the big score Australia made , but the amount of time taken out of the game ...with a serious prospect of further time loss ( as we watch the rain come down...). Makes the risk/reward equation a different proposition altogether.
And I rather doubt England actually wanted to score at 2.19 per over. Their first thought was : no unnecessary risks ; and that and the good Australian bowling dictated slower than desired scoring. Of course right at the end Woakes and Bell shut it right down in poor light , and I don't blame them...we can quibble with some of the earlier stuff , but frankly another forty runs , say , would not have made up for perhaps two wickets , so I think we are arguing about small margins.

Of course full speed ahead and to hell with the consequences would have been exciting , and might have produced 350/3 ...but more likely all out 285. Imagine BBC comments section would have had fun with that  

well no some people have missed them alfie. not all!!

Duty281 wrote: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 didn't say that at all. I clearly mentioned I wasn't looking for entertainment but at least some positive intent. And I thought there was something between 2 runs per over and 4.50 runs per over but you love your hyperboles.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Duty281 wrote: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 didn't say that at all. I clearly mentioned I wasn't looking for entertainment but at least some positive intent. And I thought there was something between 2 runs per over and 4.50 runs per over but you love your hyperboles.

This does amuse me. Obviously a bit more intent=hitting every ball.

KP_fan wrote:

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Just pointing out that I don't believe or to be honest see the logic in your argument that England's approach to Test Cricket is "killing the interest in test cricket".
Dorothy_Mantooth

England is already amonsgt the least salebale teams in the market...inspite of having such quality their stars don't get bought in IPL.
 

England are killing Test Cricket because their players are not that desirable for IPL franchises?  

If England's cricket is boring and predictable, then KP_Fan must be their Internet Troll equivalent.

because England are boring and defensive.....their players are not in demand in IPL....nor their team not called for various money spinning bilateral ODI and triangulars.......is what I said.
Twisting the words to prove your point......doesn't prove the point unfortunately

You said England are killing test cricket. Then backed it up about IPL and ODI facts.

England don't have players the ipl want, aussie have plenty and see where it's got their test team.

Today looks done then.

so we can expect more anger at England when they continue this steady approach tomorrow, as it's the only sensible thing left to do with only one day to go.

Delayed start again today but they hope it'll clear and there will be play from after lunch. [edit] 11:30 start.
 
time running out and we're in innings one.  Aussie will be looking to force the follow on then surely.  if they don't and Eng make another 100 then a result looks unlikely.

Play to start at 11.30am and 98 overs to be bowled.

16 wickets in 98 overs for Australia then. 1 every six overs (ish).

Boycott hits top form on TMS:

"They're too greedy with having two Ashes series, and then the Aussies coming back here in 2015. I used to love my mum, when she was alive, cooking me steak and kidney pie. But if she fed me it on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, I'd be throwing it at her."

I agree with Boycott on this
 
 
It is greedy and I've little interest.  Killing a good series with an unwanted back to back set-up and yet back again in 2015. Eng and Aussie will be bored stiff of each other.
 
A variety of opponents is far more interesting than this. This is all about money, not fans or player welfare either.

I see tms people are still asking for positive from England.

if they did that and threw away the game i'd be very annoyed.

play the situation, make it safe, it's test cricket.

It weren't the Ashes I'd like to have seen a couple of declarations an England chase since its a dead rubber

As it is all England will do is bat past the follow on

I cannot believe the wait for SA.

The two best teams need to be playing against each other

trebellbobaggins wrote:I see tms people are still asking for positive from England.

if they did that and threw away the game i'd be very annoyed.

play the situation, make it safe, it's test cricket.

Agreed. Game plan should still be to bore Australia (and the crowd) to death. No need to try and force a result.

Of course, with Prior now in, I don't think it'll be too long before England are 6 down...

Woakes didn't last very long - a very inconspicuous debut with the bat. Still better than his bowling though.

England 269-5. Should still avoid the follow-on.

dyrewolfe wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote:I see tms people are still asking for positive from England.

if they did that and threw away the game i'd be very annoyed.

play the situation, make it safe, it's test cricket.

Agreed. Game plan should still be to bore Australia (and the crowd) to death. No need to try and force a result.

Of course, with Prior  now in, I don't think it'll be too long before England are 6 down...

Woakes didn't last very long - a very inconspicuous debut with the bat. Still better than his bowling though.

England 269-5. Should still avoid the follow-on.

Woakes has taken as many wickets as Broad and scored as many runs as Cook. Not too bad a debut.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote:I see tms people are still asking for positive from England.

if they did that and threw away the game i'd be very annoyed.

play the situation, make it safe, it's test cricket.

Agreed. Game plan should still be to bore Australia (and the crowd) to death. No need to try and force a result.

Of course, with Prior  now in, I don't think it'll be too long before England are 6 down...

Woakes didn't last very long - a very inconspicuous debut with the bat. Still better than his bowling though.

England 269-5. Should still avoid the follow-on.

Woakes has taken as many wickets as Broad and scored as many runs as Cook. Not too bad a debut.

Not exactly setting a very high standard there, are you?

I've been out. Woakes failed then.

What a cracking selection that was.

I like it though.  Lose the toss, select a couple of weak choices and bait Aussie into scoring far too many and taking far too much time out of the game (having seen the weather that was coming).

Having said that, they could still lose with how far behind they are.

I'm not sure what Aussie take from it,  two batsmen finally did well on a track so flat that batting first was always going to see a big score, especially against a poorly selected side.

It should mean they keep Watson and smith though so that's ideal. All seems a bit tactical to me.

dyrewolfe wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote:I see tms people are still asking for positive from England.

if they did that and threw away the game i'd be very annoyed.

play the situation, make it safe, it's test cricket.

Agreed. Game plan should still be to bore Australia (and the crowd) to death. No need to try and force a result.

Of course, with Prior  now in, I don't think it'll be too long before England are 6 down...

Woakes didn't last very long - a very inconspicuous debut with the bat. Still better than his bowling though.

England 269-5. Should still avoid the follow-on.

Woakes has taken as many wickets as Broad and scored as many runs as Cook. Not too bad a debut.

Not exactly setting a very high standard there, are you?

Not too high, no  
Still, while not a great debut, I don't see it as being a particularly poor one either. Average is about right.