Ashes Summary: Eng got lucky with Tosses and Rains

by KP_fan Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

So it's ended. .....a great masala entertainment spectacle comes to an end.....a bit soggy in the end but entertaining for most part neverthless.

Ashes Review: Same as summary in the headline

Verdict: There are undisputed champions ( like Obama in this presidential election)...and then there are situational winners ( like Bush winning his first term)

Any-way winner on record is what history will remeber so congratulations Eng.

Man of the Series: DRS

Positives

For England:
Bell
Chicken Tikka Masala flavoured desi pitches

For Aus in descending order:
Harris
Smith
Rogers
Lyon
Watson
Warner
Agar

Who has the momentum.......anyone's call laughing

by Duty281 Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:56 pm

And Australia don't have a winning mentality. England have crushed them, whether it's 3-0 or 4-0.

by trebellbobaggins Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:38 pm

I think you meant unlucky with the light not to win 4-0.

clarkes negatively too scared he would lose and batting to until tea denied the fans a result. England outplayed them again.

by KP_fan Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:43 pm

KP when not throttled is an electric player....a misfit in this rather defensive team.

Hats off to Clark...what a declaration........as Warne said he was willing to risk a losss to win it..... clap

goes back defnitely as the more positve leader

by CaledonianCraig Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:44 pm

Yes he was positive he wanted off the pitch for bad light. So bad the light was that the last act was Starc to hit the wicket for a run out from 10 yards away.

by Duty281 Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:50 pm

So this series then, briefly:

1) England have the momentum going into the winter. Australia desperately hanging on to avoid 4-0, tells it all.

2) England have the winning mentality. They've won all the key moments in the series, and crushed Australia. Australia haven't won a thing. England haven't even been at their best.

3) Australia have had the lions share of the luck. Two horrific calls against England nearly cost them the first Test, and only the light saved England from winning 4 nil.

4) England are not solely reliant on Anderson for the bowling. He was rather off-colour after the first Test.

5) Ian Bell rediscovers his touch, the only 1 of the top 5 in a consistent vein of form.

6) Australia have problems with the batting order. It's all over the place, and horribly inconsistent.

7) Australia do have some decent bowlers however, and do possess strong weapons in Harris and Siddle. No class spinner though.

8) Two fingers to all the England-haters. The media and pundits that have called them 'negative' and such like. England got it spot on in this series.

9) DRS was largely good, bar a couple of high-profile howlers by the 3rd umpire.

Prediction for Down Under: - Australia 1-4 England

Best moment of this series, for me anyway, was this ball by Anderson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEhjPftFYw

by CaledonianCraig Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:51 pm

Duty281 wrote:So this series then, briefly:

1) England have the momentum going into the winter. Australia desperately hanging on to avoid 4-0, tells it all.

2) England have the winning mentality. They've won all the key moments in the series, and crushed Australia. Australia haven't won a thing. England haven't even been at their best.

3) Australia have had the lions share of the luck. Two horrific calls against England nearly cost them the first Test, and only the light saved England from winning 4 nil.

4) England are not solely reliant on Anderson for the bowling. He was rather off-colour after the first Test.

5) Ian Bell rediscovers his touch, the only 1 of the top 5 in a consistent vein of form.

6) Australia have problems with the batting order. It's all over the place, and horribly inconsistent.

7) Australia do have some decent bowlers however, and do possess strong weapons in Harris and Siddle. No class spinner though.

8) Two fingers to all the England-haters. The media and pundits that have called them 'negative' and such like. England got it spot on in this series.

9) DRS was largely good, bar a couple of high-profile howlers by the 3rd umpire.

Prediction for Down Under: - Australia 1-4 England

Best moment of this series, for me anyway, was this ball by Anderson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEhjPftFYw

Pretty much spot on. clap

by Duty281 Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:52 pm

KP_fan wrote:KP when not throttled is an electric player....a misfit in this rather defensive team.

Hats off to Clark...what a declaration........as Warne said he was willing to risk a losss to win it.....
goes back defnitely as the more positve leader

That time-wasting really showed it!

by KP_fan Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:54 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes he was positive he wanted off the pitch for bad light. So bad the light was that the last act was Starc to hit the wicket for a run out from 10 yards away.

it's not in his hands "want"...umpires decisions

by CaledonianCraig Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:57 pm

KP he was imploring the umpires to take them off and at one point was squaring up to the umpire. And that was after a few overs of deliberately stalling for time and moaning to the umpires. I bet Shane Warne is embarassed now.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:14 pm

Duty281 wrote:
KP_fan wrote:KP when not throttled is an electric player....a misfit in this rather defensive team.

Hats off to Clark...what a declaration........as Warne said he was willing to risk a losss to win it.....
goes back defnitely as the more positve leader
That time-wasting really showed it!

Clarke is pretender in reality he is just a cry baby, he made stupid decision thinking his team will bowl English out but when found out English are shooting their ass out for a win he started crying to umpire for light, deliberately made his bowlers delay the over, if you are not worried about a defeat, then he should not have kept on crying, after all 3 bowling 3-4 overs wouldn't have cost Clarke's life, he shouldn't have pressurized the umpire to force a decision on his favor, he should have been sporting enough to let the umpire decide on their own, such a cry baby.

The fact is Clarke is a big cry baby, now Shane Warne's comment on Clarke's decision looks utter crap and stupidity. thumbsdown

by KP_fan Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:20 pm

there is diffrence between Brave and Foolhardy....
Clarke is defnitely brave...but neither foolhardy nor stupid.

England have a lot of introspection to do.....so much capable when playing positively...and yet inherently so negative.....so self doubting.

by trebellbobaggins Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:21 pm

Duty281 wrote:So this series then, briefly:

1) England have the momentum going into the winter. Australia desperately hanging on to avoid 4-0, tells it all.

2) England have the winning mentality. They've won all the key moments in the series, and crushed Australia. Australia haven't won a thing. England haven't even been at their best.

3) Australia have had the lions share of the luck. Two horrific calls against England nearly cost them the first Test, and only the light saved England from winning 4 nil.

4) England are not solely reliant on Anderson for the bowling. He was rather off-colour after the first Test.

5) Ian Bell rediscovers his touch, the only 1 of the top 5 in a consistent vein of form.

6) Australia have problems with the batting order. It's all over the place, and horribly inconsistent.

7) Australia do have some decent bowlers however, and do possess strong weapons in Harris and Siddle. No class spinner though.

8) Two fingers to all the England-haters. The media and pundits that have called them 'negative' and such like. England got it spot on in this series.

9) DRS was largely good, bar a couple of high-profile howlers by the 3rd umpire.

Prediction for Down Under: - Australia 1-4 England

Best moment of this series, for me anyway, was this ball by Anderson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEhjPftFYw

yep.

if I lost 3-0 when my opposite team batted so badly and are better in my own country i'd be worried sick.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:22 pm

KP_fan wrote:So it's ended. .....a great masala entertainment spectacle comes to an end.....a bit soggy in the end but entertaining for most part neverthless.

Ashes Review: Same as summary in the headline

Verdict: There are undisputed champions ( like Obama in this presidential election)...and then there are situational winners ( like Bush winning his first term)

Any-way winner on record is what history will remeber so congratulations Eng.

Man of the Series: DRS

Positives

For England:
Bell
Chicken Tikka Masala flavoured desi pitches

For Aus in descending order:
Harris
Smith
Rogers
Lyon
Watson
Warner
Agar

Who has the momentum.......anyone's call

The current cry baby Australian captain making their fans a cry baby too, England should have easily won 4-0 had it not been for weather issues, to say English won coz of tosses and tailor made pitches is poking a knife into self ass.

Outside Rogers the current Aussie team sucked big time and the biggest worry is there is no bench strength either, rewind 10 years back even Aussie 3rd grade [Let alone Aussie National and A team] team would win most international teams comfortably on away pitches.

If you grade the performance out of 10 for both sides, England in my view will score 9/10 and Australia 2.5 out of 10, out of the 2.5 a full point is due to Rogers and other 1.5 is for the entire team. I hope Bangladesh and Zim tour Australia now coz they might make some history.

by trebellbobaggins Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:23 pm

KP_fan wrote:there is diffrence between Brave and Foolhardy....
Clarke is defnitely brave...but neither foolhardy nor stupid.

England have a lot of introspection to do.....so much capable when playing positively...and yet inherently so negative.....so self doubting.

as does Clarke, starting with "I need the courage of my convictions".

by invisiblecoolers Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:29 pm

KP_fan wrote:there is diffrence between Brave and Foolhardy....
England have a lot of introspection to do.....so much capable when playing positively...and yet inherently so negative.....so self doubting.

By your terms Clarke was certainly a foolhardy and not brave, a Brave never cries, Clarke kept on using negative tactics to prevent a stunning England win which scenario resulted due to the stupidity of his decision, either Clarke should have batted and proved a draw or should have backed his own decision and should have let England play the last 3-4 overs, but Clarke knew his so called brave decision started looking stupidity he used all his back door techniques to halt the English charge.

Clarke might have saved the day for Aussies with his negative tactics but it won't prevent his new name of cry baby among the genuine cricket fans thumbsdown

, he has a lot to learn from another great Aussie Leader Steve Waugh how to play the game better on technical as well as gutsy aspect.

by msp83 Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:16 pm

Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.

by GSC Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:30 pm

I agree. The Clarke bashing is boring. Australia could've very easily batted out the day, they made a game of it.

The complaints about time wasting are yawn inducing. How about England's over rate?

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:30 pm

msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.

No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:33 pm

Yes in hindsight I retract my condemnations of Clarke. At least his declaration made for a potentially exciting end to the match which otherwise would have been a drab draw.

by KP_fan Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:34 pm

further at no point did I see clarke asking his bowlers to deliberately bowl......2 to 3 bouncers per over to stop scoring.
or deliberatley 3 deliveries / over down the leg side that will not be wided because it is a test match

or get the spinner to ball on leg stump and put 7 or 8 fielders on the leg side.......like Hussain did using ashley giles.

Aus really went positively.......and fairly all the way.

The crowd owes the entertainement to the positive spirit of the Ausies

by msp83 Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:37 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.
No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.

Hoggy, experienced cricket watcher and poster you are, I don't need to tell you that Australia actually took a chance pushing for a win in a very difficult situation. I am sure you would realize the situation at the end was not similar to taking a chance while going for the win. There is a difference between being risky and being foolish. What Clarke did at the end was not to act foolish. England's dud batting on day 3 is not really similar, they didn't really try to go for the win and gave up on it by the end of day 2.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:38 pm

KP fan it works both ways.

Yes credit Clarke for a declaration to set up a possible result but also have the dignity for crediting England for the run chase they put up. They could have shut up shop and played for a tame draw but they took on the challenge and it would have paid off but for the bad light.

by Duty281 Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:40 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.
No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.

My sentiment exactly HB. On it's own, I wouldn't have minded Australia doing it, any team in the world would have done, but Australia were moaning about this, that and the other beforehand. Absolute hypocrisy.

Never mind, Australia surely won't be as lucky down under as they were in this series.

by Duty281 Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:42 pm

msp83 wrote:
Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.
No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.
Hoggy, experienced cricket watcher and poster you are, I don't need to tell you that Australia actually took a chance pushing for a win in a very difficult situation. I am sure you would realize the situation at the end was not similar to taking a chance while going for the win. There is a difference between being risky and being foolish. What Clarke did at the end was not to act foolish. England's dud batting on day 3 is not really similar, they didn't really try to go for the win and gave up on it by the end of day 2.

Dud batting? laughing

Absolutely perfect for the situation more like. You don't see many teams going for the win after conceding 500 first up.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:45 pm

msp83 wrote:
Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.
No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.
Hoggy, experienced cricket watcher and poster you are, I don't need to tell you that Australia actually took a chance pushing for a win in a very difficult situation. I am sure you would realize the situation at the end was not similar to taking a chance while going for the win. There is a difference between being risky and being foolish. What Clarke did at the end was not to act foolish. England's dud batting on day 3 is not really similar, they didn't really try to go for the win and gave up on it by the end of day 2.

MSP
England's batting on day 3 actually helped create the situation that occurred today and was their best bet of going for a win.
Again, how would scoring the same amount of runs more quickly have made England more likely to win? How would giving Australia more time to build a lead in their second innings have helped England?

by KP_fan Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:46 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:KP fan it works both ways.

Yes credit Clarke for a declaration to set up a possible result but also have the dignity for crediting England for the run chase they put up. They could have shut up shop and played for a tame draw but they took on the challenge and it would have paid off but for the bad light.

I already said....eng have to introspect....

they are capable of playing positive and yet they have been deliberately far within themlseves......dead defensive from the start of the 3rd test.

If they can play like they showed they can today...the've gotta do it much more often....and set up games.
rather than relying on the opponent's charity to set it up on a platter.

Eng have the greatest depth in their batting.....and have all successful batters in the last 1 year except Bairstow.....and yet they are so negative.

My complain is seeing their skills vs. approach.
If they were flaky like WI or Pak with the bat.....I would understand

by GSC Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:49 pm

It is a characteristic of this England team that they get very negative when they get behind. Even on day 2 they were slowing down the game with slow over rates.

We will need to raise our game for Australia though.

by msp83 Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:52 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:
Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.
No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.
Hoggy, experienced cricket watcher and poster you are, I don't need to tell you that Australia actually took a chance pushing for a win in a very difficult situation. I am sure you would realize the situation at the end was not similar to taking a chance while going for the win. There is a difference between being risky and being foolish. What Clarke did at the end was not to act foolish. England's dud batting on day 3 is not really similar, they didn't really try to go for the win and gave up on it by the end of day 2.
MSP
England's batting on day 3 actually helped create the situation that occurred today and was their best bet of going for a win.
Again, how would scoring the same amount of runs more quickly have made England more likely to win? How would giving Australia more time to build a lead in their second innings have helped England?

Hoggy, why do you think that England would have scored only the same amount of runs by adopting a more positive approach. Australia lost only 4 wickets on day one of the test while scoring over 300 runs. Day too produced only 5 Australian lower order wickets. Day 3, despite England's dud batting approach saw 4 of their top 6 back in the hut, and despite an extended day of 98 overs, they scored only 215. A positive approach may have taken England beyond what they managed in the end. Even that was facilitated by Graeme Swann's hyperactive approach and not by dud batting. In fact they had lost Bell and Woakes early today.

by GSC Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:54 pm

Lets say England tried to win it, lost quick wickets and time wasted before bad light intervened with England 9 down. Nobody would be complaining.

Clarke trying to win the game doesn't mean he has to automatically accept the loss if it doesn't pay off

by KP_fan Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:56 pm

GSC wrote:It is a characteristic of this England team that they get very negative when they get behind. Even on day 2 they were slowing down the game with slow over rates.

We will need to raise our game for Australia though.

I think Flower has outlived his utility.

His approach of slow / careful / defensive / let's ensure we don't lose it first/ worried we might crash in aheap anytime.......served it's purpose in building a side from a lowly ranking he inherited to the top of the chart and a healthy deserving No.2 now..

with several ashes wins under the belt.

The time for that approach in italics above is finished.....this English team has a lot more skill and spirit and resillience......and from their high platform needs to kick in the next higher gear.

They need a startegist who is positive / aggressive and willing to make them a dominating champion......and not timid as Flower appears to be in the context of the current standing of Eng.

Media is reporting he might retire after the ashes downunder...and I think that would be good timing...if not already a bit late

by GSC Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:01 pm

I think Flower has done an immense job. I do think handing over the ODI job to Giles was a good move.

Grass is always greener on the other side with coaches. Well see once the likes of KP, Swann and Anderson walk away

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:04 pm

Flower has done brilliantly as England coach, No 1 test status, first win down under for 24 years, first win in India for ages, two home Ashes wins, T20 World Cup win, the only real blip on his CV in my mind is the South Africa series last year.

I hope he stays on personally

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:05 pm

msp83 wrote:
Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:
Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.
No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.
Hoggy, experienced cricket watcher and poster you are, I don't need to tell you that Australia actually took a chance pushing for a win in a very difficult situation. I am sure you would realize the situation at the end was not similar to taking a chance while going for the win. There is a difference between being risky and being foolish. What Clarke did at the end was not to act foolish. England's dud batting on day 3 is not really similar, they didn't really try to go for the win and gave up on it by the end of day 2.
MSP
England's batting on day 3 actually helped create the situation that occurred today and was their best bet of going for a win.
Again, how would scoring the same amount of runs more quickly have made England more likely to win? How would giving Australia more time to build a lead in their second innings have helped England?
Hoggy, why do you think that England would have scored only the same amount of runs by adopting a more positive approach. Australia lost only 4 wickets on day one of the test while scoring over 300 runs. Day too produced only 5 Australian lower order wickets. Day 3, despite England's dud batting approach saw 4 of their top 6 back in the hut, and despite an extended day of 98 overs, they scored only 215. A positive approach may have taken England beyond what they managed in the end. Even that was facilitated by Graeme Swann's hyperactive approach and not by dud batting. In fact they had lost Bell and Woakes early today.

A more positive approach may have led them to score more runs. It may also have led them to score less runs. Taking a more cautious approach not only made a draw more likely, but also gave England at least as good a chance of winning. Taking time out of the game, knowing there was weather coming, and knowing that Australia were desperate to win after their good first innings, helped ensure the draw and also made a scenario such as we saw today, more likely. If they'd have batted more positively and NOT scored more runs than they did (or made even less), they'd have been playing right into Australia's hands. Why take the risk, at 3-0, when a less risky approach is just as likely to create the opportunity to win?

by Duty281 Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:16 pm

Flower's an excellent coach. Lost just 2 Test Series since April 2009 says it all.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:47 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.
No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.

Perfectly said clap

by alfie Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:52 am

KP_fan wrote:here are some opinions

Ashes 2013: England Oval Test performance deflating - Agnew
England have simply not been at the races in this fifth Test, and that is bitterly disappointing.

This has not felt like a celebration of an Ashes series won. Instead, we have been watching a side that looks significantly off the pace.

This England team does not appear to respond well to being on the back foot. They get a little stroppy, a little "we're taking our ball home with us".

They say that they are a win-at-all-costs outfit. They interpret playing hard as playing to give nothing away, so when they are behind in the match, they are happy to go ultra-defensive and attempt to slow the game right down.

The performance only gives more ammunition to those Australians who say that the current 3-0 score does not accurately reflect the gap between these two teams.

Australia may indeed have lost these Ashes. But they have sorted out their issues nicely as it comes to an end.

Shane Watson is now inked in at three. Steve Smith is inked in at five. Both have been allowed here to make significant centuries that will put them in far better shape for the forthcoming series down under.

...Agnew on BBC

Reckon this looks pretty silly after day five , does it not ?

by alfie Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:58 am

msp83 wrote:As for Australia, their batting does remain rather fragile and too dependent on Clarke. The one real positive is Steven Smith. It was ridiculous that the selectors didn't choose him for the original Ashes squad after his performances in India Eventually sense prevailed and Smith has done reasonably well in the series, and earned for himself a fair run in that number 5 position. Hopefully he gives a bit of time to work on his ones promising bowling, so that he could remain a handy parttime bowling option at least. Would have liked James Faulkner getting a more meaningful opportunity with the bat. I have a good feel about the lad. I am fairly sure he could offer more as an overall package than the likes of Phillip Hughes and Uzman Khawaja do and that he should be given a fair run in the side, and I think he should bat ahead of the wicketkeeper batsman, Haddin or Wade.
Austraqlia have showed that they are capable of competing against this England team. Home conditions should prove a lot more friendly for them, and captain Clarke is a run machine at home. Their hit the deck seamers should also find home conditions more helpful. The Australians would be doing whatever they can with the conditions so that Graeme Swann wouldn't have too many advantages to create a lot of trouble for them.
So England can and should get a lot more fight from Australia in the return series.

Pretty much agree with that , except I am not sure Faulkner has a place...doubt his batting is quite strong enough for top six , and he remains more of an ODI bowler. He is certainly a trier , but to be brutally honest , triers don't win too many Test Matches.

by alfie Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:11 am

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
msp83 wrote:Clarke gets lots of credit to make something out of a nothing situation in this game. Having seen England's tactics, not just the dud batting on day 3, but the time wasting tactics and all, I don't think there is any real ground to complain.
No-one would complain about Australia's time wasting today, if there hadn't been so many noises coming from their side complaining about England doing the same and accusing them of lacking bravery for trying to ensure that they wouldn't lose a match in a situation where that was a likely outcome.

Absolutely. Sauce for the goose , and all...

by KP_fan Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:49 am

alfie wrote:
KP_fan wrote:here are some opinions

Ashes 2013: England Oval Test performance deflating - Agnew
England have simply not been at the races in this fifth Test, and that is bitterly disappointing.

This has not felt like a celebration of an Ashes series won. Instead, we have been watching a side that looks significantly off the pace.

This England team does not appear to respond well to being on the back foot. They get a little stroppy, a little "we're taking our ball home with us".

They say that they are a win-at-all-costs outfit. They interpret playing hard as playing to give nothing away, so when they are behind in the match, they are happy to go ultra-defensive and attempt to slow the game right down.

The performance only gives more ammunition to those Australians who say that the current 3-0 score does not accurately reflect the gap between these two teams.

Australia may indeed have lost these Ashes. But they have sorted out their issues nicely as it comes to an end.

Shane Watson is now inked in at three. Steve Smith is inked in at five. Both have been allowed here to make significant centuries that will put them in far better shape for the forthcoming series down under.

...Agnew on BBC
Reckon this looks pretty silly after day five , does it not ?

stung by criticism such as above....Prior, Swann ( as they showed in first inning) and KP decided to take matters in their hand.....much to the disagreement and annoyance of Flower I suspect Smile

by KP_fan Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:31 am

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/665431.html

ECB Chairman Giles asks the ECB to change the light rule.

Don't be a knee-jerker Mr. Giles.....it might come to bite in the back anotehr day in anotehr situation Smile

by Sponsored content