Ashes Summary: Eng got lucky with Tosses and Rains

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

ShankyCricket wrote:

GSC wrote:Hmm. 3-0 certainly flatters England, who haven't really played that well

However Australia have probably played about as well as they could expect bar a few more Clarke specials, couple of their batsmen come off occasionally. They have a top class seam attack but no wicket taking spinner.

Australia will probably feel happier than when they arrived about their chances in the return series. Would've won at OT without rain intervention, and came very close at TB.

England will know they have quite a bit more in their locker, but they'll have to bring it out in Australia, with Swann unlikely to be given the conditions to be a factor.

Well said. Nice to see some people maintain perspective amidst all this rather childish banter.

Getting silly now. Professional sport these days is all about winning at all costs. It is so obvious.

My England XI for Brisbane

Cook
Root
Trott
KP
Bell
Woakes
Prior
Broad
Swann
Tremlett
Anderson

Australia

Warner
Rogers
Watson
Clarke
Smith
S Marsh/Bailey/Faulkner
Haddin
Harris
Siddle
Pattinson
Lyon/Ahmed

MSP, why would you prefer Finn to Tremlett? I understand that you consider Bresnan as the defensive option (even if I don't agree) but why Finn ahead of Tremlett? Tremlett has a better test record and is far more consistent and reliable. He's done well against top sides too and his test record isn't built on the back of bullying Bangladesh.

Depends if Tremlett is test fit.

I think if you play Tremlett you have to pick Woakes so Tremlett only has to bowl short spells

If Finn plays you can play another bat

 

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

GSC wrote:The main difference to me, when England were on top they knew how to press home their advantage.

we will see when the pitches are not to doctors order and when tosses are lost

Oh dear, KP_fan still hasn't grasped the concept of how 'no rain' equals 'dry pitches'.

I do love the way people think that during the warmest and dryest summer for ten years, England must have had some hand in the dry pitches

Here, at The Oval if anything it's been over-watered - making it boring

And that's the problem over here, we don't have a climate quite hot enough to produce pacey wickets and if there is no rain then it can produce non-productive pitches

Cook alluded to England asking for some turners iirc, and Strauss said on commentary England did the same for the Oval in 09.

Nothing wrong with it

I have Woakes in my team, GSC and yes, you're right that Tremlett's fitness renders the thought of picking him in a 4 man attack a tad risky. I think the same could be said of Finn though, not cos of fitness reasons but rather due to his appalling inconsistencies and I think he too would be more effective, operating in short bursts, in a 5 man attack.
If I were to pick only 4 bowlers, then Bresnan would be my choice for the 3rd seamer as he can bowl longer spells and is solid and reliable, even if a little unspectacular according to some.
I'd personally start with Woakes at 6 though, especially if he scores a few runs tomorrow as I'm not sure any of the alternative specialist batting options for the number 6 slot are vastly better batsmen than him. For starters, Woakes has an infinitely better technique than the horrendously out of his depth incumbent number 6 (Bairstow).

I'm not sure they're done with Bairstow tbh. I agree on Finn an Bresnan but I don't think he needs as much insurance as Tremletts back.

I've never really thought Woakes is good enough for tests. Better bat than Bres but lesser bowler.

James Taylor must wonder what he needs to do to get a fair chance

GSC wrote:Depends if Tremlett is test fit.

I think if you play Tremlett you have to pick Woakes so Tremlett only has to bowl short spells

If Finn plays you can play another bat

Much as I'm a fan of Woakes I don't think he'll be in the team for the first test in Oz (I might be wrong though, he might make a ton tomorrow). Reckon if Bresnan is fit England'll go back to the tried and trusted trundler. Do think Woakes'll be in the squad though and it'll probably be between him, Bairstow and, possibly, Taylor or Ballance for the no. 6 slot. The specialist batsmen will offer more runs, but Woakes will offer flexibility.
There is also, of course, the option of batting Prior at 6 (if he's recovered a bit of form), and having Woakes at 7. Normally I'm an advocate of 4 bowlers but, unless one of the batsmen stands up and stakes a real claim to the no.6 slot, Woakes would not be too bad a choice.

GSC wrote:Cook alluded to England asking for some turners iirc, and Strauss said on commentary England did the same for the Oval in 09.

Nothing wrong with it

Nothing wrong with it at all, indeed! Few things pi$$ me off more than any home side being criticised for "doctoring pitches". You call it "home advantage" for a reason and it is a sin not to use it to full advantage. A sin that India have been guilty of committing far too often over the last decade before the last series vs Australia, when we finally got to see some proper Indian turning tracks that assist the home side.

I think Woakes played this test because they wanted to try Kerrigan and therefore the 3rd seamer had to be a capable bat.

Think it'll be

Cook
Root
Trott
KP
Bell
Bairstow
Prior
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Finn

Though personally I'd prefer Compton to open and Root back in the middle order

Bairstow is a bit of a joke, in my view and Woakes offers more than him even with the bat without even considering his bowling. I share your concerns on his bowling but I don't really see him competing with Bres for a spot. Its Bairstow whom he is competing with and I've made no bones about who I'd rather have. Taylor is an interesting choice and I do agree that he deserves a chance but not sure they'll pick him. I'd definitely rate Woakes above Bairstow and that would also allow the inclusion of Tremlett.

To sum it up, if its 6+4, I'll go with Taylor at 6 and Bres as 3rd seamer.
If its 5+5, I'll have Woakes at 6 and Tremlett as third seamer.

ShankyCricket wrote:To sum it up, if its 6+4, I'll go with Taylor at 6 and Bres as 3rd seamer.
If its 5+5, I'll have Woakes at 6 and Tremlett as third seamer.

Yeah I'd go with that, but England's preferences since Flower took over would appear to point to the former although, of course, that may simply have been dictated by the lack of a credible all-rounder.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Who will be the happier and more confident side going into the series in Oz KP?
Australia, who haven't won in 9 tests and have just lost 0-3 to the opponents who they'll be facing, or England?

well Aus to me have the momentum...and they have been conditioned to think they are equal or if not better.
...and conditioned to believe that  only some luck and rain shows a lopsided scoreline.

and the brain works to the conditoned relaity...no matter what others think of the same situation.

I'm not a Bairstow fan but to be fair to him he has been mucked around a tad, carrying the drinks on the Champions Trophy rather than actually playing

msp83 wrote:
I won't say much about the toss and pitches. Toss could be significant in test matches, it was, is and will be the case in most conditions. Rain has certainly helped England a great deal more than it did Australia. The DRS mess initially helped England a bit more, and then Australia had their fair share of moments.

msp you will see Warne, Waugn, Agnew and many others echo the same perspective as me

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Who will be the happier and more confident side going into the series in Oz KP?
Australia, who haven't won in 9 tests and have just lost 0-3 to the opponents who they'll be facing, or England?

well Aus to me have the momentum...and they have been conditioned to think they are equal or if not better.
...and condironed to believe that  only some luck and rain shows a lopsided scoreline

Don't think the Aussie players are as easy to dupe as you appear to believe. They'll know deep down that England have won every important point throughout the series. Really don't think they'll view themselves as the better side on the basis of 'what ifs'.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Who will be the happier and more confident side going into the series in Oz KP?
Australia, who haven't won in 9 tests and have just lost 0-3 to the opponents who they'll be facing, or England?

well Aus to me have the momentum...and they have been conditioned to think they are equal or if not better.
...and condironed to believe that  only some luck and rain shows a lopsided scoreline

Don't think the Aussie players are as easy to dupe as you appear to believe. They'll know deep down that England have won every important point throughout the series. Really don't think they'll view themselves as the better side on the basis of 'what ifs'.

half the Eng doesn't believe that unfortunately.
look at BBC for a start

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Who will be the happier and more confident side going into the series in Oz KP?
Australia, who haven't won in 9 tests and have just lost 0-3 to the opponents who they'll be facing, or England?

well Aus to me have the momentum...and they have been conditioned to think they are equal or if not better.
...and condironed to believe that  only some luck and rain shows a lopsided scoreline

Don't think the Aussie players are as easy to dupe as you appear to believe. They'll know deep down that England have won every important point throughout the series. Really don't think they'll view themselves as the better side on the basis of 'what ifs'.

half the Eng doesn't believe that unfortunately.
look at BBC for a start

Doesn't matter who believes it, it's the truth. Every time England have been in a position to win they have. Every time Australia have got into a position from which they might win, they haven't.

Doesn't matter who believes it, it's the truth. Every time England have been in a position to win they have. Every time Australia have got into a position from which they might win, they haven't.

that is correct.

it is also a truth that they rode their luck on won tosses toward the wins they had......and luck of rain.

The aussies believe and many concurr:

T1 was a wafter thin affair where a diffrence in toss would have changed the fortunes.
T2 was comprehensive
T3 rain save Eng
T4 toss was significant factor
T5 rain saved Eng

at best Aus could have won the series 4-1 would be glass half full aussie persepective

England will go to Australia knowing they're the better team and they have room to improve

Australia will go knowing they can compete in unfavourable conditions however

KP_fan wrote:

Doesn't matter who believes it, it's the truth. Every time England have been in a position to win they have. Every time Australia have got into a position from which they might win, they haven't.

that is correct.

it is also a truth that they rode their luck on won tosses toward the wins they had......and luck of rain.

The aussies believe and many concurr:

T1 was a wafter thin affair where a diffrence in toss would have changed the fortunes.
T2 was comprehensive
T3 rain save Eng
T4 toss was significant factor
T5 rain saved Eng

at best Aus could have won the series 4-1 would be  glass half full aussie persepective

If the Aussies really do believe that they're simply fooling themselves.
You could say, from an English perspective,
T1 would have been an easy victory if Agar had been given out stumped as he should have been
T2 was comprehensive
T3 toss was vital and England were quite capable of batting out the day even without the rain
T4 was pretty easy win despite Australia fighting for a while
T5 toss was vital but England would have easily drawn anyway

Taylor isn't really a number six and there isn't any room for him higher up the order.

OP I shall post you a few facts.

England have won the series 3-0 and have been nowhere near their best. Look at their players performances:-

Cook has been well below par compared to previous series. Only one noteworthy century.

Root likewise has had a lean time of it with the bat. One big century and 68 here but precious little else.

Trott has also been disappointing - perhaps his poorest series for England?

Pietersen has been a little better but still patchy.

Bell has been the man of the series and been in great form.

Bairstow - too many starts without scores of substance.

Prior has had a very lean time with the bat by his recent high standards.

Broad has been very good with both bat and ball.

Bresnan decent with both ball and bat.

Swann has chipped in with key wickets at key times and played his part. One or two cameos with the bat.

Anderson has been mostly impressive but has had one or two dips in form.

In short England have under-performed but still won the series 3-0. Australia have played better than some people felt they would but have lacked the conviction/belief at key times.

My team for Brisbane would be as follows;

Cook
Root
Trott
KP
Bell
Bairstow/Taylor/Woakes
Prior
Bresnan
Broad
Swann
Anderson

The number 6/7 spot is the interesting one. Gone with trundler Timmy because he has a pretty good record against Australia, and I think he's just that bit more reliable than Finn. Tremlett for me is a horse for a course, so can come in if needed say at Perth again.

At 6 I'd be reluctant to go with Bairstow. If Prior is in good nick, I'd play him 6 and Woakes 7. I quite like Woakes, he could be a handy option in Aus

ShankyCricket wrote:

GSC wrote:Cook alluded to England asking for some turners iirc, and Strauss said on commentary England did the same for the Oval in 09.

Nothing wrong with it

Nothing wrong with it at all, indeed! Few things pi$$ me off more than any home side being criticised for "doctoring pitches". You call it "home advantage" for a reason and it is a sin not to use it to full advantage. A sin that India have been guilty of committing far too often over the last decade before the last series vs Australia, when we finally got to see some proper Indian turning tracks that assist the home side.

Can't agree more GSC and Shanky.
It was after a long time the Indians got it right.
Can't understand why some us want to claim the moral highground in such circumstances. England prepared green tops against India in 2011, they have gone for drier tracks where their much better spinner Graeme Swann could make a greater difference. Absolutely nothing wrong in that, none whatsoever.

ShankyCricket wrote:MSP, why would you prefer Finn to Tremlett? I understand that you consider Bresnan as the defensive option (even if I don't agree) but why Finn ahead of Tremlett? Tremlett has a better test record and is far more consistent and reliable. He's done well against top sides too and his test record isn't built on the back of bullying Bangladesh.

I seriously rate Chris Tremlett. But I am not too sure about his fitness levels any more. He has had a career of injuries despite possessing terrific attributes for a quick bowler. He's not young any more, and is about to reach the stage where fast bowlers would start to lose their pace, even without the kind of Tremlett's injury history, unless of course, your name is Courtney Andrew Walsh!.
But if Tremlett has it in him to operate at his near his best for one more series, I would of course start with him. Otherwise, it certainly has to be Finn for me.
Now regarding the number 6 spot. I don't see Chris Woakes as 1 of 4 bowlers for England. But I would certainly give him serious consideration as one of 5, provided he can do a decent job with the bat at 6. To be able to play him at 6 could in fact enhance the possibilities of the Tremlett selection. If England would want a 6th batsman, I think James Taylor should be given the opportunity. And I hope the selectors are firmly keeping Ben Stokes in the frame.

And Tim Bresnan, provided he absolutely recovers from the injury and is ready and capable of giving his best for the team, would remain my first reserve in the seam bowling department.

CaledonianCraig wrote:OP I shall post you a few facts.

England have won the series 3-0 and have been nowhere near their best. Look at their players performances:-

Cook has been well below par compared to previous series. Only one noteworthy century.

pressure of captaincy has taken it's toll.....Agnew, Bocott and many others have noted...his decline may be terminal

Root likewise has had a lean time of it with the bat. One big century and 68 here but precious little else.

yes he is a weak opener technically and mentally

Trott has also been disappointing - perhaps his poorest series for England?

according ot expert analysis he has been figured out....his play through square leg been blocked and hence ausies have choked him

Pietersen has been a little better but still patchy.

he has been throttled by his own team to bat like Trott

Bell has been the man of the series and been in great form.

correct only positive

Bairstow - too many starts without scores of substance.

sub-international-standard

Prior has had a very lean time with the bat by his recent high standards.

can bash medium pace still....unable to handle good quality bolwing now.

Broad has been very good with both bat and ball.

he has delivered only as expected with the ball and now can live two more seasons riding this deliverance ....with the bat....well we all know it was the cheating-gate that Lehman has talked already more than he should

Bresnan decent with both ball and bat.

too low expecttaion from bresnann if he is deemed OK with ball as the 3rd seamer.......with bat agreed OK

Swann has chipped in with key wickets at key times and played his part. One or two cameos with the bat.

swann has delivered as expected with the ball......on designer pitches.

Anderson has been mostly impressive but has had one or two dips in form.

delievred as expected of a top world class seamer



In short England have under-performed but still won the series 3-0. Australia have played better than some people felt they would but have lacked the conviction/belief at key times.

 
see my comments above in italics........there are some who delivered as expected for Eng( mainly top 3 bowlers).....Bell is the only one who delivered beyond anyone's expectations.
 
Rest have not just underperformed due to bad form type of situation......  but were either choked temperamentally or exposed both technically and temperamentally by superior Aussie bowling.
 
These technical / temperamental defecencies exposed by the Aussie bowling that in the previous series relatively more benign NZ and Indian bolwing weren't able to.
 
Hence Eng look vulnerable now....against higher quality of bowling.....and rightly so people say that if Aus was more lucky with tosses and rain the series scoreline wuld have been different.
 
I also notice that when the quality of bowling attacks is more superior...such as SA, Pakistan ( in UAE) and now Aus .......England's looks far more vulnerable than against more benign bolwing attacks like Ind or NZ.

Sorry KP but England's batsmen have struggled due to their own poor form. Sure the Aussies have bowled well in patches but I'd hazard a guess that England's batsmen even averaged higher scores in the series against South Africa who have a far better bowling attack than Australia. A fair few of England's batsmen have got out nibbling at balls outside the off-stump and not so many to jaffa's.

I'd like some statistician here to post you up each England batsman's average score in this series and compare it to series just gone when the bowling attack has been markedly better. Heck even the eternal optimist Shane Warne will tell you this is a very poor Australian attack compared to yesteryear.

Also since when have you heard Australia claiming things could have been different but for the weather? This smacks at desperate straw-clutching. We have had three tests unblighted by weather and England won them all. Granted the first test ended up closer than it should have been, the second test was a handsome 347 run win for England and the fourth test saw Australia collapse from a position of strength and in each of these tests England were hamstrung by misfiring batting. Sorry but if I were an Aussie I'd be mightily worried that they can't even win a test against a misfiring batting side.

England have won 3-0 without playing that well. Yes, Australia have got better as the series has gone on but I really don't think all this talk of momentum being with the Aussies is justified.
  Let's be clear. Australia have not won any of the last seven Tests against England, while England have won seven of the last 11.
  England, admittedly at times boring and defensive, have just chalked up a record-equalling home win margin against Australia with three of their best players - Cook, Trott and Priot - having comparatively poor series.
  Australia blew a winning position at Durham and lost all the key battles. Would they REALLY have won at Manchester if it had not rained. OK, it was possible, but England spent most of the series recovering from batting collapses and have plenty of recent history of fighting rearguards.
  As for the Oval, it could be that there will be those that reckoned Australia would have won there but for the rain. But they only (as I write) have taken four wickets in 116 overs.
  Australia may bowl better on faster pitches in Australia but I reckon England will bat better.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry KP but England's batsmen have struggled due to their own poor form. Sure the Aussies have bowled well in patches but I'd hazard a guess that England's batsmen even averaged higher scores in the series against South Africa who have a far better bowling attack than Australia. A fair few of England's batsmen have got out nibbling at balls outside the off-stump and not so many to jaffa's.

I'd like some statistician here to post you up each England batsman's average score in this series and compare it to series just gone when the bowling attack has been markedly better. Heck even the eternal optimist Shane Warne will tell you this is a very poor Australian attack compared to yesteryear.

there is no yester-year comparison here.
Only the comparison of this Aussie attack vs. the ones that NZ, SA and India brouhgt to Eng...or the one that Pak had in UAE.

Not in the class of SA...but this Aussie pace attack + Lyon has been a handful and has exposed the temperamental / technical flaws of English batting.

one can either shut his eyes...pretend to be invisible...and dismiss this as a temporary loss of form.

OR
accept the more harsh option that this is a terminal decline of some and an exposiiton of the weaknesses of others.

Obviously the latter scenario has more serious implications......

so let's all prtentd to be relaxed assuming first scenario......

This is what India did after they got to the top of ICC test rankings....fooled themselves...that everything was a temporary blip in form until their world and pride came down crashing against Eng twice and Aus once.

All I can say to that is that we shall see in a few months time. Give me £100 to bet and it would be on England even them with batting mishaps beating an Australian side without a settled batting line-up who are also out of form and an attack that though decent cannot carry such a weak batting line-up.

CaledonianCraig wrote:All I can say to that is that we shall see in a few months time. Give me £100 to bet and it would be on England even them with batting mishaps beating an Australian side without a settled batting line-up who are also out of form and an attack that though decent cannot carry such a weak batting line-up.

As soon as England's batsman fire, Australia will be in even more trouble. I don't think England have made a single score over 400 this series, and yet they're running out 3 nil winners. England will improve in Australia, whereas Australia have near-enough hit their ceiling. England will be comfortable winners down under.

Exactly my take on it Duty. Heck I am a Scotsman and I am made to look reasonable talking about England compared to KP.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Exactly my take on it Duty. Heck I am a Scotsman and I am made to look reasonable talking about England compared to KP.

I already agreed you can assum the scenario..that this was a temp blip in form....and that Eng batsman will fire.
 
instead of accepting that some of them have declined.....and others has been exposed by a superior bowling like SA and Pak have done in recent times.
 
as an english it is far less stressful to assume the first scenraio.
 
so all in agreement....let's see what Woakes can do with the bat today and can Bell turn this one also inot a hundred

My point ultimately.

England cashed in when they were ahead and were good enough when behind (with some weather assistance).

Australia played about as well as they can, England a fair bit below their best

However England winning 3-0 below their peak can't be taken as proof they'll cruise in Aus. Conditions will suit Aus pace attack a lot more and Swann a lot less.

Few twists an this series could be 2-2, so England will have to up their game

But like Sir Ian was saying he feels that the pitches prepared in England were more to suit Swann and is not the type of pitches that the England batsmen have warmed to. He feels that the faster and bouncier tracks out there will suit both the batsmen and bowlers.

Boo...hiss...




Sorry...I thought KPfan was doing his panto villain/heel pro wrestler thing with his OP.



Anyway, my summary is that this Ashes series has been contested by two pretty good but very inconsistent teams. IMO the only time you can really say the weather intervened to save England is during the Third Test.

FIRST TEST:
England got off to a faltering start but immediately had Australia on the ropes, who were only bailed out by the debut heroics of Agar with the bat. England's 2nd innings was much better and they built up what should have been an adequate lead but then our bowling nearly handed the match to the Aussies. Verdict: Lucky escape? Or maybe due to both sides' inconsistency, England got a hard-fought win out of what should have been a comfortable victory?

SECOND TEST:
England's batting was stronger in both innings and Australia were never in with a shout. Verdict: Comfortable win.

THIRD TEST:
Again England's batting wasn't up to scratch, given the conditions. With a big 1st innings lead Australia only needed a quick thrash in their 2nd innings to set England a tough target to chase. The home side collapsed to 37-3 in the 4th innings but were saved by the rain. Verdict: Lucky escape.

FOURTH TEST:
A closely-fought match on a wicket that doesn't usually yield scores much over 300. The visitors had a slim 1st innings lead, but England posted the highest score of the match in their 2nd innings, which put just enough pressure on the visitors, who failed to chase it down...though not by much. Verdict: Hard-fought win.

FIFTH TEST:
With an unassailable 3-0 lead in the series England rang some changes and probably took their collective feet off the gas. For all the talk of an historic 4-0 series win, the home side were bound to be feeling "job done" to a certain extent. The home side's bowling was strangely ineffectual as the visitors batted first, racking up a hefty 492-9 declared at a respectable 3.8 an over. Perhaps alarmed by this, England went into damage limitation mode and plodded along like an arthritic snail to 247-4 at 2.1 an over, until rain intervened once again. Verdict: dead rubber, so England had nothing to gain by making more of an effort to force a result.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But like Sir Ian was saying he feels that the pitches prepared in England were more to suit Swann and is not the type of pitches that the England batsmen have warmed to. He feels that the faster and bouncier tracks out there will suit both the batsmen and bowlers.

Exactly and it's not as if our seamers love these conditions either, Anderson, Broad and whoever the 3rd one is will all be more effective. Swann will still have some influence.

Cook, KP and Trott are all player who prefer the ball coming on more I think, Bell's the only one who has fired this series. This for me is the worst series I've ever seen Trott have, and Cook's hasn't been much better. Prior's batting has been non-existant

Moment of Truth.....
Rubber meets the Road......

Let Eng win this and show it wasn't just luck

Wasn't the 300+ run win enough for you to show it wasn't 'luck'? Or the first Test, where England had to battle 2 ridiculous umpiring calls before winning.

KP_fan wrote:Moment of Truth.....
Rubber meets the Road......

Let Eng win this and show it wasn't just luck

You don't win 3-0 by luck

KP_fan wrote:Moment of Truth.....
Rubber meets the Road......

Let Eng win this and show it wasn't just luck

Can you imagine if this were India playing? They'd be looking to shake hands on a draw before a ball was bowled.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Moment of Truth.....
Rubber meets the Road......

Let Eng win this and show it wasn't just luck

Can you imagine if this were India playing? They'd be looking to shake hands on a draw before a ball was bowled.

that's why India never becamse a top test match side...they dabbled with the top slot briefly and duly crashed......owing to their inherent short-sightedness and negativity of approach.

so far Eng is following more the India script than Waugh and Taylor era script

Winning something 3-0 (or 4-0' maybe) on pure luck is an impressive feat. Sports matches are mental and winners seize the moment