England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

50 up for Mo at an absolutely vital moment.   

A fortuitous way to get there with Cummins not picking it up. It frankly looked like he wasn't moving well chasing back for it either.

Starc back on which I think slows how key a period the Aussies know this is. He's looked their best bowler today.

Disappointing to see the weather win but a pleasing performance nonetheless. We can argue about whether they declared too late or not but it's largely irrelevant, there simply wasn't enough time to force a result on that pitch. Crawley and co set it up as best they could.

Now that the rain, sorry dust, has settled, it might be worth considering that that was one of England's finest performances against Australia.

One can think back to some of the, admittedly few, occasions when Australia have been on the rack. The 2010-11 England performances were a bit special (an unprecedented three innings victories) and there was clear daylight between the teams for most of the 1985 series.

But I doubt whether we've seen the Australian bowling so mauled has it was in this Test.

Bazball has now been successful against all the strongest Test sides. Indeed, it seems that England only get to play India, NZ and Australia these days, in any case.

England throughly deserve a 2-2 draw in this series, although the weather may play a part at The Oval later this week.

GSC wrote:And there's the abandonment.

Shouldn't sell Australia short. They've been England's equals for most of this series and held their nerve when England rather threw it away

A very kind and generous statement, GSC.

Perhaps equal for the first two tests but England increasingly dominant in the last two. Alfie mentions that this frustrating result might knock them about for the final Test at the Oval, however, I'm not so sure. That sort of mindset is not part of the McCullum-Stokes Doctrine. I think they'll be confident enough to push on with it and at least salvage a respectable 2-2 series result. Which is now probably the best outcome England can achieve in terms of a fair reflection on the series overall.

As much as you guys will be frustrated at the end result caused by all that rain (as I was during the Sydney Test last year when well over a day was lost due to rain) I'm similarly concerned about the drop off in Australia's performances since Headingley. Save for Marnus' vital contribution yesterday, which essentially enabled us to retain the urn, it has been like watching a slow motion train crash.

England have had their own serious issues regarding player availability and have managed things far better. Australia have had their own selection problems too. Yet, I get the distinct impression that instead of the usual fighting spirit and upping the ante when on the ropes, they have decided to take a more cautious approach which I believe goes against their natural sporting inclination. It's been so hard to watch from my perspective.

Credit to England in that respect because it proves the obvious: that the road to success is usually determined by the ones who set the plan and go out to achieve the desired result with a determined self-belief - in most cases. In this case, England have ripped through Australia's brittle top and middle order and then tried not to waste too much energy finishing off the tail. Then blasting off the blocks with bat in hand to exert even more pressure and force the usually calm Cummins (who looks mentally and physically shot, btw) into a negative damage control mindset - which further reinforces the positive approach of England's game plan. It's has been quite a relentless and vicious cycle and Australia have struggled to find a good answer.

See alfie and my earlier analogies of the hare and the tortoise.
There's been too much pulling the head back into shell by the tortoise when the hare runs by (which could spell disaster for the tortoise) and then taking too long to poke the head back out again only to see that the hare has already turned the corner and is well on the way towards the shady tree up ahead.

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:I know we all love the Great Ian Botham but is Stuart Broad a candidate for England's greatest ever Ashes player of the modern era? I have no idea how many runs he has scored but he has take the most wickets by an Englishman in the Ashes.

The man consistently performs against the Aussies.

He'd definitely be a consideration for me. 8 five-wicket hauls for Broad against Australia, also, only Botham (9) has more in the modern era.

This original post got me thinking, and I came up with my best England Ashes XI from 1981 to the present day, which was:

Cook; Vaughan (C); Gower; KP; Thorpe; Stewart (WK); Botham; Swann; Broad; Gough; Willis.

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:I know we all love the Great Ian Botham but is Stuart Broad a candidate for England's greatest ever Ashes player of the modern era? I have no idea how many runs he has scored but he has take the most wickets by an Englishman in the Ashes.

The man consistently performs against the Aussies.

He'd definitely be a consideration for me. 8 five-wicket hauls for Broad against Australia, also, only Botham (9) has more in the modern era.

This original post got me thinking, and I came up with my best England Ashes XI from 1981 to the present day, which was:

Cook; Vaughan (C); Gower; KP; Thorpe; Stewart (WK); Botham; Swann; Broad; Gough; Willis.

Perhaps an unfortunate timeframe, Duty. That particular period from 1981 to present day hasn't been too kind for England both home and away.
Australia has the slight advantage in England (25-23) but the away form is quite dire (35-9). 60-32 overall.

Still, not a bad team considering no Root or Anderson.

For an Australian Ashes XI (1981-present) I'd go:

Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Smith, S Waugh (c), Hussey, Gilchrist (wk), Warne, Johnson, Gillespie, McGrath

That would be a well balanced side even without the likes of Boon, Border, Clarke, Alderman, Lee, Starc and Cummins.

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:I know we all love the Great Ian Botham but is Stuart Broad a candidate for England's greatest ever Ashes player of the modern era? I have no idea how many runs he has scored but he has take the most wickets by an Englishman in the Ashes.

The man consistently performs against the Aussies.

He'd definitely be a consideration for me. 8 five-wicket hauls for Broad against Australia, also, only Botham (9) has more in the modern era.

This original post got me thinking, and I came up with my best England Ashes XI from 1981 to the present day, which was:

Cook; Vaughan (C); Gower; KP; Thorpe; Stewart (WK); Botham; Swann; Broad; Gough; Willis.

could possibly throw freddie in there, he was phenomenal in the 05 series. while i dont think he takes bothams slot as the all rounder, his bowling in 05 was better than anything ive seen by gough in ashes series. if not flintoff who bolsters the batting anderson is stiil better than gough even though we havent always seen the best of him

also while much less entertaining i reckon without looking trott has better average than most of the batters in that list.

compelling and rich wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:I know we all love the Great Ian Botham but is Stuart Broad a candidate for England's greatest ever Ashes player of the modern era? I have no idea how many runs he has scored but he has take the most wickets by an Englishman in the Ashes.

The man consistently performs against the Aussies.

He'd definitely be a consideration for me. 8 five-wicket hauls for Broad against Australia, also, only Botham (9) has more in the modern era.

This original post got me thinking, and I came up with my best England Ashes XI from 1981 to the present day, which was:

Cook; Vaughan (C); Gower; KP; Thorpe; Stewart (WK); Botham; Swann; Broad; Gough; Willis.

could possibly throw freddie in there, he was phenomenal in the 05 series. while i dont think he takes bothams slot as the all rounder, his bowling in 05 was better than anything ive seen by gough in ashes series. if not flintoff who bolsters the batting anderson is stiil better than gough even though we havent always seen the best of him

also while much less entertaining i reckon without looking trott has better average than most of the batters in that list.  

Funny you mention Trott. He actually has the best average of any England batsman v Australia in that timeframe with 48.26 (min. 10 matches), but I narrowly favoured Gower/KP/Thorpe. The amusing thing is that Trott's strike rate v Australia was 53, which is actually better than Root's, but perception of Trott is his dourness.

Another interesting thing to find out was that Ramprakash's record v Australia was actually quite good, with a 42.4 average, and the reminder that Vaughan only played in two Ashes series, which seems strange.

Stokes was closer to edging out Botham than Flintoff for me, although that's not trying to do Flintoff a disservice. Anderson's record against Australia isn't the best - though he has taken 116 wickets, it has come at an average north of 35. I was close to putting Wood in instead of Gough, with Wood having taken 38 wickets @ 27 v Australia.

Results and statistics in one corner and theatre, entertainment, talent and courage in the other corner.  First time I heard of bazball was part of the noise introducing this years ashes series.

Pal Joey wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:I know we all love the Great Ian Botham but is Stuart Broad a candidate for England's greatest ever Ashes player of the modern era? I have no idea how many runs he has scored but he has take the most wickets by an Englishman in the Ashes.

The man consistently performs against the Aussies.

He'd definitely be a consideration for me. 8 five-wicket hauls for Broad against Australia, also, only Botham (9) has more in the modern era.

This original post got me thinking, and I came up with my best England Ashes XI from 1981 to the present day, which was:

Cook; Vaughan (C); Gower; KP; Thorpe; Stewart (WK); Botham; Swann; Broad; Gough; Willis.

Perhaps an unfortunate timeframe, Duty. That particular period from 1981 to present day hasn't been too kind for England both home and away.
Australia has the slight advantage in England (25-23) but the away form is quite dire (35-9). 60-32 overall.

Still, not a bad team considering no Root or Anderson.

For an Australian Ashes XI (1981-present) I'd go:

Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Smith, S Waugh (c), Hussey, Gilchrist (wk), Warne, Johnson, Gillespie, McGrath

That would be a well balanced side even without the likes of Boon, Border, Clarke, Alderman, Lee, Starc and Cummins.

That's a formidable side! You could probably get a second choice Aussie XI that would beat England's best.

Duty281 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:I know we all love the Great Ian Botham but is Stuart Broad a candidate for England's greatest ever Ashes player of the modern era? I have no idea how many runs he has scored but he has take the most wickets by an Englishman in the Ashes.

The man consistently performs against the Aussies.

He'd definitely be a consideration for me. 8 five-wicket hauls for Broad against Australia, also, only Botham (9) has more in the modern era.

This original post got me thinking, and I came up with my best England Ashes XI from 1981 to the present day, which was:

Cook; Vaughan (C); Gower; KP; Thorpe; Stewart (WK); Botham; Swann; Broad; Gough; Willis.

Perhaps an unfortunate timeframe, Duty. That particular period from 1981 to present day hasn't been too kind for England both home and away.
Australia has the slight advantage in England (25-23) but the away form is quite dire (35-9). 60-32 overall.

Still, not a bad team considering no Root or Anderson.

For an Australian Ashes XI (1981-present) I'd go:

Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Smith, S Waugh (c), Hussey, Gilchrist (wk), Warne, Johnson, Gillespie, McGrath

That would be a well balanced side even without the likes of Boon, Border, Clarke, Alderman, Lee, Starc and Cummins.

That's a formidable side! You could probably get a second choice Aussie XI that would beat England's best.

Yes, not a bad line up. Of course I'd bat Johnson in front of Warne above.

I also didn't include G Chappell who was at the tail end of his career in the early 80s.

Difficult choice for captain as well. I'd have in order:
Waugh (8-1), Ponting (8-6 - definitely have him as captain in Australia) then Border (13-6), Taylor (9-4), Chappell (2-1), Smith* (5-0), Clarke (7-7). Cummins stats as captain aren't actually too bad either (5-1) but I think the last few tests were his worst as captain.

*After he's paid his penalty... which I believe expires on Thursday.

What sort of idiot pencils in England's wettest ground for a crucial test? Moronic planning.

super_realist wrote:What sort of idiot pencils in England's wettest ground for a crucial test? Moronic planning.

I think they use an indelible marker rather than a pencil, s_r.

Whoever it is might be related to some of our guys. Early January in Sydney can either be boiling hot and bone dry or the heavens can open up for days at a time. In 2022 it was miserable at the start and then fined up towards the end... allowing Broad and Anderson hang on. It was just a little warmer than Manchester has been these last couple of days though.

It's all in God's hands really. I'm pretty sure Greta Thunberg didn't cast a witch's curse on us. Didn't you have a very hot and dry spell last year?

Pal Joey wrote:

super_realist wrote:What sort of idiot pencils in England's wettest ground for a crucial test? Moronic planning.

I think they use an indelible marker rather than a pencil, s_r.

Whoever it is might be related to some of our guys. Early January in Sydney can either be boiling hot and bone dry or the heavens can open up for days at a time. In 2022 it was miserable at the start and then fined up towards the end... allowing Broad and Anderson hang on. It was just a little warmer than Manchester has been these last couple of days though.

It's all in God's hands really. I'm pretty sure Greta Thunberg didn't cast a witch's curse on us. Didn't you have a very hot and dry spell last year?

My point was if you must have it in Manchester it makes more sense to put it at the start of a series of tests. Everyone knows Manchester is very wet. A draw when one up/down is far less damaging to either side. 
Typical stupidity from a sporting organisation.

Pal Joey wrote:  
Perhaps equal for the first two tests but England increasingly dominant in the last two.

Congratulations PJ & Aus on retaining the Ashes.
You are right...though Aus went on a decline from T3 onward
Man to Man I still maintain this Aussie side is superior to this Eng.

And therefore a lot of credit to and Congratulations to Stokes for his courageous leadership & for his brand of cricket. Punched above his weight in first three tests......got one thru in T3 and all but delivered a telling Knock Out in T4, but for rains.
But there are no "iffs" and "buts" though, tough luck it rained and when dust settles History remembers only scorelines.

Cummins' brand of captaincy which is preparing to a script and with little ability to alter it on feet, in Real Time when under an assault got exposed first in T2 under Stokes' brutal 150 run assault....and went downhill thereafter
And as he got tired and then more tired and finally exhausted he collapsed mentally culminating in the carnage at Manchester.

There is absolutely no way he should play T5, rest him and bring a fresher body and un-corrupted mind for T5
And IMO he should be relived from Captaincy for good thereafter
As I wrote before....Aus has plenty of choices now in Smith, Manus, Head & Khawaja in that order.
Smith has more than served his guilt and ACB's self imposed guilty sentence.
Time for him to be back and name Manus as the VC and Carrey as the understudy...for I see clever game reading skills in Carrey.

Cummins becomes another Case in Point in favor of the Proponents of Fast Bowlers should not be captains theory

And from Eng's P.O.V a significant Moral win for them.
I am not much of a believer in moral wins ...but such is the psychological dent they have created that they have Aus mentally on the mat. And T5 is for Eng's to lose now.

The concern on Eng's side is their bowling unit's ability to pick 20 wickets.
Broad should have entered into very tired territory in my view and Anderson is a spent force for all to see other than ones who have sentimental attachment to this all time great seamer.

Ali is not effective when conditions are rainy, cloudy....and Stokes has rapidly gone from being a full bowling all rounder, to " I will bowl short impactful spells"; to " I won't bowl at all"

I don't see rationale behind why Eng did not play Tongue....it's a no brainer he should play as should the reserve seamer Potts for Broad.
There is rubber and WTC points at stake and all to play for as I see it & Eng aught to throw in their fastest / freshest men in the decider

Duty281 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:
...

For an Australian Ashes XI (1981-present) I'd go:

Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Smith, S Waugh (c), Hussey, Gilchrist (wk), Warne, Johnson, Gillespie, McGrath

That would be a well balanced side even without the likes of Boon, Border, Clarke, Alderman, Lee, Starc and Cummins.

That's a formidable side! You could probably get a second choice Aussie XI that would beat England's best.

Whilst he naturally misses out to Warne for the first XI, the first name I would have down for the seconds is Lyon. A vital cog in the Australian bowling machine who has been a monumental loss since early in the second Test.

Duty281 wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:I know we all love the Great Ian Botham but is Stuart Broad a candidate for England's greatest ever Ashes player of the modern era? I have no idea how many runs he has scored but he has take the most wickets by an Englishman in the Ashes.

The man consistently performs against the Aussies.

He'd definitely be a consideration for me. 8 five-wicket hauls for Broad against Australia, also, only Botham (9) has more in the modern era.

This original post got me thinking, and I came up with my best England Ashes XI from 1981 to the present day, which was:

Cook; Vaughan (C); Gower; KP; Thorpe; Stewart (WK); Botham; Swann; Broad; Gough; Willis.

could possibly throw freddie in there, he was phenomenal in the 05 series. while i dont think he takes bothams slot as the all rounder, his bowling in 05 was better than anything ive seen by gough in ashes series. if not flintoff who bolsters the batting anderson is stiil better than gough even though we havent always seen the best of him

also while much less entertaining i reckon without looking trott has better average than most of the batters in that list.  

Funny you mention Trott. He actually has the best average of any England batsman v Australia in that timeframe with 48.26 (min. 10 matches), but I narrowly favoured Gower/KP/Thorpe. The amusing thing is that Trott's strike rate v Australia was 53, which is actually better than Root's, but perception of Trott is his dourness.

Another interesting thing to find out was that Ramprakash's record v Australia was actually quite good, with a 42.4 average, and the reminder that Vaughan only played in two Ashes series, which seems strange.

Stokes was closer to edging out Botham than Flintoff for me, although that's not trying to do Flintoff a disservice. Anderson's record against Australia isn't the best - though he has taken 116 wickets, it has come at an average north of 35. I was close to putting Wood in instead of Gough, with Wood having taken 38 wickets @ 27 v Australia.

Yes I was rather hoping Jimmy would improve his record vs Australia this summer...unfortunately he now faces a very real prospect of going over 20 tests he's played in without a win against them to end his career vs the Aussies, and with a really rather unrepresentatively poor record against them at home (his best series against Australia was the 2010/11 series down under I think). Doesn't have those "spells" against Australia like Broad does unfortunately.

Also, and this is very much rumour...but a little birdie has flown into my ear and told me that Steve Smith is considering retirement after The Oval test, owing to back issues. I would hardly call it my most "trusted" source...but one to keep an ear close to the ground on...

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Also, and this is very much rumour...but a little birdie has flown into my ear and told me that Steve Smith is considering retirement after The Oval test, owing to back issues. I would hardly call it my most "trusted" source...but one to keep an ear close to the ground on...

Interesting , Olly. May well be a complete fairy story ; but I had noticed that Smith was looking peculiarly unhappy on the field as the series has progressed.  I had put it down to his being annoyed at his own lack of runs , apart from one innings ; and perhaps to dissatisfaction with Australia's rather negative tactics . But I suppose it is also possible there might be more to it - along the lines of your rumour source...

Guess we will find out in time.

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:
...

For an Australian Ashes XI (1981-present) I'd go:

Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Smith, S Waugh (c), Hussey, Gilchrist (wk), Warne, Johnson, Gillespie, McGrath

That would be a well balanced side even without the likes of Boon, Border, Clarke, Alderman, Lee, Starc and Cummins.

That's a formidable side! You could probably get a second choice Aussie XI that would beat England's best.

Whilst he naturally misses out to Warne for the first XI, the first name I would have down for the seconds is Lyon. A vital cog in the Australian bowling machine who has been a monumental loss since early in the second Test.

Based on sheer volume of matches you'd have to select Lyon but Macgill was the better bowler, didn't play in England so can't really include him.

Not sure about KP_fan's theory that England have a problem with their bowling unit taking 20 wickets. Last I looked they have only failed to take the full twenty on two occasions in the last 16 matches...and the weather might have had a little to do with that on this latest instance

As for Anderson it may indeed be that time has finally caught up with him. Though perhaps worth noting that it was only 5 months ago he took 7 wickets in a match in NZ ; and 5 at very low cost on the flattest pitch you'll ever see in Rawalpindi only a couple of months earlier. The pitches in this series (apart from the one he , ironically , didn't play) have not been what he'd have wanted ; and his economy remains good as ever. But yes , I can see reasons to move on from him (provided any of these younger fellows can stay fit for a week at a time !) and suspect he may not play at The Oval.
Wasn't why England didn't skittle Australia for 150 on Friday though. That would be the pitch - which rather neutered all the bowlers.

Was thinking that in England we should start at 10.30 and only finish when 90 overs have been bowled. If that doesn't happen then the umpires should be fined. They are in charge of the game.

Well done to Khawaja
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/usman-khawaja-plays-key-role-in-over-rate-penalty-reduction-1387883

Will be interesting to see what both teams do to refresh their bowling groups for The Oval. (Don't see either changing their batting at this late stage : Warner's head may well have been on the block but for the fact that Harris hasn't played for ages and they really don't want to mess with their other batting positions ; but especially now they can't actually lose the series I reckon they'll stick with him )

Cummins looks exhausted but he's the skipper and he will play. Starc , injury and wear and tear surely needs a rest ? Neser for mine , as Boland has been surprisingly ineffective and not even economical. And I think they must play Murphy : so out goes Green.

Warner Khawaja Labuschagne Smith Head Marsh Carey Neser Cummins Murphy Hazlewood ?

And perhaps with the trophy secured we might see less of the Tortoise and more typically Australian attacking play ? Who knows...

But I do think they'll be desperate to finish with a win. If this ends up 2-2 they will go home with The Ashes ... but they would come with just a bit of an asterisk , even in their own minds. And they won't want that.

Jetty wrote:Was thinking that in England we should start at 10.30 and only finish when 90 overs have been bowled. If that doesn't happen then the umpires should be fined. They are in charge of the game.

Well done to Khawaja
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/usman-khawaja-plays-key-role-in-over-rate-penalty-reduction-1387883

Nonsense from Khawaja. It's the responsibility of teams to bowl their overs. He just cares about his money and not getting fined. Plus if there's an unlimited amount of time to bowl 90 overs, that won't tackle the slowness issue.

90 overs in six and a half hours. It really isn't difficult.

KP_fan wrote:And from Eng's P.O.V a significant Moral win for them.
I am not much of a believer in moral wins ...but such is the psychological dent they have created that they have Aus mentally on the mat. And T5 is for Eng's to lose now.

The concern on Eng's side is their bowling unit's ability to pick 20 wickets.
Broad should have entered into very tired territory in my view and Anderson is a spent force for all to see other than ones who have sentimental attachment to this all time great seamer.

Ali is not effective when conditions are rainy, cloudy....and Stokes has rapidly gone from being a full bowling all rounder, to " I will bowl short impactful spells"; to " I won't bowl at all"

I don't see rationale behind why Eng did not play Tongue....it's a no brainer he should play as should the reserve seamer Potts for Broad.
There is rubber and WTC points at stake and all to play for as I see it & Eng aught to throw in their fastest / freshest men in the decider

1) England's problem with the bowling has been the flat pitches, and even then Australia have been below their best with the bat. More English pitches would have seen an England win in this series, not a loss.

2) More excuses for Moeen. He's just not test standard, full stop. He's actually done worse with the ball this series than even I anticipated - 6 wickets @ 64.5, with the worst economy of any England bowler. Horrific stuff. Amazing his place isn't even up for realistic discussion. Not many of us are expecting Jimmy to play at the Oval, and he's struggled this series, but Moeen's place is assured.

3) I also don't care about moral wins. England have failed to regain the Ashes through terrible pitches and terrible team selection, and Australia were there for the taking, especially with the key loss of Lyon. Test five may look as though England should win it, but test five in 2019 looked as though Australia should win it and they failed to do so.

as for England it comes down largely to workloads and fitness. Woakes being off the field a bit late on is a worry as he is important for the team balance as well as being just a highly effective bowler in English conditions. If he isn't fit the number eight spot is a lot more "first of the rabbits" than all rounder.

Lord knows whether Wood can play three in a row. Broad did show signs of weariness too this week. Anderson already discussed. So really , anyone could be rotated out for Tongue , who surely will play. Robinson could come back , I suppose. Don't think Curran is ready as otherwise he'd be my Woakes replacement. So honestly I haven't a clue

But I do think Moeen is nailed on , whatever Duty might wish !

Tipping Stokes might turn his arm over if needed this time. He will certainly want to finish the series on a high note so I hope he and his troops aren't too disheartened by the soggy end to their dreams of 3-2. Levelling the series was a bittersweet moment for the women and would be similar for the men : but it would surely be a great deal better than losing after having dominated so much of the last few days .

Hoping for a good last game to wrap up what has been a very entertaining series : just a pity it isn't going to be a complete nail-biting "final". But few things are perfect in this world...

Duty281 wrote:

Jetty wrote:Was thinking that in England we should start at 10.30 and only finish when 90 overs have been bowled. If that doesn't happen then the umpires should be fined. They are in charge of the game.

Well done to Khawaja
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/usman-khawaja-plays-key-role-in-over-rate-penalty-reduction-1387883

Nonsense from Khawaja. It's the responsibility of teams to bowl their overs. He just cares about his money and not getting fined. Plus if there's an unlimited amount of time to bowl 90 overs, that won't tackle the slowness issue.

90 overs in six and a half hours. It really isn't difficult.

When you think about all the concussion tests/helmet change (never do it at the same time) people moving between the sightscreens, glove changes, changing of the balls, bringing on the trumper for the footholes, DRS, endless replays of batsmen touching the boundary rope or catches it is easy to see why 90 overs don't get bowled.

I certainly can't see why we go off when conditions are perfectly fine and the allocation of overs haven't been bowled.

GSC wrote:I certainly can't see why we go off when conditions are perfectly fine and the allocation of overs haven't been bowled.

Agree with this. Light in England tends to be fine well into the evening (unless it's one of those damp miserable days - and I guess there are plenty of them !) ; and they have quite good lights as well now. If they can play an extra half hour , why not an hour ? Or even more...doubt many of the spectators would complain.

Players having to work a lot of overtime might just inspire them to speed up during the "normal" hours.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Also, and this is very much rumour...but a little birdie has flown into my ear and told me that Steve Smith is considering retirement after The Oval test, owing to back issues. I would hardly call it my most "trusted" source...but one to keep an ear close to the ground on...

There have been a few rumours for a year or so that Smith might retire soon. Given the ludicrous success of his investment in an online mattress company ($100k into $12m apparently) it's hardly like he'll be needing the cash!

Imagine the scenes if Smudge retires before Warner and steals that gap in the market for the autobiography everyone's waiting for Warner to release though? Smith just sauntering off into the sunset with the Ashes, a sneaky $12m profit from a single investment, arguably the greatest record since Bradman and Warner's retirement fund. Poor Davey will be playing in the MLC until he's 57 trying to recoup the losses.

Yeah, I am still feeling quite bitter about yesterdays denouement if I'm honest.

alfie wrote:

But I do think Moeen is nailed on , whatever Duty might wish !

..

Tru Dat
Leach will be the undisputed No. 2 spinner for next series

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:  

But I do think Moeen is nailed on , whatever Duty might wish !

..

Tru Dat
Leach will be the undisputed No. 2 spinner for next series

If you actually read alfie's post it's blatantly clear he's just talking about the Oval Test.

Your seemingly wilful shift into an insufferable WUM is just sad because there was a time when you actually made some insightful and interesting points on these boards. You have a knowledge of parts of the game that many others here don't. Hearing about that was fun and why boards such as these are interesting.

Recently your sole motivation for coming on 606v2 seems to be relentlessly posting drivel with the sole intent of derailing cricketing discussion and antagonising other posters.

king_carlos wrote:There have been a few rumours for a year or so that Smith might retire soon. Given the ludicrous success of his investment in an online mattress company ($100k into $12m apparently) it's hardly like he'll be needing the cash!

I didn't realise his mattress company had done so well. I thought it was still bedding in.

Soul Requiem wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:
...

For an Australian Ashes XI (1981-present) I'd go:

Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Smith, S Waugh (c), Hussey, Gilchrist (wk), Warne, Johnson, Gillespie, McGrath

That would be a well balanced side even without the likes of Boon, Border, Clarke, Alderman, Lee, Starc and Cummins.

That's a formidable side! You could probably get a second choice Aussie XI that would beat England's best.

Whilst he naturally misses out to Warne for the first XI, the first name I would have down for the seconds is Lyon. A vital cog in the Australian bowling machine who has been a monumental loss since early in the second Test.

Based on sheer volume of matches you'd have to select Lyon but Macgill was the better bowler, didn't play in England so can't really include him.

Disagree on MacGill being the better bowler than Lyon.

I find MacGill fascinating because I think he was used exactly as a second spinner should be. His only away Tests are in places where pitches generally turn - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Windies. He didn't tour India though where spinners usually do well by bowling quicker and being accurate - two skills MacGill lacked. Then he was largely used at home when it suited his skills.

He had a huge leg break and a fantastic googly but struggled to land them as consistently as most international spinners. When his contemporaries have spoken about him they felt he lacked the ability of top spinners to work to a plan against a batter too. Rather he ran in and gave it a huge rip.

There's a general view that if not for Warne then MacGill would've had a better record. Rather, I think that as a first choice spinner he'd likely have a worse record as he'd have had to play outside of those favourable conditions.

Lyon might have the slightly higher average but having done so in unfavourable conditions far more often I think it's the more impressive record and I think he's the better bowler overall.

Jetty wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Jetty wrote:Was thinking that in England we should start at 10.30 and only finish when 90 overs have been bowled. If that doesn't happen then the umpires should be fined. They are in charge of the game.

Well done to Khawaja
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/usman-khawaja-plays-key-role-in-over-rate-penalty-reduction-1387883

Nonsense from Khawaja. It's the responsibility of teams to bowl their overs. He just cares about his money and not getting fined. Plus if there's an unlimited amount of time to bowl 90 overs, that won't tackle the slowness issue.

90 overs in six and a half hours. It really isn't difficult.

When you think about all the concussion tests/helmet change (never do it at the same time) people moving between the sightscreens, glove changes, changing of the balls, bringing on the trumper for the footholes, DRS, endless replays of batsmen touching the boundary rope or catches it is easy to see why 90 overs don't get bowled.

Very little of this is worthy of excuse. The county game sees 98 overs in six hours quite regularly. Now I accept the test game will be slower than the county game, but not so slower than 90 overs in 6 and a half hours isn't possible.

king_carlos wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:  

But I do think Moeen is nailed on , whatever Duty might wish !

..

Tru Dat
Leach will be the undisputed No. 2 spinner for next series

If you actually read alfie's post it's blatantly clear he's just talking about the Oval Test.

Your seemingly wilful shift into an insufferable WUM is just sad because there was a time when you actually made some insightful and interesting points on these boards. You have a knowledge of parts of the game that many others here don't. Hearing about that was fun and why boards such as these are interesting.

Recently your sole motivation for coming on 606v2 seems to be relentlessly posting drivel with the sole intent of derailing cricketing discussion and antagonising other posters.

What shift? He's always been like this. Only difference is in the old days Pietersen was the subject of his affection, not Moeen.

king_carlos wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:  

But I do think Moeen is nailed on , whatever Duty might wish !

..

Tru Dat
Leach will be the undisputed No. 2 spinner for next series

If you actually read alfie's post it's blatantly clear he's just talking about the Oval Test.

And it's clear I am accepting what he said....and talking about life beyond the next test i.e next series
I can talk about beyond, without anyone's prior approval...can't I

[i]Your seemingly wilful shift into an insufferable WUM is just sad because there was a time when you actually made some insightful and interesting points on these boards. You have a knowledge of parts of the game that many others here don't. Hearing about that was fun and why boards such as these are interesting.

Recently your sole motivation for coming on 606v2 seems to be relentlessly posting drivel with the sole intent of derailing cricketing discussion and antagonising other posters.

That part in red is called Patronizing and rest of it is adhominem (argument).
Normally people do that when they disagree with the point but cannot find a subject based argument to refute ( cricket argument in this case)

JuliusHMarx wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There have been a few rumours for a year or so that Smith might retire soon. Given the ludicrous success of his investment in an online mattress company ($100k into $12m apparently) it's hardly like he'll be needing the cash!

I didn't realise his mattress company had done so well. I thought it was still bedding in.

A little known fact about Steve Smith is that besides the 37 cricket bats he carries around all day and sleeps next to; he also goes through a hell of a lot of mattresses when he cries himself to sleep each night. He also has a few spares lying about to dry his collection of gloves and boxes.

When the Australians were touring in Port of Spain, there was an American marketing genius from a mattress company staying in an adjacent room (on his honeymoon) at the team hotel who was constantly being awoken by hotel staff replacing several mattresses from Smith's room during the night... apparently there were some heated arguments with his wife. It was then that the light went on his his head and Smith has slept more soundly ever since.

All this talk of various retirements, this is why I think England could have a chance in Australia next time, because its really unclear who will be playing for either side

Clearly I write that and we'll now see Australia unearth another Marsh brother, the entire England bowling attack to be injured getting off the plane and the inevitable 5-0 hammering

VTR wrote:All this talk of various retirements, this is why I think England could have a chance in Australia next time, because its really unclear who will be playing for either side

Clearly I write that and we'll now see Australia unearth another Marsh brother, the entire England bowling attack to be injured getting off the plane and the inevitable 5-0 hammering

Both teams are likely to be very different. They're a sneakily old pair of XIs.

Smith, Warner, Khawaja, Lyon, Hazlewood (injuries, sadly), Starc

It wouldn't be astonishing if those guys weren't around at the next Ashes.

Jimmy, Broad, Wood (injuries), Woakes (conditions), Moeen

If we are being realistic then Stokes needs to successfully reinvent himself as a batter as well to keep chugging along. Which he should certainly be capable of doing.

We'll get to the next series and just wish that Wood, Jof and Stone weren't injured or Robinson could go for a jog occasionally though.

Another thing about slow over rates, 88 no balls bowled in the series so far. Nearly 15 overs that have to be bowled again.

Pal Joey wrote:As much as you guys will be frustrated at the end result caused by all that rain (as I was during the Sydney Test last year when well over a day was lost due to rain) I'm similarly concerned about the drop off in Australia's performances since Headingley. Save for Marnus' vital contribution yesterday, which essentially enabled us to retain the urn, it has been like watching a slow motion train crash.

Interestingly (from the 'stupid armchair psychology' school of analysis) Labuschagne was the only Australian player I remember immediately leaning into that Bairstow dismissal, hanging around Broad as if he was waiting for a chance to run him out while he was doing his over the top grounding routine.

alfie wrote:Will be interesting to see what both teams do to refresh their bowling groups for The Oval. (Don't see either changing their batting at this late stage : Warner's head may well have been on the block but for the fact that Harris hasn't played for ages and they really don't want to mess with their other batting positions ; but especially now they can't actually lose the series I reckon they'll stick with him )

Cummins looks exhausted but he's the skipper and he will play. Starc , injury and wear and tear surely needs a rest ? Neser for mine , as Boland has been surprisingly ineffective and not even economical. And I think they must play Murphy : so out goes Green.

Warner Khawaja Labuschagne Smith Head Marsh Carey Neser Cummins Murphy Hazlewood  ?

And perhaps with the trophy secured we might see less of the Tortoise and more typically Australian attacking play ?  Who knows...

But I do think they'll be desperate to finish with a win. If this ends up 2-2 they will go home with The Ashes ... but they would come with just a bit of an asterisk , even in their own minds. And they won't want that.

Hi Alfie - why do you say that about Murphy? The Oval tracks haven't been conducive to spin at all this season or last. He's unlikely to rip through a team there or even keep it dry judging from the limited opportunities he was trusted with at Headingley.

Neser is currently with the touring party (I believe) and so must be in with a good chance of playing. I would also though give serious thought to calling up Surrey's Abbott. As well as knowing the Oval, he's been in very fine form this season. Currently Surrey's leading wicket taker in the Championship with 37 and averaging under 25. No slouch with the bat either averaging over 45.

Pal Joey wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There have been a few rumours for a year or so that Smith might retire soon. Given the ludicrous success of his investment in an online mattress company ($100k into $12m apparently) it's hardly like he'll be needing the cash!

I didn't realise his mattress company had done so well. I thought it was still bedding in.

A little known fact about Steve Smith is that besides the 37 cricket bats he carries around all day and sleeps next to; he also goes through a hell of a lot of mattresses when he cries himself to sleep each night. He also has a few spares lying about to dry his collection of gloves and boxes.

When the Australians were touring in Port of Spain, there was an American marketing genius from a mattress company staying in an adjacent room (on his honeymoon) at the team hotel who was constantly being awoken by hotel staff replacing several mattresses from Smith's room during the night... apparently there were some heated arguments with his wife. It was then that the light went on his his head and Smith has slept more soundly ever since.

I would have thought it would be harder to sleep with a light on in his head.

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:I know we all love the Great Ian Botham but is Stuart Broad a candidate for England's greatest ever Ashes player of the modern era? I have no idea how many runs he has scored but he has take the most wickets by an Englishman in the Ashes.

The man consistently performs against the Aussies.

He'd definitely be a consideration for me. 8 five-wicket hauls for Broad against Australia, also, only Botham (9) has more in the modern era.

This original post got me thinking, and I came up with my best England Ashes XI from 1981 to the present day, which was:

Cook; Vaughan (C); Gower; KP; Thorpe; Stewart (WK); Botham; Swann; Broad; Gough; Willis.

Interesting discussion given several England greats from the period have poor numbers against Australia. Root and Jimmy for instance averaging mid-30s with bat and ball respectively against Australia. Ian Bell won 5 Ashes series but averages in the mid-30s.

Even Swann averages nearly 40 overall against he Aussies. Emburey has a slightly better record in Ashes cricket but a much worse one overall.

Mark Wood now has a really respectable Ashes record from only 1 Test fewer than Willis if we're taking that post 1981 start point. Obviously Willis took far more wickets against across his whole career.

Angus Fraser has really good numbers against Australia as well.

Spare a thought for perennial punchline Mark Ealham averaging under 24 with the ball.

With the bat Chris Broad famously had a good record in Ashes cricket with 4 tons but I was also interested to see Tim Robinson averaging far better in the Ashes than he did generally.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-unchanged-squad-oval-ashes-test-1389193

England have named an unchanged squad. Sounds as though Woakes won't make it for the final test, however, and Wood's workload is also being carefully monitored. With only Robinson and Tongue in reserve, it may be the case that Anderson retains his place by default.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Will be interesting to see what both teams do to refresh their bowling groups for The Oval. (Don't see either changing their batting at this late stage : Warner's head may well have been on the block but for the fact that Harris hasn't played for ages and they really don't want to mess with their other batting positions ; but especially now they can't actually lose the series I reckon they'll stick with him )

Cummins looks exhausted but he's the skipper and he will play. Starc , injury and wear and tear surely needs a rest ? Neser for mine , as Boland has been surprisingly ineffective and not even economical. And I think they must play Murphy : so out goes Green.

Warner Khawaja Labuschagne Smith Head Marsh Carey Neser Cummins Murphy Hazlewood  ?

And perhaps with the trophy secured we might see less of the Tortoise and more typically Australian attacking play ?  Who knows...

But I do think they'll be desperate to finish with a win. If this ends up 2-2 they will go home with The Ashes ... but they would come with just a bit of an asterisk , even in their own minds. And they won't want that.

Hi Alfie - why do you say that about Murphy? The Oval tracks haven't been conducive to spin at all this season or last. He's unlikely to rip through a team there or even keep it dry judging from the limited opportunities he was trusted with at Headingley.

Neser is currently with the touring party (I believe) and so must be in with a good chance of playing. I would also though give serious thought to calling up Surrey's Abbott. As well as knowing the Oval, he's been in very fine form this season. Currently Surrey's leading wicket taker in the Championship with 37 and averaging under 25. No slouch with the bat either averaging over 45.

Indeed you may be right , guildford. As you say , spinners aren't finding much help at your place ; so Australia may go again with an all-pace attack . (Abbott a good call) I just thought they would be reluctant to do so for reasons of : overworked seamers , ; slow over rates and the threat of fines/points deductions ; and the lack of variety that saw England batsmen racking up mega-scores at a startling rate. Acknowledge Murphy might not be able to make a huge difference ; but he'd likely be more effective than Head !

Duty281 wrote:https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-unchanged-squad-oval-ashes-test-1389193

England have named an unchanged squad. Sounds as though Woakes won't make it for the final test, however, and Wood's workload is also being carefully monitored. With only Robinson and Tongue in reserve, it may be the case that Anderson retains his place by default.

So no Potts then. Might be Robinson and Tongue come in and they just see who out of the incumbents is still able to walk upright by Wednesday night...

If Woakes is forced to miss it will be a blow. Side has looked better balanced with him at eight. Though if Moeen can do another decent job at three it may not matter too much this week. You'd hope Robinson has managed to recover a bit of that early season zest by taking a short holiday : I thought he'd be a big factor in this series ; but although he's not been exactly rubbish , he's lacked the cutting edge I'd been expecting. Pitch conditions , I guess , similar to what has restrained Anderson.

Don't suppose The Oval will be too exciting for the fast medium seamers either. Do think England have shot themselves in the foot by asking for all these flat surfaces : but I guess having regular full five day Tests has been great for the gate takings !

:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Will be interesting to see what both teams do to refresh their bowling groups for The Oval. (Don't see either changing their batting at this late stage : Warner's head may well have been on the block but for the fact that Harris hasn't played for ages and they really don't want to mess with their other batting positions ; but especially now they can't actually lose the series I reckon they'll stick with him )

Cummins looks exhausted but he's the skipper and he will play. Starc , injury and wear and tear surely needs a rest ? Neser for mine , as Boland has been surprisingly ineffective and not even economical. And I think they must play Murphy : so out goes Green.

Warner Khawaja Labuschagne Smith Head Marsh Carey Neser Cummins Murphy Hazlewood  ?

And perhaps with the trophy secured we might see less of the Tortoise and more typically Australian attacking play ?  Who knows...

But I do think they'll be desperate to finish with a win. If this ends up 2-2 they will go home with The Ashes ... but they would come with just a bit of an asterisk , even in their own minds. And they won't want that.

Hi Alfie - why do you say that about Murphy? The Oval tracks haven't been conducive to spin at all this season or last. He's unlikely to rip through a team there or even keep it dry judging from the limited opportunities he was trusted with at Headingley.

Neser is currently with the touring party (I believe) and so must be in with a good chance of playing. I would also though give serious thought to calling up Surrey's Abbott. As well as knowing the Oval, he's been in very fine form this season. Currently Surrey's leading wicket taker in the Championship with 37 and averaging under 25. No slouch with the bat either averaging over 45.

Certainly not a done deal that Abbott will play in the Oval Test but the odds seem to have shortened tonight. He's beem pulled by Cricket Australia from Surrey's squad for their Championship match starting at Taunton tomorrow.

In somewhat gobbleydygook wording, it's stated on Surrey's website that, ''Sean Abbott has been withdrawn by [sic] the squad by Cricket Australia to manage workloads ahead of any future selection for the national team.''

After the Oval Test, Australia's next international cricket is a T20 and ODI series in South Africa commencing at the end of August. I would expect Abbott to play in some of those games. However, it does seem to be wrapping him in cotton wool if Australia need him to be omitted from Surrey's squad and rested now just for South Africa when the first game there is more than five weeks away.

Edit and PS: Alfie, thanks for your response to my original post which I hadn't seen when I posted this one.

“So far in his Test career he averages just 25 against balls from seamers under 82mph, but 34 against balls 82-87mph and 47 when the speed is 87mph or more.”

Interesting stats on Crawley from Will MacPherson’s piece in the Telegraph. You can see why England persist with him, but it does fall down slightly that whilst only 1% of pace bowlers balls in the CC are 87+ - it is only 17% in Tests. So still a lot of dibble where he averages low 30s.