Cricket

[90sWereBetter]

And all out for just 128. Oh dear me.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

And all out for just 128. Oh dear me.

Just can't believe how poor Australia were - but I love it! Would like to have heard the Australian Channel 9 commentary team - they would have been apoplectic!

 

[90sWereBetter]

I can't believe Cook didn't enforce the follow-on. Look what's happened, 30-3 already.

That's 16 wickets so far today. Has anyone told them they're not playing a T20 match?

 

[Whistler40145]

How much of a lead would be sufficient?

 

[Johnuk123]

How poor is Pietersen, he's definitely one that is living on past glories.

 

[Ferret]

How much of a lead would be sufficient?

What we have already I think!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think we'll know if 361 is a reasonable score by Saturday.

We know by Friday evening as it happens!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can't believe Cook didn't enforce the follow-on. Look what's happened, 30-3 already.

That's 16 wickets so far today. Has anyone told them they're not playing a T20 match?

The killer instinct appears to be missing from the English mentality when they have the opportunity to really "turn the screw". Did they decide that they would have to bat again, fearing Australia might score enough runs in their second innings to give a similar nail-biting finish as in the first Test Match ?

 

[Ferret]

The killer instinct appears to be missing from the English mentality when they have the opportunity to really "turn the screw". Did they decide that they would have to bat again, fearing Australia might score enough runs in their second innings to give a similar nail-biting finish as in the first Test Match ?

I'd have batted again too. No point flogging Anderson and Stuart 'dodgy heel' Broad into the ground.

 

[Johnuk123]

England are lucky in that all the convicts batsmen are in poor form unlike England where about half are.

 

[andrew bell]

I can't believe Cook didn't enforce the follow-on. Look what's happened, 30-3 already.

That's 16 wickets so far today. Has anyone told them they're not playing a T20 match?

If it wasn't as hot as it was I would of enforced the follow on, but this way, as long as we can survive until tea at least, England should be 450+ ahead but a declaration probably wont happen unless we are about 500 ahead with 2 days remaining

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of course, the matter of the ticket sales for all five days of the Test Match would not have entered into the equation.

 

[Cab2Cab]

Interesting day today. With 3 ashes tests to go and to be 2 up in the series would be perfect. I know the weather is scorchio at the moment but with the Aussies having to win the final 3 test matches (and the good old english weather might intervene somewhere along the way) surely the odds are in England's favour as the AUSSIES only have Dave Warner missing from there first team and no other quality in the ranks to call on.

Good job England have a commanding lead tho. The next 2 sessions should hopefully give us a 350+ lead with Super Bell still to come in and hopefully get us to the magic 500+ mark leaving super Swann to bowl us to victory.

Reading past posts i would have batted again to get the runs on the board knowing that the weather is good for the next 3 days leaving another day of wear and tear for Swanny.

 

[bnm]

Convicts? Really?

Such a tired old bit of xenophobia and not in the least bit funny.

 

[Ferret]

Reading past posts i would have batted again to get the runs on the board knowing that the weather is good for the next 3 days leaving another day of wear and tear for Swanny.

Finally, somebody who has a clue. The amount of guff I've read on various fora regarding Cook being a crap captain for not enforcing the follow on is unbelievable.:roll: It's clear that some people just don't understand the game one bit.

So, we're in the second of two back to back Test matches. Anderson admitted to being knackered after the last Test when he bowled a 13 over spell to bowl the Australians out on a road and win the match. Matt Prior is carrying an achilles injury which needs managing. Stuart Broad has a similar injury that needs managing. We have a 4 man bowling attack with a bit of Root and Trott if needed. The only way Australia can win is if they score 475 following on and roll us over on a wearing pitch, conditions are forecast to be good for batting and given all that, some want England to get out there and field again. I'm sorry, but what planet are you on?! Thank heavens Flower and Cook can see the bigger picture.:roll:

 

[Whistler40145]

I agree.

Why would you enforce the follow on in this heat, draining our bowlers energy, with a more than decent lead, we can pile on the runs, making it increasingly or if not impossible for the Aussies to get the required runs. The hotter it gets, the drier the wicket will be & Swanny will be a nightmare to face.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am somewhat older than many of the correspondents on this forum and can well remember the West Indies test teams in the 1970's having no compunction in enforcing the follow-on from a position of strength, knowing that they had the bowling attack to reap benefits. Earlier than this in the 1950's, they had the spin pair of Ramadhan and Valentine to whom long spells appeared to have no detrimental effects to their wicket-taking ability.

England go into the day with an equivalent lead-score of 264-3 which obviously is a position of strength, but let us not overlook the worrying England trend of losing early wickets in an innings which fortunately is masked by the magnificent efforts of the bowling teams' magnificent performances.

 

[Ferret]

I agree.

Why would you enforce the follow on in this heat, draining our bowlers energy, with a more than decent lead, we can pile on the runs, making it increasingly or if not impossible for the Aussies to get the required runs. The hotter it gets, the drier the wicket will be & Swanny will be a nightmare to face.

Spot on. Why the enthusiasm for making them follow on anyway? Do England get extra points or something? Does it mean England go 3-0 up after 2 games should they win that way round?! Of course not! I seem to recall last time England enforced the follow on in an Ashes Test, it nearly came to bite England on the backside. I'd rather make sure of the win than make some grandiose but ultimately pointless statement by sticking them in again.

One other way of looking at it - Root, Bairstow & Prior could all do with some time in the middle with the bat. They won't get that if England win by an innings...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am somewhat older than many of the correspondents on this forum and can well remember the West Indies test teams in the 1970's having no compunction in enforcing the follow-on from a position of strength, knowing that they had the bowling attack to reap benefits. Earlier than this in the 1950's, they had the spin pair of Ramadhan and Valentine to whom long spells appeared to have no detrimental effects to their wicket-taking ability.

Playing back to back Test matches were they? With 3 pace bowlers, 2 of whom have a history of injuries and the other who will be shattered after his exertions at Trent Bridge? And with a keeper who has a dodgy achilles? I thought not. I've yet to hear anyone come up with anything other than bluster about enforcing the follow being akin to kicking the Aussies while they are down - nobody can seem to tell me what tangible benefit England would gain out of it. I think that tells us all we need to know regarding whether Cook has made the correct decision or not.

 

[richw]

End of the day looking promising for this test. 333-5 with Joe Root on 178 not out. Root becomes the youngest English Ashes Centurion ever.
Currently have a lead of 566.
Great decision to bat, going out to field twice in a row would have been far too exhausting in the heat. Now we have to wait to see if England declare or carry on batting tomorrow morning.

 

[Ferret]

Now we have to wait to see if England declare or carry on batting tomorrow morning.

It seems Cook will allow Root to go for his 200 in the morning...

 

[Whistler40145]

Kevin Pietersen has a left calf strain and will take no further part in this Test Match & a doubt for the Old Trafford Test.

Who do you think will replace him if he fails his fitness test?

He's only lasted part way into the 2nd Test and is once more injured.

Is he still good enough to warrant his Test place and Central Contract?

Will KP end up spending more time out with injuries than actually playing?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm sorry, but what planet are you on?!

The last time I checked it was known as Earth.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, we're in the second of two back to back Test matches. Anderson admitted to being knackered after the last Test when he bowled a 13 over spell to bowl the Australians out on a road and win the match. Matt Prior is carrying an achilles injury which needs managing. Stuart Broad has a similar injury that needs managing. We have a 4 man bowling attack with a bit of Root and Trott if needed. Ssome want England to get out there and field again.

When Australia batted in their first innings, they were all out after only 53.3 overs had been bowled.

Are we to believe that what is possible in county cricket and have a squad that can bowl 80-90 overs in a day, split between rotating the spin and pace bowlers, the England Test Match bowling squad are not fit enough to bowl more than 54 overs in a day..hock:

 

[Ferret]

Paul - what happens when it becomes 160 overs in two and a bit days after you needlessly enforce the follow on?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Paul - what happens when it becomes 160 overs in two and a bit days after you needlessly enforce the follow on?

For this to happen, Australia would be batting through all those overs and the match would be drawn....unless they managed to amass a winning total in those overs.

NOTE...I do not want to cause any undue ill feeling on this thread, but we are all entitled to our own opinion, wrong as it may seem to others.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I note that losing three early wickets at the start of an innings seems to becoming the norm rather than the exception in this series.

Australia now 135-5 after 50 overs, with Root taking the last two wickets.

 

[Oswyntail]

Oh hurrah . I can barely wait until Look North this week is full of how "Yorkshire have won the Ashes" (In similar vein to last year's "Yorkshire beats Australia in the Olympics").

 

[Cab2Cab]

For this to happen, Australia would be batting through all those overs and the match would be drawn....unless they managed to amass a winning total in those overs.

Hi,

I always think that 150 runs required to win in the 4th innings always constitutes a game. At the mo England are losing early wickets and the nerves start to set in, so looking at the weather conditions for this test it was best to bat again hence the position we are in now......another win!!!!.

If the weather was looking a bit grim Sat,Sun and Mon i would have made Australia bat again taking a chance of winning by a innings and **** runs but the odds were far better to follow on.

This is only my opinion tho.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Australia now 158-7 after 58 overs, with Bresnan taking the last two wickets.


Still, Australia will be pleased not to have emulated the Australian performance in the the famous Test Match at The Oval in 1938, when England's Len Hutton scored 364 and helped to put on 382 for the second wicket, enabling England to score 903-7 declared, then England dismissed Australia twice to win by the resounding margin of an innings and 579 runs.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Swann finally ends the resistance of Pattinson by having him LBW for 35 and Australia are all out for 235 (90.3 overs). Swann finishes with 4-78. England win by 347 runs.

Only once have Australia ever won the Ashes after losing the first two Test Matches and this was in 1936/7 by Don Bradman's side.

 

[Ferret]

For this to happen, Australia would be batting through all those overs and the match would be drawn....unless they managed to amass a winning total in those overs.

NOTE...I do not want to cause any undue ill feeling on this thread, but we are all entitled to our own opinion, wrong as it may seem to others.

No ill feeling my end fella! But you missed my point. How long did the Aussies bat 1st time round? 50 overs? Enforce the follow on, and they do a bit better as seems inevitable, and stick around for 110 overs. That's 160 overs your bowlers have bowled in hot conditions with two of them having a history of getting injured. And your premier spinner not long back from an elbow op to boot. It would be craven stupidity to enforce the follow on.

In any case - a 350 run winning margin is a thrashing in anybody's book. And with a day to spare too. Vindication?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In any case - a 350 run winning margin is a thrashing in anybody's book. And with a day to spare too. Vindication?

I totally concur with what you say. Questions now must surely be asked in the higher echelons of the Australian cricket as to the insidious way that the confidence of their Test Match squad has plummeted of late, despite their dismissal of their former team coach Michael Arthur.

 

[Johnuk123]

One thing is clear, England as a whole haven't been that good.

Australia have been very poor and had they been in better form they would have definitely won the first test and possibly the second.

With the exception of Root and Bell our batsmen have been terrible but so have Australia by and large.

England can improve but I doubt that the Australians can really do much more than they already are.

 

[Oswyntail]

One thing is clear, England as a whole haven't been that good.

Australia have been very poor and had they been in better form they would have definitely won the first test and possibly the second.

With the exception of Root and Bell our batsmen have been terrible but so have Australia by and large.

England can improve but I doubt that the Australians can really do much more than they already are.

I agree with some of this. England have mis-fired in most sessions. But, when they have there has always been someone to hold them together and keep them going, while the rest have gone back to basics to find their way. This is called playing as a team, and it is patently what Australia have not been doing. The one bit that worries me has been the inability to finish off an innings. Bowlers of England's calibre should know how to do that, even against competent tail-enders.
I do not think Australia could have won either game. I suspect the English bowling would have become tighter if there had been meaningful resistance from the top order. But Australia can improve, if they start playing as a team. This might be beyond them