Cricket

[kaosmark2]

won on the better use of reviews, England having the 2 left for Hadden whilst Aus had none for Broad, I'd say both players knew they hit it.

Definitely. I'm not convinced by Cook's conservative captaincy, but his use of reviews is excellent. Clarke's already said he's not happy with how he uses DRS.

[pink_triangle]

The current Australian team may lack talent but it still has the same fighting spirit of previous sides. Winning this match is huge because as defening champions, we are 1 win away from making it extremely difficult for Australia to win the thing back.

There was a lot of discussion about DRS on the radio. Firstly some were saying that we wouldn't have won the Ashes in 2005 if it was around then. I don't think this is necessarily accurate as there is no certainties Australia would have had appeals left so late into the game when Kasprowicz was given out.

Also some people saying that It should be taken out of the captains hand and left to the umpires to refer as and when they say fit. I completely disagree with this idea as I think it would lead to umpires feeling under pressure constantly referring decisions out of fear of getting anything wrong. Im also not sure the captain should take all the flack for bad use of the appeals, to me the wicket keeper should have a huge role in deciding when to appeal and when to not.

[kaosmark2]

I don't think it lacks talent, I just think they've not got many top-order batsmen. Plenty of very good bowlers, most of whom look like number 7/8 batsmen rather than tail-enders.

It's not like our batting lineup is particularly consistent or reliable. Root and Bairstow very inexperienced, Bell's century this Test his first good display in a while, KP permanently inconsistent, Broad's showing this Test first time the tail has wagged in 2 years. We like to remember the 2 series victories over India, but drew out in NZ (albeit on pitches that were never going to produce a result with a day washed out), humbled in UAE, thrashed by the Saffers, drew in Sri Lanka. The idea that we could be a dominant/ruthless team is based on hope and the 09-11 years rather than recent form.

Agree re. DRS. I think England have it right in that captain, 'keeper, bowler + maybe one other have a discussion before reviewing. I think Prior appeals to the umpire for wickets far more often than he advises for a review. Still, Cook definitely deserves credit for how he uses it in comparison to Clarke or McCullum.

[pink_triangle]

It's not like our batting lineup is particularly consistent or reliable. Root and Bairstow very inexperienced, Bell's century this Test his first good display in a while, KP permanently inconsistent, Broad's showing this Test first time the tail has wagged in 2 years. We like to remember the 2 series victories over India, but drew out in NZ (albeit on pitches that were never going to produce a result with a day washed out), humbled in UAE, thrashed by the Saffers, drew in Sri Lanka. The idea that we could be a dominant/ruthless team is based on hope and the 09-11 years rather than recent form.

Our batsmen may be inconsistent at times but in terms of ability they are miles ahead of their Australian countrparts. We are now at the level where if your not averaging 40 at test matches you wont be in the team for long, II think only Clarke averages 40+ for Australia.

In terms of bowling Australia are solid enough but I would take our attack over theirs anyday. If we can play close to our potential we should win this series comfortably. I think Australia played pretty close to their potential, while we were slightly under par and we still won.

[kaosmark2]

Our batsmen may be inconsistent at times but in terms of ability they are miles ahead of their Australian countrparts. We are now at the level where if your not averaging 40 at test matches you wont be in the team for long, II think only Clarke averages 40+ for Australia.

In terms of bowling Australia are solid enough but I would take our attack over theirs anyday. If we can play close to our potential we should win this series comfortably. I think Australia played pretty close to their potential, while we were slightly under par and we still won.

Well 5 of our top 7 average 45+ (maybe Prior and Bell are 44?), so yeah, absolutely. Our batting is still very much a concern though, we crumble for low scores far too often and get bailed out by our bowlers.

Oh yeah, I'd definitely take our attack over theirs comfortably. I think our 2nd string is comparable in quality to their 1st. We definitely played under-par this Test, I'd expect a lot better from Cook, Trott, Swann and our 3rd seamer (whether Finn or someone else) for the rest of the series. Hopefully Root and Bairstow will improve and become the players we hope they are as well. I think 4-1 or similar is on the cards, ball should definitely dominate bat despite the sunny weather this summer. I'd agree there's not necessarily a huge amount more to come from Australia, but Starc, Agar and Pattison will probably improve and bowl more consistently over the next 9 Tests, and their batsmen might develop as well. I think we'll will the series with a comfortable score, but I suspect a couple more Tests will either be tight or go Australia's way.

[pink_triangle]

. but Starc, Agar and Pattison will probably improve and bowl more consistently over the next 9 Tests, and their batsmen might develop as well. I think we'll will the series with a comfortable score, but I suspect a couple more Tests will either be tight or go Australia's way.

I like Pattinson, not seen enough of Agar to judge, not as convinced about Starc. I have a feeling they will replace Cowan for Warner, the latter seems well suited to the Ashes environment as he seems to have that pom bashing streak that many of the best from the previous generation had. Whether he can take it from a walkabout bar to a cricket pitch, time wil tell!

[Ed209]

I'm definitely of the opinion Finn needs to be dropped for a bit now. He's definitely got a major future in Test cricket, but struggled a bit against NZ and had a poor match this Test. With Cook not going to him much and that 15-run over I'd be surprised if the selectors keep him now. I'd like to see Onions but as I said above I suspect Bresnan.

Think Tremlett is starting to come into the picture again. Figures improving for Surrey over recent weeks. Maybe not for Lords but can see him getting a run out in one of the later tests if he starts picking up a few more wickets at county. Big fan of Tremlett when he's on fire. Saying that, he would benefit from some faster wickets than that seen at Trent Bridge.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Ed209

[kaosmark2]

I like Pattinson, not seen enough of Agar to judge, not as convinced about Starc. I have a feeling they will replace Cowan for Warner, the latter seems well suited to the Ashes environment as he seems to have that pom bashing streak that many of the best from the previous generation had. Whether he can take it from a walkabout bar to a cricket pitch, time wil tell!

I'm not really basing this on what I've seen, just that they're young and at the age where experience will improve them, the question is more by how much and how long before they hit a bad streak.

Based on what I saw in the 1st Test, I'd agree Pattinson looked better than Starc, who seems to be in predominantly because he's a left-armer, but I don't feel I've seen enough of either to judge their long-term prospects. Agar appeared a passable yet unremarkable spinner from the little I saw of him in the 1st Test, rather than showing any special moments with the ball, but even Swann didn't threaten hugely at Trent Bridge and he didn't get that many overs.

Think Tremlett is starting to come into the picture again. Figures improving for Surrey over recent weeks. Maybe not for Lords but can see him getting a run out in one of the later tests if he starts picking up a few more wickets at county. Big fan of Tremlett when he's on fire. Saying that, he would benefit from some faster wickets than that seen at Trent Bridge.

Yeah, I think he'll start to be considered again, although as you say, not until later Tests. I expect they'll stick with the current 5 for the rest of this series, but I wouldn't be that surprised if he makes the touring squad for the reverse series, particularly considering how well he bowled in the 10-11 Ashes. I think Tremlett, like Finn, offers a major threat of taking wickets but gets expensive quickly when not. I suspect the Trent Bridge pitch will be fairly typical of ones this summer though, I think the current heatwave will make conditions less pacey than English grounds traditionally are. My call for Onions is largely because he offers good control and I think our bigger worry is Australia getting quick runs, rather than needing a 4th strike bowler to grab 20 wickets. They'll bat themselves into trouble (much like we do), and with Anderson, Broad and Swann we've got enough to threaten when they're sensible, but many of them, like Watson, Smith, Hughes and the tail, can score very quickly and potentially change the momentum of a match. I reckon having Onions as an option could arrest the run-rate better and frustrate the Aussies into giving wickets away, while either Bresnan or Tremlett coming in could get targeted for runs like happened to Finn today and prove costly. It doesn't take many spells like that for a bowler to lose confidence, consider that at the start of the NZ away series Finn had earned new-ball rights over Broad after an excellent display in India, 3 average-poor matches later (with one fairly good amidst that), and he looks seriously out of touch.

[TheGayTent]

I'm confused.

If you want control, it's Tremlett not Onions you want. He's more accurate and consistent at hitting his line and length than Onions is.

Have you got the two mixed up??

[pink_triangle]

I'm confused.

If you want control, it's Tremlett not Onions you want. He's more accurate and consistent at hitting his line and length than Onions is.

Have you got the two mixed up??

I have a feeling the decision wont be made on bowling ability. I susepct the selectors think there isnt much difference between any possible replacements for Finn and will go for Bresnan with a view to adding additional runs to the tail.

[TheGayTent]

I have a feeling the decision wont be made on bowling ability. I susepct the selectors think there isnt much difference between any possible replacements for Finn and will go for Bresnan with a view to adding additional runs to the tail.

Depends what you mean by bowling ability really. In recent years England have become much more strategy orientated than before and they pick players to suit that strategy rather than pick players on form and/or stats alone.

That strategy has been geared around not giving cheap runs away and putting batsmen under pressure through restricting opposition batsmen as opposed to trying to take wickets with every ball. It's why Finn was dropped in Oz last time round despite taking plenty of wickets.

I expect due to Tremlett's lack of prolonged fitness they'll go with Bresnan. Both of those two bowlers offer more control in terms of accuracy and economy rate than either Finn or Onions do.

Edit: Just read England have announced the same 13 man squad for the Lords test, which rules out Tremlett as expected. Thus if they drop Finn I'd definitely expect Bresnan to get the nod.

Edited July 15, 2013 by TheGayTent

[Ed209]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/people-who-dont-like-cricket-are-wrong-say-experts-2013071575756

[TheGayTent]

Durham County Cricket Club are robbing bastards

[TheGayTent]

Not a fan of the view from the mound - I prefer being behind the bowlers arm.

Am sure you'll enjoy the prawn sandwiches though

[TheGayTent]

I much prefer a side view if given a choice.

Why?

[TheGayTent]

I only sat behind the bowlers arm once before when I was younger and didn't like the way you see the back of the slips etc when the bowler is bowling towards you. Found it very restrictive viewing.

That only happens if you're sitting very low down. At Lords for example, when you're in the Edrich or Compton upper tiers that's not an issue at all. With the added bonus of being able to see seam movement, swing, edges, playing and missing, and having good views of lbw shouts.

Get none of that from the side.

[TheGayTent]

Should be noted that if there is no raised option though I stand firm that its a shit position as your looking at the back of the slips arses for half the game

OT has changed massively in the last few years so I'd guess views have improved?

Think they've rotated the wicket by 90 degrees too so the view must have changed to your day

[TheGayTent]

I will let you know... Heading back there on the 2nd August

Sat in Stand B for the OT test which should show me a lot more of the wicket / some of what the ball is doing.

Also the mound seems to wrap around quite a bit but I am on row two of the mound so would rather hoping I am more central

Just looking at the seating plan for OT there still isn't much raised viewing behind the bowlers arm.

Ahh, sounds as though you're not in the good corporate seats in the Mound stand terrace above the peasants then. You just have a normal ticket and your food will be served behind the ground at the nursery end. Still who cares, if you're not paying eh

OT is still not finished I don't think. Am sure I read somewhere they're erecting a temporary stand especially for the ashes because the restructuring still isn't finished.

[TheGayTent]

Where's Culty when you need him. Just forked out £322 on 4 tickets for the Durham test.

Robbing bastards but had to be done.

[TheGayTent]

To be honest I have no idea... The guy who bought them wanted the usual box offering he usually gets but it didn't work out and this is what he ended up with. Its called the "Cricket Academy" or something.

Tickets state the usual dress code must be kept to etc and its breakfast, lunch and dinner with wine and champaign being served. So it can't be all that bad As you said... Its free so who cares.

I would of just been happy to have any ticket to watch the Ashes at Lords. Quite special I feel to be watching the Ashes at the home of cricket. As I said its a bucket list tick for me.

So far done Old Trafford, Headingley and Edgbaston. Now I have added on Lords there is only really the Oval I want to go to in England. Really want to do a couple of tests abroad. REALLY want to go to the stadium in Cape Town

Yes the cricket academy is I believe the 'cheapest' corporate package they offer (though obviously it's still ridiculously expensive.

The cricket academy is what it says it is. A big indoor facility that usually hosts lots of individual nets or they even play full indoor games. A coaching facility for the colts.

But for test matches they chuck the kids out, stick a load of drapes around it and a few tables and chairs and convert it into a hall for feeding the corporates.

Lords is great for first time visitors. It loses it's appeal the more often you go mind. I prefer the oval for test matches. Lords for 4 day county cricket is awesome.

[TheGayTent]

lol - Yeah pretty much same as OT....

You could get OT tickets for £50. That's quite a bit cheaper.

[TheGayTent]

So the convicts have brought back Ryan Harris - very good player I think, unfortunately blighted by injuries, and Khawaja.

Meanwhile as expected England drop Finn and bring in Bresnan.

Most importantly Chef won the toss and England are batting.

[TheGayTent]

Bad start on what looks like a cracker of a track. Ball swinging not hugely but enough it would seem.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Aussie attack found out again. These two lads look like they could play on forever.

[TheGayTent]

Aussie attack found out again.

Don't agree with that analysis - not on that track in these conditions. If England end on less than 350 the convicts will be happy and England disappointed.