England v Australia, 4th test, Leeds, August 7-11 (II)

Yes, but England's statistics are absolutely awful, and Australia have had comfortably the better of two matches, have probably been about level in one after a good third innings batting display at Edgbaston, and were soundly beaten in another. So they've been the better side in most senses. Though I think it would be fair to say that England's batsmen have simply been much, much worse in largely batsman friendly conditions. People say bowlers win you matches, but England's batsman, collapsing in a heap at Cardiff and here, have lost or done their very best to lose them matches. Which just reiterates what most of us on here have been saying for a while - England's batsman are rubbish. Their bowlers aren't brilliant, but it's hard to win matches off the back of consistently below par scores. Par is obviously relative to the pitch and the opposition - for my money, England made par at Edgbaston and at Lord's. Every other innings, they've failed to make the most of things.

At least Andy Flower is honest about it.

"We have to think about the middle order. We've got one ton in this series - Andrew Strauss is holding us together - they've got eight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/8192337.stm

Although he then goes on to talk exclusively about Ravi Bopara which suggests that, in truly delusional style, England think that replacing just one of their many failing batsmen will make all the difference.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Yes, but England's statistics are absolutely awful, and Australia have had comfortably the better of two matches, have probably been about level in one after a good third innings batting display at Edgbaston, and were soundly beaten in another. So they've been the better side in most senses. Though I think it would be fair to say that England's batsmen have simply been much, much worse in largely batsman friendly conditions. People say bowlers win you matches, but England's batsman, collapsing in a heap at Cardiff and here, have lost or done their very best to lose them matches. Which just reiterates what most of us on here have been saying for a while - England's batsman are rubbish. Their bowlers aren't brilliant, but it's hard to win matches off the back of consistently below par scores. Par is obviously relative to the pitch and the opposition - for my money, England made par at Edgbaston and at Lord's. Every other innings, they've failed to make the most of things.

Yes, it's fair enough that England have been pretty poor a lot of the time, and Australia of 5 years ago would probably have won this series 5-0. But all I was saying is that generally the team who wins a major Test series is the team who deserves to do so, and the scoreline is generally a fair one - winning Test series is about coming through all the twists and turns and winning the key sessions. If you lose two matches by an innings and 200 and win the other three by one run, you've still won the series 3-2 and the margins become irrelevant.

Re: dello

Well, Cook, Bell and Bopara all average 29 or less on batting pitches. Collingwood averages a smidgen over 30. It's hard to believe, against what is by world standards only an above average attack, that there are not three men who can do better. Bell is lucky to have got a 50 in all that - Johnson has made him his bunny and has got him out five times in three innings with all the dross decisions the Umpires have made. Most of his runs have been streaky.

I'm still bigging up the in-form Michael Carberry who's a bit like a Trescothick, he's just a guy I fancy to do well in international cricket. I'm happy with Trott, I think he'll do well. I'm obviously still burning a torch for Samit Patel, though I'd settle for Mark Wagh .

Re: beamer

If it comes down to it, no-one will care who should have and could have won the series if we take it 2-1. But the thing is, we've never looked convincing in this series, it's been another paper over the cracks sort of effort just like the four years before it. We've done some things well, but even at Lord's when it was all going for us, it says a lot that Australia were able to get back into the game and worry us a little. It obviously didn't happen but it all looked very down. We always seem to be waiting to lose. And if we're not waiting to lose then we're waiting for fate to stop us from losing. Australia might be a poor simulacrum of what they were, and you see it in Ponting that he's setting fields for a McGrath that isn't there, but they still believe they can force victories whereas England need the other side to suggest to them that maybe they can win this. Maybe.

I'll take papering over the cracks for one more match if we can somehow scrape a result at the Oval. Then the rip it up and start again job can take place after we get whitewashed in SA!

Well fought Broad and Swann, bad luck England, well done Australia. What a cricket feast the Oval should offer next week.

Scyld Berry on the match:

The Ashes: England act out Justin Langer's script

Justin Langer was pretty accurate, in other words, when he summarised the shortcomings of English cricketers: good when the going was favourable, and all too easily downcast when the going was hard.

Langer’s document was written for the consumption of the Australian players, from the perspective of someone who had spent more than two full years in county cricket. It contained plenty of home truths. And it is just about conceivable that Langer’s words will fall on deaf official ears.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/5999535/The-Ashes-England-act-out-Justin-Langers-script.html


"Langer dossier rips England apart":

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25905597-5001505,00.html


Was Langer too harsh? "Massive ego" Prior and "Strut" Bopara

Not harsh enough.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:

If it comes down to it, no-one will care who should have and could have won the series if we take it 2-1. But the thing is, we've never looked convincing in this series, it's been another paper over the cracks sort of effort just like the four years before it.

But then we're not going to change that in the space of a couple of tests are we? It's the system that needs an overhaul to produce world class players. We dont produce them anymore - SA do it for us. As much as I think Roebuck was a twat for including Strauss & Prior in his 'african contingent' - I do agree with his overall message. The counties and therefore the english game do pick the easy way out.

It will probably take a test series defeat at home to Bangladesh to get anything done but even then I wouldn't bank on it.

Dello wrote:Not harsh enough.

regarding English cricket - it was like he'd been reading some of the thoughts on this forum. Wouldn't have been shocked to learn that Anderson has a cycle. 'Pussy' seems fair enough though...

JKLever wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:

If it comes down to it, no-one will care who should have and could have won the series if we take it 2-1. But the thing is, we've never looked convincing in this series, it's been another paper over the cracks sort of effort just like the four years before it.

But then we're not going to change that in the space of a couple of tests are we? It's the system that needs an overhaul to produce world class players. We dont produce them anymore - SA do it for us. As much as I think Roebuck was a twat for including Strauss & Prior in his 'african contingent' - I do agree with his overall message. The counties and therefore the english game do pick the easy way out.

It will probably take a test series defeat at home to Bangladesh to get anything done but even then I wouldn't bank on it.

The only way to really change things for the better is a six-team first class setup. With 10 international grounds to keep happy that's never likely to happen though!

Or if a select few members of the FB were given free reign of the ECB and access to automatic machine guns.

It's simple.

North,South,West,East regional cricket played by the best players in county cricket. 6 games a year. A level between county cricket & test cricket.

I may have mentioned this before.

Infact I may even have mentioned before that I've mentioned this before.

Wales have got to be involved Lever. Unless, you move the Welsh players to the South or West leagues. No question.

DJ_Smerk wrote:Wales have got to be involved Lever. Unless, you move the Welsh players to the South or West leagues. No question.

Uh, any Glammy players would qualify for 'West'. Obviously...

What about bringing back the "Academy" as it was supposed to be in the first place, with a tough Aussie in charge to produce tough international cricketers... I think the concept was watered down and eventually turned into the Lions which is just the old England A team under another name, that production line of mediocrity containing mostly capped players who have already proved to be not quite good enough.