There have been times this winter when staying up all night has seemed as futile as trying to persuade a Remoaner that Brexit is a good idea, or a Brextremist that the European Union is a land of milk and honey. You just get nowhere and end up tearing your hair out. And everyone involved gets thoroughly pissed off.
However, last night was different. Australia’s batsmen were careless and England’s two senior batsmen took advantage. Suddenly everything was right with the world. It was like Jacob Rees Mogg and Chuka Umunna having a cuddle, lighting a spliff, and singing Kumbaya around a camp fire at Woodstock.
England might well screw things up from here – we’ve seen it a million times before – so let’s not tempt fate. I suggest we just enjoy it. After all, today was the day when Steve Smith realised what it’s like to be Joe Root. He had a toothless bowling attack on a lifeless surface – Jackson Bird looks like Darren Stevens in comparison to Mitchell Starc – and Australia couldn’t buy a wicket for love nor money.
If ever there was a day that demonstrated the value of genuine pace on Australian wickets, today was it. Australia didn’t look the same side without Starc’s thunderbolts, and when Pat Cummins left the field with a stomach bug the Aussies looked completely short of pace and penetration. Nathan Lyon did his best to tie up and end but there was precious little spin. It would have taken a wrist spinner to get anything out of this sluggish turd of a pitch.
With Australia short of firepower for the first time this series, Alastair Cook once again demonstrated his impressive ability to cash in big time on pitches that lack the pace and movement to expose his technical flaws. We predicted runs for Cook in this game – everything was in his favour with Starc absent, Cummins ill, and the pitch almost subcontinental in nature – and England’s most experience batsman duly delivered.
There was talk before this game that Cook’s career might be nearing its end. I always doubted this. Alastair has only just turned 33 and he’s not one to simply quit. He’s a stubborn as they come and I firmly believe he wants to climb that all time leading run-scorers ladder – yesterday he surpassed Mahela Jayawardene. I also think (if his reaction to being dropped as ODI captain is anything to go by) that he’ll want to end his career on a high and choose the timing of his retirement. Cook is just as focused as he’s ever been. Don’t be fooled by his soft dismissals earlier in this series.
I was surprised how many people on social media were keen to move on from Cook after Perth. I could understand the Stuart Broad chat, but not those who wanted to see the back of England’s leading run scorer. At the end of the day, Cook’s double hundred against the Windies at Edgbaston last summer showed that he’s still capable of posting big scores when conditions suit. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Cook might be somewhat limited, and more supporters might have started to acknowledge his imperfections, but openers who can grind the opposition into the ground are extremely valuable commodities. Batsmen don’t have to score runs in all conditions and against all opponents to be worth their place in the side. And would Haseeb Hameed really have done any better against Australia’s ferocious pacemen in the first three tests? I severely doubt it.
The bottom line is that Cook has put his team in an excellent position. The bowlers should also get some credit too – although Australia’s batting line-up imploded rather than England doing anything particularly special. Three key wickets fell to long hops – the slowness of the pitch resulting in unsightly drag ons. The Steve Smith dismissal in particular was a horrible and ungainly effort.
Although some will doubtless argue that England’s excellent performance on day is too little too late – and I’m sure Australian supporters will be quick to point out that the series has already gone – at least we’re recovering some pride. Yes Australia’s batting implosion shows that both teams are flawed, and that England could and should have been more competitive in the first three games, but all I care about at this point is avoiding the whitewash. And England are in a good position to do that right now.
Let’s keep our fingers crossed.
James Morgan
It’s almost like the performances of senior players can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Or the fact that Australia’s two fastest bowlers were injured or ill. Either way I don’t really care. England are in a good position for once.
Sure, Starc’s absence and Cummins’ illness helped matters.
But the reality is that Broad came out and bowled well, as did Anderson, closing out Australia’s innings for a sub-par score. And then Cook and Root came out and batted properly and both made decent scores. And England are in a strong position as a result. It’s not rocket science.
Similarly, when these guys have gone missing this series, England have struggled. Again, not rocket science. But in those instances, the explanation can never be as simple as senior players not performing. It always has to be pinned on the ECB; there always has to be some big over-arching theory of the case. But maybe it isn’t actually that complicated after all? Maybe if your senior players shit the bed, you’re probably not going to win. But if they play well, you’re in with a shot. Crazy, right?
Anyway, I for one would like to congratulate the ECB for fighting back at the MCG. It’s really clicked for the ECB this match. Because it’s not about whether the senior players give a good account of themselves. It’s all about the ECB. And they’ve been pretty good in Melbourne.
I’d still be interested to see your projected squad for how England should line up for the 2019 Ashes at home. I put it to you that England could easily start favourites for that series without actually making major changes. Although that probably won’t chime with the “blame the ECB for everything” refrain that prevails in these parts.
In case you haven’t noticed you are pretty much a lone and very repetitive voice in finding the ECB blameless for this shambles of a tour.
Broad and Woakes getting a couple of top order wickets doesn’t hide their utterly ineffectual performances previously. You know, when the Ashes were still in the balance.
Blaming an opening bat for not making daddy hundreds or the captain for not making more than fifty every match, as you have ad nauseum, doesn’t paper over the cracks in a batting line up which displays some curious technical weaknesses. All openers have periods when they can barely buy a run.
That the ECB see 4 day red ball cricket as an embuggerance leads to a weak test side. Obviously, how else could it not?
You are the only commenter here who blames the players as far as I can tell.
Maybe you just don’t know much about English cricket?
I’m not saying the senior players – Cook, Root, Ali and Broad – should be excused for their poor performances in the first three Tests. Quite the opposite. I’m saying they are the reason England find themselves 3-0 down. It’s on them. The poor performances of those senior players is why England lost the series but you guys are so determined to blame the ECB for everything that you fail to identify this issue as the primary cause.
I’m happy to be the lone voice. Because you guys are basically all affected by confirmation bias. You’re so hostile to the ECB – perhaps justifiably – that the ECB’s decisions become the explanation for every setback. But in this case, the lost series was actually about the performance of those senior players, which the ECB cannot directly control.
And by the way champ, when someone disagrees with you, responding by saying “maybe you just don’t know anything” is deeply and obviously inadequate. A five-year-old can deliver that kind of rejoinder. Presumably you’re a grown man so you should really be able to muster something more convincing.
And, frankly, there’s no grand, penetrating insight required to observe that England’s senior players, Anderson aside, shat the bed in the first three Tests. It’s blindingly obvious. You guys just prefer to peg everything on the ECB because that’s your favourite hobby horse.
Ah trolling again.
Why do you get so triggered by opposing points of view?
“Presumably you’re a grown man so you should really be able to muster something more convincing.”
Like calling an entire population “little freaks.”
And you had the audacity to call another poster on here a hypocrite…
Grasping at straws.
The difference between the two sides has been Australia’s genuinely fast bowling imho. England are in a great position because our batsmen can cope with 85mph and don’t get blown away. England would be in much better shape in this series if we had our own fast bowlers. But we don’t … which is indisputably the ECB’s fault. Ask the players if you don’t believe me. Steve Finn and Dawid Malan have said the very same thing.
Plus England would be in a much better position if we had a spinner that’s anything near international class. Which we don’t. And this too is the ECB’s fault.
The performances of England’s senior players is indeed important, nobody has denied this, but the team generally isn’t equipped to compete in Australia. I still predicted we’d lose the Ashes 0-4 before a ball had been bowled and nobody knew how the senior players would perform.
So if England had a genuine quick, would Cook, Root and Ali have scored more runs in the first three Tests? Would Broad have taken more wickets? How would any of that have been altered if, let’s imagine, Pat Cummins had discovered pre-series that he was actually an Englishman?
It’s not the ECB’s fault that a non-existent player doesn’t exist. Or that some of the candidates haven’t been good enough or fit enough to cut it.
You can say “oh the ECB should have produced this player or that player and we’d be better off”. Sure, that might be true. But it’s also endlessly true for every team.
Australia would love a world-class all-rounder. But it’s not necessarily Cricket Australia’s fault that one hasn’t emerged. I’d love a pet unicorn with three dicks but I don’t blame CA for the fact I don’t have one. If wishes were fishes we’d all swim in riches.
It ultimately comes back to whether your senior players perform. And England’s senior players, Anderson aside, didn’t perform in the first three Tests. That’s on them, not the ECB.
Rubbish we have lots of quick bowlers.
None of them got a central contract, hence all bowled pointlessly on early and late season pitches and ended up injured.
The ECB knew we needed pace and did diddly squat to ensure it would be available.
The ECB know you are unlikely to develop quality spinners in very early and late season. They don’t care.
No-one blames Moeen for not being a good spinner in Australia. You really need to start listening to people rather than parroting your spin.
Sadly we could never have won any of the first three matches. Not because your targets ‘shat the bed’ but because we were incapable of taking 20 wickets.
Your whingeing is constant, and admittedly quite amusing.
Trouble is I’m getting the impression it isn’t meant to be!
You have a strange definition of “whinging”. Where I come from, it means someone is complaining about something. I can assure you I’m not complaining about anything. I’m making a straightforward observation about why England are 3-0 now.
You can talk about the failure to develop genuine quicks but how does that absolve Cook, Root and Ali for not scoring runs in the first three Tests? How does it absolve Broad for not taking more wickets?
All you do is pivot back to blaming the ECB for non-existent players not existing. It’s nonsense.
The utterly depressing thing about your trolling is that you choose one of the most decent & interesting british cricket websites to do it on. Couldn’t you go on the Daily Mail instead, you’d get the bites your after on there too.
And as pointless and futile as it seems, can i be the 100th person to tell you the ECB has spent a decade and a huge sum of money creating a system that doesn’t churn out any talent capable of competing in Australia. So your constant “sh*t their own bed” only stands up if you ignore the fact Broad, Moeen and one or two others should long have been replaced by cricketers much more talented than them. And that’s our (Eng fans) beef with the ECB and poor performance in Oz – but you already know that.
People are allowed to disagree with the consensus, champ. That’s not the same as trolling. Maybe you should ask yourself why a dissenting view makes you so sandy.
As for Broad, how is it a given that he should have been replaced long ago? Is your complaint that the ECB hasn’t lined up readymade replacement for guys who’ve played 100+ Tests? Because that would be an unrealistic complaint. It’s always going to be difficult to replace that kind of experience.
The absence of Starc had nothing to do with Broad’s excellent performance.
I think we just have to accept that Broad has great days, with a number of mediocre ones in between – a little like Cook now.
It does demonstrate that there really was little between the two sides – and that the biggest difference has been in the bowling resources.
Absolutely. If anything I think today proves that fast bowling is absolutely key in Australia. England’s batsmen actually stand a chance when the bowling is friendlier. The difference between the sides has been Australia’s pace attack and Steve Smith. Both sides contain flawed batsmen, in fact one could argue that Australia have more flawed batsmen than England do. I don’t think Bancroft, Khawaja, Handcomb or M Marsh would make England’s squad.
James, I agree that the players you’ve listed are “flawed batsmen”. You could throw Shaun Marsh into the mix as well. But Khawaja and Handscomb had Test averages of 40+ coming into this series.
Meanwhile, England picked a few blokes with FC averages in the mid 30s. It’s not been a particularly high bar to get picked in England’s top six.
Unless they really fill their boots against the Windies etc at home, I’d expect Khawaja and Handscomb to see their averages falling below 40 by the time they’re done. Unless they make technical changes that is.
That may well be the case. But the reality is that they’d both scored runs at Test level, while England picked three blokes without a Test century between them.
England’s 2 fastest bowlers have been injured/suspended for the whole series.
Unfortunately Stokes is by no means the pace he was when he first broke into the team. England’s quickest bowlers are probably Mills (chronic condition meaning cannot play red ball) and Stones (very fast but unproven and just back from a year out injured).
Its a Cook sort of pitch in that it requires meticulous cricket but he still has to deliver of course and in way confirm every persons held opinion about him for or against. I also didn’t feel he was that close to the exit door but if he had failed here and at Sydney with the good chance it will nip around a lot in NZ then who knows. Its a shame Mark Stoneman couldn’t follow Cook and rack them up now averaging under 30 looking the part will have to be backed up with a big score at some point.
Hopefully the other England players can show follow Cook in how to bat on this sort of surfaces, It will be a good Test for Malan who likes a bit of pace on the ball. hopefully Bairstow and Ali won’t prove too impatient for the pitch and England can finally drive the Aussie bowlers into the dirt
Stuart Broad had a pretty good day with the ball. Their lack of bowlers had nothing to do with that. He too returned to form. I personally don’t think the problem is Broad or Anderson, it’s the other bowlers. Yes, we’ve missed Stokes, but the selectors, going for an untried kid ahead of the fastest England bowler, haven’t exactly helped the situation.
Broady proved he can operate on a wicket that all the other bowlers from both sides found “difficult”.
On the other hand, Cook has simply proved that he can score big runs against a 2nd rate attack.
Broad did bowl at lot better I agree. It was good to see.
James,
1- We took 7 for 80 without any genuine pace
2- The wicket was so slow that genuine pace wouldn’t have made much, if any, difference
So I’m pretty baffled as to how you can say “if any day demonstrated the value of genuine pace on Australian wickets, this was it”.
In fact this isn’t even an Australian wicket. It’s a pudding – Cardiff with extra sun. Or a sluggish Oval, if you want to stretch a point.
What it proves is that on pitches that offer very little in pace, bounce, movement or turn – you have to have a Plan B. Even if that Plan B is only to bowl a relentless good length, bowl straight, build pressure and let the batsmen make mistakes. England did that exceptionally well, and Australia’s batsmen for once lost the mental battle. Then Australia’s bowlers didn’t have the required discipline and Cook is the master on low and slow pitches.
Pace isn’t the key on here. Relentless discipline is. With bat and ball.
And who were the English players who best exemplified that discipline?
Tom,
Agreed. You’ve hammered the same point in many of your comments but you’re right. Our senior players turned up today and we looked like a decent side.
I do see some truth in the “Blame the ECB” argument in terms of the pipeline of players coming through and the shallowness of the talent pool, but I agree with you that it’s overdone and of limited impact on this series.
Prime responsibility lies with our senior players and their performances, or lack thereof.
Institutional blame isn’t unique to England though. Last time we won the Ashes in Australia, the response was the Argus Review.
What could the ECB have done to ensure Cook, Root, Ali and Broad played better in the first three Tests? Is it even their job to do that?
These guys were always going to be picked, so it can’t be that they were selection “mistakes”. You can’t turn around and say “well they shouldn’t have been picked”. These guys were walk-up starts but they simply didn’t deliver when it mattered. Sometimes that happens. But that’s not the ECB’s fault.
You chaps simply cannot continue to hold administrators responsible when senior players don’t perform. That is not a rational explanation for this series loss.
I don’t. That logic absolves the players far too much for my liking. Prime responsibility for a players’ performance rests with the player. It has to.
There’s also some revisionist history going on here. We’ve never had a mystery spinner or even a half-decent leggie. We’ve produced one world class off spinner in 50 years in Swann. We’ve also never produced as many fast bowlers as Australia. So to blame the current ECB for not being able to do things that English cricket has rarely, if ever, done strikes me as unfair.
Where the ECB is totally culpable is the appalling state of grass roots cricket – which will kill our talent pool 10 years from now.
It has marginalised the championship in favour of more short form cricket – which is no doubt making the difficult task of producing spinners and fast bowlers even harder because of when championship cricket is now played. It’s also breeding generations of technically suspect batsmen – which I think is also happening in Australia, which has similarly bastardised its domestic schedule.
All of these things are making the task of producing Test quality talent ever harder – but they don’t absolve senior players of their responsibility for their own performance.
Hang on, surely your not suggesting that the ECB being a bit shit and the England’s senior players failing to deliver are not mutually exclusive???
Brisbane was also terribly slow. But it was still very hard to score runs against Starc and Cummins. In fact, it looked a totally different surface when they were bowling. We won’t get to see how Starc would’ve bowled on this pitch, but I suspect he still would’ve been a handful. Pace through the air has nothing to do with the pitch.
PS I don’t think Australia imploded due to the discipline of England’s bowling. The key wickets all came off long hops. We were equally disciplined (probably more so) on day 1 when we really struggled to penetrate. I think Australia’s batsmen, S Marsh excepted, threw it away.
I disagree. Relentlessly tight bowling often induces wickets off bad balls – because the batsman isn’t in good attacking rhythm. I’m happy to ascribe some credit to the bowler for that.
Anderson admitted that we didn’t bowl well in the first session yesterday, the bowlers didn’t adapt to conditions. Had they done so, Australia wouldn’t have made 300.
Normally I agree. Tight bowling does bring wickets from bad balls. But I don’t think that’s what happened yesterday morning. Both Smith and Paine were scoring quite freely when they dragged their deliveries onto the stumps. And Marsh didn’t face many balls so his wicket wasn’t a result of pressure either.
Let’s not get too excited by a good day’s performance.
We managed to bowl the world’s number 5 side out in 118 overs with the help of three played ons and we’ve got a very promising partnership developing.
Much better but you’d have to be a bit punch drunk to start ringing the victory bells.
Wonderful to see Cook get his ton. You could see how relieved he was. He’s relentless when he gets going and it was an entertaining knock. Good chance for us to grind them into the dirt, especially if they’re a bowler down tomorrow.
Difficult not to think that the series could have been different. Finn for instance strikes at 46 in Australia. How many passages of play could have been different if he and a couple of other genuine quicks had been given central contracts?
Rather than bowling 280 championship overs just wrap him in cotton wool. It isn’t as though the need for pace is unknown.
As for wrist spin, aka Mason Crane ( pretty obvious they didn’t even know that Malan could bowl, why else waste so many overs earlier in the series on an injured Ali?) it seems they have either stuck to type by playing the token spinner for one match at Sydney, probably never to be seen again.
I’d say we never learn but that isn’t fair. You’d probably get a lot more sense asking the Barmy Army after they’ve drained a stadium dry than the ECB.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/cricket/5175796/bob-willis-england-ashes-joe-root-alastair-cook-moeen-ali/
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/19/england-ashes-facing-whitewash-leading-players-let-them-down-australia-cricket-the-spin
I find myself in the strange situation of sympathising with Tom’s comments which seem to me to be at least as balanced as those attacking him (and I agree that has not always been the case on past articles). I am one of the first to say the ECB are a bunch of clowns who are weakening our test prospects for fast bucks at T20, but the players cannot escape criticism. I said in a recent article that I would replace Broad and Vince, and nothing I have seen has changed my view. Broad is a shadow of his former self whose figures were flattered by being given the tail to clean up. I understand why. I have knee problems as well and you cannot thump your lead leg down with such problems. And I must disagree with James about Hameed. Having him around would have given more options around the top3 order and could have reduced the pressure on Cook. And since he is the only prospective Cook replacement on the horizon, Hameed would also benefit. It is a real joy to see Broad, Cook and Root doing well, but we would be blind to ignore their failings and the need to replace Broad soon and Cook probably in 2-3 years.
Funnily enough I have more problems with Mike Chaffin’s comments than Toms. Whilst it is obvious that I rate Woakes, Mike’s constant attacks on England’s quickest seamer with no rational analysis (as opposed to the injury issue of Broad) seem more a matter of bias. And Tom is entitled to object to personal attacks. I suspect most of us on this site have played at good level and many will still be doing so. We may not be test players but many (me included) have faced county seamers or bowled to FC bats and can judge matters with some insight.
One last comment. I would have picked Wood ahead of Curran. Not because I value speed for the sake of it, but because I saw little from Curran at The Oval this year to suggest he does enough with the ball to sacrifice 5-10mph compared with Wood. I firmly believe an 80mph bowler with good control and movement is better than a 90mph bowler who has only speed (think Philander) but Curran is not in that class and looks more like a white ball international. I hope I am wrong.
Do you think England need to make major changes to their first-choice XI in the aftermath of this series?
I actually think they could start favourites in the 2019 Ashes without a major overhaul.
Tom. Yes they do. I don’t believe Broad and Anderson will
be around much longer, maybe Cook. Moen as a batsman/occasionall bowler. The powers that be must start to introduce some new blood to replace these guys. For example rest the veterans now and again to give a younger player experience. We are relying too much on past deeds, OK they will all have a good innings from time to time, but as age creeps up these are plainly becoming less frequent. Cook 1st ton in Aussie since 2010/11 and Broad has definitely lost pace, although better in this game so far. Moen is not a front line spinner and is inefective overseas. Must find a Swann like spinner too.
Although we have done well so far in this game a prime opportunity was missed here to try some new blood. Safety first? Why? OK may avoid the dreaded white wash, but people will only remember in a year’s time that we were thrashed and lost the Ashes in super quick time.
And yes, I agree the ECB cannot be responsible for play on the pitch in a particular match, BUT they are very much responsible for the gradual demise of English cricket: with the insistence of promoting T20 above all else they are selling the soul of the game to the highest bidder. I’ve been involved in sport most of my life, but I’ve never experienced a supposed “governing body” actively destroying the sport they are supposed to represent.
Cricket management in the UK needs clearing out from the top down, restructuring and to develop a brand new focus. Enough!
I reckon Ali is the only one of those who’s really a problem.
England could certainly win the 2019 Ashes with this side. Mainly because Australia have two batsmen, neither of whom bats close to his career average in England.
I’m unconvinced by the Marshes, and Khawaja is crap, and Bancroft was crap when he played county cricket. Put that lineup up against Woakes and Anderson, with a Dukes ball, and 60 all out might look like a good score.
So what?
I want to see England the best side in the world. Undisputed. Winning home Tests won’t lead to that. They need to win away.
This side isn’t close to winning away. Finding a matchwinning spinner (Bess, Rashid and Leach were all overlooked for this tour), a match-winning fast bowler (more difficult but no beyond the realms of possibility for a country which spends millions on elite player development) and a number 3 Test batsman who doesn’t keep nicking off is required. As is a replacement for Broad, who’s on his last legs. And maybe an opener. Stoneman, this far, has hardly set the world alight and Cook isn’t getting better.
Hameed, Lawrence (or Livingston), Rashid, Garton and TRJ might fit the bill. Maybe even Finn if someone can sort him out (or leave him alone to sort himself out).
So you favour a major overhaul after this series?
Sorry Tom. Impossible to see on my phone whether this question was addressed to me.
Yes. I think so. I’m on record as saying, for years now, that Ali and Stokes can’t play in the same test side. This tour has crystallised my view that Woakes is not good enough away. We obviously need a spinner.
So I think 4 changes are needed. An opener to come in. Cook to drop to 3. Ali dropped at least until he can bat again (he has to justify his position on batting alone), Livingston in at 7 until Stokes returns, a spinner, Anderson, TRJ, Wood. Overton 12th man.
Broad needs a break. The ECB need to centrally contract the best two quicks and get them test fit.
Andy Flower needs to go, for sure.
I guess the thinking on Ali was that he’s handy with the bat at #8, coming in after Stokes and Bairstow, And if there’s no genuine spinner in the frame then he’s probably the best bet as a spare-parts player.
But when asked to bat at 6, that’s proven a bridge too far. Two spots two high. And his bowling has been a non-factor.
I think he should be filed into the category of “all-rounder who isn’t really good enough with bat or ball but does a bit of both so we found a spot for him”.
“Funnily enough I have more problems with Mike Chaffin’s comments than Toms. Whilst it is obvious that I rate Woakes, Mike’s constant attacks on England’s quickest seamer with no rational analysis (as opposed to the injury issue of Broad) seem more a matter of bias. ”
I tried to have a discussion with you on a previous thread. I pointed out that he isn’t a fast bowler, that I didn’t have any expectation of him getting runs and that his bowling seemed to relieve rather than build pressure. He didn’t bowl to a field, wasn’t taking wickets and often sent down a couple of pies an over.
You merely said he was our fastest bowler and should take the new ball. Well I’m currently the fastest knitter in my house.
Woakes has averaged just shy of 83mph in the series thus far? That isn’t fast, in fact it’s on the lower side of fast medium.
He’s a good player in our conditions and well worth his place there. In Australia though I had no expectation of him doing well, just as I’ve had little expectation of our bits and pieces all rounders down the years. If you have a bowler worth his place who can bat a bit then great, someone worth their place with bat or ball then better.
His figures flatter him a bit due to the pink ball though look in the book. 9 wickets in 6 innings. Any team would struggle with their first change bowler contributing that. Averaging under 15 with the bat. An allrounder averages more with the bat than the ball, this series he’s on -33 thus far.
You rate him, I get it. But I call it as I see it and I never expected him to do well. Not because he isn’t a good player but because he’s the wrong player for the conditions.
And this is precisely why I have a problem with you. I previously referred you to the proof that he has been our fastest bowler (a Telegraph analysis of speeds in the first 3 tests showing him to be our only bowler averaging over 85mph – not 83). Yet you invent to suit yourself. I also pointed to multiple press reports that he was bowling shorter to coaches orders (madness for a bowler of his type) and having to do so with a battered old kookaburra when he is a new ball specialist.
So no, I did not just say he was our fastest bowler. I proved it and analysed why he was being misused. And yet his figures are still better than Broads, despite Broad getting unchallenged use of the new ball and being given the tail to clean up.
That is the difference between us. I analysed. You asserted.
I don’t really care about the context. He’s repeatedly bowled like a drain overseas.
I can’t see any sense in persisting with him, tbh. Unless there’s no one better. And if that’s the case, we’re screwed.
I’m not going to get too excited about one good day. Horse trainers try to ensure that their beasts peak at the right time. So Cookie’s got a ton and Broadie’s picked up some wickets. Sorry lads – it’s too late the ship has sailed. I understand that there is no a spin bowling coach available for Mo (who, by the way may be feeling a bit down following the departure of Rhodes from New Road).
But to sum up, I’m past caring.
I agree, one swallow doesn’t make a summer. Seven consecutive defeats away from home is asking real questions of the cricketing set up in the UK. Is it wrong to expect or hope for your team to be competitive?
I’ll be up tonight watching the first session,it should be fascinating. I’m guessing (presumptuously maybe) that Australia won’t have the fire power to bounce out the tail as they have done previously. So I have a certain amount of expectation from the last five batsmen to get some runs.
I’ve not seen Cooks innings yet but it look likes he’s worked out how to play Lyon who had him in trouble earlier this series. I would like to hear anyone ‘s opinion on that.
As for England’s wickets. Sorry but three inside edges onto the stumps is lucky. The ball could have gone anywhere. It’s not a bowling strategy in my book. Getting out under pressure usually means playing the wrong shot to decent balls where the batsman is taking a calculated risk. Here they were pretty awful shots.
I’m afraid whatever the Aussie’s say, when you’ve won the Ashes you take your foot of the gas. Some rash shots getting out to,well long hops from England. Don’t think they would have played like that if it were 2/1. While our bowling is still way short of the mark, pleased for Cook and I hope Root can make a ton! But another day another dollar. Could go either way. Ist session crucial tomorrow.
It doesn’t matter what the Aussies say, it is more difficult to motivate yourself when the job’s essentially done. The last 2 tests are far more meaningful to England, as damage limitation and not being labelled an embarrassment. Whether the Aussies win the series 5-0 or 3-2 is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. We may still screw this one up, but this mystifying pitch will probably have the last laugh.
You see this kind of thing constantly in sport, when the only thing left to play for is pride. Once momentum is lost it’s a very difficult thing to recover. Hopefully the Aussies will find this. However their present position is largely due to a careless batting collapse, reminiscent of us. This can be explained by a comparative lack of motivation, bought on by over confidence. We bowled ok, but not that well on a pitch reminiscent of the sub continent, without any spin.
Clearly the absence of Stark has been key, his replacement showing how shallow the Aussie bowling reserves are. Hopefully we will do better, but it should not mask the continuing lack of real test match talent being produced here.
Not just pride but looks like they’re playing for attendances too.
Not a good wicket for test cricket but a good one to hopefully ensure five days at a venue which holds plenty.
I actually think the aussies have been quite generous with the wickets thus far, could have been far worse and exposed England’s limitations to an even greater extent.
Anyone still think Cook is past it?
I blame Cricket Australia.
Well at least you’re developing as a whinger.
I’ll wait with baited breath to hear your third whinge.
It’s “bated breath”.
The hatrick!
Give yourself a high five, champion!
Well, this Test proves, I think, that Australia have real problems producing batsmen this generation.
Does anyone on the planet think Khwaja is a better batsman than David Hussey, Stuart Law, Di Venturo or Jamie Cox?
Sorry, I meant Diane Venturo, to give him his full name.
Given the fact that we have created opportunities in each of the first 3 tests in unfavourable conditions, why should we be surprised that at some point during a 5 test series we do not take advantage. As I have been saying since I first came to this blog we are not a terrible side in the grand scheme of things. We certainly have as many potential match winners as they do. Every time I make this point someone points the ‘Pollyanna’ finger. I guess most of the bloggers here have been England supporters for decades, so are used to our inherent inconsistency.
All I keep saying is you have to believe in the possibility. Glass half empty, so you can lay into the old chestnut of ECB incompetence, gets nowhere outside of venting spleen. We are all frustrated by the lack of progress in producing, as ‘Boycs’ would say, ‘proper cricketers’ but we need to accept the white ball game brings in the cash and punters to a greater degree, so any business would be foolish not to pander to this, and professional sport is a business.
Yes ideally we need to find a better working balance, so success in all forms of the game can be actively encouraged. That can only be done by presenting realistic alternative strategies. This requires dialogue and not just spleen. We do not elect the cricketing hierarchy, so we are going to have to deal with people who have fundamental differences of opinion about the future structure of the game.
It would be great if this blog could be a factor, however minor, in establishing a better balanced direction, but to do this we must be more constructive about what is realistic for the game, not just what we would like to see personally.