4th Test: England v Australia at Leeds
- Thread starter joshuaa21
- Start date
IloveGilly
News Team Member<br><a href="http://www.planetcric
Bah, I fell asleep literally 1 ball before it happened.
Best thing about this is this will most likely be the team leading into the final game with maybe the exception of Hussey. Finally go into a game with a full confident team.
Best thing about this is this will most likely be the team leading into the final game with maybe the exception of Hussey. Finally go into a game with a full confident team.
Interesting how our best performances have come with no spinner. In SA when we used 4 seamers we were 2-0, bring in the spinner and we go 2-1 down although there was other factors. Over here 3 spinner is first 3 matches leading to a 1-0 deficit, bring in the 4 seamers and we are looking at 1-1.
Also interesting to note that we have never won a test match against a top test nation with a specialist spinner since Warne retired. Coincidence? I think not, it's just a case of playing a spinner for the sake of it.
ajdude
International Coach
What about Stuart Macgill vs. Sri Lanka? Brad Hogg vs. India? Or do you mean actually WINNING the match for us with a match-winning performance?
D
Dutch
Guest
I wonder if there's an aura around Australia now
Lol. Bloody big one I would say. I think the England camp needs to get a clairvoyant in to do some aura-reading to help them understand what the Australian batsmen are doing right. (Although the sentence; "bat straight, head over the ball, eyes open" might help too!) I think the English bats need ionizing as well....they seem to be affecting the ball adversly. Like a magnetic current that is causing the ball to move away from the bat!
piriyanth
International Cricketer
Johnson:hpraise.
All of the Australian bowlers are bowling well, I wonder who will be replaced by Lee?
All of the Australian bowlers are bowling well, I wonder who will be replaced by Lee?
OffCutters
International Coach
Lee wont play i dont think. All our bowlers are bowling well so far, and i reckon we`ll go to the 5th test with an unchanged bowling line-up.
OffCutters
International Coach
Oh thats right, I forgot we had another friendly before the 5th Test. Yeah, what he said 
surendar
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Location
- Bentonville, US
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
May be, bring back Ramprakash for Bell from county circuit, and Hussain from commentary box for Bopara . Seriously, though England drew & won a test, the batting is very rusted throughout except Strauss, Colly and may be KP.
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Why didn't the aussies ask for the extra half hour? Five wickets for 20 runs in eight overs is case enough surely? And the chance at humiliating England in two days would have been enough for any aussie to be begging the umpires surely?!?
I make it this is set odds on for the lowest match aggregate for England in the noughties.
Lowest England aggregates of the noughties (15+ wickets)
184/15 vs Australia 2009 (102 + 82/5) - still going, but a long way to avoid embarrasing defeat - Five Bowlers
304/20 vs West Indies 2000 (179 & 125) - Five Bowlers
320/20 vs Australia 06/07 (159 & 161) - Five Bowlers
323/16 vs Sri Lanka 00/01 (249 & 74/6) - Five Bowlers
325/18 vs West Indies 2000 (134 & 191/8) - Five Bowlers
332/16 vs Sri Lanka 07/08 (81 & 251/6) - Four Bowlers
335/20 vs Australia 2005 (155 & 180) - Five Bowlers
347/20 vs Australia 2001 (185 & 162) - Five Bowlers
369/20 vs West Indies 08/09 (318 & 51) - Five Bowlers
384/20 vs South Africa 99/00 (258 & 126) - Five Bowlers
393/20 vs New Zealand 01/02 (160 & 233) - Four Bowlers
re South Africa 99/00, the match was played in 2000, the last Test was THE contrived one innings match that England won. Only twice in the eleven series above did we play four bowlers, six of those series were overseas where playing five bowlers wins only 22.50% of Tests in the noughties and loses 45.00%, compared to 43.75% wins and only 25.00% losses with four bowlers away (albeit only 16 examples compared to 40)
No no no no no to Robert "The Don" Key. It's a shame England didn't drop those that should have been before this Test, it's no hindsight as a lot of us were calling for Cook, Bopara and Broad to be dropped before the Test. My worry is England will bring in say Trott and Moore for the last Test and come the squad selection for the winter tour overlook them in favour of the old guard like they normally do.
I would refrain from dropping Bell right now anyway, he has had a poor Test but so have a number of England batsmen with the highest aggregate a mere 60 so far. Last thing we really need is the weak middle order replaced with inexperience and previous flops, how exactly would that prove any more certain of succeeding than the current incumbents?!?!
Career/Series averages - Batting
Strauss : 5101 runs @ 44.74 / 344 runs @ 49.14
Cook : 3430 runs @ 43.97 / 203 runs @ 29.00
Bopara : 501 runs @ 38.53 / 105 runs @ 15.00
Bell : 3057 runs @ 40.76 / 64 runs @ 21.33
Collingwood : 3536 runs @ 44.20 / 225 runs @ 32.14
Prior : 1245 runs @ 46.11 / 221 runs @ 44.20
Broad : 637 runs @ 30.33 / 107 runs @ 21.40
Swann : 211 runs @ 35.16 / 106 runs @ 26.50
Clearly only Strauss and Prior are within five runs either side of their career averages, the problem is that England kept the passengers in the side and once those carrying them failed it was always like there would be disaster - as has happened now three times, heading towards a fourth, in under two years.
You can't have a top order that is averaging about 65 between three batsmen and then a tail of Broad, Swann, Harmison, Anderson and Onions. So much for the return of Harmison, whatever the aussies think of him he took 2/98 so hardly making any impact compared to what the aussie quartet have done. And what were they thinking when playing that long tail?!?!? Sense should have prevailed, dropped Bopara and Broad and brought in Sidebottom, Trott and someone like Shah or Patel ie played six batsmen. Strauss' plan, if it is what he had in mind, of posting a big total by batting first would have worked no less had he played four seamers. England are too wrapped up in theory, Broad as a theoretical all-rounder, and five bowlers as giving variety and supposedly the "best" way to take 20 wickets - funny how often it fails with just 40.00% of Tests with five bowlers in the noughties having five bowlers compared to 46.67% of Tests with four bowlers. Half of the 32 wins with five bowlers in the noughties have come against New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, against the rest it is 16 wins in 57 Tests so a mere 28.57% (or just over 1/4 which won't win too many series of 3-5 Tests)
I make it this is set odds on for the lowest match aggregate for England in the noughties.
Lowest England aggregates of the noughties (15+ wickets)
184/15 vs Australia 2009 (102 + 82/5) - still going, but a long way to avoid embarrasing defeat - Five Bowlers
304/20 vs West Indies 2000 (179 & 125) - Five Bowlers
320/20 vs Australia 06/07 (159 & 161) - Five Bowlers
323/16 vs Sri Lanka 00/01 (249 & 74/6) - Five Bowlers
325/18 vs West Indies 2000 (134 & 191/8) - Five Bowlers
332/16 vs Sri Lanka 07/08 (81 & 251/6) - Four Bowlers
335/20 vs Australia 2005 (155 & 180) - Five Bowlers
347/20 vs Australia 2001 (185 & 162) - Five Bowlers
369/20 vs West Indies 08/09 (318 & 51) - Five Bowlers
384/20 vs South Africa 99/00 (258 & 126) - Five Bowlers
393/20 vs New Zealand 01/02 (160 & 233) - Four Bowlers
re South Africa 99/00, the match was played in 2000, the last Test was THE contrived one innings match that England won. Only twice in the eleven series above did we play four bowlers, six of those series were overseas where playing five bowlers wins only 22.50% of Tests in the noughties and loses 45.00%, compared to 43.75% wins and only 25.00% losses with four bowlers away (albeit only 16 examples compared to 40)
No no no no no to Robert "The Don" Key. It's a shame England didn't drop those that should have been before this Test, it's no hindsight as a lot of us were calling for Cook, Bopara and Broad to be dropped before the Test. My worry is England will bring in say Trott and Moore for the last Test and come the squad selection for the winter tour overlook them in favour of the old guard like they normally do.
I would refrain from dropping Bell right now anyway, he has had a poor Test but so have a number of England batsmen with the highest aggregate a mere 60 so far. Last thing we really need is the weak middle order replaced with inexperience and previous flops, how exactly would that prove any more certain of succeeding than the current incumbents?!?!
Career/Series averages - Batting
Strauss : 5101 runs @ 44.74 / 344 runs @ 49.14
Cook : 3430 runs @ 43.97 / 203 runs @ 29.00
Bopara : 501 runs @ 38.53 / 105 runs @ 15.00
Bell : 3057 runs @ 40.76 / 64 runs @ 21.33
Collingwood : 3536 runs @ 44.20 / 225 runs @ 32.14
Prior : 1245 runs @ 46.11 / 221 runs @ 44.20
Broad : 637 runs @ 30.33 / 107 runs @ 21.40
Swann : 211 runs @ 35.16 / 106 runs @ 26.50
Clearly only Strauss and Prior are within five runs either side of their career averages, the problem is that England kept the passengers in the side and once those carrying them failed it was always like there would be disaster - as has happened now three times, heading towards a fourth, in under two years.
You can't have a top order that is averaging about 65 between three batsmen and then a tail of Broad, Swann, Harmison, Anderson and Onions. So much for the return of Harmison, whatever the aussies think of him he took 2/98 so hardly making any impact compared to what the aussie quartet have done. And what were they thinking when playing that long tail?!?!? Sense should have prevailed, dropped Bopara and Broad and brought in Sidebottom, Trott and someone like Shah or Patel ie played six batsmen. Strauss' plan, if it is what he had in mind, of posting a big total by batting first would have worked no less had he played four seamers. England are too wrapped up in theory, Broad as a theoretical all-rounder, and five bowlers as giving variety and supposedly the "best" way to take 20 wickets - funny how often it fails with just 40.00% of Tests with five bowlers in the noughties having five bowlers compared to 46.67% of Tests with four bowlers. Half of the 32 wins with five bowlers in the noughties have come against New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, against the rest it is 16 wins in 57 Tests so a mere 28.57% (or just over 1/4 which won't win too many series of 3-5 Tests)
