5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval Aug 21-25, 2013

[barmyarmy]

Amusingly Chris Woakes' not out takes his average over 40...
Also Bairstow (dropped) averaged more than Cook.

 

[whiteninness]

Crazy scenes going off for the light but to be honest Australia didn't deserve to lose after that bold declaration.

Well there wasn't sufficient light for red ball cricket and they have a set level so I hardly think it's crazy to follow the rule in place.

Maybe England should get some better light towers

 

[barmyarmy]

Well it's only crazy in the sense that there were only 4 overs left. We ought to do what you guys do and start early to make overs up.

 

[whiteninness]

Well it's only crazy in the sense that there were only 4 overs left. We ought to do what you guys do and start early to make overs up.

Judging by the light readings they should have gone off when there were about 10 overs left. It does seem silly that they play later in England than Australia where we generally have clearer skies.

 

[barmyarmy]

I also think England should have been smarter and played for 7.30pm rather than the "balls" remaining. At no point did they actually really start slogging.

 

[whiteninness]

I also think England should have been smarter and played for 7.30pm rather than the "balls" remaining. At no point did they actually really start slogging.

A good point. They could have easily made the runs in 4 less overs if they tried.

 

[midgetwars]

How dark did it look before the 4 overs? If Clarke went up to the umpires he may of wanted revenge/consistency in the getting off the field when it was dark enough.

 

[midgetwars]

Fun Stat: The batsmen for Aus that played ALL 5 tests all scored centuries.

 

[Owzat]

In the same way that footballers wave imaginary yellow cards at the referees?

Yes the attempts to influence the umpires breaks the code of sportsmanship.

It was silly re the light, cricket seems to have wrapped itself up in red tape like the "umpire's call" on the DRS and the rules governing light referring to a perceived threat to the players.

The only real threats to the wellbeing of the players is being hit by the ball, and so bowlers need to keep it up on a length and no fielders close in in front of the batsman should reduce the danger to virtually zero.

As someone else (BarmyArmy?) mentioned, they should start earlier in the day to make up lost overs. Didn't help with the late start, in the modern era with millions made on such events you'd think they'd have state of the art undersoil heating, drainage and cover for the wicket.

Of course the over rate is the big issue, what with time taken up by unnecessary drinks breaks, regular field (re)settings, trudging back to bowling marks, reviews and some time wasting

- drinks breaks are unnecessary in some English conditions, fielders could get a drink any time more or less at the boundary edge and umpires could carry a thermos or four for themselves and batsmen - batsmen may have been out there the whole hour or a few minutes

- field settings should be limited to while the bowler is making his way back to his mark, if a spinner then less time allowed. Give them 10-15 seconds between deliveries, maybe 5 seconds longer if a left-right switch for the batsman. Trudging back to bowling marks would be regulated by a time limit between deliveries, I think they have something like that in tennis don't they now?

Nothing much you can do about reviews taking time, they happen when a wicket falls or might fall so you can just make sure the next batsman is at the boundary edge by the time the review is completed. No drinks breaks, formal or impromptu, should cut out time enough wasted to get one over an hour extra in without killing the players or umpires. Hell they have enough things out with them as it is, are water/drinks bottles much more consuming of space or heavy to carry than fielding helmets etc?

 

[Spickery]

At least Clarke tried to make a game out of it. The light issue made the end of the game a little disappointing but the umpires are only trying to do their jobs. Faulkner did a good job with the ball, taking 6 wickets for the match. He can take some confidence out of that. Faulkner is one player who will hopefully earn himself a spot in the Ashes squad against England in Australia.

 

[whiteninness]

I don't think it's fair to say Clarke complaining to the umpires breaks the code of sportsmanship. It was much darker than at any other time of any other test, when they had gone off much earlier before. If he had not complained then they may not have gone off and that would have been actually farcical. He is well within his right when his fielders are struggling to see the ball in the outfield.

Regarding overrates, everyone knows that they need to be controlled better, but most of the delays this series were by English players, bowling 12 overs an hour.

----------

At least Clarke tried to make a game out of it. The light issue made the end of the game a little disappointing but the umpires are only trying to do their jobs. Faulkner did a good job with the ball, taking 6 wickets for the match. He can take some confidence out of that. Faulkner is one player who will hopefully earn himself a spot in the Ashes squad against England in Australia.

But in what capacity? Given our weak batting lineup he's probably not strong enough as a batsman to at in the top 7 and I'm not sure if his bowling ability is yet good enough to play as a front line bowler when we have Bird, Harris, Pattinson, Starc (overrated) and Siddle.

If we bat Faulkner at 7 then does that mean we have to pick a bowler at 8 partially based on the ability to bat well, e.g. Mitchell Johnson? I'd say no as I don't like having to make two changes to just fit in one player, like what England did with Kerrigan and Woakes.

 

[ferg512]

People should just be thankful that Clarke made what was a complete bore fest in to a decent match, can't believe the crowd was booing him, Broad has done far worse in his career than just argue with the umpires. Can't wait for the return series, I think Australia have a genuine chance being in their home conditions. This England team is nowhere near as good as the one from 2010/11, and have had some pretty patchy form overseas of late (bar the win in India).

 

[cricket_icon]

Clarke was the only captain out to win this game. England fans should be pissed off with Cook's negative captaincy and the rest of the English batsman, not Clarke who wanted the rules implemented and the umpires who implemented completely objective rules.

I'm not even gona get dragged into this rather silly argument that Cook is too negative etc, he outsmarted Clarke in at least 3 separate games...hence the score line lol AND to add to all that, with Clarke being all uber offensive, he was a rabbit caught in headlines trying to end the match as England were chasing down the score, it was bloody hilarious, especially with all of Warne's moaning for the last couple days

But putting all that aside, no player, especially a captain, should act aggressively to an umpire, this isn't football, Clarke was literally leaning into Aleem Dar and telling him "to not touch me". Did he think he was going to have a school ground scuffle? If I was Aleem I would've smacked him one.

 

[whiteninness]

I'm not even gona get dragged into this rather silly argument that Cook is too negative etc, he outsmarted Clarke in at least 3 separate games...hence the score line lol AND to add to all that, with Clarke being all uber offensive, he was a rabbit caught in headlines trying to end the match as England were chasing down the score, it was bloody hilarious, especially with all of Warne's moaning for the last couple days

But putting all that aside, no player, especially a captain, should act aggressively to an umpire, this isn't football, Clarke was literally leaning into Aleem Dar and telling him "to not touch me". Did he think he was going to have a school ground scuffle? If I was Aleem I would've smacked him one.

England won the Ashes because they have a stronger team, not because Cook is a better captain.

Clarke declared at a point where of course an English win was more likely than an Australian one but it was better that than the boring draw England had played for for the rest of the match.

Interesting that you say "this isn't football" because only in soccer are the players allowed to argue with the referee without punishment. Other football codes are generally fine.

Clarke was aggressive because the umpires almost cost us a game by keeping us out past the time when we should have gone off. He is within his right to argue this point. The fact that they had to get a lightometer delivered was ridiculous. His demeanour wasn't overly pleasing but it led to the right decision being made so I'm pleased.

 

[ferg512]

England won the Ashes because they have a stronger team, not because Cook is a better captain.

Clarke declared at a point where of course an English win was more likely than an Australian one but it was better that than the boring draw England had played for for the rest of the match.

Thank you, I'm going mad over the amount of people sticking up for Cooks captaincy. His success is simply down to having the better team end of story. Can anyone honestly say if his and Clarkes roles were reversed that the scoreline would have been any different because hes a superior captain?