Leicester Fox
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
How about we all change our names and avatars so no-one has a clue who we are. 
5th Test: England vs Australia at the Brit Oval
- Thread starter evertonfan
- Start date
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
It's okay Colin, we Matt's have a mutual respect for each other so it's no biggy.
p.o.l
Club Cricketer
Congralutions to England for their brilliant victory in ashes!!!
P
pcfan123
Guest
Well played and well deserved. How sweet the Australian tears taste!
IloveGilly
News Team Member<br><a href="http://www.planetcric
Okay well...we lost the Ashes. No big deal right!?
Reflecting back on the first test and how Australia were 1 test wicket short of a win - and basically the whole Ashes.
Reflecting back on the first test and how Australia were 1 test wicket short of a win - and basically the whole Ashes.
P
pcfan123
Guest
If you cant get Monty out in 10 overs you dont deserve to win the Ashes
And they still lost!
madmusician
Club Cricketer
Congratulations England - brilliant result.
I do agree, though, with the posts that said that it is not the same as 2005. All the reasons put forward earlier are completely correct, but also:
But that shouldn't detract from England's performance. They now need to work at consistency, and this should be a great spring-board to more competitive test cricket all round. I hope for a drawn series in SA, or at least only losing by 1 test.
I do agree, though, with the posts that said that it is not the same as 2005. All the reasons put forward earlier are completely correct, but also:
- Lack of terrestrial TV coverage - yes, OK, this is a hobby-horse of mine, but I honestly feel that it has stopped the feel of cricket taking over the country that happened in 05. Yesterday was, genuinely, the first time since 2005 when I felt I really want to be watching this. I just feel so cut off from the game at the moment, that the Ashes victory seems almost other-worldly, as I have not seen a ball bowled live all summer.
- Poor scheduling - I have never liked one dayers finishing the summer, but especially not an Ashes summer. To hear Ponting/Strauss/Clarke et al saying "we've got to look forward to the one day series" is completely wrong. There will be no week-long party, as England are playing again on Thursday, Australia on Friday, and both against each other again in a week's time. It feels wrong that it is not even September and the Ashes have already been decided. But maybe that's just my view. I agree that this summer the World Twenty20 made things more difficult to schedule, but I'd schedule: 2 match/3 match test series between England and Team 1, tri-series between England, Team 1 and Team 2, 4 match/5 match series between England and Team 2. That's it, not too much cricket, and ending in September, as the final test in an Ashes series should.
But that shouldn't detract from England's performance. They now need to work at consistency, and this should be a great spring-board to more competitive test cricket all round. I hope for a drawn series in SA, or at least only losing by 1 test.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
That was the true turning point of the whole series.
Just found this gem of a blog on the Sydney Telegraph website, which was written after the 1st day's play.
Absolutely hilarious reading in retrospect - after day 1 the Aussies were calling the wicket flat and slagging us off for only getting to 300-odd.
:laugh :laugh :laugh
To be fair, Monty had worked a lot on his batting and it showed. He rarely looked uncomfortable.
MasterBlaster76 added 0 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...
Agreed with that lot. The key now is to not let it go to our heads like we did in 2005. This England team can really become something, but we've got to keep our eye on the ball.
Interesting looking at the series stats on cricinfo.
If we're looking for a new Freddie, it's been mentioned already that Broad scored more runs and took more wickets. Swann also scored more runs and took more wicket. In fact Swann scored more runs than Broad, Cook, Bopara, etc and was only 12 runs off being England's second best batsman behind Strauss.
If we're looking for a new Freddie, it's been mentioned already that Broad scored more runs and took more wickets. Swann also scored more runs and took more wicket. In fact Swann scored more runs than Broad, Cook, Bopara, etc and was only 12 runs off being England's second best batsman behind Strauss.
Good win, good recovery from a disastrous defeat in the previous Test and despite what Poncing was suggesting, the pitch was a bloody good one. It was the aussies' turn to make a mistake, they didn't pick Hauritz and while that alone might not have made a difference, it certainly would have given them as good a shot as any.
They want to blame anything, perhaps they should look at their own demise today. Losing a wicket LBW to no shot, two run outs of which one was needless, a stumping to a dreadful shot, a terrible shot by Haddin and that's just the ones off the top of my head.
They may have scored more tons in the series, and three of their bowlers took 20+ wickets when none of ours took 20, but the stats that matter are :
Wins : England 2-1 Australia
Lords & Oval vs Headingley
On Top : England 3-2 Australia
Lords, Oval & Edgbaston vs Headingley & Cardiff
Batting Failures* : England 1-3 Australia
Headingley (102) vs Lords (215), Edgbaston (263) and Oval (160)
*England were in trouble 2nd innings in Cardiff but survived, they were bowled out for 263 at Headingley but had already lost by then. All three of the aussie failures were 1st innings and they only recovered from one with a little help
Doesn't matter how you win, a win is a win. The aussies may have beaten us comfortably at Headingley and outscored and outbowled us at Cardiff, but it's like tennis, a set is a set even if you win 6-0 and your opponent wins 7-6 on a tie-break, you are still 1-1. England played better than the aussies in 3 games to 2 and won 2-1, simple.
Interesting deciding Test, it was pretty obvious England would prepare a result pitch, but the aussies could just as easily have won if they'd played a spinner and played well. I'm sure Poncing is annoyed the track wasn't flat as a pancake and a five day draw like it was in 2005, but would he have expected any different had it been a decider down under with the aussies needing a win?
And here's an interesting set of match stats for England :
Trott : 180 runs
Strauss : 130 runs
Bell : 76 runs
Broad/Swann : 147 runs & 14 wkts @ 19.00
Cook/Collingwood/Prior/Flintoff/Harmison/Anderson : 122 runs & 4 wkts @ 55.25
Someone on BBC 606 reckoned we were thrashing the aussies with 10 men, well actually it was more like five - Trott, Strauss, Bell, Broad and Swann - although Prior did well behind the stumps and there were other contributions like run outs, but most of the runs and wickets came from said afivementioned. Harmison may have picked up a few wickets, but two were tailenders and Johnson ended the series with a batting average of 17.50 (same as Bopara, except 60% of Johnson's runs came in one knock)
As for Flintoff, well after his heroics of 2005 his Ashes have been disappointing performance wise.
2005 : 402 runs @ 40.20 & 24 wkts @ 27.29
06/07 : 254 runs @ 28.22 & 11 wkts @ 43.73
2009 : 200 runs @ 33.33 & 7 wkts @ 52.13
Six more wickets in 2005 than in 06/07 and 2009 combined, and only 52 less runs from seven less innings. Fact remains he scored 270+ runs in a series only three times and took 15+ wickets in a series only twice, to go with his disappointing tally of three 5wis and five hundreds. While much is often said of his early career being disappointing, how many Tests do you whittle it down to before three 5wis and five hundreds makes him a great player?!?!?!? Truth is he was a lower order hitter, never a great batsman, and as a bowler he was tight and hostile, but never took as many wickets as he could and should have. In his last FIFTEEN consecutive series for England he had BB of 3-5 wickets, never took six and only took three 5wis.
And I've just looked at his bowling career, most exception I can make for him where he didn't bowl that much is his first four series, after that he bowled 75+ overs in a series all but once for England - against Bangladesh when he still took nine wickets @ 15.33 apiece. So if you wish to discount his early career he took 212 wickets @ 32.63. Any more than that and you'd be fiddling his figures to suit the argument, like starting Broad's career only once he started taking wickets. There's an easy comparison, the "mighty" Flintoff took only three 5wis in his career of 78 Tests for England, Broad is only into his 21st Test (I exclude the Test that never was and for all 10 balls of it, should be stricken from the records) and has matched the "mighty" Flintoff already in that department.
They want to blame anything, perhaps they should look at their own demise today. Losing a wicket LBW to no shot, two run outs of which one was needless, a stumping to a dreadful shot, a terrible shot by Haddin and that's just the ones off the top of my head.
They may have scored more tons in the series, and three of their bowlers took 20+ wickets when none of ours took 20, but the stats that matter are :
Wins : England 2-1 Australia
Lords & Oval vs Headingley
On Top : England 3-2 Australia
Lords, Oval & Edgbaston vs Headingley & Cardiff
Batting Failures* : England 1-3 Australia
Headingley (102) vs Lords (215), Edgbaston (263) and Oval (160)
*England were in trouble 2nd innings in Cardiff but survived, they were bowled out for 263 at Headingley but had already lost by then. All three of the aussie failures were 1st innings and they only recovered from one with a little help
Doesn't matter how you win, a win is a win. The aussies may have beaten us comfortably at Headingley and outscored and outbowled us at Cardiff, but it's like tennis, a set is a set even if you win 6-0 and your opponent wins 7-6 on a tie-break, you are still 1-1. England played better than the aussies in 3 games to 2 and won 2-1, simple.
Interesting deciding Test, it was pretty obvious England would prepare a result pitch, but the aussies could just as easily have won if they'd played a spinner and played well. I'm sure Poncing is annoyed the track wasn't flat as a pancake and a five day draw like it was in 2005, but would he have expected any different had it been a decider down under with the aussies needing a win?
And here's an interesting set of match stats for England :
Trott : 180 runs
Strauss : 130 runs
Bell : 76 runs
Broad/Swann : 147 runs & 14 wkts @ 19.00
Cook/Collingwood/Prior/Flintoff/Harmison/Anderson : 122 runs & 4 wkts @ 55.25
Someone on BBC 606 reckoned we were thrashing the aussies with 10 men, well actually it was more like five - Trott, Strauss, Bell, Broad and Swann - although Prior did well behind the stumps and there were other contributions like run outs, but most of the runs and wickets came from said afivementioned. Harmison may have picked up a few wickets, but two were tailenders and Johnson ended the series with a batting average of 17.50 (same as Bopara, except 60% of Johnson's runs came in one knock)
As for Flintoff, well after his heroics of 2005 his Ashes have been disappointing performance wise.
2005 : 402 runs @ 40.20 & 24 wkts @ 27.29
06/07 : 254 runs @ 28.22 & 11 wkts @ 43.73
2009 : 200 runs @ 33.33 & 7 wkts @ 52.13
Six more wickets in 2005 than in 06/07 and 2009 combined, and only 52 less runs from seven less innings. Fact remains he scored 270+ runs in a series only three times and took 15+ wickets in a series only twice, to go with his disappointing tally of three 5wis and five hundreds. While much is often said of his early career being disappointing, how many Tests do you whittle it down to before three 5wis and five hundreds makes him a great player?!?!?!? Truth is he was a lower order hitter, never a great batsman, and as a bowler he was tight and hostile, but never took as many wickets as he could and should have. In his last FIFTEEN consecutive series for England he had BB of 3-5 wickets, never took six and only took three 5wis.
And I've just looked at his bowling career, most exception I can make for him where he didn't bowl that much is his first four series, after that he bowled 75+ overs in a series all but once for England - against Bangladesh when he still took nine wickets @ 15.33 apiece. So if you wish to discount his early career he took 212 wickets @ 32.63. Any more than that and you'd be fiddling his figures to suit the argument, like starting Broad's career only once he started taking wickets. There's an easy comparison, the "mighty" Flintoff took only three 5wis in his career of 78 Tests for England, Broad is only into his 21st Test (I exclude the Test that never was and for all 10 balls of it, should be stricken from the records) and has matched the "mighty" Flintoff already in that department.
Will_NA
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Also interesting is that not one Englishman will be surprised by that. Our batsman at 8-11 made more than 3-7 comfortably if I'm not mistaken. We would be nowhere this series without our tailend.
Similar threads
