Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by OrangeOne, Dec 2, 2010.
That's what makes cricket cooler than football.
Nope, Cesc. You couldn't be more wrong.
The Ashes go way beyond any normal Series victory conditions - it's a symbol of rivalry between two nations that's impossible to put into words. And this is the first time in 24 years they've been able to retain them in Australia.
That's why they are celebrating, and I hope they partied well into the night.
It's unique in test cricket, in that it's the only series that exists where a draw away from home to retain a 'symbol' such as the urn counts as much as a normal series win against anyone else.
I still hope they win the Sydney match, for the sake of the rankings, but it's pretty insignificant compared to the moment where England ensured they'd be travelling back home with the Ashes.
Regardless of what the result is next week, even if it's win it will still be the victory in Melbourne that they will all remember as the key moment - by a country mile. Not the series victory.
I'm sorry but this is a dreadful Australian team, shocking bowling attack with no great bowlers just full of inconsistant seamers and not a spinner in sight and this Australian team has lost the art to bat long periods like Border, Langer, Waugh brothers, Martyn etc. Not to mention they've dropped so many catches this series. I would see this as a massive failure if we don't win the series, The Ashes won't feel like they've properly retained unless we win down under.
By the way I think England will win the series, can't see them losing at Sydney which has a pitch that suits England. I would save the celebrations till we've won the series.
Well..that goes against the general way The Ashes has always been perceived up until now and the tradition it holds. Like I say, in most test series I'd agree with you, but retaining the Urn was always the key objective here - the series win is a mere bonus. It is truly unique in that sense.
But if you want to think of it as something different that's fair enough I suppose.
Also, despite Australia's problems, you're still underselling England's achievement here. At first, I was blaming their batsmen solely - but I really am starting to see how well-disciplined all our bowlers have been.
A lot of their issues have been down to pressure by England, as much as their own shortcomings.
Langer was a poor man's Michael Slater anyway, getting lucky that Steve Waugh didn't want Slater's marital problems in the team and dropped him just before they were about to play on a dead Oval track where Langer got a hundred and began his bromance with Haydos.
10 chars. s. s.
I agree, we've battered them this series. To think they could get away with a 2-2 draw doesn't sit right with me. 3-1 is about right and hopefully they can do it, although I hear the weather isn't looking too great at Sydney.
Disgusting from Hughes there going up for that catch, it bounced inches before him and up into his hands.
Ian Botham is livid, you can see why.
Well, with only 2 days play left there's no realistic way Australia can win - so it's a series win for England.
Hopefully Prior, Bresnan and Swann can stretch the lead to from 210 to 300; if so I would fully expect England to get another innings victory, amazingly it would be their third of the series.
Apart from the anomaly at Perth, what a whipping this has been.
Another amazing day, it looks like being 3 victories, all by an innings. Not to mention all the other records that have tumbled, the first side to make 500 4 times, first time ever in a test match that the 7th, 8th and 9th wickets made century partnerships, Prior's quickest century, all the records Cook has broken etc.. etc..
This has been a thumping every bit as big as the one we got in 2006, brilliant stuff
I genuinely never thought I'd live to see such a gulf between the sides in England's favour in my lifetime. I just assumed the Aussies would always have a certain amount of toughness playing at home no matter what their team was like, but they're completely toothless.
Australia have a long, dark road ahead of them - they need to start planning for 10 years from now and put some new ideas into practise; at the moment they're just not producing the talent they used to do, for whatever reason.
Also, another surprise of the tour: Swann's figures. He's struggled as a wicket-taker and only averages 40 with the ball (although he has helped apply pressure at key moments). Amazingly, even Panesar had better figures in the 2006 whitewash.
Yet England have still breezed to victory despite that. Our pace bowlers are simply on a whole different level compared to theirs.
Where's OrangeOne got to?
It's a shame it's all over really, a couple of months of wall-to-wall 20 and 50 over games doesn't come close to a test series. At least there's India and Sri Lanka to look forward to in the summer, those should be good.
Yep, I have next to zero interest in the limited-overs format of the game. I'd still be pleased to see England do well in the WC, but it has very little importance compared to winning an away test series in Australia.
Panesar played two less Tests tbh.
Not really sure what your point is. I'm aware Monty played fewer tests, but his average from the 3 tests he did play are a good indicator of the point I'm making; that Swann (leading wicket taker in 2010) wasn't really firing any more than Panesar in '06 (in terms of runs per wicket), yet we still won extremely comfortably despite that.
That was a big surprise to me. I was sure we were going to need Swann taking 25+ wickets at an average below 30 to win this series.
They knew Swann was the big threat, so they made pitches which didn't really suit spinners. The only one that did was the dusty pitch at Adelaide, and we saw what he did there! He didn't bowl too well in the first test, but the pitches at Perth, Melbourne and Sydney were mostly hard and grassy and they didn't deteriorate like they usually do in Australia.
I was pleased with how he realised this and didn't get frustrated with it. It would of been easy for him to try and produce the magic ball over and over again, but the way he took it on the chin and tied up an end for the pace men to get the reverse swing was brilliant.
Panesar also had the luxury of a few of the Australians having not previously faced his left-arm medium pace. It's not like Australia prepared pitches to negate him, you know.
In reality, these pitches didn't end up being that different between now and '06 in terms of spin - that's been rather over-played. Even in that series, Warne averaged over 30 with the ball with most of the Aussie damage coming from the quick bowlers like in this one; it was by no means ultra-spinner friendly in '06.
But I'm not sure what we're debating here tbh. The point I was making was that our fast bowlers won us this series - it was pleasantly surprising that we didn't need to rely on Swann which I thought we were going to have to do. Comparing his average to Panesar's 4 years ago is a sound way to make the point of Swann's impact being fairly minimal here.
Australia can be abit of a graveyard for spinners tbf. Murali one of the best bowlers of all time has extremley modest figures there and Australian batsman play spin well, they struggle against the swinging ball as shown by 2005, 2009 and this last series where they couldn't handle England swinging it with the new and old ball.
Who cares, Swann's still a trillion times better than Panesar.
When did I suggest anything otherwise?
Watching the Prime Minister's XI, it makes me realise how lucky we are to have the Sky Sports commentators for the real games.
In the first few overs they've pretty much stated they know nothing about Shahzad, the shock and surprise in their voices that he's actually a good bowler is funny. Oh and the way they refer to the 5 day players as "Test-ies" was pretty cringe worthy.
At least Bill Lawry isn't commentating.
I still think that Channel 4's lineup was the best.
Benaud, Athers, Slats, Greig, Boycott and Nicholas (however annoying he can be) with Simon Hughes limited to analysis.
Although I do love hearing Michael Holding's analysis.
Channel 4 was good, but I really can't be doing with Mark Nicholas. You not a fan of Bumble?
Ahh, these biased Australian commentators are back to their best
Waxing lyrical about Brett Lee and how he's reversing the old ball. That may be the case, but Bell is smacking it all over the place. It doesn't matter if he's reversing it or bowling under arm, it's still going to the fence. Bit of a shame they'd rather talk about Brett Lee than the beautiful innings by Bell.
Bumble has his own reserved section of commentator affection alongside the likes of Sid Waddell.
Separate names with a comma.