The Ashes 2009

sethro Wrote:

setter1000 Wrote:I think that this result against australia was avery good result in more ways than one

1) To play badly agaisnt arguably the best side in test cricket and grind out a result is a sign of a good side. There is no top class side ever who have not had to grind out a result and rely on lady luck to play a blinder. Look at football are you going to tell me Man Utd Arsenal Chelsea, liverpool never got a result when they have been played off the park in the premier league?
Look at Australia In the third test 2005 series , they got a very lucky draw yet the feeling was my god we could pay for not putting them away when we had them on the ropes , rather than these boys are there for the taking.

I have to say I thought we were awful, and I hate to put a dampener on things, but many of the points you've made can switched the other way.

I mean you say, to save a match like that is the sign of a good side. Where is that sign? None of our batsman could score a 100, looked mentally fragile, and our bowlers wee toothless. It felt like Australia could have easily scored over a 1000 runs if they wanted to and if it wasn't for the weather we'd have lost this 1st test. Also the comparisons between our draw and the draw in 2005 isn't very accurate, Australia were easily the best side in the world in 2005, so the England side were naturally disappointed to only draw. Of course the aussies will be disappointed to only draw this game, but they know they're better then England, the rankings say so, they recently won a test series in South Africa whereas we recently lost one away to the West Indies.

setter1000 Wrote:2) to play well below your best and still get a result gives you confidence, in the sense that you can still be hard to beat when you put in a particularly poor one off performance. England will never perform as poorly as that again this series(i hope

You'd like to think England will never perform that badly again but this is England you're talking about. You can switch it another way and say the Aussies will be confident knowing how badly England's record is at Lords (where the next test is to be played), they haven't beaten the Aussies there since 1934, the Aussies know they outplayed England, England haven't won their last 6 tests against Australia, being outplayed in all of them.

setter1000 Wrote:3) england were over confident going into it knowing that in 2005 they beat the team which had all the legends in it, going by theory this team should be a lot lesser challenge , But have now realised that any one representing Australia is going to be more than a match for his english counter part. England have got a kick in the arse they needed and still have not paid the price for it(if England were offered a draw before this match started I would bet big money they would have taken It)

It's true this Aussie side is weaker then the 2005 team, however so is this current England team. The England team in 2005 had won something like 6 series in a row before going into the ashes, their bowling attack was on fire, they outbowled Australia in that series. They don't have that now, this England bowling unit is average, and to take 20 wickets against any Australian batting line up you need a strong bowling attack, which is why I can't see England winning this series because although Australia's bowlers aren't really any better, their batsman seem to be able to get the big scores and handle the pressure better then England's batsman. Only KP would get into the Australian top 6, and he's trying to slog sweep eveything like a lunatic.

Also, I think it's pathetic if it took the England cricketers to nearly lose a match before they got a kick up the ass. They should know already that trying to beat Australia at test cricket is like trying to beat Brazil at football, they're always going to be hard to beat, so no excuse really.

setter1000 Wrote:4) England have got a stronger insight into the Australian teams individuals in terms of strength and weaknesses and capabilities, and yet are still on level terms.

Yes, but is this England side good enough to take advantage of any perceived weakness? Because the Aussie batsman looked rock solid. I just can't see England bowling this Australian side out, and Harmison probably coming back sums up how weak our bowling attack is at the moment.

india were totally outplayed in the first test in 2007 they were 9 wickets down and if it were not for rain we would have won by I believe an innings. yet they came back and won the series. They were everybit as toothless and mediocre as we were in the first match of this series. They took heart from the fact they could play a lot better and came back beat us to the extent that we were lucky to draw the last match. As i mentioned before when you get beaten you obtain the neccessary ingredients for a better next performance, humility, knowledge and an over powering will to do yourself justice. I stand by this.
I did not say it was a good performance in any way what so ever. I said it was a good result. England were complacent,(Australias performance against the lions would not scare anyone) they will be like a wounded animal(as everyone knows a wounded animal is at his most dangerous)yet the score is still level in the series. The fact that we only took 6 wicktets they took 19 is insignificant in the context of the series the score is still 0-0.

setter1000 Wrote:india were totally outplayed in the first test in 2007 they were 9 wickets down and if it were not for rain we would have won by I believe an innings. yet they came back and won the series. They were everybit as toothless and mediocre as we were in the first match of this series. They took heart from the fact they could play a lot better and came back beat us to the extent that we were lucky to draw the last match. As i mentioned before when you get beaten you obtain the neccessary ingredients for a better next performance, humility, knowledge and an over powering will to do yourself justice. I stand by this.
I did not say it was a good performance in any way what so ever. I said it was a good result. England were complacent,(Australias performance against the lions would not scare anyone) they will be like a wounded animal(as everyone knows a wounded animal is at his most dangerous)yet the score is still level in the series. The fact that we only took 6 wicktets they took 19 is insignificant in the context of the series the score is still 0-0.

Yeah I remember that test against India, when Monty Panesar was denied what looked like an obvious LBW, had it been allowed we'd have won the first test, instead It wasn't, then the rain came and the match was called off as a draw, the India went on to win the series 2-0.

Still I don't think you can compare England to Australia. In that the aussies are mentally stronger, or that's how it seems the last 20 years or so. It's true they've also had the best players, but their batsmen do definately seem more up for it then ours. I think England are really going to struggle to take 20 wickets, because their bowling attack is average, I know Australia's isn't great either, but they appear to have better batsmen, they don't look like giving away their wicket away cheaply unlike England. And I'm not just basing it on this test, I'm going on a few tests in the last few years, where England have collapsed against New Zealand for 4-3, or something crazy like that, 86 all out against Sri Lanka, and 46 all out against the West Indies. You'd never see this with Australia in this day and age, but you often get the feeling that unless KP gets a big score or Collingwood sticks around for a few hours, England will get a below par score.

Anyway you're right, it was a good result considering how terrible we played, and we probably will play better, still not convinced we'll be good enough to win the series though.

Day 1 Lord's 2nd test

England 364/6 in 90 overs

England put on 196 for the first wicket Cook went for 95 but Strauss is unbeaten on 161.

England were bowled out for 425 all out but Australia are struggling at 156/8 lovely stuff from England.

Day 3 Lord's 2nd test

Australia were 215 all out in 63 overs and England decided not to enforce the follow on so England made 311/6 in 71.2 overs which gives them a lead of 521 runs.

Day 4 Lords 2nd test

Australia 313/5 off 86 overs

At one stage Austraila were struggling at 128/5 but Clarke and Haddin have put unbroken partnership of 185 runs still need another 209 runs to win this test.

I'l b the 1st to say then.....

'MON ENGLAND!!!
It took a poor batting display from Australia for us to win the match, so hopefully that's the only poor batting display from any1 this series which will mean we win the Ashes!! , having said that looking ahead SA away is the big fish, i just hope we can put up a good challenge unlike last year when they came over here

(15-07-2009 00:57 )seth Wrote:  Yeah I remember that test against India, when Monty Panesar was denied what looked like an obvious LBW, had it been allowed we'd have won the first test, instead It wasn't, then the rain came and the match was called off as a draw, the India went on to win the series 2-0.

I remember that, i was at the game on the 4th day and India we unlucky cos they had some shoddy decisions, in particular Dravid was given out LBW when the ball hit him outside the line, india supporters wen crazy when they found out from the replays! lol, and if i remember correctly Tendulkar was given LBW as well and it was 50/50 as to if it was out, but we can't complain we got the benefits of the worst umpiring in history later on in the series when Mr MBE Colly got his 1st 2 test wickets.
But hey-ho, we deserved to lose that series, we didn't play the swinging ball well, and where technically flawed. And also series was 1-0

p.s all this talk bout Clarke's innings being the best at Lords, wot bout Pieterson and Vaughan's against India 2007, when the pitch wasn't flat, ball was hooping round, and the boys got us in a position to push for victory

(20-07-2009 13:14 )654321 Wrote:  I'l b the 1st to say then.....

'MON ENGLAND!!!
It took a poor batting display from Australia for us to win the match, so hopefully that's the only poor batting display from any1 this series which will mean we win the Ashes!! , having said that looking ahead SA away is the big fish, i just hope we can put up a good challenge unlike last year when they came over here

I still think Australia and possibly India are bigger fish then SA. SA lost at home to Aus only a few months back, they remind me of England in 05 where they played brilliant cricket for a short time but couldn't sustain it. They are a good side, I'm still not convinced they're a great side.

Australia are always tough to beat, I wouldn't write them off, this is the worst Aussie side for 20 years and with a bit more luck they could be 2-0 up. Also, I still think their batting line up is stronger then ours, it'll be interesting how England react if Australia bat first and put 550 - 600 on, as England have a habit of crumbling when big first innings scores are set against them.

And don't forget, Pietersen and Flintoff may not play for the rest of the series, and Brett Lee and Stuart Clark could well come into the Australian bowling attack.

australia have totally collapsed today. they went from 126/1 to 263 all out