The Ashes Tour 2013

[Bangkokhatter]

Just read back through the posts and feel i must intrude on 7x7 and Bookmans debate. Although I agree the run rate was not really a problem in the context of the game, a slow run rate builds pressure on the batsmen if he is constantly facing without scoring runs. Much better to keep rotating the strike it keeps the score ticking over and also upsets the bowlers rhythm .But like Bookman obviously i know nothing about the game

As for the game the Aussies got off to a decent start but just like England;s innings, wickets fell just as you thought the batsmen were starting to take control. It;s been a good test match but my money is on England now. Agar will not repeat his first innings effort and i think it will be all over by mid-afternoon.

[Will27]

... It was

probably too much to expect Hughes and Smith

to perform twice in one game. ..

Sarcasm Will?

Only a tad

They've already delivered more than I thought they would.

Cannot believe how the press keep talking about how we need Agar

to score another big one. I know he's in as night watchman but he's

still a tailender in his first test.

I think the guys to come are pretty good for lower order batsman. We only

need a quick 40 or 50 from someone and it changes the game. I reckon

the odds are probably 70/30 against, but I still think we're a sneaky chance.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Will27

[Will27]

SKY report that tomorrow is sold out.

Excellent play from Haddin and Agar at the end; don't worry about scoring, just keep your wicket intact and come back tomorrow.

Plenty of time tomorrow to score the runs; if England don't take the four wickets they need first.

My money's still on England, but it will be close.

Question: did Agar come in at 8 because he was promoted or because he was sent in as night watchman?

I can't really see this being close now! The track is cracking up at a rate of nots. England should be looking to skittle Australia well before lunch.

If Australia were to win this then they fully deserve it because it would be a magnificent effort. I just can't see it in a month of sundays! If it were to carry on until mid afternoon the batting track could be unplayable and bar Haddin the specialist batsmen are gone.

Ofcourse i could be spectacularly wrong though couldn't i!!!!

What I like is that we are actually talking about Cricket.

Not betting scandals.

Not Shane Warne's hair thread count.

Not Peterson's Twitters

But a genuine passion for the game and all that it embodies.

There will be million of TV's tuned in tonight, in Australia, in England, in India ... across the globe.

... now that is nice for a change.

Of those TV's ... one of those will be mine.

Unfortunately though, there has been too much talk about the DRS and poor umpiring.

And justifiably though, it's been terrible.

[BookMan]

Just read back through the posts and feel i must intrude on 7x7 and Bookmans debate. Although I agree the run rate was not really a problem in the context of the game, a slow run rate builds pressure on the batsmen if he is constantly facing without scoring runs. Much better to keep rotating the strike it keeps the score ticking over and also upsets the bowlers rhythm .But like Bookman obviously i know nothing about the game

As for the game the Aussies got off to a decent start but just like England;s innings, wickets fell just as you thought the batsmen were starting to take control. It;s been a good test match but my money is on England now. Agar will not repeat his first innings effort and i think it will be all over by mid-afternoon.

7x7 made some good points. It is not always easy to answer them all one finger typing on a phone . AS he says, our opinions differ...on fairly much everything.

I fully agree with you bangkokhatter with what you say about the slow run rate building pressure. The West Indies fast bowling quartet were experts at building the pressure on batsmen, as were Mcgrath/Warne combo.

[7by7]

BookMan,

You have been vocal in condemning England's second innings run rate of 2.5 yet made no comment at all on Australia's second innings rate (so far) of 2.45!

Why is that?

If you look back over the last decade or so you will see that while run rates have been increasing; scores have decreased.

Teams are scoring runs more quickly, but they are scoring fewer! (You can look up the statistics yourself if you don't believe me.)

This is a positive move in some respects; not least because it means fewer matches are ending in high scoring draws and more are ending in an actual result.

But sometimes the situation calls for an 'old school' type innings and resultant low run rate.

A slow run rate can be down to the fielding side; excellent, tight bowling, active, positive fielding.

But it can also be caused by the batsmen; plenty of time to get the runs, no need to take any risks. This was the reason for both England's and Australia's low rates in their second innings.

Look at two English batsmen; Pietersen and Prior.

The natural instinct of both is to hit out and score quickly.

Pietersen managed to control himself, be patient, play the way the situation demanded and build a good score before being out to an excellent ball from Pattinson for 64 from 150 balls.

Prior couldn't control himself and holed out for 31 from 42 balls.

Broad has a similar temperament, and several times had to be restrained by a few words from Bell; result, 65 from 148 balls.

Now, let's look at a typical 50 over game.

Teams tend to score relatively slowly at first, building an innings and not getting out. Then they put their foot down from around the 30th to 35th over; looking to double their score.

In most games most of the runs are scored in these final 15 to 20 overs; but most of the wickets fall then as well.

All of which shoes that the faster a team try to score, the quicker the wickets fall and the lower the score.

Both England's and Australia's second innings run rates have been slow; obviously painfully so for those brought up on the one day game. But both teams batted the way they needed to given the conditions and match situation.

Australia need 137 runs to win; and have a full days play to get them. That should be 90 overs, though with today's slow over rates probably less; lets say a very conservative 70.

That is just 1.95 runs per over.

If they try to score faster than that, especially on a fifth day pitch with the foot holes kindly provided by their bowlers for Swann to utilise, then England will take the four wickets they need long before Australia reach their target.

As the conditions are currently overcast and humid, expect the ball to swing as well.

So, if the conditions stay as now, I think the question isn't whether England will get those 4 wickets, but whether it's Swann or Anderson who takes them!.

[StreetCowboy]

I think Australia would be well advised to play for the draw, and then, if they still have four wickets at lunch or later and the runs are coming, then pick up the pace. But what would I know about test cricket.

I've never understood why in limited overs cricket they start off so slow; why not start off briskly and avoid the rush at the last minute?

SC

[BookMan]

BookMan,

You have been vocal in condemning England's second innings run rate of 2.5 yet made no comment at all on Australia's second innings rate (so far) of 2.45!

Why is that?

If you look back over the last decade or so you will see that while run rates have been increasing; scores have decreased.

Teams are scoring runs more quickly, but they are scoring fewer! (You can look up the statistics yourself if you don't believe me.)

This is a positive move in some respects; not least because it means fewer matches are ending in high scoring draws and more are ending in an actual result.

But sometimes the situation calls for an 'old school' type innings and resultant low run rate.

A slow run rate can be down to the fielding side; excellent, tight bowling, active, positive fielding.

But it can also be caused by the batsmen; plenty of time to get the runs, no need to take any risks. This was the reason for both England's and Australia's low rates in their second innings.

Look at two English batsmen; Pietersen and Prior.

The natural instinct of both is to hit out and score quickly.

Pietersen managed to control himself, be patient, play the way the situation demanded and build a good score before being out to an excellent ball from Pattinson for 64 from 150 balls.

Prior couldn't control himself and holed out for 31 from 42 balls.

Broad has a similar temperament, and several times had to be restrained by a few words from Bell; result, 65 from 148 balls.

Now, let's look at a typical 50 over game.

Teams tend to score relatively slowly at first, building an innings and not getting out. Then they put their foot down from around the 30th to 35th over; looking to double their score.

In most games most of the runs are scored in these final 15 to 20 overs; but most of the wickets fall then as well.

All of which shoes that the faster a team try to score, the quicker the wickets fall and the lower the score.

Both England's and Australia's second innings run rates have been slow; obviously painfully so for those brought up on the one day game. But both teams batted the way they needed to given the conditions and match situation.

Australia need 137 runs to win; and have a full days play to get them. That should be 90 overs, though with today's slow over rates probably less; lets say a very conservative 70.

That is just 1.95 runs per over.

If they try to score faster than that, especially on a fifth day pitch with the foot holes kindly provided by their bowlers for Swann to utilise, then England will take the four wickets they need long before Australia reach their target.

As the conditions are currently overcast and humid, expect the ball to swing as well.

So, if the conditions stay as now, I think the question isn't whether England will get those 4 wickets, but whether it's Swann or Anderson who takes them!.

7x7, if you read my posts you will see i did make comment about Australia's current 4th innings run rate. Probably best you go back and read that first.

As for comparing a 1st innings or 3rd innings with a 4th innings, it is a ridiculous comparison. They are totally different creatures, depending on quality of players, state of the pitch, state of the bowling, runs needed for victory, pressures of the mind.

England scored too slowly in their 3rd innings, simple as that. They made pressure for themselves, didnt turn over the strike and didn't back their obvious talent.

[BookMan]

I think Australia would be well advised to play for the draw, and then, if they still have four wickets at lunch or later and the runs are coming, then pick up the pace. But what would I know about test cricket.

I've never understood why in limited overs cricket they start off so slow; why not start off briskly and avoid the rush at the last minute?

SC

I think that is what 7x7 has been saying

[7by7]

BookMan,

My apologies; you did say that Australia batted sensibly in their second innings for the conditions and state of the game.

Which is precisely my point! England did the same in their second knock for exactly the same reasons.

You can't have it both ways; either it was right for both teams to bat as they did or it was right for neither!

None of the commentators I have read, heard on the radio or TV, whether they be English, Australian or neutral, ex player or not, has criticised either side's run rate. On the contrary.

I think they know more about the complexities and subtleties of the game than you or I.

I'm not saying Australia should play for a draw; I'm saying that they should continue to play sensibly as they have all day to get the runs.

SC,

Teams play the way they do in 50 over games, at least the team batting first, because if they went all out from the start they would lose wickets too quickly and probably not use all their allotted 50 overs.

You only have to see how many wickets fall after they have put their foot down compared to before.

Edited July 14, 2013 by 7by7

[David48]

Well, it's time for the battle to leave the keyboard and return to the pitch.

Maybe the Australian wicket-keeper can make up for his poor performance with the gloves and shine with the bat now.

I can but dream ...

[carmine]

Just think about this.....if ever there was an opportunity to write your name in glory in the annals of ashes history then the lad Agar has it! 19 years old, relatively unknown, a bowler winning it in totally spectacular fashion with the bat. I doubt it could ever be repeated!!

Ofcourse i want the australians to be drubbed and i reckon they will but this has to be in the back of the mind doesn't it! Nothing to lose. maybe its his day............

[BookMan]

BookMan,

My apologies; you did say that Australia batted sensibly in their second innings for the conditions and state of the game.

Which is precisely my point! England did the same in their second knock for exactly the same reasons.

You can't have it both ways; either it was right for both teams to bat as they did or it was right for neither!

Not at all. It is not a matter of either/or. Very rarely are things so simple.

England recovered from 2/11 and they have a stellar batting line up. It was not like the bowling was unplayable. Why they let Watson tie them up is a mystery. Maybe some confidence building for him. They could have turned the strike over more and improved the run rate, played a few shots, of which they are capable. I think it is a shame we are not seeing the best of the English batsmen. Mayeb they lack belief in themselves?

Australia's second innings is the 4th innings, the pitch is changing...big run chase, pressures are different, the Australian bastmen are not as capabale as England. Watson played like he should, and it is shame that Fighin' Davey Warner' was not playing. Agar, today, should do as he did in the first innings, play his shots, Clarke is not in form, otherwise he would have played more shots.

[bigbamboo]

Just think about this.....if ever there was an opportunity to write your name in glory in the annals of ashes history then the lad Agar has it! 19 years old, relatively unknown, a bowler winning it in totally spectacular fashion with the bat. I doubt it could ever be repeated!!

Ofcourse i want the australians to be drubbed and i reckon they will but this has to be in the back of the mind doesn't it! Nothing to lose. maybe its his day............

It's been a strange match and I've got a nagging feeling it could go right down to the wire.

Just grateful it's Haddin and not Gilchrist batting at seven!

[BookMan]

Just think about this.....if ever there was an opportunity to write your name in glory in the annals of ashes history then the lad Agar has it! 19 years old, relatively unknown, a bowler winning it in totally spectacular fashion with the bat. I doubt it could ever be repeated!!

Ofcourse i want the australians to be drubbed and i reckon they will but this has to be in the back of the mind doesn't it! Nothing to lose. maybe its his day............

It would certainly make Agar known and would be a delight to watch.

Speaking of all rounders who have won the test match for their country, let us not forget Botham's 149 not out at Headingley to save the test match for England, and subsequently they skittled the Aussies for 111 and won.

[7by7]

BookMan,

I give up.

You are right; the likes of Glenn MacGrath, Geoffrey Boycott, Michael Vaughan, Michael Holding, Ian Botham , Adam Gilchrist are all wrong.

[carmine]

Just think about this.....if ever there was an opportunity to write your name in glory in the annals of ashes history then the lad Agar has it! 19 years old, relatively unknown, a bowler winning it in totally spectacular fashion with the bat. I doubt it could ever be repeated!!

Ofcourse i want the australians to be drubbed and i reckon they will but this has to be in the back of the mind doesn't it! Nothing to lose. maybe its his day............

It's been a strange match and I've got a nagging feeling it could go right down to the wire.

Just grateful it's Haddin and not Gilchrist batting at seven!

Gilchrist imho was a once in a generation player. Magnificent player and sportsman and it was a sad day for cricket when that bloke retired because he played with all the old values that cricket used to be known and respected for. And yes, if someone could hold up the other end he would have been more than capable of winning this test match

[BookMan]

BookMan,

I give up.

You are right; the likes of Glenn MacGrath, Geoffrey Boycott, Michael Vaughan, Michael Holding, Ian Botham , Adam Gilchrist are all wrong.

I do try and think for myself 7x7. You dont have to listen to other people to make your decision you know. (fwiw i heard numerous Australian commentators comment England's rate was slow)

Anyway, just enjoy the remainder of the game mate. The run rate is dead slow so you should love every minute!

[carmine]

BookMan,

I give up.

You are right; the likes of Glenn MacGrath, Geoffrey Boycott, Michael Vaughan, Michael Holding, Ian Botham , Adam Gilchrist are all wrong.

the game has changed. Players don't walk and if they did i doubt they would like the bollocking they would get in the dressing room when they arrived back from the crease. Its not right its the way it is

NB Was that what you were debating? Whatever but regards the run rate who gives a toss, its a test match!

Edited July 14, 2013 by carmine

[Bangkokhatter]

BookMan,

I give up.

You are right; the likes of Glenn MacGrath, Geoffrey Boycott, Michael Vaughan, Michael Holding, Ian Botham , Adam Gilchrist are all wrong.

Do you not recognise the importance of rotating the strike ? Am sure all of the above will tell you how important it is in situations like this.

[7by7]

BookMan,

So you dismiss the opinions of well respected ex players' of the game because you reckon you know better than them?

Fair enough; I just hope you don't feel the same about the opinion of you doctor!

carmine,

It was the run rate, and you are right; it's a test match; the run rate doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the score.

Bangkokhatter,

Rotating the strike is important; not getting out more so!

No matter how high your run rate, no matter how often you rotate the strike; if you all get out for a low score you probably aint going to win.

Edited July 14, 2013 by 7by7

[StreetCowboy]

BookMan,

I give up.

You are right; the likes of Glenn MacGrath, Geoffrey Boycott, Michael Vaughan, Michael Holding, Ian Botham , Adam Gilchrist are all wrong.

I do try and think for myself 7x7. You dont have to listen to other people to make your decision you know. (fwiw i heard numerous Australian commentators comment England's rate was slow)

Anyway, just enjoy the remainder of the game mate. The run rate is dead slow so you should love every minute!

At the start of their innings, England were probably thinking about a draw. As it is, it seems there'll be plenty of time to get Australia all out, and if Australia are tempted to bat briskly to go for a win then the wickets will come quicker.

I thought I was not going to get the BBC coverage today, for some reason, but when I tried a different route in through their web site, it came up trumps. I remembered, though, that there might be problems with the rugby this evening - Warrington v Huddersfield, as I am sure you all recall. Apologies for the digression... I'lm off to Sid's for some tea

SC

[BookMan]

BookMan,

So you dismiss the opinions of well respected ex players' of the game because you reckon you know better than them?

Fair enough; I just hope you don't feel the same about the opinion of you doctor!

carmine,

It was the run rate, and you are right; it's a test match; the run rate doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the score.

Bangkokhatter,

Rotating the strike is important; not getting out more so!

No matter how high your run rate, no matter how often you rotate the strike; if you all get out for a low score you probably aint going to win.

oh 7x7 you make me laugh.

I dont dismiss the opinions of well respected ex players' of the game

I just take on board different opinions and my own experience and observations and make my own decisions. You really should back yourself and try likewise. As I also said, the run rate of England was questioned by experts. i didnt say all experts.

As for the current game....This final battle is a real absorbing corker. England right on target. they still need 4 wickets. Fantastic stuff!

im back to it...

[smokie36]

You're chipping away Bookman....nervous time for England!

[Bangkokhatter]

Australia gaining some momentum now and now our ultra defensive skipper setting much too defensive....hold that just got a wicket.. you beauty

[BookMan]

You're chipping away Bookman....nervous time for England!

Agar gone!

[7by7]

I just take on board different opinions and my own experience and observations and make my own decisions. You really should back yourself and try likewise.

You criticised me for not taking notice of what you have posted, and I apologised for missing it.

Maybe you have failed to notice that I was defending England's run rate well before you or I read the opinions of anyone else on the matter.

The opinion of the majority of experts is the same as mine; England played according to the conditions, the pitch and the amount of time left in the game.

As did Australia; and they still are now.

1 down, 3 to go.

[7by7]

Make that 2 down, 2 to go!

[smokie36]

You're chipping away Bookman....nervous time for England!

 

Agar gone!

Yes...Agar the 'Orrible has fallen!

Haddin next and its curtains....

[BookMan]

oh crap.... Starc gone...the faint glimmer of hope all but extinguished

[Bangkokhatter]

Anderson is a class act, think the fat lady is getting warmed up now.