Who gives a hoot about the Ashes?

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
Boy has gone over there for three weeks. If you spot a ging with an Eccleshall Cricket Club flag that'll be him.
Excellent.

It sounds like it's honours even after the first day ..... which I view as a positive as everyone was doom and gloom about the first test. Shame about Cook and Root, but at least the 3 scorers will have had their confidence raised.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
I got up as early as i dared to watch the last session of the 2nd day, and tuned in at 70 something for 4. It took me a while to actually process that information.

Looks like I then jinxed the whole attack, as not a single other wicket was taken until close, and most of the coverage I watched consisted of Australia grinding out the runs at the scintillating run rate of about 2 per over.

Lucky me.
 

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
Hopefully our bowlers will start the day refreshed and with renewed vigour .... and with the new ball only 18 overs away, who knows?
 

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
I wake up to find that the Aussies have scored the sort of total we should have got and we got the sort of total the Aussies should have got.

So with England at effectively 7 for 2, it's advantage Australia.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
And now more so.

Root needs to do exactly what Smith did in this innings - if it is to be a loss then it must be as narrow a loss as possible.

Proper Test cricket so far - hugely enjoyable.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Well there goes my kiss of death again...

Root needs to ride this out and become as much of an immovable object as Smith was.

A draw is out of the question, a win seems unlikely, so a loss with some honour seems the best outcome we can hope for.
 

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
It's difficult to take many positives. Sure there were some reasonable scores by our batsmen, but this was on what seems a fairly benign pitch. One wonders (/fears) how they'll get on on something more "lively".
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
It's difficult to take many positives.
TBF it was quite even right up until the moment it wasn't.

Australia's first innings would've been a disaster if Smith had fallen early.

England's second might've proved more meaty if the Ali/Root partnership hadn't been so rudely interrupted. Or, indeed, if Cook had put any feckin runs on the board - which he, at some stage in the tour, will.

Let's not get too carried away.

With the proverbial 'gun to the head' you'd still be happier putting it all on 5-0 to Australia than on anything else, though.

Death with honour is all i'm asking for.
 

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
And there goes the second test and the series.

Day 1 did not go as planned, and Day 2 has been even worse. At least it's raining.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
This Test will be defined by two monumental errors of judgement.

  1. To win the toss and elect to bowl.
  2. To not enforce the follow on.

The ultimate outcome will be defined more by the former than the latter, for it will be the same, but honours in this respect at least will be even.

Death with honour is still possible for this one.

For the rest, it's still best of five.
 
Last edited:

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
Not sure "monumental" is the word. Maybe a bit of 20-20 hindsight being applied. (2. probably won't make much difference, and I can understand 1. to a certain extent.)

Anyway, I wake to find we've got the Aussies where we want them. We've skittled them out for a paltry total and our openers are putting together a few runs ....... and if they can do it, our tail-enders should have no trouble if called upon.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Not sure "monumental" is the word. Maybe a bit of 20-20 hindsight being applied. (2. probably won't make much difference, and I can understand 1. to a certain extent.)
I think it fair to say that if you win the toss and put your opponents in to bat in the belief that you will subsequently bowl them all out for some sort of a minimal score of - what? 200? 250? 300? - not a lot anyway, and they subsequently declare because they have gotten so bored of batting against you at nearly 450 runs, you have made a 'monumental' error.

As regards 2., it couldn't possibly have been hindsight, because it was foresight - the outcome was defined 'more by the former than the latter' because it indeed was the same - England were incredibly unlikely to win this match, and so they didn't. It was, however, a much closer run thing than it could otherwise have been.

Smith's call was more understandable - long day in the field, rest the bowlers, big lead already in the bag, all of those sort of things - but was also an error. This Test could have been wrapped up in four days - follow on, 3 or 4 or even 5 wickets in the evening session, tail on day 4, no need to bat twice, all of those sorts of things.Could being the operative here, obviously, but you can see it easily, can't you?

Perhaps not quite so 'monumental', but England have positives to cling on to, and Australia doubts to wrestle with, exactly because of that 2nd innings that could have been avoided.

Sticking with 5-0, just in case you think i'm some sort of delusional nutcase.
 

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
I tend to judge whether decisions were "errors of judgement" based on what was known at the time rather than what subsequently happened, and I don't know of any oversight either captain made, or any reason why they may have overvalued their bowlers in England's case in 1., and their batsmen in Australia's case in 2. Both decisions, to me at least, did not seem unreasonable (apologies for the double-negative).

Decision 1. - England's to bowl first - is probably the more contentious. I guess the usual thinking is not to bat last rather than to bat first, as the pitch is likely to deteriorate giving more help to your bowlers, especially your spinners. But I'm not sure we had any spinners, given that Moeen Ali had had a problem with a finger after the first test and was late getting the all clear to play (in the end he was the most expensive of our frontline bowlers and took no wickets). So given there may be no advantage to batting first (or not batting last), you may as well try and put the pressure on during the first difficult period of a day/nighter around dusk. Unfortunately our bowlers weren't up to it.

There is a certain irony in that the game didn't follow the usual pattern of toss-winner batting first, toss-loser batting second, toss-winner batting third, toss-loser batting 4th despite those two decisions.

Personally I think they should do away with coin toss and have bidding instead. Both sides submit bids along the lines of "let us bat first and we'll give you a 50 run start" (once it's established that both teams wish to bat first of course).
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
If you win the toss on a batting wicket you should elect to bat.

What with the inherent luck of winning the arbitrary toss and all.

All else has an inevitable air of whataboutery to it, for sure, but where would we be without whataboutery?

Nowhere i'd like to be, that's for certains.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
... if Cook had put any feckin runs on the board - which he, at some stage in the tour, will.
Cook has had four innings in two Tests thus far, scoring -
  • 2
  • 7
  • 37
  • 16
- a grand total of 62 runs.

His Test average is nearly 46.

Time for an unbeaten 240+ to even things back up a bit, eh Alastair?
 
Last edited:
Top