The Ashes (Australia vs England)

[Zombie PotatoHeads]

Really, most reports I'm reading are calling England a pile of trash lucky to escape with a draw they didn't deserve. What would be funny if it wasn't so tragic is that they're blaming Kevin Pietersen for some reason, and this really is the English disease, we lose because our star player didn't perform to his potential, as though a 'team' is about one player, and thus we excuse the rest for their shoddy game.

I was going off the BBC website which describes the England team as 'valiant' and 'defiant' and their cricketing blog giving some of their players such high marks out of 10.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2 ... tings.html
Monty was given a '7' and Anderson a '9' based almost solely on their not getting out on day 5. Which ignores the fact their bowling cost 225 runs for just 3 wickets, at an average of 3.4 runs/over.
That, and Strauss saying the draw will give England a 'huge' psychological boost over Australia going into the next test. How does one work that out? At least the Aussies have the decency to say they were crap when they were. This sort of silver lining finding I think hurts rather than helps when you play this badly.

[Peisandros]

So a draw in the end withthe next test match to be played at Lords.

What do people think of Pontings claims of the Poms timewasting?

Does he have a point?

He has a HUGE point. It was, unfortunately, typical of the English. It wasn't in the spirit of the game and there was no need for it. Strauss tried to defend it, but meh, not impressed.

Australia will probably rape England at Lords.

[Blouman Empire]

He has a HUGE point. It was, unfortunately, typical of the English. It wasn't in the spirit of the game and there was no need for it. Strauss tried to defend it, but meh, not impressed.

Yes it is a shame England had to stoop to tactics such as these, I expected something like that from the Indians but the Poms not so much. It appears that the gentleman's game is losing the gentlemen's bit.

Australia will probably rape England at Lords.

I certainly hope so.

[Barringtonia]

Yes it is a shame England had to stoop to tactics such as these,

I'm not convinced it was an overt tactic, it's more indicative of the nervousness of England players, apart from the afternoon spell by Johnson against Collingwood, you always felt that the Aussies might take a wicket, whereas you couldn't see an England bowler taking a wicket at all.

England concentrate on not losing a wicket, which causes them to be timid and not wishing to actually face a ball.

That's why it's farcical when the press blames Pietersen, given he's the only one who takes the bowlers on,

So I'd say it was as much the batsmen finding a reason to not face a ball rather than a deliberate tactic, two sides of the same coin maybe but a subtle difference to be fair.

[Peisandros]

He has a HUGE point. It was, unfortunately, typical of the English. It wasn't in the spirit of the game and there was no need for it. Strauss tried to defend it, but meh, not impressed.

Yes it is a shame England had to stoop to tactics such as these, I expected something like that from the Indians but the Poms not so much. It appears that the gentleman's game is losing the gentlemen's bit.

Bah, India aren't so bad anymore. To be fair to the English, it wasn't a huge deal, but it did delay the game at a pretty tense time!

Australia will probably rape England at Lords.

I certainly hope so.

Yes, yes so do I. I don't like this English team, but I really liked the one that won in 2005. So, anyway, this year, I'm supporting you Aussie bastards.

[Blouman Empire]

I'm not convinced it was an overt tactic, it's more indicative of the nervousness of England players, apart from the afternoon spell by Johnson against Collingwood, you always felt that the Aussies might take a wicket, whereas you couldn't see an England bowler taking a wicket at all.

England concentrate on not losing a wicket, which causes them to be timid and not wishing to actually face a ball.

That's why it's farcical when the press blames Pietersen, given he's the only one who takes the bowlers on,

So I'd say it was as much the batsmen finding a reason to not face a ball rather than a deliberate tactic, two sides of the same coin maybe but a subtle difference to be fair.

That's true, though it did seem after tea that they decided to start going for runs a bit more. I don't want to go all out and say with certainty that they did because as you say there is a subtle difference and could have been miscommunication rather than saying we will ensure to run out the clock to ensure the draw. Which since the 3rd day really has been the best they could hope for.

[Blouman Empire]

Bah, India aren't so bad anymore. To be fair to the English, it wasn't a huge deal, but it did delay the game at a pretty tense time!

The last test series in Australia against them and their behaviour both on and off the pitch are still raw with me.

Yes, yes so do I. I don't like this English team, but I really liked the one that won in 2005. So, anyway, this year, I'm supporting you Aussie bastards.

Well since you guys are Australia lite you should be going for us all the time.

[Forsakia]

As expected, after England manage to climb out of their hole and stagger towards a well-undeserved draw they immediately start up about how great they are for having done so. It's kinda sweet to see their hopeless (and hapless) optimism. Almost as much as their inevitable complaints about the ref when they lose.

Really, most reports I'm reading are calling England a pile of trash lucky to escape with a draw they didn't deserve. What would be funny if it wasn't so tragic is that they're blaming Kevin Pietersen for some reason, and this really is the English disease, we lose because our star player didn't perform to his potential, as though a 'team' is about one player, and thus we excuse the rest for their shoddy game.

Pietersen's performance sort of summed up England's batting really, poor after the hype and got out by being silly rather than lack of ability.

It is technically the England and Wales Cricket board and team (hence past roles for the likes of Simon Jones and Geraint Jones in 05 among others) but that's generally forgotten.

Cardiff's ground apparently bid higher than the others to host it, combo of that and ECB wanting to spread them around the country more got them the match.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I'm mandated by all of the Brits of Yankee threads past to say "Eeew, cricket!"


... but it's not exactly a bad game.

[Molested Sock]

Well since it doesn't look like anyone has done this yet, (apart from some noob who did it wrong) I will open it up.
-snip-

It is a disgrace that noone has done one yet, last English season one was up and running perhaps weeks before the first test.

I'll try and find the other Ashes thread, I am now intrigued.

GTG.

[Pope Joan]

Can this topic be allowed to go by without mentioning Life, The Universe, and Everything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_the_ ... Everything

Not any more, it can't.

thanks to barringtonia for prompting the edit

[No Names Left Damn It]

... but it's not exactly a bad game.

No, it's an awful one.

[Peisandros]

As expected, after England manage to climb out of their hole and stagger towards a well-undeserved draw they immediately start up about how great they are for having done so. It's kinda sweet to see their hopeless (and hapless) optimism. Almost as much as their inevitable complaints about the ref when they lose.

Really, most reports I'm reading are calling England a pile of trash lucky to escape with a draw they didn't deserve. What would be funny if it wasn't so tragic is that they're blaming Kevin Pietersen for some reason, and this really is the English disease, we lose because our star player didn't perform to his potential, as though a 'team' is about one player, and thus we excuse the rest for their shoddy game.

Cardiff's ground apparently bid higher than the others to host it, combo of that and ECB wanting to spread them around the country more got them the match.

Bah, ECB didn't want to start at Lords. Australia don't lose there and the ECB was scared of getting the Ashes campaign off with a loss, because with their weak team it would make the task nigh impossible with a first match loss.

[Barringtonia]

Can this topic be allowed to go by without mentioning Life, The Universe, and Everything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

Not any more, it can't.

Interesting, this line certainly seems to fit the moment..

In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature.

If we hypothesize a game as a state of nature then this would seem to accord with the facts, though sometimes, due to the fundamental facts of chance, the weak can overcome the strong and this probably creates a revised strategy by the strong, evolving as it were,

Though I suspect you meant this for another thread

[Pope Joan]

Can this topic be allowed to go by without mentioning Life, The Universe, and Everything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

Not any more, it can't.

Interesting, this line certainly seems to fit the moment..

In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature.

If we hypothesize a game as a state of nature then this would seem to accord with the facts, though sometimes, due to the fundamental facts of chance, the weak can overcome the strong and this probably creates a revised strategy by the strong, evolving as it were,

Though I suspect you meant this for another thread

Drat that Control/V function!

here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_the_ ... Everything

[Hamilay]

I'm rather un-Australian in the sense that cricket doesn't interest me at all, but hopefully I make up for that by being confident that we'll obviously beat the English like we always do.

[No Names Left Damn It]

I'm rather un-Australian in the sense that cricket doesn't interest me at all, but hopefully I make up for that by being confident that we'll obviously beat the English like we always do.

Yeah just like in 2005. Oh wait...

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Well since it doesn't look like anyone has done this yet, (apart from some noob who did it wrong) I will open it up.

Bear this in mind, and do it right for the Second Test. Starting thursday.

I'm in. I would love to post my thoughts about an ongoing game, which gets between ten and eighty percent of my attention as I post. (It is a very intermittent game.)

I politely suggest that Forum 7 is the place for the Ashes Second Test thread. Shot-by-shot commentary would buoy the thread to the top of General, where it won't be welcome to the (I suggest) majority of NSGers who have no interest in Cricket.

As to this test: a good result. A half day lost to rain saved the Poms, Australia plainly outplayed them. But a close result at the end is always good. And we don't want to crush them do we? We want a good close series, not one decided in the first three tests.

Incidentally, I called some outcomes early in Australia's innings. They're still there in my sig. The line in purple was added later, around 20-2 in England's second. I'm not ashamed to be wrong, and I'm not ashamed to take the side of any right-arm off-spinner on the field.

The result might have been very different if Ponting had not taken the new ball on day 5. The new ball went to the boundary from nicks, and keeping Hauritz on would have done for Anderson and Panesar. I suppose you could argue the new ball was a "stress test" for the Aus quicks, but I think it cost the game.

No hard feelings though. The series will be a good contest I think.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I'm rather un-Australian in the sense that cricket doesn't interest me at all, but hopefully I make up for that by being confident that we'll obviously beat the English like we always do.

Yeah just like in 2005. Oh wait...

That's just the kind of series I want. Closely contested, win lose or draw.

I don't want 06-07 again. It was much less interesting.

[Blouman Empire]

Well since it doesn't look like anyone has done this yet, (apart from some noob who did it wrong) I will open it up.

Bear this in mind, and do it right for the Second Test. Starting thursday.

I'm in. I would love to post my thoughts about an ongoing game, which gets between ten and eighty percent of my attention as I post. (It is a very intermittent game.)

I politely suggest that Forum 7 is the place for the Ashes Second Test thread. Shot-by-shot commentary would buoy the thread to the top of General, where it won't be welcome to the (I suggest) majority of NSGers who have no interest in Cricket.

That might be a good idea for a shot-by-shot commentary for the remaining tests but I would think this thread can continue as a general discussion for the rest of the series.

As for those that have no interest it is only one thread so not clogging it up to much if we had 4 or more threads at once that is different. But even then if we have a shot by shot on this one thread in NSG then it shouldn't be so bad. And I would question as to why they weren't saying the same thing about various other sporting threads such as the Stanley Cup or NCAA.

As to this test: a good result. A half day lost to rain saved the Poms, Australia plainly outplayed them. But a close result at the end is always good. And we don't want to crush them do we? We want a good close series, not one decided in the first three tests.

Well that's right we don't want it to be over quickly I would have liked to have seen 3-2 with the final test to be the decider. And I forgot about the rain which helped out the poms quite a bit.

Something for me to tell a certain someone who has been bagging the Aussies for being shit and how good England was on his facebook status.

[Colonic Immigration]

He has a HUGE point. It was, unfortunately, typical of the English. It wasn't in the spirit of the game and there was no need for it. Strauss tried to defend it, but meh, not impressed.

Yes it is a shame England had to stoop to tactics such as these, I expected something like that from the Indians but the Poms not so much. It appears that the gentleman's game is losing the gentlemen's bit.

You 2 better be joking. We had every right to try and stall. Not our fault you couldn't get us out.

[Blouman Empire]

You 2 better be joking. We had every right to try and stall. Not our fault you couldn't get us out.

IF you are going to admit that they held up the game so the last wicket couldn't be done then no they don't have every right, it may not be against the rules but it is dishonest, unsportsmanlike and simply low.

[Colonic Immigration]

You 2 better be joking. We had every right to try and stall. Not our fault you couldn't get us out.

IF you are going to admit that they held up the game so the last wicket couldn't be done then no they don't have every right, it may not be against the rules but it is dishonest, unsportsmanlike and simply low.

Don't get sour grapes now Bloumey. We drew fair and square. Ponting needed an excuse and he gave one. He's just pissed that they didn't win. It's hard to see how we drew with your lead. But all the same -

[Colonic Immigration]

I'm rather un-Australian in the sense that cricket doesn't interest me at all, but hopefully I make up for that by being confident that we'll obviously beat the English like we always do.

Yeah just like in 2005. Oh wait...

Never mind the 18 years prior to '05.

[Molested Sock]

Well since it doesn't look like anyone has done this yet, (apart from some noob who did it wrong) I will open it up.

Bear this in mind, and do it right for the Second Test. Starting thursday.

I'm in. I would love to post my thoughts about an ongoing game, which gets between ten and eighty percent of my attention as I post. (It is a very intermittent game.)

I politely suggest that Forum 7 is the place for the Ashes Second Test thread. Shot-by-shot commentary would buoy the thread to the top of General, where it won't be welcome to the (I suggest) majority of NSGers who have no interest in Cricket.

NS General should be grown up enough to cope with a Cricket thread intermittantly being on the first page of General for 6 or so weeks, it only would take one slot on the first page of general and once the series is done it can rest for all time(God, Mod and Admin Willing) in hyperlink form, whence anyone who cares to search and review past topic glories can peruse it, placing it in Forum 7 will be inappropriate as Forum 7 is for sillyness(Only the Slips, 3rd Man, Deep Mid-on and the Silly Midwicket/Mid-on/Mid Off areas and playing any games at Eden Park are places for sillyness in Cricket oh and the Commentary box...), it also might encourage excessive inane spam(Regular spam is ok, but not excessive and certainly not thread jacking excessive spam).

Also unless something has changed in the way Forum 7 operates, threads get deleted after a week of inactivity, that is no place for any series topic, not because of precious postcounts(Well so much...) but because of opinions, history, good humour and the likes.
I strongly discourage an endorsement of that proposal on those grounds.

As to this test: a good result. A half day lost to rain saved the Poms, Australia plainly outplayed them. But a close result at the end is always good. And we don't want to crush them do we? We want a good close series, not one decided in the first three tests.

I agree there Australia was the better team, but again Pontings captaincy was lacking, reminds me of the 3rd Test between New Zealand and India last Summer, M S Dhoni batted on and on and then tried to get New Zealand out and failed to do so, admittadly New Zealand did have the advantage of Bad light(Daylight saving time was robbing the players of about an hours play for each day, though it's either a sign of greed, too much faith in ones bowling attack/lack of faith in an opponents batting, inexperience or incompetence, Ponting doesn't have a lack of experience( I made a double negative?...), perhaps too much faith in his bowling, Johnson's main wicket ball is the filthy short wide one that batsmen snick and Hauritz like any spinner is to deliver pies and eventually buy a wicket, well with guile and flight and deception and changes of pace and coming in at a different point of the crease etc etc...

I certainly do want a good close series, not a 5-0 like Glenn McGrath said would happen.
Just like any Cricket match, one siders are generally boring even if the team I'd prefer to win is destroying the other team.

Incidentally, I called some outcomes early in Australia's innings. They're still there in my sig. The line in purple was added later, around 20-2 in England's second. I'm not ashamed to be wrong, and I'm not ashamed to take the side of any right-arm off-spinner on the field.

Nothing to be ashamed of.

The result might have been very different if Ponting had not taken the new ball on day 5. The new ball went to the boundary from nicks, and keeping Hauritz on would have done for Anderson and Panesar. I suppose you could argue the new ball was a "stress test" for the Aus quicks, but I think it cost the game.

No hard feelings though. The series will be a good contest I think.

Australia had a massive first innings lead, assuming they gave England another 20 overs to bat, I'd assume they'd have got England out and if England had been able to post a target, Australia could have chased it then.
Eight wickets in a day is gettable, but should not be expected and that is the reality.

As for time wasting, I'm against it, I've been on both sides of it more often as the bowling team, having a team delay game for rain, it cost my team the championship last year, that and not winning 1 of our last 3 games(One of which we were ended by rain)...

Ponting is at fault for the draw.