ThePortForum.com

Posted: **18:15 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

DRT wrote:Is this down to having two teams that are incapable of consistency or is it something to do with the wickets at the three grounds significantly suiting one team over the other?

Both, my dear fellow, both. It has led to your other point, not much tension. I think this may be a global crisis in cricket, if this Australian side is rated number one in the world (I think they are?) then gawd help the rest of us. One fast slinger and some flaky batting from what I've seen. Even the good points about England are counterbalanced by some awful stuff, shot selection in particular.

Which brings me to Bell. I was thinking as he came in just how many runs he would need, and I came to the conclusion that it would need to be a score, ie fifty at least. And he got three more than this, and then tried to hit the spinner out of the park in his first over with one hand on his bat. Another career saving innings, besides England will not change a winning side.

Posted: **19:38 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

For what it is worth I believe that Bell is as arrogant as KP. He seems to pull a "career winning" innings out of the bag when needed but most of the time does not seem to care enough to try hard for the team. Thinking back to his comments a couple of years ago about not wanting to be promoted from 4th makes me think he wants the fame without the hard work.

In my world that attitude ends in a compromise agreement and the appointment of someone who gives a s***.

Posted: **21:16 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

I think this was not a one-sided game at all, until about 4pm today it could have gone anywhere. I'd like to see what Bairstow does at Trent Bridge; Buttler was not out; Lyth failed. Other than that everyone turned up. I agree Australia are poor but disagree that this pitch was anything like as doctored as the previous two. This was a much more traditional English track and the Aussies should have been able to score on it. There was nothing wrong with it, and they also have bowlers who can exploit turn.

Posted: **21:34 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:I think this was not a one-sided game at all, until about 4pm today it could have gone anywhere.

I watched the game for two days. You spent two days drinking claret, swimming, eating and drinking claret whilst occasionally checking in here to see the score. Strangely enough we have a slightly different perspective on reality.

The Auzzies have been rubbish from start to finish in this test. If one man had not put a score together they would have been beaten by tea today. they were skittled out in the first innings and failed to hold England back to a sub-100 lead when they had the chance.

Don't kid yourself that this has been a contest. That's what Jimmy would have done.

Posted: **21:41 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

DRT wrote:You spent two days drinking claret, swimming, eating and drinking claret

I agree with Derek: Daniel did well. Boy done good.

Posted: **21:54 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:I think this was not a one-sided game at all, until about 4pm today it could have gone anywhere.

Oh come on. Australia got bowled out for 136. That's it. From then on the best they could hope for is a great escape, which never happen, despite the hope tinted spectacles we put on from time to time.

djewesbury wrote:I'd like to see what Bairstow does at Trent Bridge;

Puts on fairy-godmother outfit, I just happen to have; And so you shall, at least on the highlights.

djewesbury wrote: This was a much more traditional English track and the Aussies should have been able to score on it. There was nothing wrong with it, and they also have bowlers who can exploit turn.

True, the pitch felt a bit more like it. As to that crumb *insert current spinners name* the sight of him made me long for Pietersen again. Do you remember Doherty? He was the next great Australian spinner and in one afternoon Pietersen finished him off. Last heard of in rehab. Twitchy lot, spinners.

Posted: **22:58 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

Actually I watched the whole of day one, and listened to the commentary on TMS. And I heard most of today on TMS except when my head was below the water. Ok, perhaps it was a little one-sided but I still don't think it was a foregone conclusion that England were going to capitalise on that. Anyway, I don't really care, the thing is that by lunchtime tomorrow we'll have won and all this pontificating will be slightly more irrelevant than it is now. Where's my drink?

Posted: **23:20 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:I still don't think it was a foregone conclusion that England were going to capitalise

Only because a collapse is always just one Bell away.

I do agree with whoever it was who said that it is worrying that Oz are considered to be the best team in the world. They have been truly rubbish in two out of three tests.

Posted: **23:56 Thu 30 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:Actually I watched the whole of day one, and listened to the commentary on TMS. And I heard most of today on TMS except when my head was below the water.

Well done, I had it as the backdrop to my day. Very pleasant.

Posted: **11:54 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

Finally...

Mind you it is nice that the Australians have generously played well enough to keep this going for another day.

Posted: **12:14 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

It should be over by tea - one way or the other.

Posted: **13:13 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

This is one of the best passages of Test cricket I've watched for some time. As I keep telling you, Bell is a godsend.

Posted: **13:17 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

And Nathan Lyon is quite the strangest-looking cricketer I have seen. His little mousey face and Ren and Stimpy overbite, his odd stuttering stop-start run-up…

Posted: **13:45 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:This is one of the best passages of Test cricket I've watched for some time.

Is that the same as "boring and making a meal of it"?

Posted: **13:46 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:This is one of the best passages of Test cricket I've watched for some time.
Is that the same as "boring and making a meal of it"?

You didn't enjoy Bell's passage to 32? Personally I thought that was rather exciting. However, I've become used to your churlish, sneering, snarling, Ren and Stimpy overbiting dissatisfaction at life in general. Oh, Derek, where has all the love gone?

Posted: **13:55 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:This is one of the best passages of Test cricket I've watched for some time.
Is that the same as "boring and making a meal of it"?
You didn't enjoy Bell's passage to 32? Personally I thought that was rather exciting. However, I've become used to your churlish, sneering, snarling, Ren and Stimpy overbiting dissatisfaction at life in general. Oh, Derek, where has all the love gone?

I'm saving it all up for the Rugby World Cup. I've got a ticket to watch whoever beats England in the semis play Australia.

Posted: **13:56 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:This is one of the best passages of Test cricket I've watched for some time.
Is that the same as "boring and making a meal of it"?
You didn't enjoy Bell's passage to 32? Personally I thought that was rather exciting. However, I've become used to your churlish, sneering, snarling, Ren and Stimpy overbiting dissatisfaction at life in general. Oh, Derek, where has all the love gone?
I'm saving it all up for the Rugby World Cup. I've got a ticket to watch whoever beats England in the semis play Australia.

You won't enjoy that either. Ireland will get hammered by the Aussies.

Posted: **14:19 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:And Nathan Lyon is quite the strangest-looking cricketer I have seen. His little mousey face and Ren and Stimpy overbite, his odd stuttering stop-start run-up…

Correction. It was not Ren and Stimpy that Nathan Lyon called to mind, but Vince, the dog in Rex the Runt. Of course.

Posted: **14:31 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

Now that Bell has the highest score for a Warwickshire batsman in an Edgbaston Ashes test, and has scored a half-century in both innings, I fear we have to accept that he will be Man of the Match, although Finn should really edge it for his second innings five-for.

EDIT: Finny is MOTM after all. Good for him.

Posted: **17:46 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:EDIT: Finny is MOTM after all. Good for him.

What? Anderson was robbed, he won this test on the first day!

Posted: **18:11 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

LGTrotter wrote:
djewesbury wrote:EDIT: Finny is MOTM after all. Good for him.
What? Anderson was robbed, he won this test on the first day!

Quit your gurning. Only one man was robbed, Warwickshire's favourite. You know who.

Posted: **18:23 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

That was a dreadful batting display by Australia in both innings. Had the Oz tail not wagged in the second innings it would have been over before lunch on day 3.

Posted: **18:39 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

flash_uk wrote:That was a dreadful batting display by Australia in both innings. Had the Oz tail not wagged in the second innings it would have been over before lunch on day 3.

Agreed. Although our correspondent from the Garonne insists it was a close match

Posted: **18:45 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:
djewesbury wrote:EDIT: Finny is MOTM after all. Good for him.
What? Anderson was robbed, he won this test on the first day!
Quit your gurning. Only one man was robbed, Warwickshire's favourite. You know who.

For whom the Bell tolls? Salt of the earth - a great guy - never doubted him. Captaincy awaits.

Posted: **19:01 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:
djewesbury wrote:EDIT: Finny is MOTM after all. Good for him.
What? Anderson was robbed, he won this test on the first day!
Quit your gurning. Only one man was robbed, Warwickshire's favourite. You know who.
For whom the Bell tolls? Salt of the earth - a great guy - never doubted him. Captaincy awaits.

What?? That lazy dolt??? Sack him I say! Immediately! Recall Nick Knight and Graeme Hick!

Posted: **19:10 Fri 31 Jul 2015**

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:
djewesbury wrote:EDIT: Finny is MOTM after all. Good for him.
What? Anderson was robbed, he won this test on the first day!
Quit your gurning. Only one man was robbed, Warwickshire's favourite. You know who.
For whom the Bell tolls? Salt of the earth - a great guy - never doubted him. Captaincy awaits.
What?? That lazy dolt??? Sack him I say! Immediately! Recall Nick Knight and Graeme Hick!

If you were the opposition captain who would you rather see walking out; Bell or Pietersen? Ramps still has an innings in him too, I fancy...

Posted: **09:31 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

flash_uk wrote:The morning session tomorrow could well decide this match. If Oz take a couple of wickets then a classic England collapse could easily follow, leaving a lead of maybe 120 or so at best. Will the Oz second innings be better than the first? They would have to hope so! Perhaps a lot better, and that could leave England batting last chasing maybe 200-250, not easy I would say.

The flip is England put on some runs in the morning and after lunch, then a new ball appears after tea. This could see England open up a 250-300 odd lead. It's hard to see Oz coming back from that.

Edit: I would add, a lot rests on Bairstow...if he weathers the early storm in the morning session, my money is on an England win by an Innings margin. If not, who knows...

Reflecting on my predictions after day 1, it turned out that neither side really grasped the initiative at any stage. Oz did get the breakthroughs in the morning session on day 2 but didn't properly finish the England tail off. Oz then failed with bad, save the tail end. As it turned out, batting last, albeit starting that final innings in the 7th session of the match, was not difficult at all.

Turning to the 4th test at Trent Bridge, while not having Anderson is a blow, it will be interesting to see if an untested seamer could come in and make an instant impact. Or will the selectors just leave Mark Wood's swing in the squad...that would be an error I think. My line-up:
Cook
Bairstow
Bell
Root
Ali
Stokes
Buttler
Rashid
Broad
Finn
Some seamer - name unknown

Posted: **09:50 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

Show your working. Why do you want Bairstow to open, and why Cook to face the first ball instead of his partner? And why Rashid right now?

Why is Wood thought to be the best option by many, I wonder? Woakes has some wickets this year (not many though); James Harris took 9 for 34 for Middlesex in May, bowling at the other end to Steven Finn. He's never been tried. Even Ajmal has some wickets this season and has experience in an England shirt. Surely there are other options?

Posted: **10:09 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

djewesbury wrote:Show your working. Why do you want Bairstow to open, and why Cook to face the first ball instead of his partner? And why Rashid right now?

We have yet to determine who is the most suitable opening partner for Cook, and Bairstow is an option and also opens for his county, so put him in as an opener. Rashid because I think two spinners at Trent Bridge will prove useful. Cook to face the first ball - why not?

Posted: **10:23 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

flash_uk wrote:Cook to face the first ball - why not?

0-1 (1) ?

djewesbury wrote:Why is Wood thought to be the best option by many, I wonder? Woakes has some wickets this year (not many though); James Harris took 9 for 34 for Middlesex in May, bowling at the other end to Steven Finn. He's never been tried. Even Ajmal has some wickets this season and has experience in an England shirt. Surely there are other options?

In case you were wondering, I have not had a call from the Selectors, yet.

Posted: **11:13 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

I don't think they will drop Lyth, he will probably get a run to the end of the series now. I still don't quite get why they picked him as I thought that both Carberry and Compton showed more promise than Lyth has and they both got dropped. Wood is the next in line to replace Anderson, I think Wood is very promising, he looks right. I don't think Rashid will get a bowl (maybe at the Oval?) which is a shame really but Ali's runs are proving critical at dangerous times for England. Difficult to tell with Bairstow as he hasn't had a start yet but it doesn't feel like England's top order is set, but I don't think he's an opener.

But then look at Australia, England are just tinkering about, Australia have a lot of thinking to do, batting, bowling, maybe even the captaincy.

Posted: **17:41 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

I see they calling up Plunkett and Footit. I know nothing of Footit. If others have knowledge, let them speak.

Posted: **17:59 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

LGTrotter wrote:I see they calling up Plunkett and Footit. I know nothing of Footit. If others have knowledge, let them speak.

ESPN says (with three "t"s)...

Posted: **18:31 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I see they calling up Plunkett and Footit. I know nothing of Footit. If others have knowledge, let them speak.
ESPN says (with three "t"s)...

Derbyshire? Don't they play in the same league as Hazelbury Plucknett and Nepnett Thrubwell?

Posted: **18:54 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

LGTrotter wrote:
DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I see they calling up Plunkett and Footit. I know nothing of Footit. If others have knowledge, let them speak.
ESPN says (with three "t"s)...
Derbyshire? Don't they play in the same league as Hazelbury Plucknett and Nepnett Thrubwell?

Surely you'd know, I've heard your devious left arm often fools all comers at Nepnett Thrubwell. Don't you have a mystery ball that comes out of the back of the hand and flies across the wicket like exploding shrapnel?

Posted: **21:07 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

djewesbury wrote:Don't you have a mystery ball that comes out of the back of the hand

Daniel, what have I told you about personal attacks? Behave.

Posted: **21:10 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

No, not that one. Owen's Chinaman is famed in the lower leagues.

Posted: **21:15 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

I am kept in reserve in case those uppity denizens of Grimstone and Muckleford put on a decent stand. It seems we have not had a mystery spinner story for a while. Nathan Lyon continues to work on his Jeff squared. I long ago perfected mine.

Posted: **21:20 Sat 01 Aug 2015**

I like the fact that the media can't agree on what exactly is the worst part about everything. England can't produce spinners any more. England can't produce fast bowlers any more. England can't produce left-arm slingers any more. And so on. We can. We produce all these. But a Graeme Swann is a once-in-a-generation phenomenon and even he didn't come good until he was a fairly old man.

Posted: **21:24 Sun 02 Aug 2015**

djewesbury wrote:I like the fact that the media can't agree on what exactly is the worst part about everything. England can't produce spinners any more. England can't produce fast bowlers any more. England can't produce left-arm slingers any more. And so on. We can. We produce all these. But a Graeme Swann is a once-in-a-generation phenomenon and even he didn't come good until he was a fairly old man.

England does produce spinners and good ones. Is there not a sense that the spinner has been on a long slow decline in English cricket for thirty years? Or is this much like the essays produced yearly in literary reviews announcing the death of the novel? There may be some things which mitigate against spinners. The pitches for instance seem a little more batting friendly these days, meaning that spinners come out as an expensive option. The four day game, although still played, has to compete with all sorts of limited over formats. The lack of wearing pitches on the last couple of days make it harder to be a match winner as a spinner. I know the argument that T20 has reinvigorated spinning but it is not quite the same job. And then there is the craft itself. It is a craft, with an artisanal tinge to it, that may not appeal to the privately educated who make up the vast majority of professional cricketers in this country.

Posted: **10:13 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

What a start!

Oz 10-3 !!!!!

English bowlers seem to have had three Shredded Wheat for breakfast

Posted: **10:14 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

Ashes @ Trent Bridge. What a toss to win! Australia 3 wickets down after 8 balls!

Posted: **10:23 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

After 22 minutes of deep reflection and consideration of the respective merits of the two teams I have come to the conclusion that England will win the Ashes.

Now 15-4

Posted: **10:28 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

England have yet to bat though...

My approach now would be to get the Clarke and Voges wickets, then take it easy and let Oz occupy the crease until after lunch before skittling them. Hopefully the conditions will then have changed and the England openers can see off Starc and Johnson.

Edit 2 minutes later: stage 1 complete...Voges gone.

Posted: **10:33 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

21-5

Mike - someone needs to tell Broad!

(4 wickets in 13 balls!)

Posted: **10:40 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

Stage 2 complete. Clarke gone, 29-6 in the 7th over.

Posted: **11:03 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

Well, at 38-7, Oz have bettered their worst ever test score of 36ao in 1902...

Posted: **11:21 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

50-9, but surely Derek can tell us how England have thrown this away.

Posted: **11:26 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

djewesbury wrote:50-9, but surely Derek can tell us how England have thrown this away.

As Mike pointed out, England have still to bat

Posted: **11:27 Thu 06 Aug 2015**

How many hundred will England score?

ThePortForum.com

It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket