[RedWeb]

RedWeb, on Sep 12 2009, 22:06, said:

Not true. I'm more fascinated in England's amazing ability to win the toss. They did so again today thus making it 10/11 in tosses won so far against Australia.

And again today. Now 11/12

[capybara]

152-3 after 32 overs.Another reasonable foundation??

[jupe1407]

capybara, on Sep 15 2009, 16:41, said:

152-3 after 32 overs.Another reasonable foundation??

Good innings from England ... almost everyone making it double figures.

Though one has to ask, what the in the name of blue f**k did Ponting give Mitchell Johnson that last over for?

Fair enough two wickets, but he's the most erratic bowler in the side.

Jesus wept.

Interesting target for the Aussies though ... a decent start from Watson and White and i think it's extremely gettable on this pitch.

Expect therefore Australia to be all out for 142

[kullibino]

Cracking knock from Morgan.

[capybara]

Well at least Strauss could change the record a bit. It was the fielding and bowling that let England down...

[RedWeb]

Funny thing is I remember after the 5-0 Ashes humping in Aus last time round the One Day series which followed was given much more significance than this one by the English media. The poms won a tri-nations knock about and to some it almost put the Ashes defeat in the shade and England headed home the real winners. Not sensing the same feeling this time. Something to do with being 5-0 down I suppose

[Swarley]

Any chance the sub title of the thread could be updated please? Will keep Rolf and the kangaroos happy!

[capybara]

Aus win the toss..........135/2 in the 27th over...

[Swarley]

In the grand scheme of all things cricket, how important are ODIs? I mean would you rather lose the Ashes 1-2 or a ODI series 0-7?

[jupe1407]

Swarley, on Sep 18 2009, 02:43, said:

In the grand scheme of all things cricket, how important are ODIs? I mean would you rather lose the Ashes 1-2 or a ODI series 0-7?

Clearly the Ashes Tests are far more important. Test cricket should always be so.

However, for England to become the first country to lose an international series 0-7 would be absolutely humiliating, and further proof that they are totally incapable in the shorter forms of the game.

In the upcoming Champions Trophy, IIRC England are grouped with SA, Sri Lanka and NZ. More embarrassment beckons....

Finally, a bit off the original topic, but when England won the Ashes in 2005, they didn't push on and strive to improve/dominate test cricket. Once again it appears that they're going to sit on their laurels and fail to build on this year's success. Australia are already blooding younger players, and have done throughout the summer. Who's going to be in better shape when the contest resumes down under?

This post has been edited by jupe1407: 18 September 2009 - 09:18

[capybara]

jupe1407, on Sep 18 2009, 09:16, said:

Clearly the Ashes Tests are far more important. Test cricket should always be so.

However, for England to become the first country to lose an international series 0-7 would be absolutely humiliating, and further proof that they are totally incapable in the shorter forms of the game.

In the upcoming Champions Trophy, IIRC England are grouped with SA, Sri Lanka and NZ. More embarrassment beckons....

Finally, a bit off the original topic, but when England won the Ashes in 2005, they didn't push on and strive to improve/dominate test cricket. Once again it appears that they're going to sit on their laurels and fail to build on this year's success. Australia are already blooding younger players, and have done throughout the summer. Who's going to be in better shape when the contest resumes down under?

England will rest on there Laurels, the people who run the game tinker at the edges,rake in the cash and fail to move things forward.

I think they are wrong to scrap the Pro 40 in favour of more 20/20. For all the increase in this type of cricket,England are still woeful at the shortened game.

[Shengus Khan]

Get that thread title changed to 6-0 jupe

[Yoss]

Tests are far and away more important, I'm barely even aware when the one-dayers are taking place and don't really give a monkey's about the result.

Having said that, I know I said to someone at the start of the series that they could have the one-dayers 7-0 for all I cared so long as we had the Ashes, but I didn't really mean them to take me up on it. It's been pretty humiliating, and will be so whatever happens on Sunday - in some ways seeing them celebrating the face-saving last ditch victory will be even worse.

jupe1407, on Sep 18 2009, 09:16, said:

Finally, a bit off the original topic, but when England won the Ashes in 2005, they didn't push on and strive to improve/dominate test cricket. Once again it appears that they're going to sit on their laurels and fail to build on this year's success. Australia are already blooding younger players, and have done throughout the summer. Who's going to be in better shape when the contest resumes down under?

I think that's a bit harsh, they did strive for it but for an assortment of reasons it didn't happen. That Ashes series was their seventh consecutive series win, and it wasn't seen as an end in itself, it was all part of their stated plan to be number one in the world by 2007; and given the side was so much younger than the Aussies there was every reason to hope that they would. But within a couple of years it had borken up - injuries to S Jones, Vaughan, Giles, Flintoff, illness to Trescothick, loss of form for Harmison, G Jones, Strauss for a time. It's difficult to explain how it all happened and it would be wrong to attribute it all just to bad luck, serious questions have to be asked about the coaching and planning too - but I don't think it's fair to say they rested on their laurels and didn't strive for it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens this time round - this time there aren't really any laurels to rest on, though they deserved the series win in the Tests it was hardly a world-beating display of cricket and they know that themselves. They've now got a really tough winter series in South Africa where they'll do well not to get mullered.

[Selkirk Loyal]

18 7-match ODI series have been played in history and never been a 7-0 whitewash. History gonna be made on Sunday!!!

[jupe1407]

capybara, on Sep 18 2009, 09:27, said:

England will rest on there Laurels, the people who run the game tinker at the edges,rake in the cash and fail to move things forward.

I think they are wrong to scrap the Pro 40 in favour of more 20/20. For all the increase in this type of cricket,England are still woeful at the shortened game.

TBH i would scrap Pro 40 altogether and swap it for more 50 over stuff. It was mentioned on the commentary last night, can't remember who suggest it, but the idea was for a concentration of loads of 50 over stuff in the middle of summer, ie play the first half of the Count Championship, then have a month of solid 50 over stuff, rather than the current arrangements whereby the NatWest trophy is seen as a start of season warm up. The T20 stuff could esilt be slotted in also.

Shengus Khan, on Sep 18 2009, 11:35, said:

Get that thread title changed to 6-0 jupe

I did consider just putting the 7-0 in now, but didn't want to tempt fate

Yoss, on Sep 18 2009, 12:46, said:

I think that's a bit harsh, they did strive for it but for an assortment of reasons it didn't happen. That Ashes series was their seventh consecutive series win, and it wasn't seen as an end in itself, it was all part of their stated plan to be number one in the world by 2007; and given the side was so much younger than the Aussies there was every reason to hope that they would. But within a couple of years it had borken up - injuries to S Jones, Vaughan, Giles, Flintoff, illness to Trescothick, loss of form for Harmison, G Jones, Strauss for a time. It's difficult to explain how it all happened and it would be wrong to attribute it all just to bad luck, serious questions have to be asked about the coaching and planning too - but I don't think it's fair to say they rested on their laurels and didn't strive for it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens this time round - this time there aren't really any laurels to rest on, though they deserved the series win in the Tests it was hardly a world-beating display of cricket and they know that themselves. They've now got a really tough winter series in South Africa where they'll do well not to get mullered.

I just compare England to the Aussie in this respect. As soon as the 2005 Ashes were lost, Australia immediately put a stringent plan into action, not only to win them back down under, but to win them by as big a margin as possible. The Aussies are willing to change their entire competitive system, in order to benefit the test team.

England did well to win the Ashes this year, however it was also against a very poor Australian side who are in the midst of a major transition. The worry for England is that by the time the down under series comes round, Australia will again have a fitter, hungrier squad, determined to absolutely destroy them. Australia have got some good players coming through, compared to England, who really only have the likes of Trott, possibly Rashid and god forbid, Stuart Broad.

I take your point about the 05 Ashes and the aftermath to an extent, however back then was the time to do something significant with the domestic game, which really isn't proving of any benefit at International level. Also England have consistently been guilty of being too loyal to out-of-form players. Australia and SA are fucking ruthless when it comes to off-form player, and England need to show similar strength. There are a couple of players who were complete failures during the Ashes that we all know will still be going to SA on tour.

I'd make a point about the opposing Captains. Strauss, i'm sure is a decent bloke, whereas Ponting (unfairly IMO) is seen generally as a total c**t. However, i feel he is a far better Captain than Strauss and a much more dominant figure on the field.

Finally, you're right about coaching. Flower i suspect will not last too much longer, despite the Ashes win. Also, England just haven't looked as threatening since Troy Cooley left IMO.

[Savage Henry]

RedWeb, on Sep 12 2009, 21:06, said:

Not true. I'm more fascinated in England's amazing ability to win the toss. They did so again today thus making it 10/11 in tosses won so far against Australia.

Good point. You can't argue with that kind of tossing ability.

Additionally, I think England have had their shirts tucked in much more neatly than their antipodean counterparts, so by Craig Broon rules, England win the series! Congratulations boys!

[Shengus Khan]

Hmmm, Australia all out for a mere 176 in their innings. You just know that England will fail to reach that target don't you?

[Zanetti]

Shengus Khan, on Sep 20 2009, 13:29, said:

Hmmm, Australia all out for a mere 176 in their innings. You just know that England will fail to reach that target don't you?

Nope.

I was expecting Australia to win today, before it started anyway. Swann bowled absolutely exceptionally though, and England deserved their win.

[Yoss]

I always said we were brilliant.

[Shengus Khan]

I see that England jet off to South Africa today and start their ICC Cup campaign against Sri Lanka on friday. There really is no rest for international cricketers these days. The players must be fed up of each other.