[Cricket] The Ashes - England v Australia - 5th Test, Oval, July 27-31, 2023

[dangull]

Well, if we played under a roof I think Anderson would have his place back for a few more years.

I remember nets at Sussex where I couldn't control the swing.

Ok no roof due to expence, but my other points are quite valid.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Who here wants to lose a home test series to Australia?

Me neither. Massive game, despite the anti-climax up north last week

 

[Mo Gosfield]

I just feel that a really exciting climax to the series has been spoilt by Test cricket not moving on to the 21st centuary.
The weather was an issue at Wimbledon, they built a roof. If a whole day is wiped out due to rain, why not just add an extra day like a major golf tounament to get all holes in, or at least start 10am, finish later with flood lights on to get as much play as possible, unlike the damp squib that ended an exciting series.
I would be saying the same thing if England held the Urn.

Why is there a widespread assumption that given more playing time we would have won the 4th Test. The Aussies were only 5 down and only 60 odd behind. Marsh was still there and perfectly capable of getting a big score, supported by Green, Carey and the three bowlers. Yes, England were favourites but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. With our seamers flat out on Saturday afternoon we failed to take a wicket until Labuschagne relaxed against the enforced spin, knowing the game was done.
The Aussies saw the forecast and knew they only had to navigate through three full days. This clearly affected their mindset. Same with England. We knew we could only bat once and try and bowl them out twice in three days.
Some of us aren't being honest enough. If England had been 2-1 up instead, there wouldn't have been anywhere near this level of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The frustration of our mistakes in the first two Tests are now manifesting themselves. We've sharpened up too late in this series and paid the price.
Weather has always been a factor in cricket. At least the pitches and surrounds are covered nowadays. Years ago, some Test matches in this country lost more time than they actually played.
Test cricket is not paid the respect it deserves. A demanding series against Australia should span the whole summer, giving the vagaries of the British weather a lesser chance of ruining games, rather than these back to back contests, where the same weather fronts can cover 2-3 Tests. But money talks and the holy cash cow of T20 and 50/50 controls the scheduling.

 

[Audax]

If I'm honest with myself, I think England (once they got the bowling selection right) have been the better side. Certainly the more exciting side. I love the brand of cricket they're playing. It's brave, and can go spectacularly wrong at times, but when they play well it's a style that everyone can enjoy and respect. They certainly don't leave a match behind wondering "what if...?" because if there's even a sniff of victory, they go for it.

Key moments being dropped cost England the first two tests. The third test was a cracker and showed what probably should have happened in the first two. The 4th test was complete and utter domination from a side that took the approach of "so what if we only get 3 days, we're still going to play it to win it" vs a side that looked at the forecast and played "let's secure that draw" cricket.

5th and final test still has a lot of interest. 3-1 result just wouldn't feel fair to me. 2-2 after another nail biter day 5 result would be the result that encapsulates the series as a whole for me. But I suspect we'll see a draw and 2-1, despite England's best efforts to force a win. Aussies will look to bat long twice, and contain the England batting line up as much as possible in the field.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

If I'm honest with myself, I think England (once they got the bowling selection right) have been the better side. Certainly the more exciting side. I love the brand of cricket they're playing. It's brave, and can go spectacularly wrong at times, but when they play well it's a style that everyone can enjoy and respect. They certainly don't leave a match behind wondering "what if...?" because if there's even a sniff of victory, they go for it.

Key moments being dropped cost England the first two tests. The third test was a cracker and showed what probably should have happened in the first two. The 4th test was complete and utter domination from a side that took the approach of "so what if we only get 3 days, we're still going to play it to win it" vs a side that looked at the forecast and played "let's secure that draw" cricket.

5th and final test still has a lot of interest. 3-1 result just wouldn't feel fair to me. 2-2 after another nail biter day 5 result would be the result that encapsulates the series as a whole for me. But I suspect we'll see a draw and 2-1, despite England's best efforts to force a win. Aussies will look to bat long twice, and contain the England batting line up as much as possible in the field.

Congratulations on retaining the Ashes (I mean, I know you personally didn't do anything, but anyway).
I agree with all of that except what's implied by saying England's approach can go spectacularly wrong at times.
Any team can get bowled out for an embarrassingly low score now and then. England have been significantly less prone to being shot out for under 100, 150 since Stokes became captain. (This perhaps says as much about how bad England were previously as it does how reliable the batting is now).
I don't see either team batting long enough to draw the game unless there's a lot of time lost to rain.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

I feel like it'll be an Australian win. I reckon they'll finally win the toss, have a bat and get a sufficiently decent score. England will chase the game and never quite catch up (especially after having the wind knocked out of them by the weather in Manchester).

On the series as a whole, I feel England were naive from the very first day (that declaration still bugs me) and never really gave Australia enough credit. If Lyon hadn't got injured we'd have struggled even more.

 

[Audax]

I agree with all of that except what's implied by saying England's approach can go spectacularly wrong at times.

"Spectacularly" may have been overdoing it a little (for effect!) - I'm thinking of things like throwing their wickets away against the short-ball barrage in the 2nd test when backing down for 10-15 overs, preserving wickets, and then going again once Australia switched back to more normal tactics probably would have put them in a far better position to win the test.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I just feel that a really exciting climax to the series has been spoilt by Test cricket not moving on to the 21st centuary.
The weather was an issue at Wimbledon, they built a roof. If a whole day is wiped out due to rain, why not just add an extra day like a major golf tounament to get all holes in, or at least start 10am, finish later with flood lights on to get as much play as possible, unlike the damp squib that ended an exciting series.
I would be saying the same thing if England held the Urn.

I think you mean ‘back the the early 20th century.’ Sounds like you yearn for the pre war days of timeless tests. Change does not always mean progression and in this case your desired outcome of a result was actually guaranteed in the old days.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

If I'm honest with myself, I think England (once they got the bowling selection right) have been the better side. Certainly the more exciting side. I love the brand of cricket they're playing. It's brave, and can go spectacularly wrong at times, but when they play well it's a style that everyone can enjoy and respect. They certainly don't leave a match behind wondering "what if...?" because if there's even a sniff of victory, they go for it.

Key moments being dropped cost England the first two tests. The third test was a cracker and showed what probably should have happened in the first two. The 4th test was complete and utter domination from a side that took the approach of "so what if we only get 3 days, we're still going to play it to win it" vs a side that looked at the forecast and played "let's secure that draw" cricket.

5th and final test still has a lot of interest. 3-1 result just wouldn't feel fair to me. 2-2 after another nail biter day 5 result would be the result that encapsulates the series as a whole for me. But I suspect we'll see a draw and 2-1, despite England's best efforts to force a win. Aussies will look to bat long twice, and contain the England batting line up as much as possible in the field.

To me the series balance of power changed when Lyon got injured. We'll win more games than we'll lose whilst he's not fit

 

[Eeyore]

Why is there a widespread assumption that given more playing time we would have won the 4th Test. The Aussies were only 5 down and only 60 odd behind. Marsh was still there and perfectly capable of getting a big score, supported by Green, Carey and the three bowlers. Yes, England were favourites but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. With our seamers flat out on Saturday afternoon we failed to take a wicket until Labuschagne relaxed against the enforced spin, knowing the game was done.
The Aussies saw the forecast and knew they only had to navigate through three full days. This clearly affected their mindset. Same with England. We knew we could only bat once and try and bowl them out twice in three days.
Some of us aren't being honest enough. If England had been 2-1 up instead, there wouldn't have been anywhere near this level of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The frustration of our mistakes in the first two Tests are now manifesting themselves. We've sharpened up too late in this series and paid the price.
Weather has always been a factor in cricket. At least the pitches and surrounds are covered nowadays. Years ago, some Test matches in this country lost more time than they actually played.
Test cricket is not paid the respect it deserves. A demanding series against Australia should span the whole summer, giving the vagaries of the British weather a lesser chance of ruining games, rather than these back to back contests, where the same weather fronts can cover 2-3 Tests. But money talks and the holy cash cow of T20 and 50/50 controls the scheduling.

What folk also forget is that England retained The Ashes in 2013 in a similar way. 2-0 up going into Trent Bridge (1 a convincing win the other by the 'barest of margins) and then rain prevented The Aussies from pulling back to 2-1. England won one of the remaining two and the other was when the Aussies managed to cry off for bad light with us 20 odd short.

That was a strange series. England could have won 4-0 but I still believe Australia could equally have drawn it.

So we cannot moan at the weather intervening.

One thing I do contest is a drawn series not meaning The Ashes are shared. It's not as if they go anywhere anyway. We haven't had to think about drawn series until recently (2019 was the first one since 1972). I don't agree with that.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

"Spectacularly" may have been overdoing it a little (for effect!) - I'm thinking of things like throwing their wickets away against the short-ball barrage in the 2nd test when backing down for 10-15 overs, preserving wickets, and then going again once Australia switched back to more normal tactics probably would have put them in a far better position to win the test.

I tend to file that afternoon under "rank stupidity" rather than having anything to do with a plan or general approach to the game.
Over the last year or so they've generally been quite good at choosing their moments to go after the bowlers, and seemed to lose that in the first couple of matches.
That said, the Australians didn't do very well against England's short bowling in the 2nd innings at Lords either, so maybe it's fair to give at least some credit to the bowlers from both sides.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

For all the talk of naïve decisions and tactical errors, if Ben Stokes had held an (for him) eminently catchable chance in the second Test, at 8 wickets down, England would be 2-1 up now.

The margins really are very small.

 

[Audax]

To me the series balance of power changed when Lyon got injured. We'll win more games than we'll lose whilst he's not fit

Yeah, Lyon's a big loss. I'm not convinced Australia have picked the right spinner to replace him (as shown by then not picking him at all).

Edit: throwing some names out there, Zampa or Swepson I'd have ahead of Murphy for now. Partly because they offer variety if any of the pitches had been suitable for 2 spinners being picked, and partly because both of them have more top-level experience (mostly white ball, but I honestly believe one of them would be our test spinner right now if Lyon hadn't been around).

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

For all the talk of naïve decisions and tactical errors, if Ben Stokes had held an (for him) eminently catchable chance in the second Test, at 8 wickets down, England would be 2-1 up now.

The margins really are very small.

Didn't he say that's his only regret from the series so far?
Which makes sense given it's the only thing that's gone wrong where he had actual control of the outcome.

 

[Titanic]

Stokes backs the GOAT for a swansong at the Oval.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Weather doesn’t look that clever for tomorrow

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Weather doesn’t look that clever for tomorrow

View attachment 164110

Looks like a bowl first forecast

 

[knocky1]

Stokes backs the GOAT for a swansong at the Oval.

Yep. Same team as OT.

Also heard Stokes getting knee sorted after this Series and Farbrace has said Jofra will be fit for the ODI World Cup in October.

 

[knocky1]

Mobile covers gone, bowlers run ups uncovered. Looks like it will start on time.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Come on Ben, 5 tosses in a row needed here.

Balls, Aussies win and BOWL.