2019 5th Ashes Test 12-17 September - The Oval

[The Passenger]

England failing to win the Ashes will be remembered, especially given we've wiped the floor with them every single time they've come to Aus in recent history.

Even when we've lost the series in England at least we've generally put up half a fight each series, if not a full fight.

2013 was poor but was nothing on the embarrassments of 06/07, 13/14 and 17/18.

 

[Crankitup]

On a flatter pitch.. apples and oranges you know.

 

[arden station]

Should've batted but really lacklustre bowling except for Cummins. We did create three chances but didn't make them play enough. Langer probably spewed up at Lunch.

 

[ABAB]

The backlash to bowling first is a little overblown, it's going to be a flat pitch with the only movement probably being in the first few hours so we took a chance on getting a few early, we would've done that if Siddle bowled better and we could actually catch.

It's easy to pick on the decision at 86/1 but they could easily be 3 or 4 down if Root had of gone the first time.

Problem is Leech....

 

[DaRick]

Even when we've lost the series in England at least we've generally put up half a fight each series.

2013 was poor but was nothing on the embarrassments of 06/07, 13/14 and 17/18.

2013, Lords expected, wasn't as bad as it looked - we led in 4 out of 5 matches, so we definitely had our chances to win. Ian Bell was the difference (plus Clarke erred in not using a third man enough against him).

 

[Santana]

We're 2-1 up yet he has no idea?

Teams can win despite their coach sometimes.

 

[eddiesmith]

The way it looked the last few times you been out here it'll be a while until you retain it again in Australia.

Could have said the same about Australia the last 4 visits here as well, we lost 5-0 the series before we beat Australia so anything can happen in a couple of years, hell 9 months ago Australia were getting smashed at home

Now we've finally won a World Cup, attention should go back to rebuilding the test side.

 

[to1994]

Siddle averages literally 2 less than Starc in tests in England.

2. In a country that is supposed to be tailor made for his kind of bowling and where the narrative writers hail him as some sort of ‘Herath bowling in Sri Lanka’ demigod.

He’s now 34 and basically fairly s**t.

He's past his prime now but I think if he had of got the full series in 2015 his record would be a lot better. Problem is it feels like we know we missed the opportunity last time and are trying to make up for it now when there are better options.

 

[HBF]

Created enough chances to have them at least 3 down....possibly 4.

Even if we got Root, they'd still be only 2 down. You need at least 3 to justify sending them in

 

[ABAB]

Nah, more like 3-2 or 2-3 either way.

You got every good odds on those number.

 

[DaRick]

You got every good odds on those number.

I did hear experts say it was gonna be a close series.

 

[to1994]

Even if we got Root, they'd still be only 2 down. You need at least 3 to justify sending them in

How do you know that? Stokes has a tenancy to throw it away and the rest of their batting is hit and miss.

 

[ABAB]

Could have said the same about Australia the last 4 visits here as well, we lost 5-0 the series before we beat Australia so anything can happen in a couple of years, hell 9 months ago Australia were getting smashed at home

Now we've finally won a World Cup, attention should go back to rebuilding the test side.

Hopefully Root would still be captain....please.

 

[Bradesmaen]

View attachment 745028

I'm not the one in denial about Starc's inability to bowl in England, using flimsy arguments, despite being shown evidence over and over again.

 

[HBF]

Retained the ashes but with the series on the line and back to back tests, not sure getting hammered after the last test, 4 days before this one was all that smart or professional. And apparently they did.

Yet another reason why sending them in was insane

 

[The Convert]

Is this based on stats or just a figure you pulled out?

What are the statistics of teams sending other teams in and winning from less than 3 down in the first session?

Basic cricket theory. You don't throw away the benefit of building a lead and then having to bat last unless you are going to roll them for a subpar score

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[melanChronic]

To two inherited an absolute rabble and achieved above and beyond. You are the definition of fair weather fan. Simply retaining the Ashes is a fair miracle.

Lol righto I don't reckon anyone who follows overseas tours late through the night is the definition of the 'fairweather fan'. Whilst 2-2 is a great effort, the positions we have been in this series reflect a 3-0 or 4-0 series win.

The ridiculous focus on retaining the Ashes rather than winning them is a real new one to me. Usually the retaining option only comes into it once a series win is out of the picture, as it was at The Oval in 2005.

 

[Tugga27]

The backlash to bowling first is a little overblown, it's going to be a flat pitch with the only movement probably being in the first few hours so we took a chance on getting a few early, we would've done that if Siddle bowled better and we could actually catch.

It's easy to pick on the decision at 86/1 but they could easily be 3 or 4 down if Root had of gone the first time.

Can't agree with you there.

It looks pretty flat and we will have to bat last to win or draw it.
England should be 2 for 89 odd.

If you win the toss and bow, I reckon you have to take a minimum
of 4 wickets in the first session.

It's looking like a really bad decision at the minute.

 

[DaRick]

What a bizarre start to the Test. If you've got the best batsman in the world in your team, and you win the toss on what looks to be a belter of a pitch, why would you give the opposition first use of it? It smacks of Nasser Hussein at the Gabba all those years ago, and if England finishes day 1 on a similar score to what Australia posted that day - 2 for well over 300, Paine will have egg all over his face.

Oh well, at least it's not the first Test, with a trophy at stake...

[/stretching for positives]

 

[ABAB]

I did hear experts say it was gonna be a close series.

Really.....wasn't it consider "mission impossible", most said it was close after we won the 1st Test.

 

[Woody15]

No. I think it's obvious and I don't have the stats to hand/can't be bothered looking for someone who is playing devil's advocate.

I'll endeavour to answer yours if you first answer mine - is one wicket in the first session a satisfactory return when you have put the opposition in to bat?

Of course you'd hope to have more than 1. That goes without saying. And we should have. But thats not my point. Im not playing devil's advocate at all. Its the first session. If England lose 3 or 4 this session and we are into their bowlers, wouldnt that be a better time to weigh up the decision? The doomsaying after 25 overs is typical of many posters in this forum.

My question to you was a rather reasonable one. You said 3 wickets is the bare minimum in the first session and I asked based on what? Surely there is some statistic to back up your claim?

If we bowl England out for say 280. We then bat in conditions that look pretty favourable at this stage on days 2 and 3 and end up with a lead of 100 odd. Wouldn't that be considered a positive outcome?

 

[Santana]

If we can nab Root and Stokes this session there is still hope. That is a very thin batting lineup.

 

[Tugga27]

Teams can win despite their coach sometimes.

So by your reckoning, if we win it's inspite of the coach and if we
lose its because of the coach.

Turn it up.

 

[Burtonsgottago]

In hindsight, we could have taken our chances better but no one gave us a chance before the series. JL has actually made some inspired calls, like leaving Starc out early. And he’s cut underperformers. He gets more than a pass.

Warner is an underperformer

 

[HBF]

Has anyone figured out yet why we are bowling first on the best battting pitch in England?

No idea.
None at all