Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:33 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,104
Warner continues his dud run and AUS are 2 for less than 30 as usual.
The usual suspects now hold whatever faint hope AUS has of making a fight of it on the last day.

Be interesting to see if Leach can run through the order on a wearing pitch with a well padded target to defend.
  #552  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:58 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,104
Leach starts well with a nice bit of flight to draw Labruschagne well forward, slightly over balances and lifts his back foot, enough turn to beat the bat and Bairstow has the bails off.

Neatly done.
  #553  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:30 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Leach starts well with a nice bit of flight to draw Labruschagne well forward, slightly over balances and lifts his back foot, enough turn to beat the bat and Bairstow has the bails off.

Neatly done.
It was. I must say, I do love a stumping.

Smith gone for 23, and Marsh just dismissed by Joe Root, fercrissakes. It will all be over soon.

I must say, it's been a very entertaining series, despite (because of?) the massive flaws in both batting lineups. As I said yesterday, a drawn series is probably a fair result, and at least the Australians get to retain the Ashes.
  #554  
Old 09-15-2019, 03:59 PM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
It was. I must say, I do love a stumping.

Smith gone for 23, and Marsh just dismissed by Joe Root, fercrissakes. It will all be over soon.

I must say, it's been a very entertaining series, despite (because of?) the massive flaws in both batting lineups. As I said yesterday, a drawn series is probably a fair result, and at least the Australians get to retain the Ashes.
According to Sir Geoffrey in the highlights, the later stumping of Wade was more like a run out, he was so far down the pitch.

I agree that England deserved to draw the series, but also Australia deserved to retain the urn. They were on top more than England, and Smith's runs plus some top class pace bowling was enough to get them over the line. You have to think that they would have put up more of a fight in this game were the Ashes still on the line.

Any comments about my putative England team from a few posts ago still welcome, in particular why Ballance doesn't seem to be in the frame for a recall.
  #555  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:35 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Think of the discarded Australian opener Joe Burns. 16 Tests, four centuries and averages 40. Marcus Harris 9 Tests 2 50's and averages 24.
  #556  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:57 PM
merrick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Over here
Posts: 336
Congratulations to Australia for deservedly retaining the Ashes, and kudos to England for getting up off the floor and squaring the series.

But while picking apart dodgy batting techniques and dubious selections is fun, I don't think everyone here is giving Steve Smith enough credit. He scored 774 in 7 innings - to put that in context, Stokes got 440 runs at 55 and Labuschagne 350 at 50, so Smith was just about as good as the next two players - on either side - put together (and it's a fair drop after those three - no other England player averaged 40 and no other Australian averaged 35). Put another way, if he hadn't been hit on the head he would only have to have scored another 200 runs in potentially 3 innings to beat Bradman's all-time record for runs in a Test series.

Take Smith away from Australia, and they could easily have lost 4-1.

Incidentally, somewhere in the archives (couldn't find it, but I remember seeing it) is a newspaper pundit's comment on crazy selection decisions, around the end of the 2010-2011 Ashes. Something along the lines of "whoever thought Steve Smith was a Test-class Number 6?"
  #557  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:59 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,754
Steve Smith was definitely the difference between the sides,and nobody else was really in the running for the Australian man of the series.

England batting starting to look better at the end of that series. I don't think Ballance will come back, nor do I think Foakes will come in for Bairstow, but Burns is selling in at the top of the order and Denly has at least shown he's playing the correct game. It's still not brilliant, but these are the guys we've got and I suspect we'll be sticking with them for the winter tours.
  #558  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:52 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,281
My issue is that even if Burns and Denly settle as a decent opening pair (which would be a cracking result and a real positive outcome from this series), if that leaves Root at 3 and Stokes at 4, then what? Bairstow 5, Buttler 6, then the bowlers (some of whom - Curran, Woakes, Archer - can be handy with the bat, but they're not quite Test-class all-rounders yet). Basically everyone is batting one position too high in the order (and Bairstow has no form whatsoever at the moment, apart from burning reviews).

Cicero, I've never heard of this Joe Burns chap - why was he discarded, then?

merrick, you're right about Smith, but as someone else pointed out upthread, if you're going to remove him from the equation, you should also remove Stokes, which means England lose at Headingley. My brief assessment of the series is that England were poor at Edgbaston and deserved to lose, were on top of most of the game at Lord's and would have won given another session, would have lost the game at Headingley 99 times out of 100, came closer to a battling draw at Old Trafford than they have done for several years but ultimately deserved to lose, and were good value for their win at the Oval. So I think you could say a 'fair' result from the series would be 3-2 to Australia. But that includes the full-point 'swing' at Headingley, which shows that England weren't all that far away from an upset, even if it wasn't in a 'reproducible' fashion. Put another way, if the 1877 series had ended with this outcome, no-one would have been talking about the death of English cricket.

I also wonder, given the manner of his dismissals at the Oval, whether Smith might have got out to Anderson had the latter been playing? I mean, we saw how lost Australia were without Smith, it's easy to forget that we were missing an all-time great for almost the entire series (and in fact his presence in the first Test, through no fault of his own, was counter-productive). On such small margins can series turn.
  #559  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:41 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
merrick, you're right about Smith, but as someone else pointed out upthread, if you're going to remove him from the equation, you should also remove Stokes, which means England lose at Headingley. My brief assessment of the series is that England were poor at Edgbaston and deserved to lose, were on top of most of the game at Lord's and would have won given another session, would have lost the game at Headingley 99 times out of 100, came closer to a battling draw at Old Trafford than they have done for several years but ultimately deserved to lose, and were good value for their win at the Oval. So I think you could say a 'fair' result from the series would be 3-2 to Australia. But that includes the full-point 'swing' at Headingley, which shows that England weren't all that far away from an upset, even if it wasn't in a 'reproducible' fashion.
I think this is about right, although I'd probably score it 2 to 1.5, rather than 3 to 2. Aussies definitely didn't deserve to win 3, and England probably didn't quite deserve to win 2. I still think a drawn series was, overall, a fair result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
I also wonder, given the manner of his dismissals at the Oval, whether Smith might have got out to Anderson had the latter been playing? I mean, we saw how lost Australia were without Smith, it's easy to forget that we were missing an all-time great for almost the entire series (and in fact his presence in the first Test, through no fault of his own, was counter-productive). On such small margins can series turn.
Again, I think this is right, but with a caveat.

Jimmy Anderson has been a historically great bowler, and has served England fantastically for 15 years. But when you're a 37-year-old fast bowler who has played almost 150 tests and almost 200 one-day internationals (not to mention another 500 first class and List A matches), some physical deterioration is inevitable, and the chances of injury or chronic pain increase with every passing match. I guess what I'm saying here is that, if you're playing someone this old, with this many miles on the clock, then he's going to break down sometime, and that's a risk you take by keeping him in the side. This is not intended as a criticism of the selectors; I'd have put him in there too. It's simply an observation that Anderson's injury can't be put down merely to "bad luck"; this outcome was predictable, even if the exact timing of it could not be accurately forecast.

Last edited by mhendo; 09-16-2019 at 10:42 AM.
  #560  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:19 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,281
Yes, very true, and the same goes for Broad of course. Without him as well, our attack could have been rather toothless. Certainly Warner would have likely doubled his average . That's why I backtracked on the side I posted earlier: relying on Anderson, Broad, Stokes, and Archer as your four fast bowlers would be trusting way too much to luck.

There is also the fact that your sole plan to get someone out can't revolve around a particular bowler being available all the time. And it's all hypothetical anyway - perhaps Smith would have swatted Anderson around just as easily as he did the others.
  #561  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:54 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post

Cicero, I've never heard of this Joe Burns chap - why was he discarded, then?
Burns

Why was he discarded- who knows? No world beater but better than we have.;
  #562  
Old 09-17-2019, 06:14 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,104
Question to the SDMB cricket association:

Was posed by the Grade Cricketer podcast but worthy of consideration.
“Has any bowler in a Test produced a spell of of reverse swing since Sandpapergate?”

Last edited by penultima thule; 09-17-2019 at 06:16 AM.
  #563  
Old 09-17-2019, 06:23 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,456
Australia got the ball swinging in the Old Trafford test, after having an old ball replaced (with Steve Smith running away with it, holding it aloft like the Olympic Torch and a huge smile on his face). Uncertain whether it was actually "reversing" but usually it's the old ball that reverses is it not?

As a wider point, no idea. Would probably need a forensic look through the CricViz data to find out how much swing was happening at various points during an innings.

Last edited by Cumbrian; 09-17-2019 at 06:24 AM.
  #564  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:24 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,104
Yes, but Marsh was bowling conventional swing.
  #565  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:31 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,456
Marsh didn't play at Old Trafford did he?
  #566  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:57 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,104
True, seems too many late nights have blurred into one.
But Marsh bending them a bit at The Oval was the only occasion I can recall anybody getting swing in the series.
  #567  
Old 10-01-2019, 05:52 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Probably not of interest to anyone, but the other day by pure chance I stumbled onto a doco on the Sports Channel where Mark Waugh and Adam Gilchrist were remembering what went through their minds during the semi final between RSA and Australia in 1999. Some of the thoughts were mistaken, but interesting and I found I couldn't remember a number of the players who were in the game (Elsworth?)

Of interest though they remarked that Klusener didn't play a false shot the whole tournament ( didn't his form drop away) and that Shane Warne was still dirty on Steve Waugh for being part of the panel that dropped him the previous year in the West Indies. To the extent that the guys still had difficulty speaking. (FWIW I thought the dropping was reasonable).
  #568  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:07 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,434
All I remember about that game is that it was on very late at night in Australia, and my housemates were asleep, so when the Australians got the final run-out to tie the game and go through to the final, I had to jump around the loungeroom like a madman while making as little noise as possible.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017