Well, with Cook gone, it seems unlikely now that England will force Australia to even bat again. Another 300 runs are needed before we can post anything like a challenging total.
We may lose a lot of tomorrow to rain - if England can survive the first sessions, we may not get any more play that day. But monday looks good for a full day, so it’s largely a matter of time.
So, England lose the game, but win the Ashes. I can remember back in the 90s, when England would be allowed to win a game after the Australians had already won the series, that it always felt kind of a hollow victory, so I wonder if the Australians and their fans are kinda feeling that today. They did trounce us though. Interesting that each game has been a bit of a trouncing, but that both teams have dealt them out.
That aside, let’s rate the batting collapses in the series!
1st test, Cardiff, England 1st innings - 43/3 after 14 overs.
Just a starter collapse to ease us into the series, the spirit of this collapse was kind of ruined by Joe Root’s subsequent ton. 3/10
1st test, Australia 2nd innings - from 97/2 to 151/7 in 24 overs.
Australia testing the waters themselves, this little collapse shows what they can do if they apply themselves, but it still didn’t really involve the entire team in the way that the very best collapses do. 5/10
2nd Test, Lord’s, England 1st innings. - 30/4 after 10 overs.
Another little mini collapse, England doing their best on a surface that really was too good for batting. 4/10
2nd Test, England 2nd innings. - 103 all out after 37 overs.
Much more like it! Bonus points for the lower order Broad scoring a quarter of the runs. 8/10
3rd Test, Edgbaston, Australia 1st innings - 136 all out after 36 overs.
Australia enter the spirit of the thing with a memorable first innings collapse, only slightly marred by Roger’s half century at the top of the order. Their little collapse in the second innings isn’t really worthy of mention after this effort. 7/10
4th Test, Trent Bridge, Australia 1st innings - 60 all out before lunch (18 overs)
An almost perfect collapse of near English proportions, this has all the hallmarks of a classic. Out before lunch, Extras top scoring, only 2 batsmen getting into double figures, this is as good as it gets. The only thing stopping this fine effort from the full 10/10 is that England lost 2 wickets on the way to sailing past their score. 9/10.
5th Test, Oval, England 1st innings - 149 all out, 48 overs.
A good effort late in the series, perhaps they would have done better if they hadn’t already won the series. No top order ducks, though, and the deep batting order worked against them. It totally lost them the game, though. 6/10, must try harder.
Overall, a good summary. However, I have to take issue with this:
You cannot deduct a point based on a subsequent innings. England’s loss of wickets has no bearing on Australia’s batting effort which I thought a masterclass in obstinacy and conceit. However, it was lacking in something. I don’t recall any truly comical dismissals in that innings like a run out with both batsmen standing at the same end staring forlornly at each other.
I did like the guy in the crowd yesterday wearing the T-shirt with every ball of the Trent Bridge innings printed on it - it was humiliatingly unobtrusive.
I never knew that - I assume you mean for run outs and stumpings. Obviously for no balls, the line ‘belongs’ to the bowler.
Bravo. I think the Aussies effort at Trent Bridge would have rated 10/10 had it been the lowest Ashes total ever, or somesuch.
I disagree - I think to be a pure batting collapse, run outs should not be involved. After all, with a run out you can always blame the other guy to some degree, but when you waft at a short ball well outside off, you haven’t got that option.
Also, I think you mean “unobtrusively humiliating”.
If these last two comments come across as overly critical/confrontational, that is not my intention - I would use a smiley but that could be misconstrued as smugness.
No.Foot on the line means a no ball. Part of it has to be behind the line.
Ignorance fought, thank you. Perhaps I can throw another question in here: why is it that on the rare occasions when the batsman hits the ball, but it continues rolling towards his wicket, they don’t hit or kick the ball away? You can’t be out for hitting the ball twice if it is in defence of your wicket. I remember Gooch, many years ago, somehow hitting a ball straight up in the air, such that it was going to land on his stumps. He pushed it away with his hand and was (correctly) given out for handling the ball. Had he had the presence of mind to successfully hit it again with his bat, he could have saved himself. Or is it just considered ‘not cricket’ to do this? I find that hard to imagine in the modern game.
They do try to, but it’s normally a reaction thing - they’ve just finished their shot, and it must be hard to look back, see the ball about to hit the stumps, and then get yourself in a position to hit the ball away without clattering the stumps down yourself.
This is pretty much it. Further to the batsmen being able to react in time, if a ball is trickling towards the stumps after the batsmen has played a shot, it is almost certainly due to a miscue on the shot, so the batsmen may not even be aware of exactly where the ball has gone, meaning he may not even realise that his wicket is in danger until it is too late.
Just an interesting point on the no ball rule, as AK84 correctly confirmed some part of the bowlers foot must be behind the line to be a fair delivery, but the interesting thing is that is judged at the time the front foot is planted as part of the delivery action, and not after. If you have a chance to look closely you will see that the front foot of many fast bowlers slides at least a little after being initially planted as part of the delivery action, the no ball matters on where it was initially planted not where it wound up.
Exquisite.
I’ve bought two of them. Due to make it here in a week or so.
#1 son is going to wear his in the nets at training.
FWIW http://www.redmolotov.com/
This is true.
.
This is not.
For a pace bowler who lands their foot heel first behind the popping crease and, with momentum, may slide forward onto that is fine and fair, indeed there’s no physical alternative
For a slow bowler there are options which make it more complicated.
Exhibit #1 Nathan Hauritz.
Nathan’s approach is that his best weapon is bounce, so he stands as tall as he can in his delivery stride.
Therefore he lands the toes of his back foot over the bowling crease (i.e. in front of the stumps) and takes a very small delivery stride placing the toes of his front foot clearly over the popping crease with the heel almost pointing towards the batsman. (It’s not the contortion it may seem)
Now at this point that’s an illegal delivery. But as he brings his arm over he naturally pivots on the toes of his front foot.
The biometric consequence (and aim) of this is that the heel of his front rotates backwards so that when the ball is bowled his toes are towards the batsman and the heel it is now behind the line but is not grounded.
This constitutes a fair delivery as at some point in the delivery stride a portion of his front foot is behind the popping crease. Its also bloody difficult for an umpire to judge even if standing right up over the stumps.