Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Ashes 2019

1246722

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭Adamcp898


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Is that Kumar Sangakkara commentating? Very impressed by him.

    Yeah really enjoyed listening to him. Talks about the nuance and intricacies of both batting and keeping but doesn’t need to wait for someone to make a glaring mistake in order to dissect it.

    If only they’d take some time away from Athers :pac:
    Strumms wrote: »

    As regards Lyon, I’ve listened to him being interviewed and seems like quite a nice guy, but I’m no fan of his on field persona.

    Which is a massive departure for an Australian cricketer :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,790 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Adamcp898 wrote: »
    Yeah really enjoyed listening to him. Talks about the nuance and intricacies of both batting and keeping but doesn’t need to wait for someone to make a glaring mistake in order to dissect it.

    If only they’d take some time away from Athers :pac:



    Which is a massive departure for an Australian cricketer :pac:



    True haha I could say the same about any number of them especially that mid to late 1990s side, they played hard yet fair but occasionally the line was crossed, more often too than other equally as competitive nations.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,578 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    Five down now


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,762 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    KevIRL wrote: »
    Five down now

    Inevitable as I said last night, seen England do this soo many times against the Aussies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,790 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    It’s been a thoroughly interesting and entertaining first test. Australia need about a wicket every 45 minutes from here on in but with England only with five more in reserve.... it’s still advantage Australia...this partnership is massive, if England can get to tea with these two at the crease still intact they will fancy it, another one falls now, it will be difficult.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,172 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    Australia flying now!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,578 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    That's that you would think


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Dave0301


    Australia have bowled really well today, but England haven't exactly done themselves proud with their batting.

    Stokes out now as well! Could struggle to make tea.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,221 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    7 down now


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,790 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Game over, two wickets in two balls 97-7. A total collapse.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,578 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    Can't bate a good old England collapse all the same


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭Adamcp898


    Jonny is lucky that Moeen is ahead of him on the chopping block to go with the standing order of who opens the batting with Alistair Cook


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,790 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Dave0301 wrote: »
    Australia have bowled really well today, but England haven't exactly done themselves proud with their batting.

    Stokes out now as well! Could struggle to make tea.

    Watching the English players they just I think played too ULTRA conservatively once they were 3 down. That meant players in and around the bat, line and length, Aussies not having to do much special and the collapse came through bad batting more than GREAT bowling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 961 ✭✭✭Conchir


    5 for Lyon, great bowling. How many times has he gotten Ali out now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Dave0301


    Conchir wrote: »
    5 for Lyon, great bowling. How many times has he gotten Ali out now?

    9 according to Sky Sports.

    Broad out first ball. Lyon just picking them off now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 961 ✭✭✭Conchir


    And now he’s on a hat trick! Serious bowling attack by Australia this morning, so clinical.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    KevIRL wrote: »
    Can't bate a good old England collapse all the same

    Big win in the end, at least we can't feel too bad now about capitulating in our last innings :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    England had the Aussies on the ropes on two ocassions.

    122-8 in Australia's first innings
    282-4 in England's first innings

    Should've bowled Aus out for 150, if not at least 200.

    Should have scored over 400 heading towards 450 when they were batting.

    To be fair England have been very unlucky being a bowler down since the very first morning, and I'm certain had Anderson been fit this match may have had a different outcome.

    Plenty of positives for England to take foward though. May have finally found an opener and Broad and Woakes look on superb form.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭Happy4all


    England had the Aussies on the ropes on two ocassions.

    122-8 in Australia's first innings
    282-4 in England's first innings

    Should've bowled Aus out for 150, if not at least 200.

    Should have scored over 400 heading towards 450 when they were batting.

    To be fair England have been very unlucky being a bowler down since the very first morning, and I'm certain had Anderson been fit this match may have had a different outcome.

    Plenty of positives for England to take foward though. May have finally found an opener and Broad and Woakes look on superb form.

    Very optimistic post..taking positives from that abject display


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Plenty of positives for England to take foward though. May have finally found an opener and Broad and Woakes look on superb form.

    Why did Woakes bowl so little in Aus 2nd innings then? Leaving Broad to toil away.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    England had the Aussies on the ropes on two ocassions.

    122-8 in Australia's first innings
    282-4 in England's first innings

    Should've bowled Aus out for 150, if not at least 200.

    Should have scored over 400 heading towards 450 when they were batting.

    To be fair England have been very unlucky being a bowler down since the very first morning, and I'm certain had Anderson been fit this match may have had a different outcome.

    Plenty of positives for England to take foward though. May have finally found an opener and Broad and Woakes look on superb form.

    Which opener? When they needed Burns to settle in for a long day he was found wanting and Jason Roy isn't a test cricket batsman. England's order is in big trouble.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Why did Woakes bowl so little in Aus 2nd innings then? Leaving Broad to toil away.

    Because it was a spinners wicket and Moeen screwed it up. Root correctly went to his premier spinner and he didn't deliver.

    Australia's premier spinner on the other hand, did.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭hawley


    Because it was a spinners wicket and Moeen screwed it up. Root correctly went to his premier spinner and he didn't deliver.

    Australia's premier spinner on the other hand, did.
    Yet, Pat Cummins took four wickets from 11.3 overs in the second innings. It wasn't a correct decision, because Moeen is playing terribly and Woakes is in pretty decent nick.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    hawley wrote: »
    Yet, Pat Cummins took four wickets from 11.3 overs in the second innings. It wasn't a correct decision, because Moeen is playing terribly and Woakes is in pretty decent nick.

    Moeen played terribly in the first innings, but Lyon wasn't great either judging from his first innings.

    Moeen's averaged 28 over the past year, the worlds leading wicket taker, even averaged 23 against India in the home series last year.

    This was a wicket that was asking for a spinner to win you the game. There wasn't a lot of pace on in the wicket so Root was correct in turning to his premier spinner. It was Moeen's job to get the wickets on a 4th day, not the seamers.

    He should've bowled more of Woakes in hindsight rather than say Denly and himself, but its much of muchness, if Moeen wasn't delivering then Australia were always looking a big score. I don't think Woakes bowling another 5-10 overs would've made much difference.

    Cummins is one of the fastest bowlers in the world, so he can get more out of dead pitch as oppose to Woakes and Broad who bowl 80-85mph. Both Woakes and Broad were destroyed down under for their lack of pace on those sort of pitches. Its the reason why they lost 4-0.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭declanflynn


    England had the Aussies on the ropes on two ocassions.

    122-8 in Australia's first innings
    282-4 in England's first innings

    Should've bowled Aus out for 150, if not at least 200.

    Should have scored over 400 heading towards 450 when they were batting.

    To be fair England have been very unlucky being a bowler down since the very first morning, and I'm certain had Anderson been fit this match may have had a different outcome.

    Plenty of positives for England to take foward though. May have finally found an opener and Broad and Woakes look on superb form.
    Positives?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    Positives?

    Yeah its a thrashing, but Australia are far from unbeatable. Broad and Woakes if they're given lateral movement will rip into this Australian batting lineup.

    Yes Burns went cheaply in the 2nd innings, so he isn't Smith with back to back centuries, but I think England have potentially got a long term opener on their hands.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Yeah its a thrashing, but Australia are far from unbeatable. Broad and Woakes if they're given lateral movement will rip into this Australian batting lineup.

    Yes Burns went cheaply in the 2nd innings, so he isn't Smith with back to back centuries, but I think England have potentially got a long term opener on their hands.

    Not sure to be honest. He has an awkward technique to say the least and in his last 2 test matches has scored 6 & 6 against Ireland and 133 & 11 against Australia. Three poor innings out of 4 not the form you want from an opener.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    Steve Smith is the cricketer of our lifetime


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭declanflynn


    Positives?

    Yeah its a thrashing, but Australia are far from unbeatable. Broad and Woakes if they're given lateral movement will rip into this Australian batting lineup.

    Yes Burns went cheaply in the 2nd innings, so he isn't Smith with back to back centuries, but I think England have potentially got a long term opener on their hands.
    With a poor captain like root Australia will win the ashes in a canter england were lucky to win the world cup and almost lost to ireland, a poor side with no captain they should try an irishman


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,790 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    England had the Aussies on the ropes on two ocassions.

    122-8 in Australia's first innings
    282-4 in England's first innings

    Should've bowled Aus out for 150, if not at least 200.

    Should have scored over 400 heading towards 450 when they were batting.

    To be fair England have been very unlucky being a bowler down since the very first morning, and I'm certain had Anderson been fit this match may have had a different outcome.

    Plenty of positives for England to take foward though. May have finally found an opener and Broad and Woakes look on superb form.

    Agreed , not often you see in test match cricket a team find themselves in a potentially winning or certainly non loosing positions and then go on to not even get a draw but loose.

    Outside of Broad and Woakes they need another reliable seamer or two and a middle order run accumulation specialist in the mould of Thorpe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    Root was only made captain because at the time, he was the only player who could guarantee his place in the side.

    It was after the disastrous tour of India. Keaton Jennings and Haseeb Hameed had good tours, and they were looking at them as the future test openers.

    In the one game of the 4-0 that they didn't lose, Cook was far too Conservative with his declaration and it ended a draw, with England needing 4 wickets. The ECB laid all the blame on the series on Cook. Paul Farbrace rolled himself out in front of the media to say "we'd never strip Cook of the captaincy, he's earned the right to give it up himself", which was basically telling him to stand down.

    Root was then appointed Captain despite the fact that he had barely captained any team at any level.

    Now England are 1-0 down in the Ashes, have to go to New Zealand, South Africa and Sri Lanka over the winter. Don't be surprised if he isn't captain for next years home series.

    So now their options will probably be limited to recently reappointed Vice Captain, Ben Stokes. Who was absolutely shafted by the ECB after the Bristol affair.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,203 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    hawley wrote: »
    Yet, Pat Cummins took four wickets from 11.3 overs in the second innings. It wasn't a correct decision, because Moeen is playing terribly and Woakes is in pretty decent nick.

    Moeen played terribly in the first innings, but Lyon wasn't great either judging from his first innings.

    Woah, woah, Gary was very good in the first innings with little to no reward, it was not down to poor play. He was great for the entire test, Cummins was down on pace this test now you mention it...

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭WishUWereHere


    Root was only made captain because at the time, he was the only player who could guarantee his place in the side.

    It was after the disastrous tour of India. Keaton Jennings and Haseeb Hameed had good tours, and they were looking at them as the future test openers.

    In the one game of the 4-0 that they didn't lose, Cook was far too Conservative with his declaration and it ended a draw, with England needing 4 wickets. The ECB laid all the blame on the series on Cook. Paul Farbrace rolled himself out in front of the media to say "we'd never strip Cook of the captaincy, he's earned the right to give it up himself", which was basically telling him to stand down.

    Root was then appointed Captain despite the fact that he had barely captained any team at any level.

    Now England are 1-0 down in the Ashes, have to go to New Zealand, South Africa and Sri Lanka over the winter. Don't be surprised if he isn't captain for next years home series.

    So now their options will probably be limited to recently reappointed Vice Captain, Ben Stokes. Who was absolutely shafted by the ECB after the Bristol affair.

    Aside from SL, they are 2 very tough series. Assuming there are t4ests in both the NZ & RSA tours, I think England might be in serious trouble on both counts.

    As as aside, just found out Dale Steyn has retired from Test cricket...sad loss!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Because it was a spinners wicket and Moeen screwed it up. Root correctly went to his premier spinner and he didn't deliver.

    Australia's premier spinner on the other hand, did.

    And wasn't it great to see a spin bowler really dominate with a close cordon of fielders to pick up the spoils - a rare sight in these ODI and T20 times :)
    Yeah its a thrashing, but Australia are far from unbeatable. Broad and Woakes if they're given lateral movement will rip into this Australian batting lineup.

    Yes Burns went cheaply in the 2nd innings, so he isn't Smith with back to back centuries, but I think England have potentially got a long term opener on their hands.

    Every game will be different and the margins can be small, so yes you could see Eng taking any of the next four matches. But on the whole, when you look at that last few days, you'd have to think that the Aussies have got more depth in both pace bowling and more batsmen likely to hit big scores.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    But on the whole, when you look at that last few days, you'd have to think that the Aussies have got more depth in both pace bowling and more batsmen likely to hit big scores.

    Not sure about the batsman outside of Smith and Warner.

    Definitely a better bowling attack, although its worth noting English bowlers average significantly better at home than they do away.

    Mitchell Starc - 28.20 - 211 wickets
    Pat Cummins - 21.64 - 101 wickets
    Josh Hazelwood - 27.14 - 164 wickets
    James Pattinson - 26.97 - 72 wickets
    Peter Siddle - 30.38 - 216 wickets
    Nathan Lyon - 31.88 - 352 wickets

    James Anderson - 26.94 - 575 wickets
    Stuart Broad - 28.79 - 450 wickets
    Chris Woakes - 30.82 - 82 wickets
    Ben Stokes - 32.18 - 131 wickets
    Moeen Ali - 36.60 - 181 wickets


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    You think it will be a different game with Archer in it. Very good bowler, very good with the bat. Offers an extra seamer which England badly missed. Broad looked knackered with all the bowling he did. Woakes did enough with the bat and ball to warrant a place down the order.

    Ali was poor and so was the middle order - Denly, Buttler and Bairstow. I wouldn't be surprised if two or three changes in total were made. I've made two here and put Stokes in ahead of Buttler in the order.

    1. Burns
    2. Roy
    3. Root
    4. Denly
    5. Stokes
    6. Buttler
    7. Bairstow
    8. Woakes
    9. Archer
    10. Broad
    11. Leach


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Dave0301


    Anderson out of the 2nd test, unsurprisingly. They better hope that Archer comes through his match this week unscathed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    I would be half tempted with Curran over Archer for his batting, he's not a bad bowler either.

    The toss is massive. If Australia win it and bowl first, they'll rip through the top order, then they are at the out of form middle Order. It will be Woakes to pick up the pieces again. Then you have Curran with his batting.

    But then if England win the toss and Joe Root doesn't go bat**** crazy, they bowl first, Woakes and Broad swing the top order and Archer can knock over the lower order with his pace. Plus if its sunny on day 2 and 3, Archers pace will be much handier in good batting conditions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,790 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Curran is a very good cricketer but a little too medium paced maybe for the quality of opponents. Really they need a specialist bowler over an all rounder, forget comparing batting averages like 16 vs 11... what’s needed is a wicket taker.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    BOHtox wrote: »
    You think it will be a different game with Archer in it. Very good bowler, very good with the bat. Offers an extra seamer which England badly missed. Broad looked knackered with all the bowling he did. Woakes did enough with the bat and ball to warrant a place down the order.

    Ali was poor and so was the middle order - Denly, Buttler and Bairstow. I wouldn't be surprised if two or three changes in total were made. I've made two here and put Stokes in ahead of Buttler in the order.

    1. Burns
    2. Roy
    3. Root
    4. Denly
    5. Stokes
    6. Buttler
    7. Bairstow
    8. Woakes
    9. Archer
    10. Broad
    11. Leach

    This is the squad with Sam Curran making up the full 12 man squad.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    Potential washout for Wednesday.

    Metoffice has 90% chance of rain from 10am-4pm then down to 50% at 7pm.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcpvj0v07#?date=2019-08-14


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭jobeenfitz


    The draw is looking good.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    Lots of talk how Sam Curran could come in for either Denly or instead of Leach. England might not opt for a specialised spinner (Denly and Root part time if required) if conditions are predicted to be overcast for the 4 days.


    Have they allocated time for making the overs back? Can they bowl 20 overs this evening, if it clears up, and then an extra 10 each day to try get a result?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Have they allocated time for making the overs back? Can they bowl 20 overs this evening, if it clears up, and then an extra 10 each day to try get a result?

    Sure if Eng collapse again like 1st test, they'll only need 3 days :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    Toss at 3, play due to start at 3:30. Seems fairly dark out. Can they get a full session out of it I wonder


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,578 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    3pm toss delayed


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    If Windies - India is on the other channel turn it on, Gayle and Lewis are going mental there


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 2,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭TrueDub


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Have they allocated time for making the overs back? Can they bowl 20 overs this evening, if it clears up, and then an extra 10 each day to try get a result?

    Not explicitly. They have an extra 30 mins per day to add on, but as they never bowl a day's full quota of overs, not to mind extra ones, it's immaterial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭Adamcp898


    TrueDub wrote: »
    Not explicitly. They have an extra 30 mins per day to add on, but as they never bowl a day's full quota of overs, not to mind extra ones, it's immaterial.

    They get the extra extra 30 minutes on top of the normal 30 minutes now too afaik.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,861 ✭✭✭Mysterypunter


    Rain should be dropped from test cricket, on the go too long, no variety, just wet and miserable, isn't it time to retire, bad day for anyone hoping to see cricket.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement