Ashes outcome 2023?

[Webbo]

Going to be interesting clash of styles and a tight series. I'm going 3-2 England, no draws.

[JohnS]

No draws? Are we confident of the weather forecast for Day 5 in Birmingham?

Anyway, my concerns for this contest is that ultimately it's bowling that wins you tests. Does England have the arsenal (yes, perhaps that's a deliberate Ken Gargett pun!) to last the next six weeks? Perhaps Mark Wood can come in and bowl well but apart from Stuart Broad the bowling from England looks very underdone (well, in the first test at least).

Also, it doesn't look like a great strategy to prepare roads and then bat less than 150 overs in two innings. All it takes in that case is for the opposition to wear out your bowling over one big first innings effort and your bowlers will be done for the next innings and perhaps next test, since they're so close to each other.

David Warner will not survive the series, Marcus Harris will replace him. Michael Neser and Mitchell Starc will play at some point. Ben Foakes will come back as wicketkeeper.

Okay...let's see how that all turns out.

 

[Fuzz]

I believe the whiter the ash and more striations, means it is a Cuban cig... oh, sorry, wrong ashes....

[Ken Gargett]

sorry i missed this. fascinating first test. have to say, i could stand it no longer and went to bed when Khawaja went out 2nd innings. thought we had no chance. love it when the angels do the right thing. 

never seen root batting better. he has done okay against us in England - not so much out here - but he looked reborn.

Anderson, on the other hand, did not. agree with john, the bowlers an issue. you have mostly old blokes playing five tests in six weeks. not easy. plus you have the biggest gibbering idiot who simply can't stay quiet (the man is dumber than soup - the Jerome luai of cricket). you've been suspended before for anti muslim crap so you launch in and abuse the one muslim in the team. and that is after he has played one of the great innings, 140 over four sessions. the bloke tries for a tired slog after a day and a half and gets bowled and this turnip carries on like he outthought bradman and got him for a duck. utter pillock. and you reckon that will have been missed by the aussies! why, when you are on top against the number one side in the world would you give them motivation? and he is still talking. shame on the match review bunch who completely ignored their own rules and did nothing. all that does is encourage the pillock to keep carrying on. 

Bairstow an interesting problem. very popular team member, 78 from 78 balls. but then kept like a tree stump (seriously, i never got close to test level but if i kept that badly, i'd be mortified). but he is a key member so they can't drop him. play him as a bat only? move him up and dump duckett, crawley or even pope (unlikely pope). think it will be duckett but not for lords. wood must come in.

but what of a spinner? how stupid calling up a bloke who has not played for two years. the fingers could not cope. and he has never caused the aussies a problem. are England that desperate? what about the young bloke? might not be ready but this is the ashes. what are you waiting for? making the mistake the root can do the job would be crazy. let him concentrate on his batting. 

warner will play at least the next two. not sure about harris. he has shown no indication that he can top warner at his worst. why put him in? Renshaw? like to think that both smith and the fruitbat have more runs in them. also head. carey looking good. green needs to turn his potential with 20s and 30s into tinnes. assume that if hazelwood pulled up okay, boland goes for starc for lords. 

can't wait. 

[Pigpen]

As an Englishman it pains me to call it for the Aussies. We simply don’t have the bowling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ken Gargett]

well that was a rather incredible test. 2-0 to the good guys. and lots of controversy to spice it up.

brilliant innings from stokes to almost get England over the line, but they really blew a golden opportunity. won the toss, best of the conditions throughout, Australia loses its spinner. amazing that the guys could get up and win the game. smith was superb, especially in the first innings and cummins is starting to really hit form.

losing lyon for the series will hurt and if stokes pulls off a few more innings like the most recent, this has a long way to go. 

seems likely to be a bit a bumper feast as both sides showing that they are hopeless at the short ball. and that will no doubt add even more spice. 

can't wait for game three but i desperately need some sleep. 

[MoeFOH]

Never witnessed scenes quite like that at Lord's. Especially the Long Room stuff. Maybe I'm biased (I'm sure i am) but the level of furore that broke out around the Bairstow dismissal was a bit baffling. I found it a smart, opportunistic piece of cricket. Carey immediately threw at the stumps, had Bairstow been holding his ground and the ball cannoned off the stumps into vacant ground there's every chance that England scamper through for a run. Fair play then? Yes. And nothing more would have been said. Any English commentator I've heard thus far has basically echoed Atherton's sentiments - "Dozey batting". All the cheating crap, spare me, play the incident on its merits. Either side claiming any moral high ground "spirit of the game" stance is somewhat farcical. 

In the context of the game, this dismissal seemed to me to balance the ledger. The Starc no-catch. To be honest, I find that non-dismissal, or rather the rule governing it, more ridiculous. I knew the rule, and it's rare you see it come into play because most catches taken don't require the body to be in a position where planting the ball to the ground is even a consideration. Starc clearly caught the ball, was never in danger of losing control of it, the ball touching the ground didn't assist the catch, and he was simply bracing himself from the fall. In no world should that be a non-catch. Daft rule. Change it. 

In regards to all the short length tactics... I can do without it. It's a part of the game, sure. But I think it needs to be severely restricted. It should be more tightly governed/punished for overuse. In other words, it should be a surprise tactic within the bowler's arsenal rather than being allowed to become an overarching team strategy. 

All that said, certainly some spice has been added to the series after this match. Stokes in incredible form - an outstanding innings - needs some support. And the injury to Lyon will be no small impact for us. Still feels very much "game on" to me. 

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, MoeFOH said:

Never witnessed scenes quite like that at Lord's. Especially the Long Room stuff. Maybe I'm biased (I'm sure i am) but the level of furore that broke out around the Bairstow dismissal was a bit baffling. I found it a smart, opportunistic piece of cricket. Carey immediately threw at the stumps, had Bairstow been holding his ground and the ball cannoned off the stumps into vacant ground there's every chance that England scamper through for a run. Fair play then? Yes. And nothing more would have been said. Any English commentator I've heard thus far has basically echoed Atherton's sentiments - "Dozey batting". All the cheating crap, spare me, play the incident on its merits. Either side claiming any moral high ground "spirit of the game" stance is somewhat farcical. 

In the context of the game, this dismissal seemed to me to balance the ledger. The Starc no-catch. To be honest, I find that non-dismissal, or rather the rule governing it, more ridiculous. I knew the rule, and it's rare you see it come into play because most catches taken don't require the body to be in a position where planting the ball to the ground is even a consideration. Starc clearly caught the ball, was never in danger of losing control of it, the ball touching the ground didn't assist the catch, and he was simply bracing himself from the fall. In no world should that be a non-catch. Daft rule. Change it. 

In regards to all the short length tactics... I can do without it. It's a part of the game, sure. But I think it needs to be severely restricted. It should be more tightly governed/punished for overuse. In other words, it should be a surprise tactic within the bowler's arsenal rather than being allowed to become an overarching team strategy. 

All that said, certainly some spice has been added to the series after this match. Stokes in incredible form - an outstanding innings - needs some support. And the injury to Lyon will be no small impact for us. Still feels very much "game on" to me. 

i think all of that is exceptionally well put. the only thing i might not fully agree with is the short stuff. as an old opener, being relatively tall, i enjoyed the short pitched bowling (generally - occasionally a real quick makes it very unpleasant). i was in an era before helmets and i swear, this was a time when people played the short ball way better than they do today. you had to. i was not a ducker. i would try and simply sway inside or out (and i liked to hook, though lord knows how many times that got me out). if you keep your eye on the ball, you very rarely get hit. more chance of getting hit by a deflection from the bat. i'm happy to see it, though agree it should not be overdone. 

as for Bairstow, truly stupid. but when the video shows you tried to do the same thing to an aussie bat two days earlier, pleas for the moral high ground look a bit thin. and as for stuart broad claiming moral authority for anything, what next? arranging for Hitler to be tour guide for European travel? but king of hypocrisy is, and hold me back if you find this a shocker, a kiwi. old bazball himself might not want a beer with the Aussies but not sure he would be high on their invite list. the bloke ran out murali when the guy tried to walk down to congratulate his partner on getting a 100. he has thrown down the stumps in the same manner as carey at least two other times. spare me (as an old keeper, I've done it two or three times and not once did the batsman or the umpire complain - just stupidity. once was on a hattrick ball and you think the bowler thought it was the wrong thing. not a chance). 

on a different matter, i am starting to warm to your politician du jour (apols, can't even remember his name). turns out he is a lifelong arsenal fan. so there must be something good to him. 

[JohnS]

I think this focus on these controversies is a distraction from the outcome of the game. At the end of the day, Australia winning it was quite a feat considering how much the ball was doing off the pitch on the first day. England squandered their chance to get quick wickets in the first session. (This is a key feature of 'BazBall' theory, i.e. take quick wickets at the start of an innings and you will roll the opposition. Hence, why Edgbaston second innings where Lyon and Cummins saw the Australians over the line was the first time in 26 innings that England had not bowled the opposition out.)

Mitchell Starc will not connect the ball with the ground the next time he takes a catch, as we saw on day 5 when the Aussies took catch we saw that they deliberately cupped the ball from the grass to prevent any question of legitimacy (e.g. Smith and Green's catches in the outfield). Johnny Bairstow will no longer leave his crease before the ball is dead. Alex Carey should be lauded for doing what he did within the rules. I question now whether Bairstow will attempt the same after the England team called it unfair. Bairstow can't continue to do the same now, can he? (I.e. attempt to throw out the striker leaving the crease, which he has done on multiple time in this series.)

Ben Stokes' innings was incredible but the calls over cheating will actually continue to harm the England cause going into the final three games. In a similar vein, no one has heard any further from some of Zac Crawley's comments (i.e. 'We will win the 2nd test by 150 runs') or Ollie Robinson's comments (i.e 'We were the better team at Edgbaston' - sic) because these comments now seem unhelpful to the issue that matters - which is to take responsibility for the way you played the game and acknowledge that when you lose, it's because you weren't good enough. If England don't take responsibility for their errors in the first two tests, which is the real cause of their two losses, than the series is as a good as over at Headingley in the Third Test.

[Pigpen]

For me both dismissals were within the rules and both Starc and Bairstow will never make the same mistake again. What I fear now is that we see a ‘mankad’ during one of the matches. Australia or England  needing a couple of runs to win, 1wicket left at the end of the fifth day scenario and the batsman backing up just a little to far and bang, out, within the rules but not the greatest way to win a game. My money would be on Broad doing it 😜

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, Pigpen said:

For me both dismissals were within the rules and both Starc and Bairstow will never make the same mistake again. What I fear now is that we see a ‘mankad’ during one of the matches. Australia or England  needing a couple of runs to win, 1wicket left at the end of the fifth day scenario and the batsman backing up just a little to far and bang, out, within the rules but not the greatest way to win a game. My money would be on Broad doing it 😜

honestly, while few have less claim to the moral high ground than stuart (i had a scorpion as a pet for about five or six years - he was called stuart after stuart broad), i have absolutely no problem with mankads at all and if he wins England a test with one, more power to him. i say this as someone who has been dismissed by Mankad (running between wickets not my finest skill and i tried to gain an advantage and got done - no complaints from me at all). the non-striker is trying to gain an unfair advantage - in effect, cheating. if the non striker sneaks an extra six inches but then makes his crease by just three at the other end, he should have been out. but because he cheated, he gets away with it. i think this crap about having to warn them is nonsense. i would not have the slightest hesitation doing it if i were a bowler (was a keeper so never got the chance). 

i am still not convinced that starc did contravene the laws (i agree with ponting on this) but i can see why some might argue otherwise.

what i have loved is the monumental hypocrisy about all this. especially from someone like mr bazball himself, the kiwi mccullum. it has been on a level that would leave most politicians gasping in admiration. 

can't wait for game three. like most aussie kids, i would have loved to play test cricket. to be honest, with all that has happened, i would want to now even more than when i was a kid. imagine walking out to play with an entire nation booing you. you'd feel twenty foot tall. i can understand why wally lewis became invincible when all nsw screamed for his blood. sadly, lewis played sport at a level of which i can but dream. 

[99call]

The only issue I have with this, is Australian Cricket still seems to advertise themselves under the classic banner of "hard but fair" .  I admire that notion and it's a really great thing to aspire too.   The reality is, this Aussie team are not good enough to operate under that banner.  The Bairstow stumping, was a bit more "snide and desperate".   Don't get me wrong this Aussie team are better than England, and rightly deserve the lead.  but "hard and fair" they most definitely are not!.      

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, 99call said:

The only issue I have with this, is Australian Cricket still seems to advertise themselves under the classic banner of "hard but fair" .  I admire that notion and it's a really great thing to aspire too.   The reality is, this Aussie team are not good enough to operate under that banner.  The Bairstow stumping, was a bit more "snide and desperate".   Don't get me wrong this Aussie team are better than England, and rightly deserve the lead.  but "hard and fair" they most definitely are not!.      

snide and desperate. no, that is utter crap. you can be as bitter as you like but as someone said, england sport immediately reverts to its default position, unreflective reflex hypocrisy. there was absolutely nothing unfair about what the aussies did. 100% within the rules. and perfectly within the spirit, if you want to go down that track. 

as for the spirit of cricket, the catch from duckett becomes let's follow the rules (whether they got it right or not is another matter) but then with Bairstow, it is concocted rubbish about the spirit of cricket. so let's just swap and change, depending on what suits us.

that would be the same spirit of cricket that Bairstow himself was operating under when he tried to do exactly the same thing two days earlier. the same as their dimwitted kiwi coach, who did it a number of times, but worse, waited till a bloke stepped out of his crease to congratulate his partner on a ton - and then said "you can't reward stupidity". now it is unacceptable.

as for stokes - extraordinary innings undoubtedly and the sad thing about all this is that his knock is being overshadowed - wouldn't do it, he says. unbelievable. his wicketkeeper tried it (but failed). where was stokes saying no? instead, it was clever cricket and 100% supported by him when pope basically did exactly this last year. when foakes did likewise. stokes fully supported exactly what he now claims he wouldn't. his track record of spinelessness in such matters continues to grow - not that the english press would dare tarnish the halo. his bowler, who has a track record of anti-Islamic tweets (and more) let's fly with a disgraceful tirade of obscene abuse at the only muslim in the Australian team - the bowler refuses to apologise - and stokes supports him. and perhaps even more disgracefully, the ECB does nothing (and they wonder why they have a massive racism issue in english cricket). as a respected general once said, the conduct we walk past is the conduct we accept. well stokes has shown just where he stands and what he accepts and it is not pretty. 

England's history on actions like this is just as bad, right back to the start of the ashes. look up what tony greig did to alvin kallicharan. 

then of course, the coach - the most monumentally hypocritical of the lot. he needed worry about drinking beer with aussies. no one is inviting him. or even slightly interested.  

as for the outrage from the English press, that utter tosser asking cummins about underarm bowling and so on and then telling everyone the stain is still on Australia for the sandpaper etc. well spare me but does no one in England understand the concept of hypocrisy? no argument that what the aussies did with the sandpaper was truly disgraceful and unacceptable. but if idiots like broad and the rest would like to c

ome down from mountain high horse, the difference between Australia and England in this was simply that Australia decided it really was unacceptable and imposed serious penalties. broad, Anderson, Atherton are all just as guilty of ball tampering, stomping on balls with spikes and so on. trescothick has admitted bringing on mints to affect the ball. the English officials hit them with their version of the comfy chair. 

 

on a completely different note, apols to Moe - i put a note on the end of a response to him in error - it belons with yourself. moe must have wondered what the hell i was talking about. 

"on a different matter, i am starting to warm to your politician du jour (apols, can't even remember his name). turns out he is a lifelong arsenal fan. so there must be something good to him." and the PM sticking his nose in. i hope he is dumped asap. 

[MoeFOH]

26 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

on a completely different note, apols to Moe - i put a note on the end of a response to him in error - it belons with yourself. moe must have wondered what the hell i was talking about. 

I did wonder about that, Ken. Pondered it quizzically for a moment. Got sidetracked before I could respond. Then forgot all about it. 

Thanks for clearing it up. 

[westg]

9 hours ago, 99call said:

The only issue I have with this, is Australian Cricket still seems to advertise themselves under the classic banner of "hard but fair" .  I admire that notion and it's a really great thing to aspire too.   The reality is, this Aussie team are not good enough to operate under that banner.  The Bairstow stumping, was a bit more "snide and desperate".   Don't get me wrong this Aussie team are better than England, and rightly deserve the lead.  but "hard and fair" they most definitely are not!.      

Well now. You might want to have a look at how many times little John has done this himself. A few more than Alex. Me I think it is a  terribly weak act. Something you might see in backyard or beach cricket a school yard . At this level a bouncer down leg side on the last ball of the over to set that up is just a D grade act on the biggest cricket stage we have ( and it was called a stumping) . What will become of the game if these desperate acts to win  continue. I hope Alex Carey does not want to be remembered for these type of acts . 

[MoeFOH]

3 hours ago, westg said:

Well now. You might want to have a look at how many times little John has done this himself. A few more than Alex. Me I think it is a  terribly weak act. Something you might see in backyard or beach cricket a school yard . At this level a bouncer down leg side on the last ball of the over to set that up is just a D grade act on the biggest cricket stage we have ( and it was called a stumping) . What will become of the game if these desperate acts to win  continue. I hope Alex Carey does not want to be remembered for these type of acts . 

Interesting how this finds such varying opinions from both sides of the fence. I couldn't disagree more, West. I don't think it's a dog act at all. Simply quick thinking, opportunistic play. What's really important in the whole thing is how quickly Carey releases the ball, at which point Bairstow is well in his ground. In elite level sports your weaknesses are examined, rooted out, and preyed upon. And rightly so. That's what makes it so tough. Carey (or the team brains trust) spotted Bairstow's and took advantage. Fair play to me. Would I like it? No. Just as the Starc catch ruling hurt, this would like-wise. But part of the game till the rules say otherwise. 

I think if England fans et al are honest with themselves what hurts the most and why this blew up to what it is, is centred on the batter involved and what the wicket meant in the context of the match. It was a major scalp at a pivotal moment. I'd suggest that if this had been a number 10 or 11 in a hopelessly lost game it would barely have raised any ire.

What's also interesting is that we're all (meaning any team) totally fine in a bowling short length deliveries at a bowler's body or head to get him out because he's ill-equipped to play and defend himself. Often this results in body blows and potentially quite dangerous and even life-threatening head strikes. Which is apparently all kosher but running someone out for dozing on their simplest responsibilities as an elite level batsmen is a dog act? I don't get it. 

And I'm sure Carey doesn't want to be remembered for it, he just wanted the wicket. Smart play in my book. 

[Ken Gargett]

as is probably obvious, i am in complete agreement with Moe. sorry Westie. as i have said elsewhere, when i played in England, as a keeper, i got 2-3 dismissals in exactly that manner. and never once did an ump or the dismissed batsman take issue. one was on a hattrick ball. had i recalled the appeal, i think the bowler would have shot me. i can assure you that i have never had a single second of regret in any form. 

a completely legit mode of dismissal. of the poms genuinely had problems, where was their outrage when they did exactly the same. on a number of occasions. 

[JohnS]

Going forward, the question should be, "how can England come back in this series?" Yes, it's mathematically possible to win 3 in a row, but how are they going to achieve this? Personally speaking, I would like to see a change in their approach because playing attacking cricket (i.e. BazBall) is great for the game, but it can only be done when the game situation allows for it. Otherwise, you're hoping for Ben Stokes to produce miracles every time you're behind the game when what you may need to do is perhaps absorb pressure, rotate strike and exercise patience.

Do England drop James Anderson? And if so, is Mark Wood a better option since he has had no first-class bowling of late and is not in prime condition? Moeen Ali for the third test is not a great option, in my view.

 

[Ken Gargett]

17 minutes ago, JohnS said:

Going forward, the question should be, "how can England come back in this series?" Yes, it's mathematically possible to win 3 in a row, but how are they going to achieve this? Personally speaking, I would like to see a change in their approach because playing attacking cricket (i.e. BazBall) is great for the game, but it can only be done when the game situation allows for it. Otherwise, you're hoping for Ben Stokes to produce miracles every time you're behind the game when what you may need to do is perhaps absorb pressure, rotate strike and exercise patience.

Do England drop James Anderson? And if so, is Mark Wood a better option since he has had no first-class bowling of late and is not in prime condition? Moeen Ali for the third test is not a great option, in my view.

 

it is a good point, john. but we also have some decisions. murphy for lyon seems certain. some debate about green. not done as much as we'd hoped but he is safe for certain. what happens with the quicks? cummins plays, obviously. i think starc did enough and has only played the one so he stays for me. down to boland or hazlewood. might depend on the pitch and also how hazlewood pulls up but i assume he'll be fit. if the trend to short bowling continues, i expect hazlewood to stay. 

for the poms, obviously they will have to replace broad because he will still be poncing about on his high horse. Bairstow stays for one more. he can bat, they don't want to dump him and it is his home ground. also, it might send the signal, no matter what they claim, that his stupidity has been recognised. duckett has far exceeded my expectations and i am a fan of crawley, though he does give diamonds and rust. pope could be injured and has done nothing, but he is the vice captain. if fit, i think he'll stay. brooks might be dumber than soup but he stays. root and stokes obviously. i see a spinner coming back and it seems that only moeen is available. apparently no one else in England can spin a ball.

so, three quicks. broad and robinson, if fit, although robinson is as terrifying as a wet sponge. he picks up tail enders and everyone claims what great figures. so, Tongue, Anderson or Wood. i think Anderson will need a rest so Wood or Tongue and after this game, has to be Tongue. 

only change to that might be that they actually accept that in fact no one in England can spin a ball and don't bother. and so go with wood. if they do, unless we flog thenm, i suspect that is the end for anderson. it would effectively be five fit quicks ahead of him here and then archer and overton still to return. 

can't wait. 

[westg]

I just hope we do not see anymore of it. A little way back I read the words first and class. Well none of that was displayed . Cummins admitted it was premeditated, a wide bouncer from the last ball of the over so it was not really a Carey quick thinking act  . John and Ben thought the over was done. Even the umpires had to take it upstairs.for a decision . I do not see that as a stumping. Run out maybe ...oh no they were not running. Or even thinking of it.

I remember Shame Warne speaking about Sachin Tendaulker in a one day game . They just could not get they guy out. Warney being Warney came up with an idea of getting him out . I will just ball one terrible ball down leg side to see if he tries to wake it . Nothing else the Aussies did was working . Tendaulker was seeing basketballs. And yes he said it was the worst ball he could possiby bowl and he picked Tendaulker up. Now that was a stumping. I miss that guy ! We need someone like him. 

Smith was absolutely brilliant in the first innings . Ben Stokes should of recieved player of the match I thought. 

I see your point chaps and respect it . We have been discussing it at work and I am Han Solo hear as well. ,🌴😎

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, westg said:

I just hope we do not see anymore of it. A little way back I read the words first and class. Well none of that was displayed . Cummins admitted it was premeditated, a wide bouncer from the last ball of the over so it was not really a Carey quick thinking act  . John and Ben thought the over was done. Even the umpires had to take it upstairs.for a decision . I do not see that as a stumping. Run out maybe ...oh no they were not running. Or even thinking of it.

I remember Shame Warne speaking about Sachin Tendaulker in a one day game . They just could not get they guy out. Warney being Warney came up with an idea of getting him out . I will just ball one terrible ball down leg side to see if he tries to wake it . Nothing else the Aussies did was working . Tendaulker was seeing basketballs. And yes he said it was the worst ball he could possiby bowl and he picked Tendaulker up. Now that was a stumping. I miss that guy ! We need someone like him. 

Smith was absolutely brilliant in the first innings . Ben Stokes should of recieved player of the match I thought. 

I see your point chaps and respect it . We have been discussing it at work and I am Han Solo hear as well. ,🌴😎

stay firm, westie. i might not agree but i understand. and at least we can discuss it properly, unlike those louts in the long room!

[El Presidente]

6 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

when i played in England, as a keeper, i got 2-3 dismissals in exactly that manner.

Grub.  🦨

[99call]

10 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

"on a different matter, i am starting to warm to your politician du jour (apols, can't even remember his name). turns out he is a lifelong arsenal fan. so there must be something good to him." and the PM sticking his nose in. i hope he is dumped asap.    

I'm glad we are starting to agree on something Ken, even though personally that I have little interest in football, I do detest Martin Keown for his rabid mounting of Ruud Van Nistolroy, He was like a like a mutant capuchin monkey thats fallen into a bucket of weapons grade steroids.  Again.....not a good look. 

I think you got the wrong end of the stick about what I was trying to communicate about the stumping.  It wasn't a comment focused on England V Aussie, who's best? who's the dirtier team?  it was more based comparing this Aussie team to the great Aussie team of Warnie, and McGrath et al, and what they needed to resort to to win, and to win in style. 

It's all well and good to say that stumping is within the rules, and I agree it is, and thats all agreed, I'm questioning, in an ideal world, if your team is amazing, is that the tactical option what you want to be reduced to?  or would you rather smash someones middle stump out of the ground with an in swinging yorker?.     I'm just saying I think the great Aussie teams of the past were 'Hard but Fair' definitely,    I just don't see it in this team,   maybe they are trying to get back there,  by hook or by crook,  but i'm just not seeing that brand of old exemplified in their actions.   

 

[Ken Gargett]

12 hours ago, 99call said:

I'm glad we are starting to agree on something Ken, even though personally that I have little interest in football, I do detest Martin Keown for his rabid mounting of Ruud Van Nistolroy, He was like a like a mutant capuchin monkey thats fallen into a bucket of weapons grade steroids.  Again.....not a good look. 

I think you got the wrong end of the stick about what I was trying to communicate about the stumping.  It wasn't a comment focused on England V Aussie, who's best? who's the dirtier team?  it was more based comparing this Aussie team to the great Aussie team of Warnie, and McGrath et al, and what they needed to resort to to win, and to win in style. 

It's all well and good to say that stumping is within the rules, and I agree it is, and thats all agreed, I'm questioning, in an ideal world, if your team is amazing, is that the tactical option what you want to be reduced to?  or would you rather smash someones middle stump out of the ground with an in swinging yorker?.     I'm just saying I think the great Aussie teams of the past were 'Hard but Fair' definitely,    I just don't see it in this team,   maybe they are trying to get back there,  by hook or by crook,  but i'm just not seeing that brand of old exemplified in their actions.   

 

 

i reckon healy/marsh etc, would have had no problem doing it. ideal world we get ten wickets from balls like starc to pope and cummins to brooks but not an ideal world. teams do what they can. but this comes back entirely to whether you see it as a perfectly legit delivery/dismissal, which i have no doubt it was, or if you don't. i don't see degrees here. i think as soon as you move one degree from 100% legit then you are in a region where you do not do it. if that makes sense. this team has been criticised as too nice (i know that might seem odd) and cummins as too much of a nice guy to be the captain. but he is doing it his way and so far, hard to argue overall. 

think of this. if England were three zip up and this happened at the end of the first innings in the fourth test when England were 9-600 and it happened to their number 11, do you reckon we would have heard anything about it? not a chance. would have been forgotten before the players had left the field. this fuss is because England were getting all excited that they might pull off a famous victory and then johnny dimwit wanders off and gets himself out. and England feel robbed. the truth is they robbed themselves through dumb play. and shock, horror, they do not want to blame themselves for their own stupidity. 

someone pointed out that had this been to a spinner, again, we would not have heard a word. and presumably England would not have been so hypocritical as to complain given what foakes has done and what stokes supported (fat chance, of course they would). 

but seriously, guys like stuart broad lecturing anyone on morals. and the perfidious poms wonder why aussies have their backs up. i loved the report on the ABC about broad. - "Stuart Broad, the last bastion for sportsmanship in cricket, was heard over stump mic saying the incident was the worst thing he'd ever seen in cricket. In fairness, as a man who no longer feels the need to appeal to umpires for his own wickets, he is uniquely placed to judge what should and shouldn't be given out."

what is interesting to me is that the chief hypocrite, their kiwi coach, and a few others are saying how this will play into England's hands and motivate them. first, if you need this to motivate you to win an Ashes test then you are done anyway. next, do they really think that this whole thing, the endless and completely false accusations, the abuse of Khawaja by the MCC grubs and so on won't fire up the Aussies? i'd much rather face a fired up trundler like robinson than a fired up starc or cummins. 

finally, the temerity of politicians to stick their noses into something. the pommy PM should be ashamed of himself. i presume he is so far behind in the polls that he thought bagging Aussie cricketers was worth a few cheap votes. so the PM says nothing when one of the English players, who already has a record of anti-islamic tweets etc, disgracefully attacks and abuses the one muslim in the Aussie team and then refuses to apologise and is supported by both the English captain and ECB, but injects himself over the legitimacy of a stumping? that is his priority? typical spineless waste of breath. 

can't wait for the next test.

[Ken Gargett]

14 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Grub.  🦨

nice!