Am I The Only One That Thinks England Will Win The Ashes

[Bob Bamber]

I don't get it. Everywhere I go it just seems to be everyone is saying the Aussies are bound to win. As an Englishman , and a realist , I still believe that England can take this series.

Does anyone , English or otherwise agree?

 

[PhoenixFire]

No matter how I hard I wish and wish that England will win the Ashes, I just can't. My head says Australia, my heart says Engl- Australia too.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes you are.

 

[Jamee999]

Probably.

I didn't think we'd get thrashed, and to be honest, I still don't think we will, but I'd be incredibly surprised if we won this series.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Personally speaking my faith in our ability to defend them has moved from sceptical agnosticism to hard-line atheism.

 

[Matteh]

I don't get it. Everywhere I go it just seems to be everyone is saying the Aussies are bound to win. As an Englishman , and a realist , I still believe that England can take this series.

Does anyone , English or otherwise agree?

You missed the first test didn't you?

 

[Gloucefan]

I think England CAN retain the Ashes, but if I'm really honest I doubt they actually will as Australia are so strong at home. If any team in test cricket can win in Australia; a fully fit, full strength and in form England is one of them. The pre-ashes form and the form during the last Ashes was no fluke whatever some Aussies or others might like to think. The thing is this is an out-of-sorts and not fully fit or full strength and in form England team. The thing is no other team can hold their form like the Aussies can, they are just so mentally tough.

 

[Shoggz]

To stand any chance of even winning a test, never mind the series, the English bowling attack has got to improve a huge amount.

Ironic really, as it was the bowlers who did most in winning the ashes in 2005.

 

[greg]

Only if they pick an extra batsman, make Strauss captain, and play Panesar.

So no.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Only if they pick an extra batsman, make Strauss captain, and play Panesar.

So no.

How does an extra batsman help take 20 wickets?

 

[Goughy]

Well any realist must know that a number of factors went Englands way last time.

Injuries to McGrath, Pontings decision to bowl, Aussies getting psyched out, lack of injuries until the 5th test for England, dropped catches etc

Man for man they were still the better side.

For England to win this time there needs to be a similar swing in fortune for England.
So for England to win I think the following must happen-

- Harmison must bowl the lights out.
- Key Aussie bowlers must get injured
- Jones must score heavily from number 7
- An argument or disagreement must exist in the Aussie camp that hurts moral and cohesivness

So chances are slim but if the moons align it could still happen

 

[BingLeeElectric]

Well any realist must know that a number of factors went Englands way last time.

Injuries to McGrath, Pontings decision to bat, Aussies getting psyched out, lack of injuries until the 5th test for England, dropped catches etc

And most importantly, the crowd influence on some dubious umpiring decisions as they cracked under pressure and got twitchy fingers.

The LBW rule was only in operation for one of the sides in that series as I recall.

I think that's why the Barmy Army are making such an issue about seating arrangements/ ticketing etc. They know that's the only way they have a chance to win.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Only if they pick an extra batsman, make Strauss captain, and play Panesar.

So no.

Thirteen players - like the thinking!

 

[steds]

Thirteen players - like the thinking!

We'd still lose...

 

[greg]

How does an extra batsman help take 20 wickets?

Playing Panesar is the route to 20 wickets. We just have to put our faith in Harmison finding form. This and Strauss being captain takes some of the weight of Flintoff and allows him to bowl at important times, not just when all else has failed.

The extra batsman is there to ensure that we score more runs with our 20 wickets than the Aussies manage with their 20 wickets. Taking 20 wickets is not in itself enough to win a test match.

Basic components of test selection:

1) Pick a bowling attack that can bowl the opposition out in an absolute maximum of five days
2) Pick a batting line up that can score more runs than the opposition in the time remaining.

A balanced side is one that best meets both these objectives.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well any realist must know that a number of factors went Englands way last time.

Injuries to McGrath, Pontings decision to bowl, Aussies getting psyched out, lack of injuries until the 5th test for England, dropped catches etc

Man for man they were still the better side.

Injury to Simon Jones saved Australia from defeat in the 3rd Test. Aussies getting psyched out is rubbish.

 

[steds]

Injury to Simon Jones saved Australia from defeat in the 3rd Test. Aussies getting psyched out is rubbish.

Jones got injured in the 4th, iirc, which we won.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Jones got injured in the 4th, iirc, which we won.

He got cramp and had to go off before he could bowl Australia out with him reversing the ball all over the shop but doing nothing for most of the other bowlers.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Taking 20 wickets is not in itself enough to win a test match.

Of course there's more to winning a Test than taking 20 wickets, but you can't win a Test without doing so.

Barring injuries of course.

 

[superkingdave]

He got cramp and had to go off before he could bowl Australia out with him reversing the ball all over the shop but doing nothing for most of the other bowlers.

yeah iirc Harmless had to bowl the last over and only made the batsmen play about one of the balls