Gutless, aimless... hopeless

[Neil Pickup]

http://www.cricketweb.net/article.ph...ewsIDAuto=2870

Finally got some thoughts down into words. Comments/feedback welcomed.

[PhoenixFire]

Couldn't agree more, well said.

[JBH001]

Great post, Neil.

I watched part of the test here in NZ and after Strauss's dismissal could not believe my eyes. On the first 4 days England played, more or less, like the side they want to be and have been, for the most part, over the last few years - and then suddenly in the space of an hour or two, they reverted to the 'old' England at completely and utterly the wrong time and place, against the worst possible opponent.

It was pathetic to watch. I really am sorry for the English fans.
The disappointment and shame must be immense.

[Anil]

excellent article...agree with everything you said except that there is still a chance to retain the ashes...

[techno t]

Originally Posted by Anil

excellent article...agree with everything you said except that there is still a chance to retain the ashes...

a blinking small chance

i hope we dont get whitewashed

*

[Jungle Jumbo]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

http://www.cricketweb.net/article.ph...ewsIDAuto=2870

Finally got some thoughts down into words. Comments/feedback welcomed.

Yeah top stuff, keep it coming.

[Langeveldt]

Pah England lose two lousy tests and the world is on fire... How bads it going to be in 18 years time with the ashes still on the other side of the world? Cracking report though..

[Barney Rubble]

Great piece Neil. I'd write one myself but it'd only come out exactly the same, except with longer sentences.

[TT Boy]

Opening is rather hyperbole IMO. Such a defeat is only really comparable to Multan another test match which we seemingly contrived to lose, still has nothing on the embarrassment in Zimbabwe or the home series against New Zealand.

[Perm]

Excellent post and article Neil, very well written.

[pasag]

Read it with glee tbh

[Top_Cat]

Disagree with the opening statement, really. I was able to watch most of days 4 and 5 and England weren't bad with the ball on day 4 (particularly Hoggard) but Michael Clarke played exceptionally well. To survive he has had to tighten his game immensely and you'll notice that a lot of his runs came from smart 1's and 2's backward of square and not many boundaries. Certainly no bit cut or pu shots. He played like one should play against tight bowling and didn't lose his head (aside from the shot which got him out) Gilchrist was also kept relatively quiet before he hit a few boundaries but really, he had to take a few risks and they came off. He also had to fight like hell to keep Harmison out like he did. On another day, he probably would have given at east one chance through gully. When England came out late on day 4, Strauss and Bell looked quite untroubled by Lee and McGrath.

Day 5 dawned and the key points for me were this; Australia had to not only bring their A-level game to the party to stay in the match but also had to prevent Engand paying theirs. The reason England only scored at 1-per-over before lunch was a combination of English defensiveness but also outstanding 'stick-to-the-plan bowling by Australia. Stuart Clark was top-shelf and to take the wickets he did, Warnie had to also bowl at his best. I think England were really shaken up by the soft run-out of Bell and the dodgy decision against Strauss. From there, the pressure just built and built. Yes, English bats played some ordinary shots but those shots were brought about by the sheer pressure-building at both ends. I suspect Freddie is feeling his injury and fatigue (besides which, havinng already bowled his guts out, to also expect him to be a match-winner with the bat was a bit much) but KP's shot was an attempt to wrest some of the momentum back and it just didn't come off due to hesitation. Geraint Jones, again, was undone by the pressure and his shot looked quite desperate. England may well have been looking to target guys like Lee for runs but when even he is bowling on-the-spot line bowling, who do you go after?

Good bowling is never just about in-swinging yorkers or balls pitching leg and taking off-stump. On a super-flat deck like that, you need guys who can stick to a plan and when all four of your bowlers do it, not many teams have the ability to counter that. Indirectly, I get the feeling the Aussies learnt a great deal from the bowling of Hoggard; stick to your plan, don't lose your head and keeping running in. He did it so well and took half of the Aussie wickets in the match.

So yeah, whilst I agree that England didn't exactly have a day out, it wasn't just because they suck; they weren't allowed to. That there is the difference between the sides because they have just as many match-winners with both bat and ball as each other. The lack of sense in selection hardly helped matters, either......

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Day 5 dawned and the key points for me were this; Australia had to not only bring their A-level game to the party to stay in the match but also had to prevent Engand paying theirs. The reason England only scored at 1-per-over before lunch was a combination of English defensiveness but also outstanding 'stick-to-the-plan bowling by Australia. Stuart Clark was top-shelf and to take the wickets he did, Warnie had to also bowl at his best. I think England were really shaken up by the soft run-out of Bell and the dodgy decision against Strauss. From there, the pressure just built and built. Yes, English bats played some ordinary shots but those shots were brought about by the sheer pressure-building at both ends. I suspect Freddie is feeling his injury and fatigue (besides which, havinng already bowled his guts out, to also expect him to be a match-winner with the bat was a bit much) but KP's shot was an attempt to wrest some of the momentum back and it just didn't come off due to hesitation. Geraint Jones, again, was undone by the pressure and his shot looked quite desperate. England may well have been looking to target guys like Lee for runs but when even he is bowling on-the-spot line bowling, who do you go after?

Good bowling is never just about in-swinging yorkers or balls pitching leg and taking off-stump. On a super-flat deck like that, you need guys who can stick to a plan and when all four of your bowlers do it, not many teams have the ability to counter that. Indirectly, I get the feeling the Aussies learnt a great deal from the bowling of Hoggard; stick to your plan, don't lose your head and keeping running in. He did it so well and took half of the Aussie wickets in the match.

So yeah, whilst I agree that England didn't exactly have a day out, it wasn't just because they suck; they weren't allowed to. That there is the difference between the sides because they have just as many match-winners with both bat and ball as each other. The lack of sense in selection hardly helped matters, either......

Great stuff, and I agree just about completely regarding all of this. I think to an extent the Australian bowling effort was a bit underestimated, and as a result, I think Collingwood copped some pretty harsh and unfair criticism, both here and in some segments of the press.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

http://www.cricketweb.net/article.ph...ewsIDAuto=2870

Finally got some thoughts down into words. Comments/feedback welcomed.

Fantastic article. Very, very good.

[silentstriker]

Good article, but you guys lost to the best team in the world in the last session on the 5th day of a test match. It happens to all countries, not just the English.

Plus, you guys did lose that 1st test in Pakistan just as badly. A couple of people gloss over that, but if you want to get better, you can't ever do that. If Australia ever failed chasing 180-odd, they would be crucified and would probably mean some changes.