*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[Flem274*]

@ Max: To a point. If you start trying to hit good balls for four it increases your chances of hitting a good ball to slip.

Fortunately it is rare for a whole bowling attack to consistently bowl six good balls an over for very long so you start punishing the bad ones in an attempt to fluster the bowlers so they don't start bowling well again.

The great batsman smashing fast accurate swinging deliveries for a session is one of cricket's biggest myths. Even Viv played the forward defense.

 

[Maximas]

absolutely Flem, only the bad balls should be put away, but watching Root and the others pat down half volleys down the pitch made me believe there was no intent, even when it was relatively risk free.

 

[Ruckus]

The bowling to Eng in their first innings wasn't that great. Harris was solid as always, and Lyon had very good rhythm, but Starc, Siddle and Faulkner offered plenty of innocuous stuff.

 

[Burgey]

Clarke's declaration was also ****ing mental. Yes it made for a great last day, but Clarke isn't paid to entertain the English public, he's paid to get results for Australia. Australia were 4 overs away from losing their 8th Test out of the last 9, and it was all Clarke's doing. Australia have a massive losing culture just now and the first thing Australia need to do is learn not to lose. Clarke's declaration was never going to result in an Australian win.

Well that depends on how you look at it. A declaration was the only way Australia could reasonably have forced a win after day four was lost. It isn't like he was defending a series lead. I don't blame him for doing it. I know a number of players are a bit simple, but I think they all know the last session was a construct in an attempt to salvage something out of the series. Certainly the odds were well stacked against them, but I really don't see the need to critcise him for having a crack at something which was unliely to succeed when he had nothing to lose.

I can't speak for the attitude of others, and I see where blokes like N00fers are coming from in their views on this, but I don't really see any material difference between losing 3-0 and losing 4-0. Neither is acceptable as far as I'm concerned. If England had made an extra 20 odd runs and won the game, do you really think the Australian players would have their confidence sapped any more than it was by virtue of their batting collapses at Durham and Lord's? I just don't see it that way.

I don't think he had entertainment at the forefront of his mind when he declared. He was thinking about winning. The fact England had a crack at it made it entertaining - and that's their prerogative given the series scoreline. The fact they had a crack at it also gave Australia more of a chance of taking wickets.

Anyway, I think a draw was a fair result. Australia declared twice, England had a crack at it on day five and it was a great day of Test cricket, albeit one which was pretty odd in the scheme of things.

 

[Maximas]

declarations are easy to critisise in hindsight

 

[Dan]

Clarke's declaration was also ****ing mental. Yes it made for a great last day, but Clarke isn't paid to entertain the English public, he's paid to get results for Australia. Australia were 4 overs away from losing their 8th Test out of the last 9, and it was all Clarke's doing. Australia have a massive losing culture just now and the first thing Australia need to do is learn not to lose. Clarke's declaration was never going to result in an Australian win.

I still think the idea of a 'losing culture' and 'learning how to win' is utter bull****.

I personally would much rather see Clarke go for a win, even if it is unlikely, and play enterprising, entertaining cricket than sit around for the final day and play out a boring draw that does absolutely nothing for either side - even if it ultimately results in a loss. Putting your side into a position where you can at least have a crack at victory isn't a bad thing for this Australian side to be doing, IMO.

Clarke thought he had the bowlers at his disposal to bowl a side out in a session, especially with the batsmen coming at them - they are good enough to do it. But England are, overall, far superior at playing cricket in England. They batted well. 5 an over on a day 5 pitch against good bowlers is no easy feat.

I don't think the English can claim to have been 'robbed' - without Clarke's generous declaration to make a game of it, there was no result possible going into Day 5 (Australia were 6/111 in 20 overs when going for it; even if they collapsed for that amount, it would have taken another ~10 overs in doing so). England was gifted a chance of a win that they otherwise never would have had. FJ calling it 'planned' is the most ridiculously stupid thing I've heard all week (and I have heard a lot of ridiculously stupid things this week). Yeah, England should have won the match - but it's far more akin to being handed a gift and then having it requested back than outright theft.

Nor can Australia complain about being put in a losing position; when a team is 3-0 down, losing one more game doesn't really matter in the purely cricketing scheme of things. Winning the last Test claws back some respectibility. The 0 in the scoreline means a lot more than the other number, so taking risks to turn it into a 1 isn't a bad thing IMO.

Had Day 4 not been lost to rain, this would have been an enthralling Test match and the English 'negativity' may well have been vindicated. But in the end, the conclusion to me was a microcosm of the series as a whole - England on top but with the gap far less than expected (even if the scoreline disagrees), and plagued by controversial umpiring.

 

[Dan]

Well that depends on how you look at it. A declaration was the only way Australia could reasonably have forced a win after day four was lost. It isn't like he was defending a series lead. I don't blame him for doing it. I know a number of players are a bit simple, but I think they all know the last session was a construct in an attempt to salvage something out of the series. Certainly the odds were well stacked against them, but I really don't see the need to critcise him for having a crack at something which was unliely to succeed when he had nothing to lose.

I can't speak for the attitude of others, and I see where blokes like N00fers are coming from in their views on this, but I don't really see any material difference between losing 3-0 and losing 4-0. Neither is acceptable as far as I'm concerned. If England had made an extra 20 odd runs and won the game, do you really think the Australian players would have their confidence sapped any more than it was by virtue of their batting collapses at Durham and Lord's? I just don't see it that way.

I don't think he had entertainment at the forefront of his mind when he declared. He was thinking about winning. The fact England had a crack at it made it entertaining - and that's their prerogative given the series scoreline. The fact they had a crack at it also gave Australia more of a chance of taking wickets.

Anyway, I think a draw was a fair result. Australia declared twice, England had a crack at it on day five and it was a great day of Test cricket, albeit one which was pretty odd in the scheme of things.

Yeah, I agree with this post entirely.

 

[Top_Cat]

Nah, kidding yourself if you reckon 3-0 sounds the same to the players as 4-0. It's nonsensical, idiotic and does have no material difference but symbolically, to the guys playing the Tests, I'd be utterly shocked if they didn't feel a difference. There's just something about 4-0; ask the '89 English side. 4-0 says 'utter domination', 3-0 says merely 'good win'.

And, I might add, 3-1 says a lot too. Practically still a loss but the mental side of sport isn't often won on practical grounds. It's why Clarke went for it.

 

[Ruckus]

I can't speak for the attitude of others, and I see where blokes like N00fers are coming from in their views on this, but I don't really see any material difference between losing 3-0 and losing 4-0. Neither is acceptable as far as I'm concerned. If England had made an extra 20 odd runs and won the game, do you really think the Australian players would have their confidence sapped any more than it was by virtue of their batting collapses at Durham and Lord's? I just don't see it that way.

yeah my thoughts too. At the same time though, the fact is once the next series in Aus rolls around any 'momentum' or 'team morale' bull**** will be behind them anyway. It will largely be a clean slate. Way too much emphasis is placed on those kind of arguments for mine.

I really don't think Clarke's declaration was reckless anyway. A draw was still easily the most likely outcome, and I think the chance of a Aus/Eng win was probably perceived as roughly the same at the time. As it turned out, Eng, thanks to a special performance from Pietersen, got pretty close, but on another day they might have lost a few early wickets and the story could have been a bit different.

I totally agree that Clarke's motive in trying to force a result wasn't because he is just a selfless guy and wanted to give something back to the game, but for me that's beside the point. It's analogous to a big company deciding to work in unison with a charity - the real motive is probably for a more self-interested reason, like wanting to improve company image, but at the end of the day it's still a good thing and is a mentality that should be encouraged, regardless of the motive. Just like playing positive cricket should be.

 

[Dan]

Nah, kidding yourself if you reckon 3-0 sounds the same to the players as 4-0. It's nonsensical, idiotic and does have no material difference but symbolically, to the guys playing the Tests, I'd be utterly shocked if they didn't feel a difference. There's just something about 4-0; ask the '89 English side. 4-0 says 'utter domination', 3-0 says merely 'good win'.

And, I might add, 3-1 says a lot too. Practically still a loss but the mental side of sport isn't often won on practical grounds. It's why Clarke went for it.

I think the gains in morale from 3-1 would outweigh the added pain of 4-0. In a scenario where its a 50/50 call between the two, I'd gear myself for 3-1 every time.

 

[Dan]

And yeah, agree with Ruckus on the point that we've glossed over how well England batted in the 4th innings. 200+ in a session, even an extended one, on Day 5 with a good bowling attack coming at you is seriously impressive.

 

[Spikey]

And, I might add, 3-1 says a lot too. Practically still a loss but the mental side of sport isn't often won on practical grounds. It's why Clarke went for it.

lost 3 games by an innings with the sole victory coming through an unsustainable bowling performance?

 

[Ruckus]

Some of the bowling was absolutely terrible too though, if I'm wanting to be entirely honest.

 

[Flem274*]

I still think the idea of a 'losing culture' and 'learning how to win' is utter bull****.

Not at all imo.

Negativity gets in everywhere. Look at what the lower ranked sides do time and again when they're in winning positions, and listen to their pre-game interviews. "Oooh if we play our very best maybe we can compete with the great and mighty third ranked team in the world." It's just like teams who cling to the underdog tag: both are signs of low confidence and mental fragility.

Losing cultures exist and they start when the focus switches from simply going out there and winning to all sorts of **** that ultimately makes everything worse. Whether it be over analysing everything or chopping and changing the team every five seconds in a desperate hunt for instant success.

In a way it isn't surprising Crag McDermott is one of the most praised bowling coaches when his main line of advice was to remind the Australian bowlers to stop with the grandiose macho acts and pitch the damn ball up.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think the gains in morale from 3-1 would outweigh the added pain of 4-0. In a scenario where its a 50/50 call between the two, I'd gear myself for 3-1 every time.

Yeah for sure. Just saying people can't argue 3-1 is a morale boost but that 4-0 makes no difference, something I've heard in the past.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah unless it is a whitewash, the only thing teams really remember about the last series is who won/lost it. Can't imagine 3-1/4-0 having any change of effect.

 

[Maximas]

3-1 would have significance because it was the last test of the series, particularly with the return series starting so soon

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah unless it is a whitewash, the only thing teams really remember about the last series is who won/lost it. Can't imagine 3-1/4-0 having any change of effect.

Has the same effect you and your teammates had when you finally won a game after a long losing streak at whatever level you play. "Finally, we may not be having the best season but this match went well and it shows what we are doing to improve is starting to work."

 

[Son Of Coco]

I still think the idea of a 'losing culture' and 'learning how to win' is utter bull****.

I personally would much rather see Clarke go for a win, even if it is unlikely, and play enterprising, entertaining cricket than sit around for the final day and play out a boring draw that does absolutely nothing for either side - even if it ultimately results in a loss. Putting your side into a position where you can at least have a crack at victory isn't a bad thing for this Australian side to be doing, IMO.

Clarke thought he had the bowlers at his disposal to bowl a side out in a session, especially with the batsmen coming at them - they are good enough to do it. But England are, overall, far superior at playing cricket in England. They batted well. 5 an over on a day 5 pitch against good bowlers is no easy feat.

I don't think the English can claim to have been 'robbed' - without Clarke's generous declaration to make a game of it, there was no result possible going into Day 5 (Australia were 6/111 in 20 overs when going for it; even if they collapsed for that amount, it would have taken another ~10 overs in doing so). England was gifted a chance of a win that they otherwise never would have had. FJ calling it 'planned' is the most ridiculously stupid thing I've heard all week (and I have heard a lot of ridiculously stupid things this week). Yeah, England should have won the match - but it's far more akin to being handed a gift and then having it requested back than outright theft.

Nor can Australia complain about being put in a losing position; when a team is 3-0 down, losing one more game doesn't really matter in the purely cricketing scheme of things. Winning the last Test claws back some respectibility. The 0 in the scoreline means a lot more than the other number, so taking risks to turn it into a 1 isn't a bad thing IMO.

Had Day 4 not been lost to rain, this would have been an enthralling Test match and the English 'negativity' may well have been vindicated. But in the end, the conclusion to me was a microcosm of the series as a whole - England on top but with the gap far less than expected (even if the scoreline disagrees), and plagued by controversial umpiring.

Yeah I agree, I don't think the Australian players would've cared too much if it was 4-0, I'm assuming they're smart enough to realise losing today in the pursuit of a 3-1 result would've eventuated on the back of 2 declarations with the last engineered to make a game of it.

And Australia aren't losing because of a 'losing culture' or having to 'learn how to win', they're losing because England are better at the moment.

I find it hard to believe English fans would be pissed off with the days play when leaving The Oval today too...without Clarke's declaration they would've been sitting on their pasty, pie-laden arses watching us block out a draw. Instead, he was nice enough to give them the opportunity to get pissed off about something.

 

[NUFAN]

I hate that mindset. Losing a Test match should be a big deal. There shouldn't be anyone in the dressing room who wouldn't 'mind much' about a loss, just because they tried to manufacture a result. Our inability on the fifth day of Test matches is a big area that we need to improve in batting and bowling. England and South Africa are better Test Cricket teams than Australia because they understand the importance of drawing a Test match when being outplayed and realize that they have some great (if sometimes inconsistent) players who will produce moments of brilliance that will win them games and series.

Australia in my opinion played better than England did between test matches 3 and 5 (after England largely dominated the first Two, especially the match at Lord's). However, England finished those matches 1-0 ahead and almost 2-0.

Overall though I feel as though Oz are in a better place than what we were at the start of the series. Pending injury, there are 9 players who are booked in for the Gabba test and the good thing is England are pretty much in the exact same boat. Just trying to determine who the 3rd picked pace bowler is and the batsman at number 6.