Spineless pathetic bastards...

[Adders]

I don't know how I can say this any clearer again to what I said to you a few months ago.

The Aussies bowlers in England were outstanding, back here they have been even better. Now your bats have come to the party England are being outplayed by a far superior side. This does not mean that England are not playing at their ceiling or producing their best cricket.

I don;t know how I can possibly pay more credit to the Aussies...........but I'm still pissed that we are not hitting out straps.

That's my last comment on the debate.........may as well discuss this with my cat for all the sense I'll get out of you.

 

[Spark]

I don't know much about this gear thing but England have been ****, which was the gist of his post. He later agreed they have been **** because Australia have played well, so what's the issue?

The gist of this whole 3rd gear argument is that if England just tried a little harder/had a little luck/got themselves into nick they'd be all over us, which has been completely untrue... well, since Lord's at a minimum.

 

[Adders]

The gist of this whole 3rd gear argument is that if England just tried a little harder/had a little luck/got themselves into nick they'd be all over us, which has been completely untrue... well, since Lord's at a minimum.

No No No............no one has said that.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't know much about this gear thing but England have been ****, which was the gist of his post. He later agreed they have been **** because Australia have played well, so what's the issue?

He said England were barely in first gear and thought they just had to turn up to win. Which, yet again, completely misses the point of why they're in the position they're in. It's because Australia have bowled extremely well to them and actually scored runs, partly through coming up with a plan to combat the bowling too (and getting a lot of runs out of their last 5). England have played how they have played because that's how Australia have let them play. In short, they don't have any gears in this situation. They're a fixie.

 

[GIMH]

It's not a simple case of 'Australia have made England play this poorly'. Come on now.

I don't think anyone would be uptight about any suggestion that Australia have played some fine cricket. But we have had chances to compete in each game and not taken any of them. That's not purely down to the way Australia have fought back but also indicative of how we have performed as a whole.

At the end of the day, when the England team look back on the series, they'll ask what they could have done differently. The answer isn't going to be, well, nothing, Australia were just magnificent.

 

[Spark]

But the thing is, this England team has had one gameplan for four years. They have not deviated once from that gameplan, and they've resisted all attempts to deviate from that gameplan - pressure with Anderson and Swann, use Broad as the more aggressive quick and Bresnan as the keep-it-tight third seamer, and grind with the batting. It's not really a question of them having suddenly changed their ways because they've shown no sign of wanting to change their ways, at all.

That's fine when you meet teams without the firepower to exploit the weaknesses in that gameplan - and every gameplan has weaknesses - but this is the best attack Australia have fielded since 2006, and doesn't suffer a huge amount in the raw quality of bowling by comparison (though obviously not in longevity).

 

[Son Of Coco]

So what's changed since July/August? England seized the key moments in the Ashes over your summer, and won the series. And a lot of people were suggesting that was indicative of the large gap between the two teams, despite indications that wasn't the case. England have been pretty negative in the face of some opportunities to put the foot on the throat - yesterday morning was an example of that, but what could the players as individuals do better? Score more runs and take more wickets? Yes, but they're not in complete control of either of these factors.

What I find funny is that in 2010/11 when we were complaining about how poorly our bowlers had bowled we were told it wasn't giving enough credit to how well England had played. Now however, we have to give a bloke who is yet to prove he knows anything about cricket the opportunity to babble on about gears and how badly England have played, when we told him after the first series that certain players would continue to be 'out of form' as long as Australia carried out their plans effectively. Which they have. It's not all down to Australia playing well, no, England have bowled poorly at times and the way some of them have managed to get out has been pretty bad.

The suggestion they could simply step it up a bit and all would be ok is a fallacy too though. If you look at KP, for example, Australia are clearly feasting on the fact he has an ego and doesn't like to be kept quiet, and Siddle is doing a fantastic job of keeping pressure on him. Bell was pretty much the only bloke who batted well for England in England, and without him doing so here they're ****ed. Australia have the same bowling plans they did then, with a few refinements for certain players, and a tweak to take care of the tail. Field positions are also very good. No matter what England do, if Australia keep this level of pressure on the batsmen it's going to be very hard for them to adjust their techniques to adapt in the space of a series.

 

[Spark]

It's also the fact that the pitches are bouncier (I doubt anyone would describe Adelaide as quicker than anything save for continental drift), which makes grinding/survival that much more difficult.

 

[Captain_Cook]

Now however, we have to give a bloke who is yet to prove he knows anything about cricket the opportunity to babble on about gears and how badly England have played, when we told him after the first series that certain players would continue to be 'out of form' as long as Australia carried out their plans effectively.

I know we have already clashed on this before, but I still can't wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that the plans put in place for Cook et al will prevent them from ever getting a big score against the Harris/Siddle/Johnson attack.

Cook has not made a 150+ score for nearly 12 months (his closest being 130 in March) and from the way he's batting its clear that he's having other problems compounding the plans Australia have set. Cook would have probably got a 100 in the first innings because the plans were not working (due to good fortune albeit) and it took a Lyon half-tracker that bounced a bit to surprise him.

I may have an incentive to take credit away from the Australian bowling but to suggest Cook is in "standard nick" and is neutered by the bowling is too generous to Australia. I'm not prepared to jump to that conclusion unless Cook averages <30 with no centuries in the 2015 Ashes, then I would be more inclined to believe this line of thinking.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

CC a hint for you. When in a hole stop digging.

 

[Captain_Cook]

CC a hint for you. When in a hole stop digging.

Fuel to the fire or do you agree with CoCo. If you do then I'm more out of touch that I thought!

 

[Daemon]

The gist of this whole 3rd gear argument is that if England just tried a little harder/had a little luck/got themselves into nick they'd be all over us, which has been completely untrue... well, since Lord's at a minimum.

No No No............no one has said that.

He said England were barely in first gear and thought they just had to turn up to win. Which, yet again, completely misses the point of why they're in the position they're in. It's because Australia have bowled extremely well to them and actually scored runs, partly through coming up with a plan to combat the bowling too (and getting a lot of runs out of their last 5). England have played how they have played because that's how Australia have let them play. In short, they don't have any gears in this situation. They're a fixie.

So which one is it ****s

Going to go ahead and assume Spark is right because he's a Raven, in which case, please continue your lolling at CC.

However I do think it's not as clear cut as Australia making plans for each of England's players and making them play poorly, though majority of England's performances can be explained away using that logic. For example I'm sure most of the Australian batsmen have their flaws but England just haven't been able to exploit them, which does suggest they haven't been at their best.

The notion that a bit of form would help them overturn their fortunes is a bit daft though.

 

[Spark]

Yeah this is mainly talking about the batsmen. Clearly the bowlers - well, Anderson primarily - haven't been at their best

EDIT: I mean, in the end this whole "gears" analogy only makes sense if you can shift gears (and do it without enormous effort) - and with that sort of logic applied, when you're winning it comes off as hubristic and when you're losing it's just patent nonsense.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Clearly the bowlers - well, Anderson primarily - haven't been at their best

Anderson has looked a busted flush since Trent Bridge. Cook bowled him into the ground there and is paying for it now.

 

[Spark]

So basically this is Steve Finn's fault.

 

[GIMH]

So basically this is Steve Finn's fault.

I knew it!

 

[Son Of Coco]

I thought it was funny how Broad looked like he had a slight limp on the way to the nets, and then was limping heavily back from them. Who was at the nets at the same time? Steven ****ing Finn.

 

[uvelocity]

its always a bit of both, and circular logic to say otherwise, but some ****s speak from their arse and deserve their comeuppance, which this clearly is.

 

[GIMH]

its always a bit of both, and circular logic to say otherwise, but some ****s speak from their arse and deserve their comeuppance, which this clearly is.

This. This. This.

 

[hendrix]

Well done lads, well fought, after that opening partnership we only lost the 10 wickets for 170 odd.

To think how much i was looking forward to these 10 matches, apart the first 2 its been appalling stuff from England ever since bar 1 inspired Broad spell in Durham.

Remember all the kerfuffle over the '3rd gear' comments during the 1st series? still stand by that, this is barely 1st gear, we needed 4th/5th gear to win this series, we were never going to win it playing at the same level we did in our summer, i reckon a fair few of the players thought all they had to do was turn up and they would win, at least subconciously.

Nothing to do with how Australia have played to this point. Have a spell.

England also failed to score 400 over the home and away series against NZ.

It's not that they're not getting out of first gear. They're just not that good. Against good bowling attacks they're as ordinary a team as anyone else. Australia has a very good bowling attack and they've crumbled because they're simply not good enough anymore.