Ashes - memories

[superkingdave]

What's so exciting about Australia steamrolling England series after series? It's dull, boring, and for someone who likes to watch competitive matches, dreadful. Besides, it still happens these days. Personally, I would prefer a series that keeps tilting the balance either way and goes down to the wire- hopefully that's how the forthcoming Ashes series will go.

Thing that was the point he was alluding to...

 

[honestbharani]

I think the 97 Ashes in England was by far the best in the last decade and a half, IMO. That first test, when England really outplayed Australia made me think that here is an England side who are gonna conquer Australia. But as usual, they flattered to deceive. But still 3-2 is a good scoreline, something I think Vaughan would actually settle for this Ashes.... I think it would be an achievement to win 2 tests in the same series against this Aussie side.

 

[vic_orthdox]

- Slater's maiden century
- "Spin twins" May and Warne in '93, when they still played heaps of tour games
- Warne's hat-trick @ MCG in 1994, mostly coz I was there
- Elliott's majestic 199
- Headley's spell in 1998 Boxing Day test
- Vaughan's heroics last Ashes
- SR Waugh's hundred in Sydney

 

[tooextracool]

To save a match that had 2-and-a-half days remaining?
There was no possibility whatsoever of that match ending in a draw.

it was however the first time in that series where we were actually on par with australia.

 

[tooextracool]

In terms of ODIs, the match from the 2003 WC really stands out. It was probably the best of the Bevan trademark chases, alongside the New Years Day one against the West Indies in '96, and one of the greatest ever all-round matches from Bichel, with his 7 wickets and vital runs.

It just had constant twists and turns, from when Knight and Trescothick got England off a great start and then Bichel tore them apart, only to have Flintoff and Stewart manage a competitive total. Then there was Caddick putting Australia well on the back foot before Lehmann and Bevan restored hope, then when the 8th wicket went down with 70 odd still needed, I remember thinking that even with what Bevan had done in similar situations in the past, it was surely over. Then all the way until Bichel smashed that 6 over midwicket in the 49th over it was still England's match. An incredible match, and yet another example of how it's rarely the highest scoring ODIs which are the best to watch.

unfortunately i did watch that game and really as much as i tried to tell myself that pakistan would beat zimbabwe and we'd still make it into the super six it just seemed as though we threw away everything, and as it turned out eventually, we did.

 

[tooextracool]

Had Michael Vaughan, Matthew Hoggard had held their catches, and hit the stumps, and Simon Jones had learnt to stand on the boundary rope and not walked in, then yes. England still should have batted, it is better to go out there and face the music early on and show the Aussies your not afraid of them, sending them in shows that you are scared of them.

so it would have been better then to face mcgrath and gillespie in what could have been seamer friendly conditions instead of bowling first in bowler friendly conditions and then batting in better conditions later on?

 

[Jamee999]

Which was the logical and sensible decision, given that Stephen Waugh would have done the exact same thing had he won the toss.

Yeah, he'd have put Australia in.

 

[Richard]

Butcher's innings that Pratyush recalled as a good memory.

Along comes Richard to make an irrelevant point about being dropped.

So being let-off at least 4 times is irrelevant now?
How on Earth anyone could possibly consider that innings remotely good is utterly beyond me.
I'm also a little baffled as to how it was a career-saving innings, because however poor he'd been there was no way he was going to get dropped.

 

[Richard]

[*]Trescothick's struggles. Dreadful.

Why? It was good to see a substandard batsman exposed as such.

[*]Hussain's double century (98?).[/list]

1997.

 

[Richard]

Had Michael Vaughan, Matthew Hoggard had held their catches, and hit the stumps, and Simon Jones had learnt to stand on the boundary rope and not walked in, then yes. England still should have batted, it is better to go out there and face the music early on and show the Aussies your not afraid of them, sending them in shows that you are scared of them.

And if we'd have batted I'd not bet against us being 200ao. That'd have put us back maybe even further (if that's possible).
It's no good being perceived as being positive if it blows-up in your face.

As for the Waugh comment, did he ever say he would have bowled first, because I'm struggling to remember him saying it (if he did). I did watch the toss and Waugh did say he wasn't surprised England would bowl first. I'm not like Corey who probably somehow has footage of the very first Test match back in 1877 hidden away somewhere in his house, so I stand to be corrected if Waug did, but IIRC he didn't?

From what I remember at the toss he said "yeah, I'd have bowled too" or something.
Maybe Corey does indeed remember?

 

[Richard]

it was however the first time in that series where we were actually on par with australia.

It was, and while the stroke was a shocker the actual going down the pitch wasn't really a bad idea because with another 50 runs added to the target that was we'd have been in the game in a big way given that we reduced them to effectively 89\4.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, he'd have put Australia in.

No, he'd have put us in.

 

[marc71178]

So being let-off at least 4 times is irrelevant now?

It is as to whether someone enjoyed it or not.

It's the second time you've waded in with this irrelevance on a thread - first time it ruined the thread to a degree...

 

[Richard]

It is as to whether someone enjoyed it or not.

True, but whether someone enjoyed it or not is not the only thing relevant to an innings.

It's the second time you've waded in with this irrelevance on a thread - first time it ruined the thread to a degree...

So that's why there were still so many other replies?
You're beginning to get a little obsessed with this idea of me ruining threads.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How on Earth anyone could possibly consider that innings remotely good is utterly beyond me.

Because he scored over one hundred runs?

 

[Richard]

While giving at least 5 chances.
To bat well you have to score runs WITHOUT GIVING LOTS OF CHANCES.

 

[C_C]

To save a match that had 2-and-a-half days remaining?There was no possibility whatsoever of that match ending in a draw.

Never say never.
Theoretically, nothing that doesnt contravene the laws of science is impossible- the statistical possibility might be extremely remote but it is possible nonetheless.

There comes to mind a game involving Pakistan and West indies where such a feat was accomplished.
After the morning session on the third day ( with 7 of the 15 sessions completed in the match), Pakistan were dismissed for 106, with the west indies having made a mammoth 579/9 in the first innings.
Pakistan were made to follow on with 8 sessions ( more than half the test) remaining and in response, Pakistan made a stunning 657/8 declared, riding on Hanif Mohammed's 337- the only triple ton, if i remember correctly, that was made in a team's second dig.

Never say never.

 

[Richard]

In all realistic possibility there was no chance of that match ending in a draw. Even if it had, there wasn't any use for England in the draw.
The only thing we could do was win, get it back to 2-1 and have a chance of regaining The Ashes from then on.
Trying to draw the match would have been a stupid idea.

 

[archie mac]

Have to omit I have not been following this thread, so sorry if this one has beem mentioned; the last day of the 4th Test 1982-83- the game could have been over in one ball, but about 10,000 sport mad Vics showed up.
Tavare should still be bying Miller a Xmas present every year for saving his bacon

 

[C_C]

In all realistic possibility there was no chance of that match ending in a draw. Even if it had, there wasn't any use for England in the draw.

Singing a different tune now, are we ?
Your claim :

There was no possibility whatsoever of that match ending in a draw.

Historical reality : Such a feat has already been accomplished, not to mention that there is a big difference between statistical longshot and factual impossibility.
As usual, when corrected, you display your penchant of wiggling.