*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[MW1304]

Na 5 here, 5 there and Oval 2009, they won 4th test at Headingley in 09.

4 here, 5 there, Oval and first three Tests in 09.

 

[Uppercut]

The Cricinfo commentary is a ****ing mess right now, they are running a quiz thing that is not worth following at all, and instead of boldfacing the weather updates that occur in between the ridiculous competition, they boldface the questions, meaning I have to scan a whole damn page of trivia bull**** in order to get my crappy weather update.

I'm just watching Fulham-Arsenal and the pitch is completely flooded. There won't be any play today.

 

[Uppercut]

4 here, 5 there, Oval and first three Tests in 09.

Perth+Headingley

 

[flibbertyjibber]

4 here, 5 there, Oval and first three Tests in 09.

Well they won Perth and Headingley so that is 2 in 15 then if we say this is a draw.

 

[MW1304]

Perth+Headingley

What's Perth?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

What's Perth?

That place in Scotland that no matter where you are is always signposted.

 

[grecian]

This is good stuff on Sky

 

[GIMH]

Play will start at 5pm IMO. This one's done unless the Aussies can get us to FO.

 

[morgieb]

Ironically I reckon some English bats are arguably more suited to Australia than England. Particularly Cook.

But still, I think Australia will be close, if only because Australia will get conditions more suited to their style of play. 3-0 is still 3-0, but it hasn't accurately reflected the standards of each side IMO. We were robbed in Manchester by rain, went very close in the first test and threw away a strong position in the fourth test.

 

[MW1304]

Was persistently drizzling here since I said there had been no rain, but it's cleared up again despite the horrible grey skies.

 

[Captain_Cook]

Reckon it's at worst 50/50 in Oz as a number of the English batsmen have been exposed, they wont have the benefit of ordering conditions to suit next time and they have no quality at all in backup spin or batting

Don't think because England had dry pitches prepared means that those are the conditions they like to bat in. They whitewashed India on green-tops in 2011. The pitches were prepared to confer a spin bowling advantage as it was perceived Swann > Lyon which hasn't bee entirely correct.

I can't speak for Root but Cook would bat in Australia any day. If Cook was playing half his tests in Australia his record would be amazing.

 

[Spark]

I have deep scepticism that Cook scored millions of runs because it was Australia. May have been a minor factor, but the major reason he scored millions of runs was because we bowled absolute pies and he was in career-best form. Neither of those are likely this time around, let alone guaranteed, so to simply assume that he'll have a good return series is pretty silly. Indeed, he might (might) do worse - the pacier decks might simply mean he nicks off more often.

The point being that just as it's dangerous to assume that a player in great nick will suddenly "revert to mean" just because, it's equally dangerous to assume that a player in less than great nick will do the same unless something quite significant happens.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Don't think because England had dry pitches prepared means that those are the conditions they like to bat in. They whitewashed India on green-tops in 2011. The pitches were prepared to confer a spin bowling advantage as it was perceived Swann > Lyon which hasn't bee entirely correct.

I can't speak for Root but Cook would bat in Australia any day. If Cook was playing half his tests in Australia his record would be amazing.

Based on what? The fact we dished up a platter of pies to him last time? Hopefully we bowl better to him this summer. If we do and he still scores a ****load of runs then I'll go with what you said.

And I'm surprised to hear England didn't struggle with the might of the Indian pace attack on green tops whilst they skittled the Indian batsmen on their favourite type of wicket

 

[Furball]

lol really? you think Eng have been playing for anything other than a draw since the first ball they faced?

Look you clearly don't understand anything about cricket so after this post I'm done talking to you.

See when the start of day 3, and the opposition have put 500 on you, you need to get through days 3 and 4 and see where you're at before you can think about winning the Test. That means minimising risks and batting more defensively than normal on day 3.

Then when you throw in a pitch that is slow as ****, it makes timing your drives very difficult. Both Pietersen and Root have said it was impossible to time anything. This means it's difficult to put away the occasional 4 ball that's been bowled. This doesn't help the run rate either.

And I know you're sitting there going 'but Australia didn't bat as slowly.' This is because the pitch was quicker on day 1, because Kerrigan bowled pies to Watson on the first morning and because Australia threw the bat to set up the declaration. Rogers, Clarke and Smith up until his ton all batted very slowly.

 

[GIMH]

I have deep scepticism that Cook scored millions of runs because it was Australia. May have been a minor factor, but the major reason he scored millions of runs was because we bowled absolute pies and he was in career-best form. Neither of those are likely this time around, let alone guaranteed, so to simply assume that he'll have a good return series is pretty silly. Indeed, he might (might) do worse - the pacier decks might simply mean he nicks off more often.

The point being that just as it's dangerous to assume that a player in great nick will suddenly "revert to mean" just because, it's equally dangerous to assume that a player in less than great nick will do the same unless something quite significant happens.

He certainly wasn't in career best form when he landed.

The conventional decks in Oz suit him, but he did struggle there in 06-07.

 

[Uppercut]

Ironically I reckon some English bats are arguably more suited to Australia than England. Particularly Cook.

But still, I think Australia will be close, if only because Australia will get conditions more suited to their style of play. 3-0 is still 3-0, but it hasn't accurately reflected the standards of each side IMO. We were robbed in Manchester by rain, went very close in the first test and threw away a strong position in the fourth test.

I think it more or less has. It's been pretty close for most of the series but tests are regularly decided by which team has that one very good or very bad session. It's not exactly a fluke that only England's bowling has produced match-winning spells and only Australia's batting has produced match-losing spells.

You did have some bad luck with rain in Manchester, though. Hardly a guaranteed win but I guess you were still favourites to force a result here before the rain came too. Maybe 3-1 would have been a fairer reflection.

 

[Spark]

He certainly wasn't in career best form when he landed.

The conventional decks in Oz suit him, but he did struggle there in 06-07.

He was in career best form for every innings bar the first, which to a good approximation is the whole series. Certainly we basically bowled him into it, though... which is sort of the point. When you bowl that badly, it doesn't matter all that much what the pitches are like. And your second point is sort of what we're saying.

I mean, Cook is a bloody good player, but what we've done to him this time is not exactly rocket science, it's not some new and incredible plan that's come out of nowhere. People have been saying for an age that bowling to Cook is simply a matter of staying out of his scoring zones. If you can't blast him out early, starve him so by the time he does get out, as everyone does, he's not made all that many runs - and it just so happens that the area where he's most vulnerable is the area where he can't score. It's almost PEWS's point with Khawaja, just... to a much, much better batsman. The pitches being quicker and bouncier won't really change that.

 

[Spark]

I think it more or less has. It's been pretty close for most of the series but tests are regularly decided by which team has that one very good or very bad session. It's not exactly a fluke that only England's bowling has produced match-winning spells and only Australia's batting has produced match-losing spells.

You did have some bad luck with rain in Manchester, though. Hardly a guaranteed win but I guess you were still favourites to force a result here before the rain came too. Maybe 3-1 would have been a fairer reflection.

I think we would have won OT pretty comfortably given a full day's play, tbh. That pitch was starting to do some seriously odd things.

 

[Cabinet96]

There won't be any play today.

 

[Uppercut]

I think we would have won OT pretty comfortably given a full day's play, tbh. That pitch was starting to do some seriously odd things.

It looked tough for batsmen but that's partly because it was damp and overcast. You'd have been seriously lucky to get conditions like that for a full day in Manchester without losing any play. Who knows really, I'm just happy to shove it in the "maybe" pile.