• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

5th Test (The Oval) - 31st July to 4th August

centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
ma1978 said:
they’ve been incredible in Pak and NZ. English batting has been a pleasure to watch the past few years
Click to expand...
It was about 4th inns run-chases. No successful chases outside England so far, and not even any unsuccessful chases where they have performed over-par. Their over-par 4th inns performances have been exclusively in England.

And in reference to your point, last year they did lose 2-1 to Pakistan. Large majority of their success has been on roads.
 
Last edited:
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
One of the better series ever played and I enjoyed following it on cricinfo and CW, even though I couldn't see a ball of it. I think the pitches played a part in making the series so exciting and despite criticism the pitches were roads, they still produced results. Besides I thought the London pitches were helpful to bowlers. The contrast with the WI - Aus pitches was quite noticeable. You don't need a minefield to produce results and the best games (from my pov) are ones that have runs, wickets and result deep into the final day.

Despite all the runs I think the outstanding performances were from Akash Deep and Siraj. They seemed to become better bowlers removed from Bumrah's shadow. Despite Bumrah's absence from 2 games I thought England were undermanned in bowling throughout the series, missing Wood throughout, Stokes once and only occasionally having the likes of Archer and Atkinson. Keeping those disadvantages in mind I thought England did well to draw the series.
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Wood may not be the same bowler whenever he returns. He hasn't played a test in 15 months and he is approaching 36. It's like India who kept missing a phantom Shami in Australia.
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gob said:
I won't say England had the clear upper hand in any game except the 4th test in 23. Aust got themselves in to some great positions both at Headingley and Oval but ultimately pissed them away

Also what is with the declaration? They were 9 down ffs. Its not like they were going to add another 50
Click to expand...
The Oval was close but I'm not sure Australia were ever really in a truly dominant position there in contrast to Headingley (which really was thrown away from no good reason). England generally felt narrowly ahead for most of the game.

I think the first and the third Tests were very close games that one side kind of threw away, the fifth was close with one side having a slight (but noticeable) advantage, the second was relatively comfortable for Australia but got very close due to some Stokes magic, and the fourth was the one match that was genuinely one-sided - but turned out to be a draw!
 
A

Arachnödouche2.0

State Vice-Captain
the big bambino said:
One of the better series ever played and I enjoyed following it on cricinfo and CW, even though I couldn't see a ball of it. I think the pitches played a part in making the series so exciting and despite criticism the pitches were roads, they still produced results. Besides I thought the London pitches were helpful to bowlers. The contrast with the WI - Aus pitches was quite noticeable. You don't need a minefield to produce results and the best games (from my pov) are ones that have runs, wickets and result deep into the final day.

Despite all the runs I think the outstanding performances were from Akash Deep and Siraj. They seemed to become better bowlers removed from Bumrah's shadow. Despite Bumrah's absence from 2 games I thought England were undermanned in bowling throughout the series, missing Wood throughout, Stokes once and only occasionally having the likes of Archer and Atkinson. Keeping those disadvantages in mind I thought England did well to draw the series.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was a bit harsh on Akash in the immediate aftermath of this Test but on reflection, he played matchwinning roles in the two games that India won. Can't ask more than that from a guy who's 10 Test matches into his career.
 
LangleyburyCCPlayer

LangleyburyCCPlayer

International Debutant
centurymaker said:
Wood may not be the same bowler whenever he returns. He hasn't played a test in 15 months and he is approaching 36. It's like India who kept missing a phantom Shami in Australia.
Click to expand...
He’s aiming to play in the white ball series against South Africa…ODIs have never really been his strong suit so it might be hard to tell if he’s ready for Tests again!
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
the big bambino said:
One of the better series ever played and I enjoyed following it on cricinfo and CW, even though I couldn't see a ball of it. I think the pitches played a part in making the series so exciting and despite criticism the pitches were roads, they still produced results. Besides I thought the London pitches were helpful to bowlers. The contrast with the WI - Aus pitches was quite noticeable. You don't need a minefield to produce results and the best games (from my pov) are ones that have runs, wickets and result deep into the final day.
Click to expand...
It's almost like you need balanced wickets for good games rather than 200 all-out each innings.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
the big bambino said:
One of the better series ever played and I enjoyed following it on cricinfo and CW, even though I couldn't see a ball of it. I think the pitches played a part in making the series so exciting and despite criticism the pitches were roads, they still produced results. Besides I thought the London pitches were helpful to bowlers. The contrast with the WI - Aus pitches was quite noticeable. You don't need a minefield to produce results and the best games (from my pov) are ones that have runs, wickets and result deep into the final day.

Despite all the runs I think the outstanding performances were from Akash Deep and Siraj. They seemed to become better bowlers removed from Bumrah's shadow. Despite Bumrah's absence from 2 games I thought England were undermanned in bowling throughout the series, missing Wood throughout, Stokes once and only occasionally having the likes of Archer and Atkinson. Keeping those disadvantages in mind I thought England did well to draw the series.
Click to expand...
I thought the pitches for the first 4 tests produced some stodgy cricket but the Oval pitch was excellent. Didn’t make the toss too much of an advantage and rewarded good fast bowling and aggressive stroke play.

Gotta hand it to whoever curated it, he’s definitely much better at his job than Gambhir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top