Andy Flower

[Richard]

My list of Ashes disappointments...
Gillespie's decline: much as it helped us, it was still sad to see
The Lord's pitch: the worst batting pitch I've seen aside from Trent Bridge 2003 (I didn't see Sabina Park 1998), and really no way to start the series
McGrath stepping on the ball: again, helped us immensely, but I reckon we could have won the series without it. Will always give the Aussie moaners a "ah, but if..."
England's catching: really rather terrible, and I've never been a fan of dropped catches
Australia's catching: ditto
Ian Bell's poor form: got 2 half-centuries at Old Trafford, and needed let-offs for both; played some brainless strokes all series
Geraint Jones' terrible luck with RUDs: I don't think I've ever seen one batsman get so many good balls in a single series
Geraint Jones' wicketkeeping lapses: a real shame, as he'd been shaping-up well as a wicketkeeper earlier on in the summer
Hayden getting off the hook at The Oval: his weaknesses had been exposed all series, and they just couldn't quite finish the job
Strauss' struggles against Warne: got some spitting deliveries but played a few average strokes too; needs to learn if he wants success in Pakistan and India
Vaughan's terrible form: never looked like scoring runs all summer, and the only time he did he needed 2 let-offs in 2 balls. His form was fine last summer, and in the winter he got lots of good balls, but it's starting to worry me now
Katich's ill-fate: should have got two not-outs at Lord's, then missed-out for most of the rest of the series, and on the only other occasion he looked like getting away got a dreadful lbw decision
Clarke's good fortune: with more even luck he'd probably have averaged in the mid-to-low 20s
The fact that rain and bad light probably prevented us from having 5 Tests with results, even though I'm glad a draw sealed a won series, something I always like
The Umpiring: with Steve Bucknor and Brent Bowden involved it's a relief it wasn't even worse, but it still wasn't great and once more it gives the Aussies a "ah, but if..."
The fact that, quite possibly, the final Test was decided by a dropped catch: sure, Pietersen played well from 15 onwards, but he sure as wouldn't have had the chance had Warne taken that catch
Indeed, Pietersen's struggle with Brett Lee throughout the series: Vaughan had trouble against him early on, but apart from that Pietersen was the only one to get into problems against Lee; amazingly, for such a closed-face technique, he nicked off a lot
Dennis Lillee's idiotic comments: as if it really was pace that caused Australia problems; everyone can tell it was swing, not pace, that made the difference
Indeed, the stupidity of the stuff about Australian age all through: Gillespie is 30 and certainly not past it, just hopelessly out of touch; Gilchrist and Martyn just had laws-of-averages catch-up with them; Hayden was worked-out; Ponting isn't old either; and age hardly seemed to trouble McGrath and Langer; as for Kasprowicz, maybe his Test-match days are done - they were short-lived, eh?
But all in all, things could have been a lot, lot worse.

 

[andyc]

What are RUD's? And I don't think Jones got good balls more so than he just got out like everyone else.

 

[Dark Hunter]

Funny how this has gone from Gilly vs Flower to our disappointments with the ashes...
(I liked Flower better)

 

[Richard]

Welcome to CW.n!
IMO the most integral part of forums - evolution of discussion.

 

[Richard]

What are RUD's?

Stands for realistically unplayable delivery.

And I don't think Jones got good balls more so than he just got out like everyone else.

Hmm...
IMO out of his 9 dismissals he had no realistic chance with the deliveries he got at Lord's first-innings, Old Trafford and The Oval second-innings; and the balls he got at The Oval first-innings and Edgbaston second-innings were very good without being totally unplayable.
Sadly there were still 2 of his familiar stupid shots (Lord's second-innings and Trent Bridge second-innings) which doesn't help his cause.

 

[marc71178]

Some things don't change in 100 years.

Yes, and I bet if you're around 100 years from now you'll still claim to know more than others about things that it's impossible for you to know more about.

 

[marc71178]

And almost all will be taken by a semi-competant wicketkeeper, and probably about 1\3 of missed chances won't prove especially costly.

Missing 1 in 3 chances is going to be very costly to a side.

Not even Jones comes close to missing that many.

 

[marc71178]

McGrath stepping on the ball: again, helped us immensely, but I reckon we could have won the series without it.

Rubbish.

 

[Richard]

Of course missing 1 in 3 chances is going to prove exceptionally costly.
What I said actually had nothing to do with that - what I said is out of every 3 missed chances, probably about 1 won't prove costly.
If, instead of trying to find a fault in every single post of mine, you actually took a bit of time and didn't make hasty replies, you might notice.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish.

Really?
You seriously think McGrath could have made-up such a huge first-innings difference at Trent Bridge, and you think even he could have restricted runs on the first day at Edgbaston?

 

[marc71178]

If McGrath had been fit through the series, there is no way England would have got the runs on the board they did.

That in turn wouldn't have put the Australian side under the pressure they were.

 

[Richard]

Australia didn't need to be under pressure - and wouldn't have been anyway, most of their batsmen are sensible enough not to worry about facing a semi-big score - England's bowling was good enough to get them out regardless.

 

[nick-o]

Welcome to CW.n!
IMO the most integral part of forums - evolution of discussion.

Hard to agree with that, really. A list of Ashes moments belongs in an Ashes thread, where other people might look for it and comment in kind; it really doesn't belong here.

I suspect you antagonize quite a lot of people by your posting style; maybe this incessant attempt to move threads off-topic is one of the reasons.

In fact, on most other message boards I've known, it's called thread-jacking and the people that do it are known as trolls. This is about the only board I've visited where you wouldn't be described as a troll. I guess that says more about the manners of the other people here than it does about you.

 

[Langeveldt]

Who cares if Aussie's have What if's??

Practically all of England's bowling attack were unfit last Aussie tour!!

 

[Richard]

Hard to agree with that, really. A list of Ashes moments belongs in an Ashes thread, where other people might look for it and comment in kind; it really doesn't belong here.

I suspect you antagonize quite a lot of people by your posting style; maybe this incessant attempt to move threads off-topic is one of the reasons.

In fact, on most other message boards I've known, it's called thread-jacking and the people that do it are known as trolls. This is about the only board I've visited where you wouldn't be described as a troll. I guess that says more about the manners of the other people here than it does about you.

No, it possibly just says that this board is of a higher quality than most.
Expecting most threads to stay on the topic of the title is IMO highly stupid and will lead to immensely boring and one-dimensional conversation.
And for another thing it certainly isn't a deliberate attempt to move every single thread off it's title topic, it's just the most natural thing in The World - one person mentions one thing and I like to comment on it and I don't worry that it doesn't relate to a few words that started the thread.

 

[Richard]

Who cares if Aussie's have What if's??

Practically all of England's bowling attack were unfit last Aussie tour!!

But they don't acknowledge that - for many Australians if England have problems it's "stop making excuses" and if Australia have problems it's always "we'd have won but for..."

 

[aussie]

My list of Ashes disappointments...

Ian Bell's poor form: got 2 half-centuries at Old Trafford, and needed let-offs for both; played some brainless strokes all series

Clarke's good fortune: with more even luck he'd probably have averaged in the mid-to-low 20s
:

1. I dont Bell was in poor form at all he got some great deliveries & was able to cope with McGrath & Warne (especially)

2. Rubbish mayn, Good fortune ha, Clarke palyed heads of rash strokes after he got good starts England are the one's who are lucky that he could build on those starts or else we could have seen some big scored from Pup.

 

[nick-o]

No, it possibly just says that this board is of a higher quality than most.
Expecting most threads to stay on the topic of the title is IMO highly stupid and will lead to immensely boring and one-dimensional conversation.
And for another thing it certainly isn't a deliberate attempt to move every single thread off it's title topic, it's just the most natural thing in The World - one person mentions one thing and I like to comment on it and I don't worry that it doesn't relate to a few words that started the thread.

To summarize:

When someone posts a thread on a topic Richard doesn't find interesting, Richard starts talking about something different. Richard would be bored if people continued to discuss the original topic, so Richard ignores everyone else and makes sure Richard's opinions will become the subject of conversation. After all, why should Richard care what other people want to discuss -- every thread ought to be a discussion of Richard's opinions.

i.e., by definition, Richard is a troll.

Or did I miss something?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Gillespie's decline: much as it helped us, it was still sad to see.

Why? It has troubled me this "sympathy" for the Gypo. Did anyone see him feeling sorry for any batsman at any time during his career? "oh sorry old boy, I got you out and hey you're out of form old fruit, never mind old boy, what??" My ****. He was a miserable cnut all tour, bugger 'im the greasy gypo mongrel .

 

[honestbharani]

Jones this summer hasn't batted poorly - the number of RUDs he got in The Ashes was quite remarkable. I do worry a little about this winter though, because I haven't a clue how good Jones is at starting his innings against quality spin because we've never really seen him do it.
However, Jones' keeping in the Australia Tests this summer wasn't up to standard - rather than being excellent, very good or even good, it was, simply, poor, and you can't keep a wicketkeeper like that for ever. I do believe, though, that Jones has what it takes to improve, and if Jack Russell keeps working with him he's in good hands. There doesn't seem to be any falseness in Jack's enthusiasm about Jones' wicketkeeping prowess (and Jack's very much against "giving the gloves to batters" as he puts it, as is Bob Taylor) and if Jack thinks he can become a good wicketkeeper that's good enough for me. And Jack certainly had a point when he mentioned that Jones' wicketkeeping was near enough faultless in the Bangladesh games and the ODIs. What's, perhaps, a little worrying, though, is that he seems to have been fine for short periods in the field and less good when it gets a bit longer.
As for Pietersen at The Oval - wasn't a chance to Gilchrist, he had precisely zero chance of catching it. Only way it would've been catchable is if he'd missed it completely and it'd gone straight to Hayden.

FWIW, I thought Jones was amongst the better players of Warne in this Ashes.