2019 4th Ashes Test 2019 Old Trafford

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
May 1, 2016
7,892
14,988
AFL Club
Carlton
I think Lyon can be consider an upgrade evident by his bowling on the 4/5th day of the 1st Test, also got the very important wicket of Denly in the 4th Test while clearly bowling with an injured spinning finger (he has failed to perform on the 2nd innings in the past), Hazelwood is a way better bowling this time around and we Cummins this time, even if Harris was fit and able to play that 2015 series and did well, I would still consider Cummins would be an upgrade.
Lyon over the past year and a bit is an upgrade on Lyon in 2015. Lyon in this series was only better for a single test (Edgebaston) and for the rest bowled poorly; not badly enough to get hacked, but still poorly. At the time, Hazelwood was considered to be in the top 5 quicks in the world and had the record to be considered the best; Cummins might be a better bowler now, but Hazelwood was pretty bloody good early in his career. Every other batting position and bowler is either immediately better or on a par.
 

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
51,199
53,489
AFL Club
West Coast
We really dominated most of the 3rd test without Smith, extremely unlucky not to win and had multiple easy chances to secure a comfortable win. So that kind of ruins your point.
Yeah in the one test Smith didn't play we really should have won. Took a superhuman innings from Stokes and some of the most inept bowling, fielding and umpiring you will see for a one wicket victory.

A good way of judging the evenness of a series is to try and build an XI of the best performed players.

1 Burns - the only opener to make runs despite looking like a walking wicket all of the time
2 ___________
3 Labuschagne - outstanding
4 Smith - outstanding
5 Stokes - outstanding
6 ___________
7 Paine - neither keeper has done much with the bat, Paine good with the gloves and captaining his side
8 Cummins - outstanding
9 Hazlewood/Archer - both very good, one unlucky to miss out, Archer a bit of a one trick pony so far
10 Broad - outstanding
11 Lyon - Lyon 16 wickets to Leach 8 but Leach better figures across his 5 innings. Lyon asked to do a lot more work.

Those are the best performed players. It's been a bowlers series and no one really deserves to be at #2. I'll probably give it to Denly who was moved up to open and made a 50. #6 could be Root or Head or Wade, Wade the only one to make a 100 in the series.

Really we are on top on the series because we have Cummins and Hazlewood with 42 wickets between them averaging high teens and striking low 40s. And either Smith or Labuschagne has been able to hang around long enough to score a 50 or 100. Or in Smith's case an 80, a 90, two 140s and a 200.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
51,199
53,489
AFL Club
West Coast
England would love to have cook around tbh rn.
He isn't even 35 yet but did play 161 tests which would have taken its toll. Ponting played on until he was 37 and his record under Clarke was comparable to Cook under Root. Cook only managed 516 runs @ 28.7 in 18 innings in 2018 so I guess thought his form wouldn't hold or didn't want to tarnish his legacy. Even if he was only averaging 28 he'd probably still make a best XI in this series.
 

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2005
28,113
20,168
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Has his keeping been very good? The third test Warner had to take 2 catches diving to his left the were easily keepers catches and then again this test can't remember who but edged a Cummins drive between keeper and slip and Paine no movement again

If I'm wrong I'm happy to be corrected but the point of having first slip deep is so that the keeper can dive across to him to take a catch. The slip shouldn't be diving back towards the keeper.

He certainly isn't a bad keeper and the catch of Stokes inside edge was very nice footwork but I feel his age definently holds his athleticism back
Paine's keeping has been extremely poor all series and previous keepers would have been hung drawn and quartered for similar wicket keeping displays.
 

CrowBloke

Norm Smith Medallist
May 14, 2017
5,324
4,811
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide/ Team BARTY!
Weirdly Lyon tends to bowl better on pitches that bounce rather than turn
The cod that got Denly bounced out of a footmark well outside off stump. Probably hit a ridge, or side of the footmark.
Ditto, Lab's ball to Leach which hit the footmark and fizzed, jumping across him.

That wicket was perfect for Lyon on Day 5 with:
--- plenty of turn
--- variable bounce (eg the ball that got Archer lbw kept way low).
Lyon bowled the wrong line, and I was amazed that someone didn't tell him (eg Paine/Smith onfield, Ponting/Langer off-field).
 

woota

Club Legend
Jun 27, 2015
1,287
953
AFL Club
West Coast
We really dominated most of the 3rd test without Smith, extremely unlucky not to win and had multiple easy chances to secure a comfortable win. So that kind of ruins your point.
It strengthens my point. If Smith had played then the game wouldn't have gone down to the wire like it did, and Australia would have won instead of "being unlucky not to win". Given how close Australia came to winning in Smith's absence, it stands to reason that if he had been playing, then in all likelihood, Australia would have won easily.

But according to some, the most logical conclusion to come to is that a guy averaging 134 would make a pair if he played.
 

woota

Club Legend
Jun 27, 2015
1,287
953
AFL Club
West Coast
Dumb argument.
We DO have Smith...
If they didn't have Stokes we'd be 3-0 up right now, even accounting for Smiths concussion.
If Chicago didn't have Jordan they wouldn't have won 5 Championships.
But... they did...
We had Smith in the game's that we won.

We didn't have Smith in the game that we lost.
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
16,910
19,864
AFL Club
Collingwood
It strengthens my point. If Smith had played then the game wouldn't have gone down to the wire like it did, and Australia would have won instead of "being unlucky not to win". Given how close Australia came to winning in Smith's absence, it stands to reason that if he had been playing, then in all likelihood, Australia would have won easily.

But according to some, the most logical conclusion to come to is that a guy averaging 134 would make a pair if he played.
Err.. what? You said we NEED Smith to actually win a game of cricket, and I pointed out that's wrong because we clearly can win without Smith, as shown by us dominating the 3rd test. We clearly can win without Smith.
 

CrowBloke

Norm Smith Medallist
May 14, 2017
5,324
4,811
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide/ Team BARTY!
1) We are dependent on ONE batsman to win games of cricket, and that's not a good place to be in [ 2) we lost 3rd test because smith didn't play].
1) true; everyone is in agreement about Smith being THE difference,
however
2) Third Test was a cliffhanger without Smith. We rolled them for 67 in the first dig and had a good lead. Then we had three very strong chances to close it out but fluffed them all.
--- Harris dropped catch/ run-out throw to wrong end, take your pick (I'm counting that as ONE chance)
--- wasted referral which cost us Stokes plumb lbw, given not out, no referral left
--- Lyon snatching at the ball when he had plenty of time for the Leach run-out.
Take any one of those chances and we win the 3rd Test, without Smith. I get your point, though. Maybe (probably) we'd have had more runs if Smith had batted?
 

woota

Club Legend
Jun 27, 2015
1,287
953
AFL Club
West Coast
Err.. what? You said we NEED Smith to actually win a game of cricket, and I pointed out that's wrong because we clearly can win without Smith, as shown by us dominating the 3rd test. We clearly can win without Smith.
If Smith played then Australia would be 3-0. Without Smith, Australia cannot win.
 

woota

Club Legend
Jun 27, 2015
1,287
953
AFL Club
West Coast
1) true; everyone is in agreement about Smith being THE difference,
however
2) Third Test was a cliffhanger without Smith. We rolled them for 67 in the first dig and had a good lead. Then we had three very strong chances to close it out but fluffed them all.
--- Harris dropped catch/ run-out throw to wrong end, take your pick (I'm counting that as ONE chance)
--- wasted referral which cost us Stokes plumb lbw, given not out, no referral left
--- Lyon snatching at the ball when he had plenty of time for the Leach run-out.
Take any one of those chances and we win the 3rd Test, without Smith. I get your point, though. Maybe (probably) we'd have had more runs if Smith had batted?
Really? I seem to be the only person arguing that. All I'm hearing is that if Smith played in the third test then he would have made a pair and Australia would still have lost.


I get your point, though. Maybe (probably) we'd have had more runs if Smith had batted?
Yes, the guy averaging 134 for the series would have likely effected the outcome of the match in Australia's favor. Shocking I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom