Oh James!!

[sherb]

Scoreboard is 3/0. England have been flogged.

I agree with PhatBoy fwiw.

 

[beta_condition]

Here we are again.

Are you seriously so thick that you can’t accept that someone’s opinion, is their opinion, because it’s their opinion?

No. It’s got to be because of who they support.

Yes and your opinion is your opinion and your opinion reflects your opinion and we know your opinion on Australia, you special boy.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes and your opinion is your opinion and your opinion reflects your opinion and we know your opinion on Australia, you special boy.

Which has zero to do with this.

Special?

Im not the one who can’t fathom that someone’s thoughts on the game don’t stem directly from who they support.

 

[Yoda_]

"James Anderson says Australia’s pace attack hasn’t caused any issues"

Both teams always come out with some silly stuff in the press but I recon Anderson's gone next level!

No problems with the comment. In fact it is fairly accurate. The bowling from both sides, bar one spell from Anderson (under lights in Adelaide) has been fairly modest. The Australian quicks have merely been quicker and more intimidating not prolonged spells of probing swing/seam bowling.

 

[Yoda_]

Hangover Noir - told you the fast bowling had been poor. Even old mate Jimmy agrees. It has been shit shots rather than good fast bowling that has gotten wickets this series.

 

[Badesumofu]

Which has zero to do with this.

Special?

Im not the one who can’t fathom that someone’s thoughts on the game don’t stem directly from who they support.

That's pretty naive and kinda disingenuous. If I pop into one of the many Hawthorn/Geelong threads around the place and proclaim that Hawthorn dominated 2008 from round 1 and Geelong but that that view has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my being a Hawthorn supporter, you're rightly going to raise an eyebrow.

Claiming that your own biases simply don't come out in your own posting is, as I suggested above, both naive and also disingenuous.

Taking Perth as an example - it would be easy for someone with a bias to look at the score at the end of day 1 and conclude that England were ahead in the match at that point. Someone without a bias might look further and realise that given what each team was able to score in the first innings, that England score is nowhere near as good as it looks at first glace. Put it in the context of the match and the pitch it was made on, and it's actually pretty ordinary. Taking it further, someone with a different bias might do no more than look at the result or just the first innings scores and conclude that Australia totally dominated non-stop for the whole match.

That's how bias works. Better to acknowledge it and move on. Deny that it affects you and it will only affect you even more.

 

[PhatBoy]

That's pretty naive and kinda disingenuous. If I pop into one of the many Hawthorn/Geelong threads around the place and proclaim that Hawthorn dominated 2008 from round 1 and Geelong but that that view has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my being a Hawthorn supporter, you're rightly going to raise an eyebrow.

Claiming that your own biases simply don't come out in your own posting is, as I suggested above, both naive and also disingenuous.

Taking Perth as an example - it would be easy for someone with a bias to look at the score at the end of day 1 and conclude that England were ahead in the match at that point. Someone without a bias might look further and realise that given what each team was able to score in the first innings, that England score is nowhere near as good as it looks at first glace. Put it in the context of the match and the pitch it was made on, and it's actually pretty ordinary. Taking it further, someone with a different bias might do no more than look at the result or just the first innings scores and conclude that Australia totally dominated non-stop for the whole match.

That's how bias works. Better to acknowledge it and move on. Deny that it affects you and it will only affect you even more.

Why would I have to be bias to claim, rightly, that the three tests have been decided by Australia winning basically every key moment, rather than dominating from the outset?

I’m giving Australia a rap.

Learn how to f***ing accept a compliment you lot.

 

[Teagueeee15]

We’ve had 15 days of play in the series and England’s have outperformed Australia on 3 or 4 of those days at most.

 

[PhatBoy]

We’ve had 15 days of play in the series and England’s have outperformed Australia on 3 or 4 of those days at most.

I don’t remember anyone suggesting england have outperformed Australia on any days, let alone 3-4 of them.

For session after session they have, however, been relatively even.

 

[believe_it]

If it weren't for some of the Australian players in the Australian team , Australia wouldn't be doing so well

 

[Doss]

'Up to their ears' is a pretty big stretch to describe England's position in Perth at any stage that is meaningful. In a five day test, having a reasonable first day doesn't mean that much if you don't go on with it and England surrendered their advantage early on day 2, and that was more or less that.

403 was, in the end, a manifestly inadequate score on that pitch and Australia's reply demonstrated that. As soon as Marsh settled, England were basically ****ed.

 

[PhatBoy]

'Up to their ears' is a pretty big stretch to describe England's position in Perth at any stage that is meaningful. In a five day test, having a reasonable first day doesn't mean that much if you don't go on with it and England surrendered their advantage early on day 2, and that was more or less that.

403 was, in the end, a manifestly inadequate score on that pitch and Australia's reply demonstrated that. As soon as Marsh settled, England were basically ******.

They surrendered their advantage. That does not equate to being flogged. It equates to being brought back by the opposition. Prior to smith and marsh’s stand, the game was on level pegging, irrespective of whether England made as many as they should have or not.

 

[Doss]

Being beaten by an innings is absolutely a flogging.

 

[PhatBoy]

Being beaten by an innings is absolutely a flogging.

Being beaten by an innings doesn’t happen until the first innings is complete. For much of which, the contest was relatively even. It can’t be that hard.

Geelong were flogged in the QF by 10 goals but it doesn’t change the fact that for three quarters there was a kick in it, does it.

 

[Doss]

Okay then, if you want to play semantics. Australia passed their total four down. They got to 550 four down. They made one of their highest ever totals in Australia and led by 259 on the first innings, and in the end England didn't come particularly close to forcing them to bat again.

That was not some sudden coming to life of a game headed for a draw resulting in a result that didn't really reflect the evenness of the contest for the most part - like say Pakistan's innings defeat in the Boxing Day Test last year, where Australia cut loose in one session on Day 5 and then Pakistan couldn't withstand the momentum after basically holding their own for four days.

Perth was a gradual but pretty complete crushing of will and spirit. Australia batted for over two days without much of a care in the world.

If that isn't a flogging, I don't know what is.

 

[PhatBoy]

Okay then, if you want to play semantics. Australia passed their total four down. They got to 550 four down. They made one of their highest ever totals in Australia and led by 259 on the first innings, and in the end England didn't come particularly close to forcing them to bat again.

That was not some sudden coming to life of a game headed for a draw resulting in a result that didn't really reflect the evenness of the contest for the most part - like say Pakistan's innings defeat in the Boxing Day Test last year. It was a gradual but pretty complete crushing of will and spirit. Australia batted for over two days without much of a care in the world.

If that isn't a flogging, I don't know what is.

England made 400.

Australia were 4-what, 240 or something? That is a legitimate chance, mid-way through the test, to finish the first innings on level terms
.
No one is claiming that england have won a moral victory, no one is claiming that precious Australia haven’t been dominant, no one is trying to claim that there is somehow less merit in their results.

It is simple.

Each game has been competitive to a decisive point at worst, with Australia winning all the big moments convincingly, rather than winning all 3 games convincingly from the moment the coin hit the ground.

It’s not semantics. It is fact.

 

[Doss]

It's also a pointless mitigation in the grand scheme of things though

England knocked up almost 500 against India last year. Problem is, they conceded 760 and were then rolled and similarly lost by an innings. If Root and co are consoling themselves with the thought that a game like that and Perth means they're not far off winning those games on the pure strenght of putting together a decent first innings score, then they're very misguided.

It'd be a bit like Australia claiming they weren't far away from winning or even having a share of the 2013 series in England. I mean even at Lord's, where they ended up losing by 350 runs, they had England 28/3 at one stage. Do you claim Australia weren't flogged ultimately? I wouldn't have thought so. They could have won at Trent Bridge if not for a few runs here or there, or perhaps a different umpiring decision. They were well on their way to winning at Old Trafford before the rain interfered. Similar at Chester-le-Street before they collectively hallucinated before Broad. Rain at The Oval prevented them from pushing home their first innings advantage.

Ultimately if a side suffers catastrophic collapses or loses the big moments so comprehensively as England have in this series, or Australia did in 2013, then they can't really claim to have been anything other than well beaten. And in some cases, downright flogged.

 

[Cupid Stunt]

Shoulda woulda coulda but didn’t... and the didn’t at the end of the day is the most important thing.

Things could’ve been different if not for this or that, but this or that didn’t happen did it? So move on...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[PhatBoy]

It's also a pointless mitigation in the grand scheme of things though

England knocked up almost 500 against India last year. Problem is, they conceded 760 and were then rolled and similarly lost by an innings. If Root and co are consoling themselves with the thought that a game like that and Perth means they're not far off winning those games on the pure strenght of putting together a decent first innings score, then they're very misguided.

It'd be a bit like Australia claiming they weren't far away from winning or even having a share of the 2013 series in England. I mean even at Lord's, where they ended up losing by 350 runs, they had England 28/3 at one stage. Do you claim Australia weren't flogged ultimately? I wouldn't have thought so. They could have won at Trent Bridge if not for a few runs here or there, or perhaps a different umpiring decision. They were well on their way to winning at Old Trafford before the rain interfered. Similar at Chester-le-Street before they collectively hallucinated before Broad. Rain at The Oval prevented them from pushing home their first innings advantage.

Ultimately if a side suffers catastrophic collapses or loses the big moments so comprehensively as England have in this series, or Australia did in 2013, then they can't really claim to have been anything other than well beaten. And in some cases, downright flogged.

No one here has claimed that england haven’t, ultimately, been flogged. Your arguing a point that no one has made.

 

[Outshined]

There's really not much point trying to get a rise out of Australia when you're 3-0 down and you've already surrendered the Ashes.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

England bowlers play well in England and New Zealand but are pedestrian elsewhere.

 

[Hangover Noir]

Hangover Noir - told you the fast bowling had been poor. Even old mate Jimmy agrees. It has been shit shots rather than good fast bowling that has gotten wickets this series.

Is this in reply to my comment that Bancroft was picked after carrying his bat through a WA innings against NSW when the entire Aus Test bowling line up was bowling to him?

Congrats on having the memory of an elephant, but I think Jimmy was having a bit of a lend.

 

[Yoda_]

Is this in reply to my comment that Bancroft was picked after carrying his bat through a WA innings against NSW when the entire Aus Test bowling line up was bowling to him?

Congrats on having the memory of an elephant, but I think Jimmy was having a bit of a lend.

Would think that he knows/understands cricket more than joe blows like us

 

[frankrizzo]

England bowlers play well in England and New Zealand but are pedestrian elsewhere.

They couldn't even take 20 wickets in any of the 3 tests last time they played in nz.

In fact since the start of that series in nz just over 4 years back they have taken 20 wickets in a overseas test just 8 times out of 28.

 

[Yoda_]

The more you think about it, the more you have to agree with Jimmy Anderson on this one. Our big 3 (Starc, Cummins, Hazelwood) on there day are terrifying. We will never see it unfortunately. Once injuries strike (which they have), we have had to go to our next tier which looks ok on paper (Pattinson, NCN, Behrendorf, Bird) but as per the first group of guys, injuries have struck again. We take a look at the next wave of guys and they aren't giving the opposition much to quiver in there boots about (Sayers, Tremain, Boland, Bell, Rainbird).

Don't get me wrong, our depth is brilliant. Unfortunately our available depth is quite poor.

1. Starc
2. Cummins
3. Pattinson
4. Hazelwood
5. Nathan Coulter - Nile
6. Bird
7. Behrendorf
8. Sayers
9. Tremain
10. Boland