Should Australia be kicked out of the game?

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Welcome to the board Glyndon.

Nice to see an Aussie with a balanced point of view, yes I agree it will be competative, but it will be just an aniclimax,if it is another Australia dominent series.

When i first joined this forum, i had a balanced point of view too. Don't make waves too early. Reading a few posts regarding the Aussies in the Engish forum soon knocked that out of me.

[Glyndon]

I like to believe that I have a balanced point of view on most things, even Aussie Rules football. Whilst I want the Aussies to win and retain the Ashes, no doubt about that, I can just see both sides. I am also a believer in the fact that no one's opinions are wrong, they are just that, opinions, and healthy, spirited discussion will eveolve from that.

[Andy Mellon]

In my opinion, the key thing that both sides need from this years Ashes series is a competition. In fact, the Aussies need this more than the English. There's been a certain amount said in the press in the UK that enthusiasm for cricket amongst Australians is on the wane because the national side hasn't had a close series in quite a while. Couple this with recent uneven series where anyone has played Zimbabwe, or the recent Australia vs Pakistan series and international cricket as a whole needs this to be a close competition.

The only series in the past couple of years which has still had life in it right down to the last day has been the recent South Africa vs England series. If this ashes series can be as close as that one then it will be good for cricket as a whole. I'm also expecting quite a lot from the upcoming India vs Pakistan series as both these sides have something of a point to prove at the moment.

I'm afraid to say I don't have the belief that Ernest has that England will win. However, I'd be fairly happy if England don't capitulate and roll over on the floor dying as they have in recent Ashes series. If the series is still alive going into the last test, then I'd have to be fairly happy.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

In my opinion, the key thing that both sides need from this years Ashes series is a competition.

Hmmm.. I don't want to see competition to see which team can do the most to lose a series.. as we saw in South Africa... I'd rather see a ritual humiliation than that. Quality of cricket is surely paramount: I'm sick and tired of watching tests blighted by soft centuries (fed by over and over of dross) and unprovoked collapses (usually off the same dross).

It would be quite something to get a series in which the ball was in the ascendency rather more than the bat: that would be cool. That, to me, is what world cricket has been missing rather more than "competition": too many games, worldwide, have been looking more like baseball contests than cricket matches.. and if you leave out Sri Lanka's home games (which have been exemplary at times with the likes of Zoysa and Murali getting conditions that make them almost unplayable) you'd be hard pressed to think of a single series whach has NOT been a batsman's series.

The English experience is typical: aside from one morning on the second day of the first TEst in the West Indies (where Edwards and Best genuinely WERE in the ascendency.. virtually every other English hole has been dug by England rather than ug FOR England.

I'd like to see England bowling as well as they did at their best in the West Indies.. and NOT taking wickets. SAme from the other side: McGrath and Warne beating the bat at will and England stil emerging intact from those sessions.

Give me that and I will not realy care who wins :-)

[Milo]

The ball was well and truly in the ascensency in many of the sessions in the South Africa series. Trescothick, Vaughan, Butcher, Thorpe, Key, Flintoff, Gibbs, Rudolph, Diepenaar, Amla, Smith all struggled on a number of occasions. Even Strauss finished the series with two ducks.

[Rachael]

All sorts of people struggled.. including Harmison, Flintoff, Hoggard, Anderson, Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Steyn and just about everyone else who bowled - the obvious exception being (briefly) Langveldt (let's hope HE gets the chance to shine now). Kallis did struggle for one over from Harmison at the start of one morning session.. but that's about it. Strauss made such stately progress in most of his innings that it could have been parks cricket. When he finally remembered how to bat, Tresco also looked untroubled.. as (eventualy) did Vaughan.

The talk after the first test was all of the lousy preparation that EACH side had endured. The Zimbabwe fiasco had deprived the key English guys of preparation time and the South African overseas tours and selectorial / management fiascos had left many wondering if they might just beat themselves.

Under-cooked players and second-raters like Amla and De Brujn struggled.. yes.. but I don't know that their struggles had much to do with the quality of the bowling.. and the fact that neither side proved particularly adept at knocking over tails (understatement) suggests the opposite - my hope for the summer is that any such player gets what's coming to them and sharpish.. and that the guys in form and playing well (as KAllis and STrauss were) are scratching.

That's my idea of ball in the ascendency: cricket as found, commonly, when the WI were in their prime, Donald tormented and had backup from Pollock and co, Wasim and Waqar tormented all comers and a young and stunning Shane Warne just confused the hell out of everyone :-)

Did lead to a few 3-4 day tests though...

[Milo]

We'll have to disagree there Rach. The reason why the series was a good one from my perspective was that there was an even battle between bat and ball. The players in form, Strauss and Kallis found that runs could be got, however the others (who were out of form) struggled. They didn't look at ease at the crease and generally lost their wickets instead of posting any sort of consistency. You talk about Trescothick, but he got two first ballers and scored the majority of his series runs in two innings. Vaughan struggled throughout the entire series, his major knock was an appaling piece of batting but very much the attritional struggle which you appear to admire. Thorpe struggled as well, limited to scoring at one and a half an over most of the time. Pollock, Hoggard, Ntini and Flintoff all got 20 odd wickets and picked them up with a degree of constency.

If you think the bat was on top, then you are well and truly mistaken.

And as for the record, Test history is littered with occasions of when Akram and Waqar failed to bowl the opposition out for anything less than England and South Africa did in that series.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Milo

The players in form, Strauss and Kallis found that runs could be got, however the others (who were out of form) struggled. They didn't look at ease at the crease and generally lost their wickets instead of posting any sort of consistency.

I take you'd agree that SA fielded several players who just weren't good enough for Test cricket, though (that dodgy middle order).. and that several English players were looking so out of touch that they would have been strugglign whoever had bowled - I've actually a lot of time for the way Tresco found his feet after looking so out of sorts.. and for the way Vaughan battled through without, seemingly, ever finding any fluency or rhythm... but let's face it.. it wasn't in the face of great bowling.

What gutted me was the entire day in which the Sa side did little more than toss down net-session practice balls. I've lost track: was it the second Test? Pollock was so poor the commentators wondered if it was the worst he'd ever performed in his life: he was short and wide for ball after ball... and hardly ever made the batsmen play.. and was followed in that lead by all the others.

I think England lost one wicket all day: they batted well.. but it's not like they rode their luck or anything - they were just never troubled.

Add in Harmison being woeful.. that quite embarrasing performance from Anderson... Hoggard being the pick of the bowlers with what he quite readily admitted was the worst bowling display he'd put in for more than 12 months.. and Flintoff struggling to find his length and spraying too many balls wide or down the leg side... and it can hardly go down as a good series for the bowlers.

Originally Posted by Milo

And as for the record, Test history is littered with occasions of when Akram and Waqar failed to bowl the opposition out for anything less than England and South Africa did in that series.

Quite agree. Then there was the perennial question mark with them of "ball tampering" (which all too often set a poor tone). That's before one gets to the "cheating" of the West Indian pace quartets whose slow over rate (and tendency to resort to a tiresome tirade of short balls to kill the game when they were not getting their own way) threatened to bring the game into disrepute - all was not glorious!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Seamer

When i first joined this forum, i had a balanced point of view too. Don't make waves too early. Reading a few posts regarding the Aussies in the Engish forum soon knocked that out of me.

No we are just talking England up on the England forum, that's not a problem is it , we even let Beny get away with murder,no problems with your posts.

Originally Posted by Glyndon 40427

I can just see both sides. I am also a believer in the fact that no one's opinions are wrong, they are just that, opinions, and healthy, spirited discussion will eveolve from that.

This is true, but I think you Australians can look in a more even way, because you have been on top for so long.
A lot of people read our posts, guests who never register, just come on for a read, so from an England perspective, I think we have to look at all our possitive assets, and generate self belief.
I think England can win, but like I say, the players have to believe they can, the match threads will be discussed this time round on a neutral forum, so we will all be together, that should be good.
Anyone who thinks Australia should not play in Tests, the subject of this thread, are just quitters I reckon, I want England to play against the best.

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon 40428

In my opinion, the key thing that both sides need from this years Ashes series is a competition.

To right Andy, the last thing we want is capitulation, even in the unlikely event from the Australian team.

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

I'm afraid to say I don't have the belief that Ernest has that England will win. If the series is still alive going into the last test, then I'd have to be fairly happy.

Not many do, but that is because of years of failing, and bad selections, I believe this time we can win, we have match winners, I get behind my team.
I would not be happy going into the last Test even, because it will be at the Oval, and I think Australia are certain to win that.
The battleground will be at Lords{slight advantage to Australia).
Old Trafford and the Midlands, I think England have the best chance of winning.

[Chuck Palumbo]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I would not be happy going into the last Test even, because it will be at the Oval, and I think Australia are certain to win that.
The battleground will be at Lords{slight advantage to Australia).
Old Trafford and the Midlands, I think England have the best chance of winning.

The Oval has been a happy hunting ground for us in recent years and if we go into that match level, I would be quite confident. This is because the pace and the bounce of the Oval pitch will suit our taller and faster bowlers-Flintoff and Harmison more than it will the Aussie bowlers.
It is also a pitch that a number of our current batsman enjoy. Trescothick has got a career best 219 at the oval plus a whole host of good ODI scores there. Vaughan has got a decent record there, Thorpe has been playing there all of his career and some of Freddie's most devastating innings have also come at the Oval...(the 90 odd against SA, 99 against India)

I'am more confident of us giving the Aussies a good game at The Oval more than any other ground in England.