Australian's wobble

[DaveGillespie]

I think it should be obvious from his general style and demeanour that RMJ is having a rather hearty chuckle at the Aussie's expense. Lap it up while you can, for it may be the extent of our pleasure this summer.

Having said that, any side should be ashamed of not defending 340. Doubly so against Somerset, who operate at a level only slightly above abject. Triply so if they are an international side. Yes, you guessed it - quadruply so if they are Australia.

Yes, I got a good chuckle out of that one

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Sometimes I'm willing to take the sublime over the victory (India 2001 springs to mind), but to deny that its a contest where the primary objective is to win would to me reduce the value of much of the great cricket that has been played

OK... winning has to matter like hell to the players. That I grant. Sport does kinda end up a bit lame without that (especially in a two horse race). Alas, it seems to me that cricket matches are more often lost than won... in the sense that bowlers suddenly go AWOL and get smacked out of attacks.. leading to captains suddenly running out of ideas... or batting line-ups implode for no very good reason with a procession of cross bat slogs, ill-judged swaggers down the pitch, daft run outs and so on.

I very much want to see two teams wanting to win.. but for me it's the duels along the way that are the rightful focus of the contest: McGrath vs. Strauss, Warne vs. Flintoff, Hoggard vs. Hayden and so on. If they are good..and the teams stay focussed and competitive at THAT level (ball by ball, where games are won and lost)... those of us merely follwing the action should be happy to take whatever result transpires.

I accept the distinction between sport and art for the players.. I'm just a lot less convinced that it's a distinction that should be meaningful for those who ain't competing: the spectator / viewer / listener cannot do anything to shape the contest.. and it isn't really their bun-fight anyway!

[Richard Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

I'm surprised and dissapointed in the arrogant style and content of your recent posts on this subject Richard, if you're just joking or it's meant to be tongue in cheek then it needs to be clearer.

Beny, seamer and other australian company, most english supporters don't think just because of one 20-20 game and one county game that the ashes are in the bag, don't let the posts of the vocal minority make you think we're all delusional idiots.

I believe we can win the ashes, not that we will, but that we can. India pushed australia in their last home series and I believe we have a much better bowling attack than them (india), even if we don't win the ashes I believe that the australians will have to compete to win them not just turn up as has been the case over the last decade and a bit.

It's all meant in jest VF. I believe we Should win the ashes, but that we could lose them unless we play well.
Apologies to any upset Aussie fans, You'll get your opportunity to have a good go at my expense very soon, I'm sure

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Who's talking rubbish now?

Not me - whilst I would love to see England win and beat the Aussies (actually, I would love England to give them a good thrashing; but that just ain't gonna happen) I want England to beat the Aussies with McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Kasprowicz all asking tough questions of our batsmen and our bowlers having to get you out. I want to see a fantastic series of test cricket. Cricket has been crying out for a tough, hard fought and close contest for a couple of years and I truly hope above all things that this series provides it. Yes, I'd be gutted if England fought hard only to lose 2 - 1 but I'd also be proud that they'd played the best, given their all and come out fighting - and hopefully with a lot more respect from the Aussies to show for it.

Also, you said that I was talking rubbish, but then continued in a later post to add

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Ultimately, I to would prefer to see two great sides battle it out head to head over five tests, with the winner emergent on the final day in a series to remember.

How is this any different to what I said?

Last year, I was glued to the test matches that England played. The cricket (generally on the first 3 days) was closely fought and could have gone either way. Contrary to what Rachael has said on occasions about the quality of the cricket on display, I found it thoroughly riviting with the initiative ebbing and flowing before England stole it on the 4th or 5th day. There were some tough contests for the bowlers against New Zealand (especially vs Mark Richardson) and some brilliant tactical battles (Andrew Flintoff vs Lara) and plenty of marvellous stroke play from several players. This sort of thing is number 1 to me. Of course, when England won both series, it made the whole period extra special. In my time, I couldn't remember a 9 month period where (a) England had played so well (b) England had won (c) England had taken revenge on the West Indies for the maulings they used to take when England had a comparably poor side.

Of course, it might be different if Essex were playing. At the moment, I'd take an Essex win any which way it comes

[John]

The Australians are by far the team England have faced. They have got off to bad start which makes the series even more interesting.
The Aussie bowling may be going down hill but if anyone thinks the batting is going into significant decline think again. The lineup is packed with quality, batting in 20/20 is a shear lottery and as most have noted means nothing. Its like reducing a football match to twenty minutes with goals twice as wide.
As Agnus Fraser points out in todays Independent the English bowling didn't look too clever yesterday Harmison was flattered with four wickets according to him.
So there are a lot unknowns and expect each twist and turn in the next few weeks to be to analsysed interpreted and reanalysed.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Nothing can be read into the form of the Aussies from their first meaningful games in four months. We can't even be certain that this will affect their chances in the Natwest Series, let alone the Ashes. England have momentum, although it could be that the ease of their victories against Bangladesh this summer will backfire on them - it may be that Trescothick has peaked too early while the rest of the batsmen have scarecly had a look-in, for example.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Beny

Just so we don't get too ahead of ouselves, Australia did the same thing against New Zealand last time they met. We still canned them in the Test Matches.

Errr .... no, you didn't. You won it comfortably!

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...17FEB2005.html

Someone, maybe Andy, mentioned how he would rather we won against a full Aussie team than against a team without Ponting, Gilchrist and Warne. Well I couldn't care less. And the Aussies certainly didn't care when they played us with about a dozen pace bowlers injured! And Giles got injured and Freddie didn't play. Do you think they cared? Do we think they didn't rub it in that they'd just hammered us? Injuries are part and parcel of sport. If we beat them I will enjoy it. Unfortunately I don't see McGrath and Warne getting injured, be good if they did though

[Andy Mellon]

I don't disagree with you - I would like England to win - but I would much prefer a win against the full Aussie XI rather than their second string. To me, it would be a fairly hollow victory and I wouldn't feel that we'd beaten the best unless we'd played the best.

[Beny]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile 52672

Errr .... no, you didn't. You won it comfortably!

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...17FEB2005.html

Wrong series NE. I'm refering to the Aussie leg of the Chapple-Haddle trophy.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2...05DEC2004.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2...08DEC2004.html

[Leafy Seadragon]

Andy, I think that you might have taken at least one of my quotes out of context. The rubbish comment referred to you stating that there would be no pride in beating an off-form, off-colour and half-crocked team of Aussies. Are you really saying that if Australia play below par, you will take no pride in beating them? I wasn't suggesting that you would advocate a win at all costs approach, but no pride at all? Off-form, off-colour and half-crcked the Aussies are possibly still as good an outfit as many other test sides. If you really would take no pride in such a victory, even where England play well and win convincingly, after what must seem like a millenium of defeats, then you sir are a far better man then I'll ever be. I also wonder whether you'll ever be happy with a cricket result. Only a few teams have played against a great side at their best - even the very best teams have only a few series where it all clicks at once. The rest of the time, they're good enough to win at 80-90%. To be so reliant on the whims of chance? If that's really what you meant by the post, then I apologise for my statement about rubbish and for any offense taken, the comment was in jest.

My comment about preferring to see a great series then get the result I wanted I must admit is born out of a diet of one-sided Aussie victories. I must admit, were I an English supporter, I truly think that my one interest would be to win the Ashes. Ideal series, glorious cricket, etc would also be great, but please just win the flipping thing. This is a statement that's consitent with the rest of that post, where I stated that I would expect that victory for English supporters would be special.

My "who's talking rubbish now?" comment seems to have stirred you up a bit, and given that I can now see we've got different philosophies, I can also see that it could readily be taken as a bit of baiting. It wasn't & apologies again. I'm a simpler man than that. After the dire eighties, all I hoped for is that the Aussies won a series, a match, or even a session. When they did, I admit, I didn't care even if it was ugly cricket. That luxury only came when I started to think that they could win