Australia clearly the better team

[Beny]

England came into this series with a chip on their shoulder which they seem to have decided is the Aussies fault. There is a lot of animosity and a general feeling of needing to prove something over there and I'm sure it translates as wanting a vicotry so much that they dont care how hollow it is...

[Trescothick]

The Aussies frustration and petty remarks on 'Everythings going against them' only really highlights how well England have played and how much the Aussies have been outplayed... They are looking for any excuse but this is of course inevitable since the Aussies have been on top, now they are being stunned and getting frustrated they weren't all they used to be...

The equivalent is Manchester United crying about wearing grey away shirts being the reason they lost! What a pitiful excuse...

I wouldn't worry about it the frustration, England have outplayed the Aussies, who cares if Mcgraths injured?? Are you admitting your a one man side and you were still outplayed convincingly at Old Trafford.. Its also been us that has discarded Gillespie as we haven't allowed him to find form.

The Aussies have a chance to win this next match because they are a brilliant side, but they should face facts and learn to cope with England rather than desperatly find excuses.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Beny

You have'nt beaten the best side in the world. You've beaten an Aussie side which is severely depleated. Can you understand that I dont care that you have outplayed Australia? The point is that it has been an empty victory against a depleted side.

Whatever. If that's how you feel, stop bleating about it.

[Clive Dunn]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Not being in England, it is hard for me to debate the conditions, other than the information conveyed by the commentators. The lack of swing is very condition specific and its rarely that the commentators have suggested that the Aussies have actually bowled in the right conditions. On day two of the 4th test the conditions became better and lo and behold, the Aussies started swinging the ball. The horror that could be felt throughout Australia (the country as well as the team) was palpable, because it was obvious what the implications were when Oz came to bat. Swing (conventional and reverse) is the one area where the English outbowl the Aussies all ends up, so expectations were bleak. If you saw a match where the Aussies bowled with the best conditions for swing, then your comment is correct, we obviously saw a different match. I watched the 4th test at Trent Bridge. Dunno about you.

If we look at it logically we'll have to discount all of day one, it's impossible to know whether the Aussies just didn't swing the ball or if the conditions weren't condusive to swing bowling. I would hazard a guess though that it should have swung - I live 15 miles east of Nottingham and with the exception of the rain the two days weather wise were very similar. However we'll ignore that as it's purely conjecture on my part.

The game was in effect decided on day two, and interestingly both teams got to bowl. My view on it was that Australia failed to swing the ball with the exception of a couple of deliveries ( I think the one that got Flintoff swung a little, but it was a terrible shot ) whereas England swung the ball consistantly from around 7 overs in. When Australia received their new ball relatively early on day two they failed to achieve any consistant swing.

It would appear to me that that's pretty good evidence that the Aussie bowlers can't use traditional swing as well as the English bowlers, and in all honesty I'm not at all surprised by this - both Tait and Lee have actions that would appear to suit them getting reverse swing only, and reverse didn't appear to be a factor in this test at all. Whereas England have two traditional swing bowlers in Jones and Hoggard, and both of these used the conditions to their advantage. I found it interesting that Jones appeared to drop his pace to around 81-82mph during the first innings, clearly he was trying to use traditional swing.

I really think both teams have significantly different philosophies at the moment, England have used 5 bowlers ever since Flintoff emerged as a test no.6, Australia have used 4 bowlers for all of their period of dominance. I think you can get away with 4 bowlers as long as you have at least 3 really good players, and in Warne, McGrath and Gillespie they've had that for the best part of a decade. However now the situation is different, Gillespie has been battered out of the attack ( and whether this is due to form / age / England targetting him and destroying his confidence we'll only be able to tell with the benefit of hindsight ) and McGrath is injured - leaving only Warne as the true stand out bowler. Try as they might the replacements - Lee ( fast, some reverse ), Tait ( fast, some reverse ) and Kaspo ( medium pace, seaming into right handers ) doesn't give you the variety to exploit ground specific factors. England play 5 bowlers so they can, in effect we carried Hoggard all summer waiting for some traditional swing to come into play.

It will be very interesting to see what the Aussies do in the 5th test, I suspect the Oval will suit them enough to be able to play 4 bowlers ( Lee, Tait, McGrath if fit and Warne ) however on slower pitches in future I'm not sure that'll work, especially with the impending retirements of McGrath and Warne. Australia have been spoilt over the last decade with at least two all time greats bowling, without them it would appear a change of tactics is necessary. I'd argue that a change is overdue and that that is the reason the Aussies have struggled all summer.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

If that's how you feel, stop bleating about it.

I wish he would.

Beny - you predicted many times over the winter that your side would win

We pointed out that your ageing side would be run close...

How has age shown up... Hayden and Gillespie have not played as they would have done two years ago. Reason.. they are getting old.. The injury to McGrath at Edgbaston was a freak, but they injury at Trent Bridge was wear and tear - i.e. age...

I pointed out to you that if you lost part of your attack you had nobody of the same quality coming through. I stand by that.

You have lost one player to injury - that is not "Severly Depleted" your problems come from finally playing a decent bowling attack who do not allow your batsmen to score at 4.5 an over.

The result you are losing. Yes, you won at Lords, but that is one game aout of four. The others you have been beaten solidly in two and nearly lsot the other.

Face facts the Aussie team is on it's way out. Even if you win the Oval a 2-2 series result is nowhere near the 5-0 predicted many some ignorant aussies...

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Beny

I'm sure it translates as wanting a vicotry so much that they dont care how hollow it is...

Give me one reason why the an England win will be hollow.

Three years ago we came to Australia without our Best Batsmen, Bowler and All-rounder (No Thorpe, Gough or Flintoff)- we lost - was that a hollow victory for you?

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Give me one reason why the an England win will be hollow.

Three years ago we came to Australia without our Best Batsmen, Bowler and All-rounder (No Thorpe, Gough or Flintoff)- we lost - was that a hollow victory for you?

Unfortunately, FF, they appear to be using some sort of convaluted logic that we don't understand. Either that or they are just bad at losing. Should we win at the Oval we will enjoy the victory. Should we lose we will have witnessed a very good series between two very good teams.

England have proved they can not only compete with the team ranked number one in the world but that they can beat them. They've also proved that they have the bowling strength to make very good batsmen like Martyn really struggle for runs. Let's hope they can take this forward, whatever ther result in Kennington, to the sub-continent in the winter.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Originally Posted by Beny

England came into this series with a chip on their shoulder which they seem to have decided is the Aussies fault. There is a lot of animosity and a general feeling of needing to prove something over there and I'm sure it translates as wanting a vicotry so much that they dont care how hollow it is...

Beny rearrange tese words into a well know phrase or saying

KETTLE CALLING BLACK THE POT THE

Check through the posts on here Beny. Most england supporters wanted england to be competetive, and werent banking on a series win at all. It was thommo etc being disrespectful calling our seamres net bowlers and anyone who was out to giles should hang themselves, and it would be 5-0 thrashing, I can go on and on.

[Goatman]

This sort of thread always makes me laugh. All the "we diddn't get the luck" stuff from one side and the "ner ner, we won" stuff on the other. In 10 years time who will remember that McGrath had fitness problems, or that ENG only won by the skin of thier teeth? Not many. What makes the fact that key players have got injured in this series unique - and lets not forget that Jones is crocked and is unlikely to play in the vital test at the Oval here? Nothing. Its just life.

I hate myself for saying this, but I really felt sorry for Mcgrath and all the Aussies players and fans when he went over on his ankle. That was harsh. But the arm? Come on lads! Fast bowling is a physical game. It takes it out of you. Between matches you have to pull your body back together. Being 35 doesn't stop you bowling well, least of all if your not in the "Fast" bracket. The reason very few seam bowlers have played 100 tests is not because when there are a certain number of candles on your birthday cake you contract a virus that destroys the central aiming system and kills the natural away swinger stone dead. Its because every year you play its that much harder for the body to heal. This may not please the Aussies, but Grandad Glenns absence in Nottingham was 100% down to age. Thats what you get for being too old. To claim that him being missing in Nottingham is bad luck is self delusion. Sorry, but there it is.

The umpiring has gone the way of the team on top. It always does. There's nothing to hang on that fact other than meaningless excuses for an inadequate performance. Three potentially match altering injuries have occurred, that are not related to age and so are relevent in judging whether the teams have been fairly matched so far. 1) McGraths ankle. That did alter the Birmingham match in all likelihood, but there you go; **** happens. 3 members of the original touring party went home without playing a match last time ENG were in AUS including the only genuine quality seamer we had, Darren Gough. It wouldn't have affected the series much, but compared to that 1 bowler missing 1 match as a result of a freak incident is small potatos. In a five match series its unlikey that either side would have been able to play the same bowlers throughout in any case.

2) Clarke's back. In the end they scraped home though - so it diddn't matter much in the end. 3) Jones's cramp just as AUS went 9 down in the same match. I was gutted. Had Jones been bowling rather than Harmison ENG would probably be 3 up now and safe. It should also be recalled that AUS had the weather very much on thier side at Old Trafford. Lee and McGrath would not have made another 50 runs, even with a whole extra day to play in. No rain would have = no chance for AUS, and that would mean that ENG had already won the Ashes......... Luck is not a 1 way process.

And to reply to the original sentiment of the post; no they are not. They have won one match and lost two. That does not happen to teams that are clearly "better". The reason they are "better" is that they are winning.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Give me one reason why the an England win will be hollow.

Simple answer: it will not be. A hollow win is one that is obtained by cheating, or by similar under-hand tactics (bribery, match-fixing, etc). A win obtained under the rules of the game is a win, no ifs or buts. England have so far had the upper hand over Australia; the personnel are irrelevant - each country is putting out its best XI men for the job, and England have been better.

Why is Gillespie's loss of form or Hayden's loss of bottle England's problem? If they can't play to the requisite standard, their team should select someone who can. For that matter, why are injuries to McGrath England's problem? Are Australia a one-man outfit? If they are, they should look after that one man a bit more, and certainly disallow him from playing "dangerous" sports immediately before a game. So this is a non-issue and a complete irrelevance. Ditto for the umpiring - its the same for both teams, and in any case, there is no national bias; the chaps are neutral, and equally competent or incompetent for either side.

So the arguments presented by those who say this is a hollow victory seem to be rather facile and short-sighted. And that's before we have counted all the injuries sustained by England and other teams on previous tours, when Australia benefitted. And all the previous tours when umpiring went Australia's way in tight situations. Apologies for the naff cliche, but that's life - what goes around, comes around. No point in being a sour loser.