After 2 Tests what do we know?

[Pete]

He better use a doubleheaded coin then or something, I don't think Ricky will make the same mistake twice

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Pete

Important that we bat first at Old Trafford, so Vaughan better win the toss. I don't back our guys against Warne on a 4th day pitch in Manchester

I agree but also lets get a score on the board, and Lemming if Vaughan loses the toss, Ponting may be kind again, and give us a bat..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?world=4615 Weather Manchester International.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?id=2613 Weather Manchester.

Most other Lancashire locations fine and sunny on Thursday.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Ernest

...Lemming if Vaughan loses the toss, Ponting may be kind again, and give us a bat..

Oh yeah, he can't be that stupid can he? Whoever wins the toss will bat, no doubt, unless there are serious weather changes.

But what are Vaughan's chances, I thought Hussain was a bad tosser winning 42.22% (19/45) of the time. But Vaughan takes it to another level being successful only 35.71% (10/28) of the time. That ain't fair!

A plus point is that whenever Vaughan wins the toss the match goes England's way 80% of the time, he's only lost once and drawn once when winning the toss. When he's lost the toss he has a 55% win rate.

Winning the toss should be 50:50, not 35:65! Therefore I think it's fair that Vaughan should be credited with more wins that the 18 he has. My calculations conclude that if he'd won the toss 50% of the time (probability theory dictates that this should have happened), England would have won 19 matches under him and not 18! I think it's only fair to give him that extra match, maybe the one we lost at Lords a few weeks ago. In fact, it's only right that we should be leading the Ashes 2-0 now.

It'll always be 2-0 to me!

[Leafy Seadragon]

Punter's experience on the coin toss is not much better than Vaughan's. I expect the coin on the next toss to imbed itself in the ground side on, with neither winning. After three similar attempts they'll give up on a toss and play Paper/Scissors/Rock. Punter will stick with rock, because that's what he's always done. Vaughan will change his mind three times on the third count and will randomly select one of hte three. After Punter's efforts at Edgbaston, someone else should be allowed to stand in for the toss and decision. No, let someone else (either Gilchrist or the dressing room cleaner - I don't care who) stand in for the captain full stop (argh!)

By the way - pretty impressive thread with some strongly differing opinions that threatened to, but never quite got out of hand. A pleasure to read. Pity being in this time zone made it difficult to contribute during the fun.

Agree with much of the assessment on what's right and wrong. Let's face it, most of it is blindingly obvious (Kaspa and Dizzy couldn't find form if it was in neon lights and in a bikini and Strauss is still looking behind him nervously). The tricky bit is what they do about it. Can Kaspa or Dizzy actually find their form without an A-Z? And what the heck does the Oz hierarchy do about it given Lee's potential absence in the next test (am I really talking Lee up as the first choice Oz paceman?). Do we throw Tait in the deep end without floaties? Watson for a batsman, a bowler, sneak in twelve and see if the umpire notices? Can someone take Hayden out the back and get a little old lady to knock some sense into him? Is Strauss now and for evermore going to be Warnie's bunny (okay one wicket does not a paranoia make, but...)? Can anyone, let alone Hoggard, actually be as bad as Gillespie at the moment? If Old Trafford does spin, can Giles cut the mustard?

As an aside, the English bowlers have generally got the ball swinging a lot more than the Aussies throughout the two tests, particularly the last - not just Hoggard, who's there to swing, but the whole attack. My reading (possibly biased - no, never!) has been that the English bowlers have generally had the more favourable conditions (certainly true day one and two of the OT test, not sure about the rest). Certainly the English bowlers have worked the reverse swing better, which is also partly affected by conditions. What's everyone else's take on this? Is it in part (or predominantly?) due to conditions on the day, or do the English bowlers just work the conditions and the ball better?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Punter's experience on the coin toss is not much better than Vaughan's. I expect the coin on the next toss to imbed itself in the ground side on, with neither winning.

We could always send the vice captains out to do the toss, or Hoggy and Gilly.

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

By the way - pretty impressive thread with some strongly differing opinions that threatened to, but never quite got out of hand. A pleasure to read. Pity being in this time zone made it difficult to contribute during the fun.

I agree it has been a cracking thread, I never thought it would get out of hand, because everyone wanted to put their point of view, as it should be.yes it is a pity about the time zone, I think everyone has enjoyed posting today.

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Can anyone, let alone Hoggard, actually be as bad as Gillespie at the moment? If Old Trafford does spin, can Giles cut the mustard?

I think both teams have problems with support bowlers, and yes Hoggy is capable of being as bad as Gilly unless overhead conditions are right.
As a Lancastrian, I know we have an attacking spinner in keedy, it might seem I am biased, but I know more about him.
Also off spin in my opinion is dead, only Murali and a couple of others left, batsmen have worked them out.
Back to my point, at Old Trafford, I would have liked to have seen Giles and Keedy bowling together, both SLA bowlers, but one attacking, the other defensive. I wish.

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

As an aside, the English bowlers have generally got the ball swinging a lot more than the Aussies throughout the two tests, particularly the last - not just Hoggard, who's there to swing, but the whole attack. My reading (possibly biased - no, never!) has been that the English bowlers have generally had the more favourable conditions

Not on the 4th day of the Edgbaston Test, the batting conditions were better, ask any England player with any finger nails left.
Off topic, I hope Lee is able to play, this series has lived up to expectations, and to see Lee and McGrath out will spoil it, so fingers crossed.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Punter's experience on the coin toss is not much better than Vaughan's...

7/15 provides him with 46.67% success when it comes to predicting the outcome of flipping items - often legally representing money - with a thumb. A win at Old Trafford for Ponting would restore win-lose parity for him having won 8/16 as Australian captain. Vaughan would kill for a record like that. What really would take the biscuit - should Ponting win - is the fact that Vaughan would plummet to 34.48%.

If Vaughan does win the toss though, 11/29 wins would give him a 37.93% win rate (that's nearly 38%! Come on!). Ponting would fall to 7/16 and that's 43.75%. That's a difference of only 5.82% from Vaughan, compared to a 15.52% difference should Ponting win.

Let's hope that Vaughan can win the toss and then maybe he will be able to look Ponting in the eye when it comes to games of chance.

[Beny]

http://www.world-a-team.com/showthre...1957#post61957

Thank God, a good dissection.

To all England suporters... Feel free to be knee-jerk about your own players but dont expect us to follow suit.

England should be ashamed they nearly lost an almost un-loosable test. I would'nt be taking too much out of it, especialy since Warne did so well and they have'nt even goten to Old Trafford yet. I also expected Lee to proform badly, as he did in the ODI's. Edgebaston is not Australia's best ground.

Regarding the Kaspa debate... http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=2243;class=testplayer;fil ter=basic;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;seas on=2004%2F05;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notc ountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1996-11-22;start=1996-11-22;enddefault=2005-08-07;end=2005-08-07;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;follow on=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recen t=;viewtype=aro_list;runslow=;runshigh=;batpositio n=0;dismissal=0;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh= ;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wi cketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshi gh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow =;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewty pe

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Beny

...England should be ashamed they nearly lost an almost un-loosable test...

I think it's Australia who should be ashamed they couldn't score three meagre runs to win a test. Anyway, neither Lee nor Kasper looking like they had the bottle to attempt to hit the winning runs, they were both too nervous.

England and it's supporters are very proud they won the test and a three-run victory is as good as an-innings-and-three-hundred-and-thirty-three run victory when we beat you guys. We don't care how close the victory was, we won! So there! Nothing you can say or do will change that and nothing you can say or do will convince England and it's followers that we didn't deserve to beat, and that we didn't play better than, Australia.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Not on the 4th day of the Edgbaston Test, the batting conditions were better, ask any England player with any finger nails left.

I agree that the ball wasn't doing much on the 4th day. Does this suggest that the swing was pretty much dependent upon conditions? In which case Punter should be really crucified as we should have had the whole first day to plunder under these conditions. So was my intial assessment reasonable? Have the English bowlers predominantly had the favourable bowling conditions?

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Lemming

I think it's Australia who should be ashamed they couldn't score three meagre runs to win a test. Anyway, neither Lee nor Kasper looking like they had the bottle to attempt to hit the winning runs, they were both too nervous

Please tell me your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek when saying this

Originally Posted by Lemming

England and it's supporters are very proud they won the test and a three-run victory is as good as an-innings-and-three-hundred-and-thirty-three run victory

When all is said and done, how true this is. I don't remember a count-back clause to decide the Ashes (Oh, it might have been 2-2, but you won your two more convincingly, so you take them)

Originally Posted by Lemming

Nothing you can say or do ... will convince England and it's followers that ... we didn't play better than, Australia.

A fair comment. Although if the additional three runs were scored, the same would have been said of the Aussies. Both sides played well in patches, and poorly in others. Conditions were also important - both the first and last day were ideal for batting and both influenced the outcome