Why Australia will win the Ashes - a winners mentality.

[Beny]

Even more so when one of the big mouths, who is supposedly the best bowler in the world, cannot stop a number eight and ten from scoring nine runs off his final over. I'd be in tears too !!!

I'd say he is the best bowler in the world. Was'nt it off the pad? Giles didd'nt even hit it.

What a bunch of muppets they looked like after that !!!

The Aussies or your first five batsmen?

I don't see how failing to win when you have the opposition 33-5 represents a team with a 'winners mentality'. That is the kind of thing England would have done in the past, let the opposition right off the hook!

And the sort of thing they did again the other day... The point Seamer is trying to make is that The Aussies will accept nothing less than winning. England dont mind just so long as they compeate. Obvious in the fact that Vaughn didd'nt go for the kill when his side was bowling.

I think the result of the game highlighted a weakness in Australia, not strength - they failed to kill off a game which they should have won with ease. That is not a winners mentality.

Welcome to the ODI scene. England got lucky. Jones got lucky. How many times was he nearly out.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Alison

Surely nothing in the future is a fact, the reason being it hasn't happened yet!

Very true. And if i was talking about the future you would have made an excellent point. What was fact, as i was pointing out in my original thread srtarter, is that while England had a "so long as we compete" mentality by celebrating not winning - Australia showed they had a "winners mentality" by not accepting anything but victory.
While i will point out examples of this during the series, i will point out a recent example.
In the second test during Englands tour to south africa, Vaughan compiled a massive second innings lead to ensure he could'nt lose, and ended running out of time to win. The same thing almost happened in the final
test, and if Gibbs was'nt given out to a dodgy LBW, he may well have run out of time again and as it was only won that test with an hour or so to go.
It is the killer streak and acceptance of nothing but victory, that will be the difference between these two teams.

[greg]

I think that in South Africa Vaughan was batting on to give his bowlers more rest because all the Tests were back to back and he wanted to make sure he didn't burn out his bowlers.That's my take on it but i'm probably wrong.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Beny

And the sort of thing they did again the other day... The point Seamer is trying to make is that The Aussies will accept nothing less than winning. England dont mind just so long as they compeate. Obvious in the fact that Vaughn didd'nt go for the kill when his side was bowling....England got lucky. Jones got lucky. How many times was he nearly out.

At least Vaughan didn't end up short of bowlers to finish off the innings...or was it always part of Pontings plan to bowl Hussey at the end of the innings?

And it wasn't just luck that got England home (and I belive the saying goes 'you make your own luck') it was hard work, not giving up, and a fair amount of skill. Also, the new mentality of England is that no matter what the situation is, you can still win. Now we may not quite have got accross the winning line, but to get up to the total set by Australia given the circumstances we found ourselves in shows the inner steel that this side have. The Australian team will do well not to under-estimate the England side, as you seem to constantly do, otherwise they will have problems this summer.

I don't think many of the English side, or even spectator's were completly satisfied with the draw - I certianly felt England deserved the win. However, there was something to celebrate in our refusal to lie down and give up, and that is what I belive was being relished rather than the outcome itself.

[Cliff-UK]

Hello, I think in fact England were celebrating because they had won the moral victory. they had lost fewer wickets which traditionaly in one day cricket makesth diufference in a tie situation. Austrlia were hang dog cos they knewthey'd got offthe hook on a technicality. Also, of coursether ewa much onfusion overtherules at the end. The confusion was clear in the crowd.

It was interesting that England's lower order was able to cope comfortably on agood bowling wicket with a fired up Australian bowling attack. It could be argued that the top order floundered because they were acvtually over confident against the Aussies. Certainly the shots they got out to betrayed a lack of respect.

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Cliff-UK 55644

Hello, I think in fact England were celebrating because they had won the moral victory. they had lost fewer wickets which traditionaly in one day cricket makesth diufference in a tie situation. Austrlia were hang dog cos they knewthey'd got offthe hook on a technicality. Also, of coursether ewa much onfusion overtherules at the end. The confusion was clear in the crowd.

It was interesting that England's lower order was able to cope comfortably on agood bowling wicket with a fired up Australian bowling attack. It could be argued that the top order floundered because they were acvtually over confident against the Aussies. Certainly the shots they got out to betrayed a lack of respect.

Sorry Cliff, I can not see your "England's Lower order was able to cope comfortably" idea comes from. One partnership does naot make it the lower order. If you where watching the game you would have seen that these two players chanced there arm and made there luck with the ball landing in the paddock rather than in the fieldsman hand.

Australia had plenty of little partnerships that where broken by England Bowlers, where the Australian bowlers got break through's before any partnerships got going.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Seamer

while England had a "so long as we compete" mentality by celebrating not winning - Australia showed they had a "winners mentality" by not accepting anything but victory.
While i will point out examples of this during the series, i will point out a recent example.
In the second test during Englands tour to south africa, Vaughan compiled a massive second innings lead to ensure he could'nt lose, and ended running out of time to win. The same thing almost happened in the final
test, and if Gibbs was'nt given out to a dodgy LBW, he may well have run out of time again and as it was only won that test with an hour or so to go.
It is the killer streak and acceptance of nothing but victory, that will be the difference between these two teams.

I think England do accept nothing other than victory. I'm sure they were desperate to beat Australia the other day rather than simply compete. Make no mistake, England will be gutted if they lose the Ashes 2-1 on the final day of the series. We want to win.

As for the examples you give, I don't think Vaughan batted too long in SA. Remember, in that 2nd test SA still weren't completely out of the game when the early finish came. Pollock and someone (I can't remember) ad given them a chance.

England aren't in this Ashes series to do OK and then let Australia go that crucial extra mile. England will want to ram home any advantage gained. If Australia are better, it's because of ability rather than the will to win.

quite right- today the Olympics, September, the Ashes, next year rooney wins world cup. wdn't that be nice.

thanks for your thoughts. appreciate them. - i think the Australians are past their best. The Test batsmen aren't performing. Your best players so far are one day players not picked for the test series. It all feels a bit likethe time when Australia looked like they were going to wrest the mantle from the great West Indies side. And then did
No-one could conceive of a shift of power.

Maybe now the Aussie empire is about to fall. Maybe not. But if not now, certainly next time. The writing is on the wall. Just hope we don't go back to our conservative selection ways and not pick Pieterson. This could be one of the best series ever. On the evidence so far, it is going to be v close.

[Cliff-UK]

oops - the above was in fact, me.