> It was a superb win, well done to our team ! One to remember for a change.
Very pleasing to see Harmison coming good at last. The question is, what have we learned about the state of English cricket as a result of this series?
We can match pretty much everybody except Oz. This is a problem with world cricket at the moment. Australia are out in front and then there is a chasing pack of SA, England, India, NZ. Pakistan, West Indies and Sri Lanka probably come next with the minnows lagging way behind.
Our batting looks very secure for the time being and should stay Vaughan, Trescothick, Butcher, Thorpe and Hussain.
Flintoff is an increasingly world class performer. I remember writing after the one dayers that he is becoming one of the best ODI bowlers in the world if only he could live up to his promise with the bat. Well he's answered that question mark! Now if he could only start taking more test wickets. Should be moved up to six.
Stewart's reign is over, Read is certain to step in and bat at seven. He's shown in the ODI's that he is a solid keeper and a good bat. Should be given every game over the winter without pressure to allow him to settle in.
Bowling is issue. Giles is not taking many wickets but gives control. The debate about who else to use as a spinner will run and run. My feeling is that we just don't have an English world class spinner and I can't see any coming through. Pace is another major problem. Harmison is beginning to show real promise. Anderson needs a rest but should continue to play, he has a lot to learn and a lot to offer. There is talk of him resting for Bangladesh and coming back for Sri Lanka, that would be a mistake. He may well take wickets in Bangladesh and that would do his confidece the world of good. Sri Lanka could be a very tough tour. The other paceman's place is up for grabs. For Bangladesh and Sri Lanka two spinners should be played so that is a full team (I think that we should have had two spinners in the SA series actually). For the Windies, he may be short of match practice but don't bet against Simon Jones coming back. Ed Morris
> > Shame to see Vaughn out for 13 on the 2nd ball of the afternoon, though.
> > Still, he didnt look TOO dissappointed as he walked off this time ...
> I thought he looked suicidal........
Probably because being 'caught out behind' will give some moron somewhere further "proof" that he's homosexual, as if we care.
What a fantastic turnaround. I can't wait for the two hours of highlights tonight - they should virtually be real-time.
The best thing is seeing England turn a test around from a first day where they looked all but out of it. I wonder how many times a side has posted over 450 and gone on to lose? Can't be many at all.
In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 15:41:51, Ed Morris wrote :
>Flintoff is an increasingly world class performer. I remember writing after >the one dayers that he is becoming one of the best ODI bowlers in the world >if only he could live up to his promise with the bat. Well he's answered >that question mark! Now if he could only start taking more test wickets. >Should be moved up to six.
While his 142 in the Lords Test was meaningless in the context of the match, the confidence boost it gave him had a massive effect! -- Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
I was at the Oval yesterday and today and I think what won it for England was Freddy's knock! That totally demoralised the South Africans, something they never rallied from.
I saw it in their faces when they came off the field yesterday and you could see it in their faces this morning after their training session. They just didn't have the look of confidence that they had when they went out on Sunday morning!
Well done England and to the return of the Ashes!
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> I was at the Oval yesterday and today and I think what won it for England > was Freddy's knock! That totally demoralised the South Africans, something > they never rallied from.
> I saw it in their faces when they came off the field yesterday and you could > see it in their faces this morning after their training session. They just > didn't have the look of confidence that they had when they went out on > Sunday morning!
> Well done England and to the return of the Ashes!
I don't want to be a down in the mouth. The performance in this test was tremendous, but all we got was a series draw against a team that everybody tipped us to beat. It is a good start toward rebuilding but that's all it is. Let's not forget that lack of consistency in this series has been our major problem. We played appallingly badly in three tests and well in two. The fighting spirit is there but it's only eight months since the Aussies gave us a pasting. Enjoy today but let's not all get too excited and carried away thinking that we are ready for another swipe at the ashes. That's a terrible English disease and when we lose the papers will be full of doom and gloom again telling us how bad we are, and we'll believe that as well. Ed Morris
>> > Shame to see Vaughn out for 13 on the 2nd ball of the afternoon, though.
>> > Still, he didnt look TOO dissappointed as he walked off this time ...
>> I thought he looked suicidal........
>Probably because being 'caught out behind' will give some moron somewhere >further "proof" that he's homosexual, as if we care.
>What a fantastic turnaround. I can't wait for the two hours of highlights >tonight - they should virtually be real-time.
>The best thing is seeing England turn a test around from a first day where >they looked all but out of it. I wonder how many times a side has posted >over 450 and gone on to lose? Can't be many at all.
6 -- e-mail to aoxr19[AT]dsl[DOT]pipex[DOT]com
*All e-mail to "reply to" adrress will* *automatically be deleted*
"Ed Morris" <edwardmor...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote <snip>
> I don't want to be a down in the mouth. The performance in this test was > tremendous, but all we got was a series draw against a team that everybody > tipped us to beat. It is a good start toward rebuilding but that's all it > is. Let's not forget that lack of consistency in this series has been our > major problem. We played appallingly badly in three tests and well in two. > The fighting spirit is there but it's only eight months since the Aussies > gave us a pasting. Enjoy today but let's not all get too excited and carried > away thinking that we are ready for another swipe at the ashes. That's a > terrible English disease and when we lose the papers will be full of doom > and gloom again telling us how bad we are, and we'll believe that as well. > Ed Morris
Amen. Completely agree with everything you've said there.
I was saying much the same stuff after the Trent Bridge win, and again after today.
It's a long hot winter coming up, and we'll know just how good this team is at the end of it. Ironically, England's best performances in the Hussain era came away from home. So lets hope for more of the same!
> One of the most astonishing turnarounds in Test history.
Hyperbole. In the last five years alone, I can think of:
May 2003: Australia, 3-0 up in the series, was 242 without loss in its second innings at St. John's, after first innings scores had been level. West Indies won.
November 2001: WI managed to lose in Sri Lanka by ten wickets not once but twice after being, respectively, 393/3 and 347/3 in the first innings of the match.
December 2000: Pakistan. at one stage 323/3 in the first innings, loses to England at Karachi (where they have never before lost in 34 previous Tests spanning 45 years).
December 1999: at 5pm on the first day, WI is 276 without loss against NZ at Hamilton. WI then loses 20 wickets for the addition of 186 further runs, and the match by nine wickets.
March 1999: Australia loses to WI at Bridgetown after at one stage being 425/4 in the first innings.
It's also only five years since England scored 445 batting first at The Oval and lost by ten wickets.
There have been six occasions on which a side batting first has scored more than 484 and lost; on 25 occasions a side has won after conceding a first-innings advantage greater than the 120 runs by which England led on this occasion.
The description "astonishing turnaround" should be reserved for situations where a side has won after following-on (eg. Headingley 1981, Kolkata 2000/01), or after conceding a large first-innings lead (Australia 256 & 471 defeatingv SL 547/8d and 164 at Colombo in 1992/93). The point being that even when South Africa was 290/1 on the first day, the match situation had developed too little to make a firm pronouncement.
The award for best description after the first day goes to the Mirror: "Square the series? After such a harrowing day chasing leather, England have more hope of squaring the South Circular."
In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 21:07:38, Luke_Curtis wrote :
>>The best thing is seeing England turn a test around from a first day where >>they looked all but out of it. I wonder how many times a side has posted >>over 450 and gone on to lose? Can't be many at all.
>6
How about from as many as 484? -- Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 18:48:58, Rej wrote :
>I was at the Oval yesterday and today and I think what won it for England >was Freddy's knock! That totally demoralised the South Africans, something >they never rallied from.
>I saw it in their faces when they came off the field yesterday and you could >see it in their faces this morning after their training session. They just >didn't have the look of confidence that they had when they went out on >Sunday morning!
>Well done England and to the return of the Ashes!
Lets not get carried away... :)
BTW, since we beat SA last time, won't only drawing the series actually hurt us in the world Test rankings? -- Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
> In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 18:48:58, Rej wrote : > >I was at the Oval yesterday and today and I think what won it for England > >was Freddy's knock! That totally demoralised the South Africans, something > >they never rallied from.
> >I saw it in their faces when they came off the field yesterday and you could > >see it in their faces this morning after their training session. They just > >didn't have the look of confidence that they had when they went out on > >Sunday morning!
> >Well done England and to the return of the Ashes!
> Lets not get carried away... :)
> BTW, since we beat SA last time, won't only drawing the series actually > hurt us in the world Test rankings?
No. That would have been the case before the ICC recently revised the points-scoring system. The most concise way of describing the current formula is to say that it's now too complicated to be understood by the average fan. England remains fourth, but has closed the gap to the third-placed NZ.
> In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 21:07:38, Luke_Curtis wrote :
> >>The best thing is seeing England turn a test around from a first day where > >>they looked all but out of it. I wonder how many times a side has posted > >>over 450 and gone on to lose? Can't be many at all.
> >6
> How about from as many as 484?
List posted on rsc by Aslam Siddiqui (with help from Brian Lawrence):
Aus (586 & 166) lost to Eng (325 & 437) Sydney(1), 1894-95
WI (526-7d & 92-2d) lost to Eng (404 & 215-3) Port-of-Spain(4), 1967-68
Aus (520 & 209) lost to SAf (435 & 297-4) Melbourne(5), 1952-53
Eng (519 & 257) lost to Aus (491 & 287-5) Melbourne(5), 1928-29
Eng (496 & 365-8d) lost to Aus (458 & 404-3) Leeds, 1948
Aus (490 & 146) lost to WI (329 & 311-9) Bridgetown, 1998-99
SAf (484 & 229) lost to Eng (604-9d & 110-1) The Oval, 2003
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:46:23 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
<adunf...@artifaxsoftware.com> wrote: >No. That would have been the case before the ICC recently revised the >points-scoring system. The most concise way of describing the current >formula is to say that it's now too complicated to be understood by the >average fan. England remains fourth, but has closed the gap to the >third-placed NZ.
There must be at least one ranking system still using the series results, but I'm damned if I can find it - I can see why it's a less than perfect tool, but at least it was easy to understand - the new system is doomed to be forever obscure to the vast majority of fans beyond some mysterious numbers that move up and down and show England to be nearly as good as New Zealand... -- www.oscartelos.co.uk The best Chester Zoo photo website ever made by a cat (probably.) Last updated March 13th 2003 but watch this space...
> "Paul Hyett" <pahy...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:SulOtICmxWX$Ew92@activist.demon.co.uk... > > In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 21:07:38, Luke_Curtis wrote :
> > >>The best thing is seeing England turn a test around from a first day > where > > >>they looked all but out of it. I wonder how many times a side has posted > > >>over 450 and gone on to lose? Can't be many at all.
> > >6
> > How about from as many as 484?
> List posted on rsc by Aslam Siddiqui (with help from Brian Lawrence):
> Aus (586 & 166) lost to Eng (325 & 437) > Sydney(1), 1894-95
> WI (526-7d & 92-2d) lost to Eng (404 & 215-3) > Port-of-Spain(4), 1967-68
> Aus (520 & 209) lost to SAf (435 & 297-4) > Melbourne(5), 1952-53
> Eng (519 & 257) lost to Aus (491 & 287-5) > Melbourne(5), 1928-29
> Eng (496 & 365-8d) lost to Aus (458 & 404-3) > Leeds, 1948
> Aus (490 & 146) lost to WI (329 & 311-9) > Bridgetown, 1998-99
> SAf (484 & 229) lost to Eng (604-9d & 110-1) > The Oval, 2003
This is the highest score to be passed in the first-innings and lose, then. -- David North Email to this address will be deleted as spam Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk
> "Rej" <lemon_p...@excite.com> wrote in message > news:bjiiup$i05$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > I was at the Oval yesterday and today and I think what won it for England > > was Freddy's knock! That totally demoralised the South Africans, > something > > they never rallied from.
> > I saw it in their faces when they came off the field yesterday and you > could > > see it in their faces this morning after their training session. They just > > didn't have the look of confidence that they had when they went out on > > Sunday morning!
> > Well done England and to the return of the Ashes!
> I don't want to be a down in the mouth. The performance in this test was > tremendous, but all we got was a series draw against a team that everybody > tipped us to beat. It is a good start toward rebuilding but that's all it > is. Let's not forget that lack of consistency in this series has been our > major problem. We played appallingly badly in three tests and well in two.
It seems to me that England tend to play their best cricket when they get behind, either in the series or the match or, in this case, both. This seems to have been the case for several years now.
When they draw first blood in a series, they tend to go off the boil.
Starting with the SA series in 1998, when England have won first in a series, their subsequent match results and their series results have been:
Matches: W2 D5 L5 Series: W3 D3 L1
All of the wins came against Zimbabwe (2 series, 1 match) and Sri Lanka (1 series, 1 match).
When England's opponents won first, England's results have been:
Matches: W13 D6 L10 Series: W3 D1 L5
Excluding Ashes series gives:
Matches: W10 D6 L2 Series: W3 D1 L2
In the four series England won or drew after losing first, three of the initial defeats were by an innings, the other by 10 wickets. Only in SA and against Australia were they well beaten after losing first. -- David North Email to this address will be deleted as spam Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk
>"Paul Hyett" <pahy...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:SulOtICmxWX$Ew92@activist.demon.co.uk... >> In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 21:07:38, Luke_Curtis wrote :
>> >>The best thing is seeing England turn a test around from a first day >where >> >>they looked all but out of it. I wonder how many times a side has posted >> >>over 450 and gone on to lose? Can't be many at all.
>> >6
>> How about from as many as 484?
>List posted on rsc by Aslam Siddiqui (with help from Brian Lawrence):
>Aus (586 & 166) lost to Eng (325 & 437) >Sydney(1), 1894-95
>WI (526-7d & 92-2d) lost to Eng (404 & 215-3) >Port-of-Spain(4), 1967-68
>SAf (484 & 229) lost to Eng (604-9d & 110-1) >The Oval, 2003
So only twice before we've won after conceding so many. -- Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
In uk.sport.cricket on Tue, 9 Sep 2003 at 20:46:23, Andrew Dunford wrote :
>> BTW, since we beat SA last time, won't only drawing the series actually >> hurt us in the world Test rankings?
>No. That would have been the case before the ICC recently revised the >points-scoring system. The most concise way of describing the current >formula is to say that it's now too complicated to be understood by the >average fan. England remains fourth, but has closed the gap to the >third-placed NZ.
Why are NZ 3rd anyway - I don't recall them doing anything special? -- Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
> In uk.sport.cricket on Tue, 9 Sep 2003 at 20:46:23, Andrew Dunford wrote > :
> >> BTW, since we beat SA last time, won't only drawing the series actually > >> hurt us in the world Test rankings?
> >No. That would have been the case before the ICC recently revised the > >points-scoring system. The most concise way of describing the current > >formula is to say that it's now too complicated to be understood by the > >average fan. England remains fourth, but has closed the gap to the > >third-placed NZ.
> Why are NZ 3rd anyway - I don't recall them doing anything special?
8 series wins against Eng's 5 vs all the other teams. NZ have the knack of beating the the lower-ranked teams, something Eng haven't quite fathomed just yet!
> "Paul Hyett" <pahy...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:mziTadB4wrX$EwK9@activist.demon.co.uk... > > In uk.sport.cricket on Tue, 9 Sep 2003 at 20:46:23, Andrew Dunford wrote > > :
> > >> BTW, since we beat SA last time, won't only drawing the series actually > > >> hurt us in the world Test rankings?
> > >No. That would have been the case before the ICC recently revised the > > >points-scoring system. The most concise way of describing the current > > >formula is to say that it's now too complicated to be understood by the > > >average fan. England remains fourth, but has closed the gap to the > > >third-placed NZ.
> > Why are NZ 3rd anyway - I don't recall them doing anything special?
> 8 series wins against Eng's 5 vs all the other teams. NZ have the knack of > beating the the lower-ranked teams, something Eng haven't quite fathomed > just yet!
They also beat us at home and drew with us in NZ and came a poor umpires decision short of a series win in Oz. Ed Morris
