England win by nine wickets
Robert Henderson
England 604-9dec and 110-1
One of the most astonishing turnarounds in Test history.
Good to see Harmison getting wickets. He should be persevered with.
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Anon
Ed Morris
"Anon" <an...@invalid.org-nospam> wrote in message
news:dp%6b.4030$Y71.38...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> 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
R Kelly
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HMQ7$VAgBIX$Ewc$@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> SA 484 and 229 Bicknell 4-80, Harmison 4-33
>
> England 604-9dec and 110-1
>
> One of the most astonishing turnarounds in Test history.
>
> Good to see Harmison getting wickets. He should be persevered with.
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 ...
atmosphere at the ground was like one big party.
R Kelly
robert.pollard2
"R Kelly" <Lud...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4917b.385$Ii1....@stones.force9.net...
> 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........
Cheers
Robt P.
michael
"robert.pollard2" <robert....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Lo17b.3946$1%2.7...@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
Probably because being 'caught out behind' will give some moron somewhere
further "proof" that he's homosexual, as if we care.
What a fantastic turnaround. I can't wait for the two hours of highlights
tonight - they should virtually be real-time.
The best thing is seeing England turn a test around from a first day where
they looked all but out of it. I wonder how many times a side has posted
over 450 and gone on to lose? Can't be many at all.
Paul Hyett
>
>Flintoff is an increasingly world class performer. I remember writing after
>the one dayers that he is becoming one of the best ODI bowlers in the world
>if only he could live up to his promise with the bat. Well he's answered
>that question mark! Now if he could only start taking more test wickets.
>Should be moved up to six.
While his 142 in the Lords Test was meaningless in the context of the
match, the confidence boost it gave him had a massive effect!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Nick Boalch
> One of the most astonishing turnarounds in Test history.
If only I'd put money on it on Thursday - you could get 40-1 according
to the BBC!
Cheers,
N.
--
Nick Boalch <URL:http://nick.frejol.org/>
Rej
was Freddy's knock! That totally demoralised the South Africans, something
they never rallied from.
I saw it in their faces when they came off the field yesterday and you could
see it in their faces this morning after their training session. They just
didn't have the look of confidence that they had when they went out on
Sunday morning!
Well done England and to the return of the Ashes!
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HMQ7$VAgBIX$Ewc$@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
Ed Morris
"Rej" <lemon...@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.
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
Luke_Curtis
6
--
e-mail to aoxr19[AT]dsl[DOT]pipex[DOT]com
*All e-mail to "reply to" adrress will*
*automatically be deleted*
dmo
<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!
Andrew Dunford
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HMQ7$VAgBIX$Ewc$@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
> England 604-9dec and 110-1
An excellent win - no doubt there.
> 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."
Andrew
Paul Hyett
>>
>>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
>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!
>
BTW, since we beat SA last time, won't only drawing the series actually
hurt us in the world Test rankings?
Andrew Dunford
"Paul Hyett" <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QeLOBXCd0WX$Ew...@activist.demon.co.uk...
No. That would have been the case before the ICC recently revised the
points-scoring system. The most concise way of describing the current
formula is to say that it's now too complicated to be understood by the
average fan. England remains fourth, but has closed the gap to the
third-placed NZ.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
> In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 21:07:38, Luke_Curtis wrote :
> >>
> >>The best thing is seeing England turn a test around from a first day
where
> >>they looked all but out of it. I wonder how many times a side has posted
> >>over 450 and gone on to lose? Can't be many at all.
> >>
> >6
>
> How about from as many as 484?
List posted on rsc by Aslam Siddiqui (with help from Brian Lawrence):
Aus (586 & 166) lost to Eng (325 & 437)
Sydney(1), 1894-95
WI (526-7d & 92-2d) lost to Eng (404 & 215-3)
Port-of-Spain(4), 1967-68
Aus (520 & 209) lost to SAf (435 & 297-4)
Melbourne(5), 1952-53
Eng (519 & 257) lost to Aus (491 & 287-5)
Melbourne(5), 1928-29
Eng (496 & 365-8d) lost to Aus (458 & 404-3)
Leeds, 1948
Aus (490 & 146) lost to WI (329 & 311-9)
Bridgetown, 1998-99
SAf (484 & 229) lost to Eng (604-9d & 110-1)
The Oval, 2003
Andrew
michael
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:pvg7b.150$tv1....@news02.tsnz.net...
>
That's great, Andrew. Thanks for that.
Tan Coul
<adun...@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...
David North
news:pvg7b.150$tv1....@news02.tsnz.net...
>
This is the highest score to be passed in the first-innings and lose, then.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk
David North
news:%H47b.290$p%5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Rej" <lemon...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:bjiiup$i05$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > I was at the Oval yesterday and today and I think what won it for England
> > was Freddy's knock! That totally demoralised the South Africans,
> something
> > they never rallied from.
> >
> > I saw it in their faces when they came off the field yesterday and you
> could
> > see it in their faces this morning after their training session. They just
> > didn't have the look of confidence that they had when they went out on
> > Sunday morning!
> >
> > Well done England and to the return of the Ashes!
> >
>
> I don't want to be a down in the mouth. The performance in this test was
> tremendous, but all we got was a series draw against a team that everybody
> tipped us to beat. It is a good start toward rebuilding but that's all it
> is. Let's not forget that lack of consistency in this series has been our
> major problem. We played appallingly badly in three tests and well in two.
It seems to me that England tend to play their best cricket when they get behind, either in the
series or the match or, in this case, both. This seems to have been the case for several years now.
When they draw first blood in a series, they tend to go off the boil.
Starting with the SA series in 1998, when England have won first in a series, their subsequent match
results and their series results have been:
Matches: W2 D5 L5
Series: W3 D3 L1
All of the wins came against Zimbabwe (2 series, 1 match) and Sri Lanka (1 series, 1 match).
When England's opponents won first, England's results have been:
Matches: W13 D6 L10
Series: W3 D1 L5
Excluding Ashes series gives:
Matches: W10 D6 L2
Series: W3 D1 L2
In the four series England won or drew after losing first, three of the initial defeats were by an
innings, the other by 10 wickets. Only in SA and against Australia were they well beaten after
losing first.
Paul Hyett
:
>
>"Paul Hyett" <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:SulOtICmxWX$Ew...@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
>
>The Oval, 2003
So only twice before we've won after conceding so many.
Paul Hyett
:
>>
>> 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?
Willowbeauty
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!
Ed Morris
"Willowbeauty" <neil...@DUMPTHISwillowbeauty.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UhJ7b.1155$vX3.2...@wards.force9.net...
decision short of a series win in Oz.
Ed Morris
Andrew Dunford
"Willowbeauty" <neil...@DUMPTHISwillowbeauty.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UhJ7b.1155$vX3.2...@wards.force9.net...
>
That is part of the reason. England not yet having played against
Bangladesh is another. A third (and significant) factor is the unsatisfying
recent trend for two-match series: NZ is rather good at, for example,
burgling a series win in WI last year by winning the first match and hanging
on, which isn't such a fruitful tactic over a longer series. There's also a
degree of underestimation involved on the part of some opponents: that
series in WI was tacked on to the end of the season in order to fulfill the
requirements of the ICC's Ten Year Plan. WI had just completed a five-match
series against India and weren't very interested, which is not generally a
problem they suffer from when England visits.
All of that said, if we discount the bomb-inflicted abandoned series in
Pakistan last year, NZ hasn't lost a series since December 2000.
Andrew
Paul Hyett
>> >
>> > 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.
We play them next summer don't we, along with WI?
Ed Morris
Yep. Revenge time... I hope!
Ed Morris