The Ashes

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

102-2 from 13.2 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

136-2 from 15 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

182-5 at the end of the England innings.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Aussies 103-2 in the 12th over.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

134-3 after 15 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England win by 5 runs, Aussies 177-8 after 20 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Aussies final score of 305-6 in their innings in the 1st ODI v England.

England 112-2.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

152-3.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

176-4

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England falling to bits 194-6.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

194-7.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

220-8

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

232-9

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England 246 All Out, poor effort.

[JimBHibees]

Yup, and Derek Underwood was another I could watch for hours. :agree:

Underwood was great to watch especially after some rain as pretty sure they didnt cover the wicket so the conditions could change quickly after a spell of rain. Underwood in tandem with Allan Knott behind the stumps were great to watch back in the day.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Looks like another pumping on the cards for England.

Aussies 136-1 after 27 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

213-3 from 39 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

260-4 from 44 overs

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

309-7 at the end of the innings.

[Mibbes Aye]

Good updates HH.

England's reaction to Stokes' dismissal didn't do them any favours.

It's a rare form of dismissal but it was beyond a shadow of a doubt after the first replay. Any complaints after just look silly.

[DaveF]

Good updates HH.

England's reaction to Stokes' dismissal didn't do them any favours.

It's a rare form of dismissal but it was beyond a shadow of a doubt after the first replay. Any complaints after just look silly.

I quite like Morgan as a cricketer but he came across as a classless fud in the post match interview. A cheap dig at Smith when implying that he (Morgan) would have withdrawn any appeal.

England should just get on with it. They were not complaining when Broad got the biggest nick in history in the Ashes a few years back and didn't walk - it happens, move on.

[lord bunberry]

What was Stokes dismissal for? I looked on the net and it said obstruction, I was out all day so I missed it.

[DaveF]

What was Stokes dismissal for? I looked on the net and it said obstruction, I was out all day so I missed it.

He defended a delivery back to the bowler (Starc) who immediately threw it at the stumps. Stokes dived backwards (away from the stumps and incoming ball) to ground his bat, but his other hand went in the opposite direction and even though he wasn't looking appeared to almost try and catch it. Aussies appealed and he was given out.

You could argue it either way IMO. It's an instinctive reaction to put your hand up when someone chucks something at you from a short distance but then he did dive on way towards making his ground so why put the other hand up?

It would have been catch of the century if he'd held it :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

He defended a delivery back to the bowler (Starc) who immediately threw it at the stumps. Stokes dived backwards (away from the stumps and incoming ball) to ground his bat, but his other hand went in the opposite direction and even though he wasn't looking appeared to almost try and catch it. Aussies appealed and he was given out.

You could argue it either way IMO. It's an instinctive reaction to put your hand up when someone chucks something at you from a short distance but then he did dive on way towards making his ground so why put the other hand up?

It would have been catch of the century if he'd held it :greengrin
Cheers, I'll have to watch the highlights tomorrow to see it.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Good updates HH.

England's reaction to Stokes' dismissal didn't do them any favours.

It's a rare form of dismissal but it was beyond a shadow of a doubt after the first replay. Any complaints after just look silly.

Just watched the CH5 highlights of Englands innings after heading to the boozer when my footy bet came in. The slo-mo doesnae do Stokes many favours but, when you watch it at full speed theres nae danger he was bothered about stopping the ball hitting the stumps. At least the decision didn't unduly influence the result.

[easty]

He defended a delivery back to the bowler (Starc) who immediately threw it at the stumps. Stokes dived backwards (away from the stumps and incoming ball) to ground his bat, but his other hand went in the opposite direction and even though he wasn't looking appeared to almost try and catch it. Aussies appealed and he was given out.

You could argue it either way IMO. It's an instinctive reaction to put your hand up when someone chucks something at you from a short distance but then he did dive on way towards making his ground so why put the other hand up?

It would have been catch of the century if he'd held it :greengrin

It is an instinctive reaction to put your hand up to defend yourself, but you'd usually use your hand to cover your head or body....the only thing Stokes was trying to defend was the wicket.

It was absolutely the correct decision to give him out.

[HH81]

I know not ashes but I went to Headingley today.

Very poor by Yorkshire so annoying. Caught some right sun though you would think I would learn!

[--------]

It is an instinctive reaction to put your hand up to defend yourself, but you'd usually use your hand to cover your head or body....the only thing Stokes was trying to defend was the wicket.

It was absolutely the correct decision to give him out.


My opinion as well.

As he fell he was looking at the ball; he could see it was on target for his stumps and when it hit he would be out. The hand went out away from his body - he wasn't defending himself as you say. He was defending his wicket.

As for the argument that he didn't have time to think - it was just a reflex reaction, he's a young, highly trained, extremely fit professional sportsman. As a batsman he has a very small fraction of a second to respond to and play a fast bowler's delivery; as a fielder (often a close fielder) he has a very small fraction of a second to move to catch the ball. He's a good batsman and a good close fielder. Enough said. His reactions are good enough for him to have meant to push the ball away from the wicket.

Perfectly justifiable appeal from the Aussies; perfectly good decision from the umpire.

Morgan should have shut his mouth and accepted the dismissal without comment.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England 300-8 in the 3rd ODI.

AUS 172-9 so far.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England win by 93 runs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Aussies 30-3 in the 4th ODI.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

91-3 now after 18 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

152-3 from 26 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

299-7 at end of the innings.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England 88-2 from 15 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England 143-3 from 25 overs (Exactly the same as The Aussies). Is it ok to call them The Aussies? Wouldn't like to be accused of xenophobia like the poster on the Euro qualifiers thread for calling The Germans, well, The Germans. ;-)

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

236-4 after 39 overs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Morgan out for 95, tremendous catch by Maxwell.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

261-6 with 7.2 overs left.

[Mibbes Aye]

Spectacular stuff from Maxwell - what an athlete.

[weecounty hibby]

Spectacular stuff from Maxwell - what an athlete.
One of the best catches I've ever seen. Great hands and feet and very quick thinking. Superb. Took a great one handed diving catch just a few overs before as well

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England tie the series @ 2-2 with 10 balls left and win the game by 3 wkts.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Just woke from an alcohol induced slumber following a day trip to Newcastle, England 138-9 in the ODI decider, shocking performance one would assume!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Aussies win the series 3-2. 139-2.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

What a lot of nonsense this test match in Abu Dhabi is, Pakistan 1st innings 523-8, England currently 534-6.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Cook out for 263.

[Haymaker]

Cook out for 263.

Not a bad score!

[derekHFC]

What a lot of nonsense this test match in Abu Dhabi is, Pakistan 1st innings 523-8, England currently 534-6.

Absolute farce.

This isn't test cricket

[Treadstone]

Absolute farce.

This isn't test cricket

They could do everyone a favour and call it a draw now.

[Sergey]

Absolute farce.

This isn't test cricket

Cook only hit two fours during today's play :yawn::zzzzz!:

[Sergey]

Absolute farce.

This isn't test cricket


They could do everyone a favour and call it a draw now.

Absolutely fantastic final day to the test in what turned out to be a T/20 for England's innings - but they could only manage 11 overs :greengrin.

They hopefully have a pitch with a bit on bounce in it for the next test, as barring the final few sessions, this was a poor spectacle for test cricket.

[marinello59]

Absolutely fantastic final day to the test in what turned out to be a T/20 for England's innings - but they could only manage 11 overs :greengrin.

They hopefully have a pitch with a bit on bounce in it for the next test, as barring the final few sessions, this was a poor spectacle for test cricket.

I was delighted to see Rashid get his wickets. Today really was an unexpected treat after four tedious days.

[Sergey]

I was delighted to see Rashid get his wickets. Today really was an unexpected treat after four tedious days.

I concur, but Ing-ger-land only have themselves to blame for not winning that test.

While Cook's innings was impressive, you don't win modern-day test matches grinding out scores at that run-rate. The game has changed since Boycott and Tavare opened the batting. Admittedly, England had to get runs on the board to avoid the follow-on, but rather than go on the defensive, they should have leathered the ball when they were 300 and odd for 3.

They played to not lose the test rather than win it - if you get my drift.

[marinello59]

I concur, but Ing-ger-land only have themselves to blame for not winning that test.

While Cook's innings was impressive, you don't win modern-day test matches grinding out scores at that run-rate. The game has changed since Boycott and Tavare opened the batting. Admittedly, England had to get runs on the board to avoid the follow-on, but rather than go on the defensive, they should have leathered the ball when they were 300 and odd for 3.

They played to not lose the test rather than win it - if you get my drift.

Aye, get you. The dropped catches on day one were costly and Cook could have opened up more when it was clear the draw was safe.

[Sergey]

Aye, get you. The dropped catches on day one were costly and Cook could have opened up more when it was clear the draw was safe.

I'm fairly ambivalent where the England cricket side is concerned. I really don't mind if they win, lose or draw (unlike almost everything else England) - but I actually enjoy the game of cricket and have become accustomed to the nuances of the game. I've even been in the Long Room at Lords and thought WTF is this all about - as two SA's were out batting for England.

Like football/rugby and any other sport with mass media coverage, the hype really pisses me off and I now seem to hold England in disdain.

It's not difficult to get a test wicket better than what was on offer during the last 5 days. FFS, stick a wicket from Sydney or the Oval on the back of a plane and lay it for the test.

I fear that test cricket will peter away as the poor man up against T/20 and 50 overs matches. Which is a crying shame, as while test cricket is for the purest, it does still hold the best outlet for excitement...

...and today was a good example.

I could send you a MCC tie if you want one :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

The correct spelling is purist....do I win a tie for pedantry? ;-)

(& I agree re test cricket being the best form)

[derekHFC]

So, a better test this time between Pak-Eng with the home side winning with little time to spare.

Reading Boycott's comments on BBC Sport and he's probably bang on with his summary of the match. Buttler is like a man short at the moment and Ali is not good enough to be an opener. In fact, should he even be in the team?

Joe Root is a class act and plays with so much confidence for such a young lad.

Rashid will possibly be slated for his shot that won it for Pak, but he did play some nice shots after a horrible bowling performance.

[Sergey]

So, a better test this time between Pak-Eng with the home side winning with little time to spare.

Reading Boycott's comments on BBC Sport and he's probably bang on with his summary of the match. Buttler is like a man short at the moment and Ali is not good enough to be an opener. In fact, should he even be in the team?

Joe Root is a class act and plays with so much confidence for such a young lad.

Rashid will possibly be slated for his shot that won it for Pak, but he did play some nice shots after a horrible bowling performance.

I only caught the last hour on Test Match Special on Radio 4 and I thought that England were going to get over the line.

Boycott was scathing in his summary directly after the match and he's right when he says that in Broad and Anderson they have two match winning bowlers...but only if there's something in the pitch for them. They (England) struggle to take 20 wickets on flat pitches and the batting simply isn't good enough to post a score that the bowlers can defend.

This isn't a very good Pakistan side, it's just that the Ashes series on favourable pitches glosses over England's obvious weaknesses.

[--------]

The correct spelling is purist....do I win a tie for pedantry? ;-)

(& I agree re test cricket being the best form)


Depends what you mean.

I would say that those of us who understand and enjoy Test cricket are indeed the purest of all cricket enthusiasts - purer in thought, word, and deed by far than those whose enjoyment reaches no higher than the depths of T20 slash-bang-wallop nonsense or the 50-over just-add-water "instant" version.

I admit that sometimes I might go slumming and watch a 50-over ODI - they can be both entertaining and exciting, to be fair - but T20's boring rubbish bearing very little resemblance to the true game. Can't see the point of it myself except to winkle money out of the pockets of those who don't understand cricket to finance the real game for those who do. Though hopefully people who start going to T20 will graduate through 50-over games to the real thing. That's how I ended watching Test cricket.

So I guess you'd might say that we're both purists? And the purest? Maybe even the purest of the purists? :greengrin

BTW - they're been forecasting the demise of Test cricket for a very long time now - as long as I've been taking notice, anyway - and it's still around and still getting crowds. Don't be fooled by empty stadiums in the Emirates; England-Pakistan in either England or Pakistan would be a sell-out.

[HH81]

England have lost all 3 tosses now.

Thought if they were going to win batting first would have been needed? I also note Pakistan have won 6 tosses in a row now. Dodgy coin :-)

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I think the captain has been rubbing dirt on one side of the coin! :-)

Pakistan 103-4

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Can't believe the England Management team let Stokes go out to bat, surely hasn't done his injury any favours although he wasn't in for long.

[--------]

I see Tom Graveney's dead - out for 88. Very fine batsman whom I saw when he came back into the England team in his 40's. Good commentator, too. That old boy on the top of the Lords' pavilion doesnae rest.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England 250 behind with 2 wickets down and a very limited Stokes, looking like going 2-0 behind.

[--------]

England 250 behind with 2 wickets down and a very limited Stokes, looking like going 2-0 behind.


Dead men walking, I'd say. They need Cook and Root to do something really special early on tomorrow.

No, actually they need Cook and Root to do something really special for about three and a half hours tomorrow, and the rest of the team to back them up though till stumps.

Can't see it happening.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England all out for 156 with Cook scoring 63. Pakistan win by 127 runs.

[--------]

England all out for 156 with Cook scoring 63. Pakistan win by 127 runs.


Spinners! :not worth

[--------]

I concur, but Ing-ger-land only have themselves to blame for not winning that test.

While Cook's innings was impressive, you don't win modern-day test matches grinding out scores at that run-rate. The game has changed since Boycott and Tavare opened the batting. Admittedly, England had to get runs on the board to avoid the follow-on, but rather than go on the defensive, they should have leathered the ball when they were 300 and odd for 3.

They played to not lose the test rather than win it - if you get my drift.


I've only just noticed this, Sergey, and I really feel I must take a little bit of issue with you - very, very respectfully. :greengrin

Boycott and Tavare (thank heavens) were the absolute extreme of boring, conservative, self-serving batsmen, and far from typical of the batsmen of their era. I had the misfortune to witness Tavare's combined innings of over 12 hours (think about it) at Old Trafford in 1981 for a combined match score of 147 - less than 12 runs an hour. I missed his 6-hour stint for 50 against the Pakistanis the following year - I had some drying paint I wanted to keep an eye on.

Boycott wasn't quite as bad as Tavare, though he was the world's worst pain in the backside. Still is, as far as I can see. But again, he wasn't typical.

David Boon, Ian and Greg Chappell of Australia, David Gower, Robin Smith and Allan Lamb for England, Sunny Gavaskar and Venkat for India, Glenn Turner of NZ, Zaheer Abbas (one of my real favourites) of Pakistan were brilliant to watch and could score for fun. And that doesn't include any of the West Indian batsmen - Kanhai, Sobers, Lloyd, Kallicharran, Greenidge, Haynes, Fredericks, Gomes, Richardson and Richards just as a starter.

Please don't give folks the impression that Test cricket is what Boycott and Tavare did. They were a horrible aberration.

All that said, I agree with your reading of the Test under discussion. England's batsmen are suffering from a real loss of confidence. I don't care what Cook or Bayliss might say, they're going out their with their heads in a spin and scared of the bowling, and it's coming from the senior players, Cook and Bell in particular. There has to be a failure of coaching and preparation behind this, surely. Watching the middle-order collapsing yesterday to the Pakistani spinners was a joy to my tired old eyes. I LIKE watching spinners take wickets. But England really shouldn't have gone so easily. Cook seems a decent guy, and I like him, but he's making too many mistakes and misjudgments and trying to spin a 2-0 series beating into a positive experience for the team just doesn't wash.


But I DID enjoy watching the spinners!

[Sergey]

I've only just noticed this, Sergey, and I really feel I must take a little bit of issue with you - very, very respectfully. :greengrin

Boycott and Tavare (thank heavens) were the absolute extreme of boring, conservative, self-serving batsmen, and far from typical of the batsmen of their era. I had the misfortune to witness Tavare's combined innings of over 12 hours (think about it) at Old Trafford in 1981 for a combined match score of 147 - less than 12 runs an hour. I missed his 6-hour stint for 50 against the Pakistanis the following year - I had some drying paint I wanted to keep an eye on.

Boycott wasn't quite as bad as Tavare, though he was the world's worst pain in the backside. Still is, as far as I can see. But again, he wasn't typical.

David Boon, Ian and Greg Chappell of Australia, David Gower, Robin Smith and Allan Lamb for England, Sunny Gavaskar and Venkat for India, Glenn Turner of NZ, Zaheer Abbas (one of my real favourites) of Pakistan were brilliant to watch and could score for fun. And that doesn't include any of the West Indian batsmen - Kanhai, Sobers, Lloyd, Kallicharran, Greenidge, Haynes, Fredericks, Gomes, Richardson and Richards just as a starter.

Please don't give folks the impression that Test cricket is what Boycott and Tavare did. They were a horrible aberration.

All that said, I agree with your reading of the Test under discussion. England's batsmen are suffering from a real loss of confidence. I don't care what Cook or Bayliss might say, they're going out their with their heads in a spin and scared of the bowling, and it's coming from the senior players, Cook and Bell in particular. There has to be a failure of coaching and preparation behind this, surely. Watching the middle-order collapsing yesterday to the Pakistani spinners was a joy to my tired old eyes. I LIKE watching spinners take wickets. But England really shouldn't have gone so easily. Cook seems a decent guy, and I like him, but he's making too many mistakes and misjudgments and trying to spin a 2-0 series beating into a positive experience for the team just doesn't wash.


But I DID enjoy watching the spinners!

You have my unbridled sympathies that you had to endure Tavare at his prime. I recall listening to that test as a boy on Radio 3 (IIRC - Test Match Special was on Radio 3 then) and even the likes of John Arlott were close to dying of boredom. Truly awful fare and thank heavens cricket has moved on from that genre.

I like your interest in spinners. I recall Underwood being able to hold his own, even while up against the likes of Bishan Bedi and his Indian compatriots. Magicians and unplayable at times. In the modern era, Warne was in a league of his own and could easily take 20 wickets on his own. England can only dream of producing a slow bowler with a fraction of his ability. Some of the dross that's won caps for England in recent years is comical.

Like yourself, Doddie, to me, Test Cricket is where it's at for me. I always enjoyed listening to the wireless in the wee small hours when England were touring and I often went to school having been up all night. Then along came the Benson & Hedges and the Gillette One Day competitions. Then there was the introduction of the Sunday League which always followed-on from the County Championship matches which finished on Saturday's. While I enjoyed watching this form, even today it's not the same as Test cricket. As for T/20 - "that's not cricket" as the saying goes (as an aside - T/20 cricket would maybe be better if all 10 outfield players had to bowl two overs each - then there would be tactics in selection rather than the bish/bash/bosh brigade that it is today).

[--------]

You have my unbridled sympathies that you had to endure Tavare at his prime. I recall listening to that test as a boy on Radio 3 (IIRC - Test Match Special was on Radio 3 then) and even the likes of John Arlott were close to dying of boredom. Truly awful fare and thank heavens cricket has moved on from that genre.

I like your interest in spinners. I recall Underwood being able to hold his own, even while up against the likes of Bishan Bedi and his Indian compatriots. Magicians and unplayable at times. In the modern era, Warne was in a league of his own and could easily take 20 wickets on his own. England can only dream of producing a slow bowler with a fraction of his ability. Some of the dross that's won caps for England in recent years is comical.

Like yourself, Doddie, to me, Test Cricket is where it's at for me. I always enjoyed listening to the wireless in the wee small hours when England were touring and I often went to school having been up all night. Then along came the Benson & Hedges and the Gillette One Day competitions. Then there was the introduction of the Sunday League which always followed-on from the County Championship matches which finished on Saturday's. While I enjoyed watching this form, even today it's not the same as Test cricket. As for T/20 - "that's not cricket" as the saying goes (as an aside - T/20 cricket would maybe be better if all 10 outfield players had to bowl two overs each - then there would be tactics in selection rather than the bish/bash/bosh brigade that it is today).


I'm actually a bit annoyed with you, Sergey. I had successfully blanked out all memory of CT a few years back, and now I have this ghastly image of him perched at one end of the pitch like some lugubrious vulture, just THERE.

I believe that the Aussies used to refer to him as "Athlete's Foot" - as in once he was there, you just couldn't get rid of him.

I also vaguely recall one of his "unsuccessful" innings - I can't remember when or where and if you refresh my memory I promise you I will find you and kill you.

My son was about 3 and I was on sprog-watch. I watched the morning session; Tavare had opened the batting with Boycott and England were about 40 for no loss, of which Boycott had scored 37. I made lunch and then took the wee guy out for a while. Tavare was just resuming his innings on 3. When we got back about four o'clock Boycott had gone for about 50 something, but Tavare was still there - on 7. I think he was eventually out after about 5 hours for the princely total of 9 runs.


There's a good story about Boycott which you've probably heard. He was vice-captain on a NZ tour in the 80's. Brearley was captain , but he broke his arm and had to come home.

In this particular match NZ gave England a "sporting" declaration - a win was definitely on if the batsmen just kept things moving.

Boycott was being Boycott; closing up shop, scoring well below the asking rate.

The rest of the guys were raging - Boycott was clearly putting his own desire for a big score ahead of the team. So Bob Willis calls them all together and tells them that the next man in will have to tell Boycott to speed things up, and if Boycott doesn't, run him out.

Total silence, and then Beefy pipes up, "I'll do it."

So Beefy pads up and when the next wicket falls (not Boycott's) he strolls out to the wicket and tells Boycott, "The guys want you to speed things up a bit. We can still win this game."

Boycott replies, "No bugger tells me how to bat. I'm going to be 120 not out at the end of this game."

"OK," says Beefy, walks down to the other end, takes guard.

First ball, Beefy pushes it into the covers and calls "ONE!"

Boycott comes thundering down the pitch to find Beefy leaning on his bat with a broad grin on his face, and the sound of the bales coming off at the other end and loud shout of "Howzat?" from the Kiwis.

"Bye, Geoff," says Beefy.

And Boycott has never forgiven him.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Buttler scores 116 from 52 balls as England reach 355-5 in the first innings of the final ODI of the series, outstanding!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Pakistan All Out for 271, England win the series 3-1 after being 1 down, good effort.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

England take a 2-0 lead in the 3 match t20 series after winning by 3 runs, good entertainment.

[marinello59]

Super Over time in the final T20 v Pakistan.

[marinello59]

And England make it a 3-0 series win.

[Treadstone]

Bit surprised that in an Ashes winning year no England cricketer is nominated for SPOTY. Thought Joe Root would've been worthy of a mention.

[HH81]

Root not been in makes it a complete non event. Who picks these people?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Super Over time in the final T20 v Pakistan.

Fine bowling effort by Jordan in the super over.

[HH81]

http://yorkshireccc.com/club-yorkshire

Just signed up to a Yorkshire membership for next season. 30 quid including some tickets and reduced price on the gate.

Crkcket is great value.

[jodjam]

South Africa 85/3 off 92 overs. This would be cricket porn for Tavare

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

South Africa 85/3 off 92 overs. This would be cricket porn for Tavare

All Out for 143 from 143.1 overs! :yawn:

India win the series 3-0.