Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ashes to Ashes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
    I didnít know there was a threshold to stop the follow-on. It seems like that increases the chance of a draw whereas maybe Australia would have had a better chance to win if they could have made England bat again.
    It does. And it doesn't. Being able to ask the team batting second to follow-on was incorporated in the game to reduce the chance of draws as without that a side way ahead would have had to bat again first (or forfeit their innings or declare rapidly or some other such contrivance). However, I think it was always caveated as today, with a mark to beat of the total less x and then the team batting second cannot be asked to go in again. It gives a team that is struggling in a match an attainable goal as they look to turn things around. It also puts a bowling side with a big lead in a situation where they need to keep the attack up and not just go attritional and use the weight of the scoreboard to grind their opponents into the dust.

    Comment


      I can see how itís more sporting. It just seems to increase the chances of a draw. But then maybe draws are ok. The overall series is still unlikely to be a draw.


      I wish baseball had tests. I can imagine an alternative universe in which the World Series was called something else, the season was 40-50 games shorter and the rest of the calendar would be for riveting 11 game series between the US and Japan or DR vs Korea or Puerto Rico vs Venezuela. Etc.

      Comment


        Ellyse Perry is pretty much guaranteed to play in the T20s isn't she? I'm thinking of going down to Brighton on Sunday, it would be a shame to miss seeing such a stand out talent in the flesh.

        Comment


          Seems a real difference of opinion as to whether the Test was a good game or not. Me, I enjoyed listening to it on the radio a lot. And I distrust all the familiar journalistís narrative that players need to make a game of it, to play the game in some nebulous spirit of the game, to try and force a win at all costs. Especially with women's cricket, it is a precarious employment, and I fully understand Australia shutting up shop to seal the series, as that's what they came to do, and what they're paid to do.

          That said, women's Test cricket is played so infrequently they need to squeeze everything they can out of the game for the spectators. It wouldn't have hurt Australia to declare once the game was effectively won, and for Perry to try and whack a few to make a century. At least create a bit of a mini-game with the main game.



          Comment


            I don't think you can blame Australia at all. The format demanded that a draw was good enough to retain the ashes, why wouldn't they play for that on the final day rather than risking the result for a contrived contest.

            On top of that England didn't do their part. They batted very slowly on the third day (19 runs in the final hour of play).

            Edit: sorry I'm just repeating what you've said. I think it's the rarity of Women's Test Cricket and the points system of the Ashes that are at fault here.

            Comment


              Well the points system isn't that unusual either. If Australia's men win the first two Tests this summer, you wouldn't blame them for settling for a draw in the third because, as here, that would mean the best England could do would be to level the series and hence Australia would retain the Ashes.

              So I think it's much more (a) than (b). We need to get India and New Zealand (at least) in on the act. They've both shown a willingness in the past - table of participation from Wiki below.
              .
              .
              Team First Latest Matches
              England 1934 2019 95
              Australia 1934 2019 74
              NZ 1935 2004 45
              India 1976 2014 36
              South Africa 1960 2014 12
              West Indies 1976 2004 12
              Pakistan 1998 2004 3
              Ireland 2000 2000 1
              Netherlands 2007 2007 1
              Sri Lanka 1998 1998 1

              Edit - which isn't up to date to include this year's match, so I've tweaked it here.
              Last edited by Kevin S; 23-07-2019, 11:43.

              Comment


                Ah, do you mean the scheduled order? So if they'd played the Test first then neither team is particularly interested in the draw? I think I'd agree with that, and wondered if Test, ODI, T20 feels like a more logical order anyway, in decreasing match length.

                Comment


                  Why are women's tests so infrequent? Is it just because tests are out of fashion in general now?

                  It speaks well of cricket, I suppose, that there were women's tests in 1934 and a WWC as early as 1973. Women's cricket was run by its own organization, for better or worse, until 2005.

                  I wish women's baseball had done so well. We have softball, and there's a lot of interest in that at the high school and college level in some places, but the pro league isn't much and now that it's out of the olympics the international game has lost steam.

                  Comment


                    One of the best things about this summer, a relief from all the very very bad stuff that has happened, has been Hot Pepsi getting interested in cricket.

                    Anyway, early cricket was quite a strange beast. Outside the established county game, several unexpected competitions happened quite early, which gives the counter-intuitive impressive of it being surprisingly progressive and outernational. I think I'm right in saying that some of the earliest international games happened in North America, because (one assumes) over in England they had more than enough cricket to entertain themselves with already.
                    Last edited by diggedy derek; 23-07-2019, 15:56.

                    Comment


                      It seems like such a great game and I'd like to visit in the summer to watch it. Shame about the country. I could get Willow TV and watch it more, but I'm too cheap. Maybe eventually.


                      Apparently the first international match was US vs Canada. The first baseball world cup was in London in the 30s. Britain won vs the US 4-1. (I think the first ever international games were the 1904 Olympics in St Louis. Not sure who won).

                      I read recently that the original ICC or whatever it was called was restricted to members of the commonwealth. That's proven to be bad for the long-term commercial prospects of the game. Maybe without that it would have survived in the US and done better on the continent.

                      Comment


                        The I in ICC originally stood for Imperial.

                        You can watch cricket in Holland, which I would recommend.

                        Comment


                          That's right. They didn't foresee TV, obviously.

                          Why hasn't Holland broken through into the top echelon of cricket? Not enough interest or poor management?

                          Holland sounds ok. I worry they'll be completely underwater in a few years and apparently the cycling situation is actually kind of scary, but they seem pretty chill.

                          Comment


                            From what I can gather, it is primarily not enough interest.

                            It isn't a large country, and there are many sports with significant participation numbers. There also isn't as strong a push from South Asian immigrant communities as there is elsewhere.

                            That said, the system is such that it is very difficult for new countries to break though.

                            Comment


                              Is that the nature of the game or because India et al are trying to keep it that way?

                              Comment


                                Australia men are finalising their Ashes squad by playing an all-Aussie tour match. The players who've been flown over plus the County players like Siddle and some leftovers from the World Cup are playing for places in a match now being called Haddin XII v Hick XII.

                                day 1 report
                                https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...n-england-2019

                                Comment


                                  Looking like the women's series will be decided tonight. Australia putting up a big score.

                                  Comment


                                    Embarrassing. I expected Australia to be better, but these sides with broadly similar players have been fairly evenly matched for years. How's this gulf opened up?

                                    Comment


                                      Complacency and lack of competition for places? Lack of domestic competition? Not sure really. But it's really not acceptable, there have to be serious questions about how the team is run as with the men post-2015.

                                      Meanwhile the baggy greens have named their men's squad. Bancroft is recalled and Siddle is in the squad.

                                      Australia Ashes squad: Tim Paine (capt), Cameron Bancroft, Patrick Cummins, Marcus Harris, Josh Hazlewood, Travis Head, Usman Khawaja, Marnus Labuschagne, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Marsh, Michael Neser, James Pattinson, Peter Siddle, Steven Smith, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade, David Warner.

                                      Comment


                                        This seems as good a place as any to share this:

                                        How great romantic Neville Cardus changed sports writing for ever

                                        https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...y_to_clipboard

                                        Comment


                                          England squad for first Ashes Test: Joe Root (capt), Moeen Ali, James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow (wk), Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Jos Buttler (wk), Sam Curran, Joe Denly, Jason Roy, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes.

                                          Here's the thing. Woakes is so clearly the man who will take Anderson's strike bowler role in the long term. So he has to play every Test now as far as I'm concerned. Overseas too. If both Broad and Anderson are playing then Woakes has to be seamer #3 and have a serious work load. Otherwise Jimmy could suddenly retire and we don't have an experienced replacement.

                                          Archer can be used initially as an additional weapon to shit teams right up for a dozen overs or so a day. He's very quick fielding at the boundary too. Curran isn't getting into my team atm and nor is Stone. Pick the bowlers Australia won't want to face. Obviously if Anderson isn't fit then then Woakes goes up to join Broad as main attack bowlers and one of those two backfills. Plus there's also Stokes' rfm as well.

                                          I'm not sure whether my 'batting spinner' is Moeen, Rashid or Leach at the moment. Obviously England have decided it needs to be Moeen and on experience you take him. But I'm not sure you do on form. Root can do a bit of part time of course.

                                          Buttler, Bairstow or both? And that's before we get on to the top order...
                                          Last edited by Kevin S; 27-07-2019, 20:48.

                                          Comment


                                            I'm not too sure why I'm surprised at the number of Australians here in Hove. England batting first.

                                            Ah the sun's just come out.

                                            Comment


                                              So only 5 players eligible for other international teams.
                                              Is this a record?

                                              Comment


                                                What's an average or good batting average for T20? Both men and women? It doesn't seem like a format that will see people get high ones.

                                                On a statistical note, has there been any work on derived player statistics? Like a number for bowlers that takes into account strike rate, economy and average? I guess the same could be done for batters.

                                                Anyway, England weren't great, two players straight bowled attempting to play across/ramp, a number of close calls. 122 for Australia to win.

                                                Comment


                                                  Here's the career leader board for Men's Internationals.

                                                  Essentially, mid 30s means you are just off the all time top ten.

                                                  The women don't really play often enough for there to be a solid record, but here are the stats for the Women's Big Bash.

                                                  http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...20;type=trophy

                                                  Comment


                                                    Don't really know Levin but I can't see 122 being enough for England to stand a chance. But I base that more on the superiority of the Australians this summer than knowing much about T20 batting averages. Australia have just scored 14 off the first over.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X