7 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

At no stage during the Series did the Aussies bat as a consistent unit, they were prone to individual failure and collapses.

We missed one hell of an opportunity to thrash them.

The weather beat us at OT, we beat ourselves at Lords.

It was a great watch throughout.

Broad has some scriptwriter.

Great team? great Captain? Not until you beat the Aussies home and away. Some have ....

Just to win a game in Australia would be something, that we have only won test's in 1 of our last 5 tours is in an embarrassment. 

Australia come here and regardless of how good a team they have they usually compete our last 3 efforts down under have been pathetic a 5-0 & two 4-0's and one of those would have been 5-0 if not for the weather compare that to the last three in England you have two 2-2's and a 3-2 to England, they have won as many matches on their last 3 tours here as we have on our last 9 tours to Australia. I think it is safe to assume that Anderson won't be in the squad next time we tour there and that will mean that no one in our squad will have ever won a test in Australia.

6 minutes ago, Gav said:

He had a niggle apparently, that was the reason for his omission. 

That was Wood, Woakes was fit

1 minute ago, RoverDom said:

If cricket was decided on the pitch and not by the weather this would be set up for an absolutely thrilling last 2 hours to decide the ashes. 

Still a cracking watch though! 

It wouldn't because it would have been all over yesterday or early this morning at the very latest.

Not picking Chris Woakes at Lords a ground he averages 11.33 on with the ball has cost England winning the Ashes. Woakes has been phenomenal since coming in England's player of the series for me.

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

thanks for the info there. Lets hope we see them come through in the coming years. 

Isn't Dawson 33 years old? 

Yes but he could still do a job the next two winters in India and Pakistan.

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Thanks for the reply Ewood 

what type of bowler are Sam Cook or Tom Lawes or Atkinson? I mean are the swing bowlers or pace bowlers for example. 

Matt Fisher and Olly Stone were the 2 I couldn't remember. 

Any more spinners apart from Will Jacks, Rehan Ahmed and Matt Parkinson? 

Cook is a swing bowler, in a similar mould to Anderson. Atkinson has good pace, hits the pitch hard and can swing the ball. Lawes is just a lovely bowler to watch a good rhythmic run, nice action & at 20 years of age only going to get better.

The spin bowling department is pretty bare in addition to those you have mentioned the only other I would add is Liam Dawson.

9 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

thanks for the info

I think the bowling attack will need to be overhaul in the short term whilst the batting doesn't. 

Do you have any suggestions for possible bowlers we should be looking at? 

Potts, Jamie Overton, Tongue, Robinson. Any more names? 

Sam Cook at Essex is a ready made replacement for Anderson. I watched Tom Lawes bowl for Surrey last week he's only 20 but was very impressive defiantly one to keep an eye, Atkinson at Surrey also gets good pace and bounce.  Another lad I like a lot but struggles with fitness is Henry Brookes.

You've then got the likes of Fisher, Mahmood & Stone who have played a handful of tests between them but all have had stress fractures within the last year and in the case of the later two they have been recurring. 

7 minutes ago, den said:

So forget the term Bazball and tell me why anybody would oppose that.

Because it absolves players of any responsibility.

8 minutes ago, Gav said:

Manchester City are the finished article right now, they need very little tinkering, Pep provides the philosophy, the tactics and style play, the finished article.

English cricket is very much a work in progress, we have Crawley, Brook, Ducket, Pope and Archer, with Stokes, Key and Brendon providing the philosophy, tactics and style of play.

You can forget about Archer he hasn't played a test in 2.5 years and probably won't be playing many more going forward. All the other's you have named are batsmen so is it only the batting side of the game that you think is work in progress? Because with the age of the England's bowling attacking it is hard to see any of them progressing greatly.

Just now, Gav said:

You’ve just described a work in progress as far as I’m concerned, but do stick around to see how this plays out. 

How can you call a team that have a bowling attacking made up of 41, 37, 36, 34 & 33 year olds work in progress. One of those in Broad is already retiring, Moeen will most likely re-retire, Anderson's time is all but up, Wood at 33 won't have many years left with his injury record and Woakes might have a few years left but can't bowl overseas.

40 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Agree with a lot of this. I think ‘Bazball’ will evolve to be fair.

It's evolved over this series until yesterday evening when they were too lax and left the door slightly ajar for Australia when it really should have been slammed shut with them chasing over 400.

Going into the series England had gotten massively carried away by their own hype and those first two matches were a big reality check.

On Pakistan England have toured Pakistan 9 times for test series winning 3, losing 3 & drawing 3. Although they have won 2 of their last 3 tours there.

17 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

I would argue he is actually more of a legend than Jimmy, despite having less career test wickets. He has won several matches single handedly over the years with some amazing spells of bowling. Until he got hit on the head his batting was half decent too.

Broad will be remembered more fondly than Anderson despite being an inferior bowler when at their peaks. English cricketers are best remembered by their performances in Ashes series and Broad has been a phenomenal competitor in Ashes cricket whereas Anderson's record is poor, criminally poor really for someone as good as him.

I know Anderson has a poor record against Australia especially in England but his performances this series are beyond poor. It would have been best for all concerned if he had like Alastair Cook a few years ago retired with grace and dignity and was given the send of at The Oval that his career deserved. He's not going to be a threat in India in the winter and next summer with what should be two routine home series we need to be looking at blooding bowlers for the next Ashes series not playing a 41-42 year old.

19 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Exactly my point Ewood. Crowds don't want to watch that type of cricket now. They want to be entertain now. Apart from England, India and Australia aren't interested in boring slow cricket. Sky Crickets commentators were talking about this Saturday morning. 

Test crowds in India are poor despite them over the last decade being the best team in the format. Crowds in Australia outside of Ashes test's and the boxing day test are rarely close to sell outs. The only country that sells out test cricket is England and that has nothing to do with the way England are playing, in 2021 despite winning just one test all summer grounds were packed.

International cricket as a whole not just test cricket is in trouble with the rise of franchise leagues and with the BCCI, ECB and CA continuing to widen the financial gap between themselves and other nations. 

20 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Teams and captains get fined plus Dock ICC test points. There is already an extra 30 mins now. But most teams don't bowl their daily overs allowance. Down to ICC to come up with better plan with test playing countries 

No it's not it's down to the team to bowl them there is absolutely no reason why sides should not be bowling 90 overs in 6 1/2 hours play.

25 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Who cares how they are celebrating. I couldn't give a damn to be honest. 

Some people are stuck in the past and now willing to modernise how teams play test cricket. The paying public is not willing to pay top prices to watch slow boring non entertaining cricket all over the world. 

The sad fact is that outside of England and for certain matches in Australia far too few of the public are paying any prices to watch test cricket. Just look at the crowds for the ongoing tests in Trinidad and Colombo.

5 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

More flexibility needs ro be built into the timing. This time of year its light from 7am - 9pm yet we can only play 11-630 ( latest 730).

There is a difference between it being light and it being light enough to play cricket. I certainly wouldn't want to be facing say Mark Wood with the red ball in hand at 20:30.

5 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Again as an occasional cricket fan - test cricket will struggle to attract new fans if a test series, the apparent pinnacle of test series, can be decided by the weather. In no other sport would such a thrilling contest be allowed to fizzle out. This series should be 2-2 and set for the ultimate decider. Instead it fizzled out and England now playing for a draw. 

More flexibility needs ro be built into the timing. This time of year its light from 7am - 9pm yet we can only play 11-630 ( latest 730). When there was such heavy rain forecast for day 4 and 5 why are they not making them play the full 90 overs on the good days.

They are given an extra half an hour in the day to get the overs in that they can't do that is poor on their part. England's overrate yesterday given they bowled predominantly spin and knew they weren't going to get a huge amount of playing time was dreadful.

5 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

More flexibility needs ro be built into the timing. This time of year its light from 7am - 9pm yet we can only play 11-630 ( latest 730). When there was such heavy rain forecast for day 4 and 5 why are they not making them play the full 90 overs on the good days. Why are we wandering off for tea after two hours in the only weather window of the day. Why is there a pitch inspection  at 12:15 and lunch taken at 12:20.

The taking of lunch was as much for the ground staff to get everything ready as anything.

5 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

In any other sport, if an event had been rained off it would be rescheduled. In any other sport every effort would have been made to get players on the pitch but cricket seems to be male every effort to keep them off it. 

That is just part and parcel of cricket rain has saved England in the past think back to Cardiff in 2013. It saved us in Sydney from another whitewash on our last tour down under.

Stokes on the BBC saying that 'there are bigger things for us than winning the Ashes'. I can only assume that is the New Zealander in him coming out as there is nothing bigger for the England cricket team than winning the Ashes and come the first ball in Brisbane in 2025 it will be over 10 years since England last won an Ashes series,

13 minutes ago, den said:

I was there on Friday. As a member I’ve been on OT plenty of times in the last couple of seasons.

for me the ground and stands have no flow to them. It’s just comprised of stand alone units. The point and the two hotels, while bringing in a shed load of dosh all year round,  just look like they could be part of a business complex. They’re very nice inside I’ve no doubt at all but they look a bit lost to me.

The money talks again with the temporary party stand. It allows for concerts and 8500 fans at test matches but it’s an ugly abomination of a thing when it’s up and leaves a huge gap of nothingness when it’s not.

The building opposite the pavilion where the players and press are situated. What a soulless place that is. 

As for the  Portaloos - well they’re disgusting places wherever they are. My mate used one at the end of play on Friday and said it was disgusting. You can imagine what it was like after around ten hours of use can’t you. 
 

So for me, I get completely why they have gone big on the corporate side of things. The overall design of the ground really could have been much better in my view. It looks more like a business park than an international sports stadium.
 

Is that looking awful new hotel at least going to be painted red? At the very least they could make it blend in with other awful looking hotel and the point.

Ground's like The Oval, Lords, Edgbaston have modernised but still look and feel like cricket grounds. Old Trafford when you visit feels more like a corporate hospitality venue where they also just happen to play cricket.

26 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

A defiant Ben Stokes has claimed that anyone who questioned England's decision to declare in the first Ashes Test "probably doesn't understand the game" as well as he and his side do.

Ben Stokes snaps back at declaration question as England have Ashes dream ended by rain (msn.com)

Well done Stokes for keep backing himself and his decisions. 

Defiant or deluded?

5 minutes ago, Gav said:

Well I am sure, although Anderson and Broad seem content right now to carry on.

Can you imagine the impact Archer would have made had he been fit, he’s the future, but can he regain his fitness. 

This series has shown that Anderson's time is up I only hope he sees that and get's given the appropriate send of at The Oval.

I can't even imagine Jofra Archer being fit let alone what he may have done in this series. I personally don't see him having much of a test career. He seems more interested in being a white ball mercenary.

5 minutes ago, Gav said:

They won this in Australia den, we have to win them back and whilst I also believe they’re lucky, this is why we love cricket as much as we do, the many variables. 

We have closed that gap, our future is bright, but well done to Aussies, that 2-0 lead was too much to pull back sadly. 

I'm not sure there's much future in the bowling attack that played in this test.

A tale of two declarations from Stokes (or rather lack of in one case). At Edgbaston he declared far too early and gave Australia the initiative in the early on in the series. Then in this test he batted on too long for Bairstow to get his hundred and allow them to justify his selection but in the end his selection has not been justified as his performance behind the stumps has had a huge bearing on this series..

5 minutes ago, den said:

Well done to them?

Theyve just suffered a hammering that wasn’t completed only because of virtually two full days of cricket washed out. That would have made it 2-2 with the momentum in Englands favour. 

They deservedly got themselves ahead 2-0 up early and that has made sure that they retained the urn. If you go 2-0 down as England did then you are always going to be a hostage to circumstances.

2 hours ago, RoverDom said:

What's with all the stupid breaks in cricket. It was clear there was limited playing time yesterday but they still took afternoon  tea. They've been having drinks breaks galore and now they're taking lunch 5mins after the pitch inspection

The biggest loser of time is overrates. England's overrate yesterday as it has been all series was unacceptable and so has Australia's for that matter. 26 overs lost due to slow overrates in the first 3 days of this test and that is with the additional half an hour as well.

At least we won't have this problem in the next Ashes Series over here with 3 tests being held in the glorious south.

5 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

A bizarre interview from a supremely arrogant poor wicketkeeper.

His 99 have him the opening for this, a low score he would have kept his gob shut.

One swallow caught doesn't make a summer

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66272611

He actually (unintentionally) makes the case for him not keeping wicket.