2009 Ashes Series - England vs. Australia **Spoilers**

CGrieves said:
Ramprakash would be a very bad idea. I just can't see how the selectors could draft in a player with zero international test form over the last seven years.

And I concede that Bell was also a bad recall. He just doesn't seem to know how to bat against a world-class bowling attack.

The real, and very basic problem is that England have lost the ability to play first-class cricket. Test match batting, with basic footwork, along with bowling a consistent line and length seems to be beyond them. It's no surprise that they lost to the best team in the world if they can't enact the basics.

At the beginning of this Ashes, I really didn't mind who won as long as the series was tight, exciting and well contested. This really disappointing display of amateur cricketing has left me feeling rather disinterested and very disappointed.

Yes the lower-order stand in the last innings was entertaining, but if you're relying on the last five wickets to make centuries in order to stay in contention, then something is inherently wrong with the team's performance.
Click to expand...

Just to make it clear btw - Ramprakash wouldn't be my pick either, I just wouldn't be too annoyed if he was recalled. I think Trott or Key would be a better pick, probably Key given his experience. I think it'd be a bit of a risk giving Trott his debut in a must-win test like that, but then he would also have the opportunity to get a good run in the side.

What I don't understand about our middle order, as you have pointed out, is why they are consistently found out against a swinging ball. Yes, I know any world class batsman will struggle when the ball is doing hoops, but the ball always swings in England and the past 2 years we've had bowlers come over and make some of our batsmen look inept. The first innings saw the batsman nibbling at wide deliveries and in the second innings they were missing straight ones!
 
It was a crazy result for a team enjoying a solid lead. England went to Headingley with their hands on the reins and every prospect of success; Australia turned up with three embarrassing results and every prospect of defeat. But only one captain had already decided he would take control of the game, and it was not Strauss. I don't believe he has the killer instinct.

Of course, Strauss isn't responsible for batsmen who flail at bad balls and get themselves out with silly shots to well placed fielders. He's a great batsman and a good captain. But I do believe that there's a difference in the quality of leadership.


Ponting: "It's amazing how things can change, I'm proud of everyone for sticking with him and supporting him through it. We knew that with just a little bit going his way that [Johnson would] be able to turn things around and I think in the last couple of games in particular he's just showing his class as an all-round cricketer.

We knew this was a big game for us, I knew England would be under some pressure going into this game but we played really well and we can take that into the next game.

[...]

We've been trying to find our best cricket over the last three or four weeks and I said to the boys right the way through that I know if we play our best we are going to win."


Strauss: "We didn't really turn up in this game and it's pretty disappointing. When you're bowled out for 102 in the first session you're always struggling to claw the game back. So we've got to recover as a batting unit and figure out where we went wrong and make sure we don't repeat the mistakes at The Oval.

It certainly wasn't a 450 wicket, so both the batters and the bowlers didn't acquit themselves quite as well as we could have done, but we've got to take it on the chin."
​

When all you can say is "we didn't turn up", there's definitely something very wrong. And to claim that "it wasn't a 450 wicket"?! Australia hit 445 in their first innings! :rolleyes:
 
Evangelion said:
It was a crazy result for a team enjoying a solid lead. England went to Headingley with their hands on the reins and every prospect of success; Australia turned up with three embarrassing results and every prospect of defeat. But only one captain had already decided he would take control of the game, and it was not Strauss. I don't believe he has the killer instinct.

When all you can say is "we didn't turn up", there's definitely something very wrong. And to claim that "it wasn't a 450 wicket"?! Australia hit 445 in their first innings! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'd say 400 was a very good score on that wicket - there was some inconsistent bounce with the new ball and plenty for the bowlers, but England's bowling plans were dreadful. They gave away at least 100 runs after taking Katich's wicket by bowling far too short.
 
Evangelion said:
At 39, Ramps is getting on a bit. And yeah, he was doing great things in 2007, but it's 2009 now. :/

What's his average been this season?
Click to expand...

More to the point, his test average is 27.

People point out he has done well at the Oval against the Aussies before, but that was in dead rubbers when the series was already lost, which puts a different complexion on it. Much like the way Bell scored all his centuries only when others in the team were also scoring well; he's never done it when the team has had its back to the wall.
 
dirtydog said:
More to the point, his test average is 27.

People point out he has done well at the Oval against the Aussies before, but that was in dead rubbers when the series was already lost, which puts a different complexion on it. Much like the way Bell scored all his centuries only when others in the team were also scoring well; he's never done it when the team has had its back to the wall.
Click to expand...

Hmm, Ramps did always consistently score runs against the aussies though, 12 matches, 6 50's, 1 100 @42.50. You're right some of them were dead rubbers though. He was just never able to hit big runs against teams, it was always 20s, 30s and the odd 50.

Still, 8 years on, I expect he's calmed down a bit as a person, but at 39, it'd be one of the most bizzare recalls ever. Part of me wants the selectors to pick him just to see how he performs!
 
to be fair to Ramps average, he did play against the best West Indies and Aussie lines up when he played. Atherton has a Test Average of 38 and he was a stalwart as opener.

I think the best players in the best form have to be picked for the national side, so I think Ramps should be in.

England would have been happy with someone getting 20 in this last test :P
 
He's in form against county pie throwers - test match cricket against a determined Aussie side playing for the Ashes is light years apart.

Like Graham Hick, you can murder average bowling but come unstuck against the best.
 
But when you're selecting players you have to just play them on their merits. If it was so easy to do what he's done, then every batsman would have a high average and Ramps would be an average batsman.

He faces the same county bowlers that the rest of the England batters face (when they do play county cricket) and they don't seem to be hitting centuries all the time
 
Which side do the Fanatics support then? Never heard of them. They an extremist wing of the Barmy Army? :p
dirtydog said:
Bell scored all his centuries only when others in the team were also scoring well; he's never done it when the team has had its back to the wall.
Click to expand...
There was an article on BBC Sports a while back looking at why Bell wasn't in the England team. It compared Bell to Collingwood, who both had played in similar number of Tests, but that Collingwood with arguably more mental strength than Bell but arguably less talent than Bell was in the England team and Bell wasn't.

The main point of the article that stuck with me was that it said that Bell has never scored a century for England where he's the only English centurion. He's only scored a century when someone else also has, in other words when another batsman is working towards 100 and taking some of the pressure Bell can play but when its backs against the wall and every man for himself Bell can't score 100. In fact he never has!
 
MarcLister said:
Which side do the Fanatics support then? Never heard of them. They an extremist wing of the Barmy Army? :pThere was an article on BBC Sports a while back looking at why Bell wasn't in the England team. It compared Bell to Collingwood, who both had played in similar number of Tests, but that Collingwood with arguably more mental strength than Bell but arguably less talent than Bell was in the England team and Bell wasn't.

The main point of the article that stuck with me was that it said that Bell has never scored a century for England where he's the only English centurion. He's only scored a century when someone else also has, in other words when another batsman is working towards 100 and taking some of the pressure Bell can play but when its backs against the wall and every man for himself Bell can't score 100. In fact he never has!
Click to expand...

The fanatics are sort of Australia's version of the barmy army. I get the impression though, unlike the barmy army which has quite a mixture of folk which results in a group of supporters who on the whole are tolerable, the fanatics mainly consists of tossers. Could be wrong there, though.
 
oli collett said:
The fanatics are sort of Australia's version of the barmy army. I get the impression though, unlike the barmy army which has quite a mixture of folk which results in a group of supporters who on the whole are tolerable, the fanatics mainly consists of tossers. Could be wrong there, though.
Click to expand...
Well if the Fanatics are Australian then it would be completely consists of tossers, not mainly consists. ;)

Gilly said:
Some gay convicts.
Click to expand...
Haha. :D

They wear pink then? :p
 
Having a read this morning on cricinfo and it seems like Flintoffs agent said he was able to play ie was fit and because he was overlooked hes devastated at missing out. If he was fit then why didnt he play??

As for Ramps??...well i reckon they should give him a chance seeing as its at the Oval and hes been in excellent form county wise...whats the worse that could happen??..he can only do better than Bopara or Bell...he cant do any worse can he??.

Aussies havent won a Test at the Oval for quite some time now so England will have that on their side. Problem is that the Aussies arent the rampaging side of a few yrs ago when they brushed sides away like sweeping dirt away:p...this Ashes series has definitely been the closest for a pretty long time....looking forward to the Oval test...would love to go and watch it but tickets are stupidly expensive and not worth it.
 
Last edited:
Spawn said:
Having a read this morning on cricinfo and it seems like Flintoffs agent said he was able to play ie was fit and because he was overlooked hes devastated at missing out. If he was fit then why didnt he play??
Click to expand...
I don't think he was fit. If he was he would have played. The ECB/selectors would have been mad to leave a fit Flintoff out in a game that had we won, meant the Ashes fight was over. His agent may have meant Flintoff was devastated to be out of the game because of his injury?

Spawn said:
As for Ramps??...well i reckon they should give him a chance seeing as its at the Oval and hes been in excellent form county wise...whats the worse that could happen??..he can only do better than Bopara or Bell...he cant do any worse can he??.
Click to expand...
He can't do any worse than Bopara certainly, not sure about Bell. I think Bell is a better fielder than Bopara. If Ramps comes in, for a Test at his home ground, then Bopara has to go. Bell is in for KP so why should he drop out? Bopara has been awful this series and should go.
 
Spawn said:
Having a read this morning on cricinfo and it seems like Flintoffs agent said he was able to play ie was fit and because he was overlooked hes devastated at missing out. If he was fit then why didnt he play??

As for Ramps??...well i reckon they should give him a chance seeing as its at the Oval and hes been in excellent form county wise...whats the worse that could happen??..he can only do better than Bopara or Bell...he cant do any worse can he??.
Click to expand...

Flintoff injured himself (more) at Lords. He wasn't up to the job as a bowler in the next test, and there was no point carrying him at Headingley, he wouldn't have made the difference. If he is fit for the last test then the pitch should suit him.

Ramprakash is worth a punt over Bell/Bopara. His deficiency was always mental rather than technical, and he has the experience and desire to show what he could have done one last time. Home ground, its a no brainer to select him, but just him with one of the B's. Too many changes will upset the spirit of the team.

Continuity is over-rated - it can only 'come off' in people's perception. When it fails, nobody notices, and old heads dont hang around long enough to change the long term development of a squad. There are countless examples of older plays playing important cameos and their value shouldn't be ignored for some ill-thought out idea of what looks neat on paper.
 
it wasn't worth putting flintoff on in that test he was obviously hurt and he wouldn't have done any better in that condition not to mention would probably for sure put himself out in the last test where he will be now needed most.
 
I'm not as big cricket fan as some of you guys but always watch the ashes series but from what i've been reading doesn't Rampakash play in the second division of the cricket leagues. Therefor wouldn't the standard of bowling be lower, the standard as a whole be lower then league 1. I mean i know rampakash has been superb from what i've read but shorly you cannot pick him over Key or Trott (both in the league 1?). His England test averages was only 27.32 as well so going on past records it was hardly a blistering average.

Which brings me to Trott i also read he bats at edgebaston which is a great batting pitch and renowned for batsman getting high averages, which would give trott better figures, wouldn't it...

Which leaves Key, it seems he is the man most deserving a place
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom