Beoz

Ok. Let me embarress you. You did ask for it.

I could explain it to you but you are intent on picking a fight rather than discussing. So I'll let someone else do the talking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/10264726/Ashes-2013-England-may-have-won-but-cricket-has-lost-out-thanks-to-a-dull-contest-played-out-on-lifeless-pitches.html

OzTennis

I won't even read that because your argument is that test matches finish a lot quicker because of the wickets. Unless the wickets are different to when test matches in England lasted 5 days you are clearly wrong. Now, are the wickets different? For the record, on Sky commentary in the UK the panel of at least 6 test captains have been saying 'it's not as if the ball has been seaming a lot this time'. The Lords pitch was flat - game over with a day to spare.

Don't try the 'incredibly weak' knowledge trick either. I was playing high level cricket with future test and shield players before you were born; I've watched and attended matches all my life; I've spent many an hour discussing the game with national cricket coaches at coaching conferences. I'm only saying this because you are operating under some illusion that I'm tennis only.

You 'embarress' yourself yet again with your spelling.

Beoz

Calm down sonny. If you want to discuss and listen, lets do that, but if you want to talk, and only talk, then you better revisit that life time in education.

Have a look at the results. Its not as if England have scored masses of runs on the over green pastures. Birmingham and Nottingham especially. If you want tests to be going 5 days, the winning team needs to be scoring 800 odd for a match and the losing team needs to be up there too. It can be done even with IPL batsmen - see the flatter deck Lords test. Australia scored its 800 runs and were allowed to because the flatter deck dictated lengthy batting. In the other tests no team has got close to 800 runs. Why? Bowler friendly wickets and the team who exploited those conditions, England, have won the match.

Its pretty simple.

Beoz

England win the toss, "Bowl". That should be game over then and there. 4-1

I'm off to Spain.

Sidders is in, could be effective early on if he hits the spot, which Hazlewood couldn't do, but with 16 wickets, imagine what he could have been. Should the wicket dry out later, and become like an Oval pitch, and the match goes far enough for that, might see a bit of Johnson bounce and potential spin. Good to see the all rounder back. No point replacing shite batsmen with shite batsmen. It needs to be all about taking wickets.

Anderson missing but that doesn't seem to matter. A bowler for England is always standing up.

Beoz

For what its worth, Michael Vaughan just called for Mitchell Johnson to be the man left out of this test, with Siddle, Starc, and Cummins being the seamers.

Good call Michael but 5 tests too late.

OzTennis

I don't need to calm down and I am discussing - you just don't like to listen if anyone says something which doesn't tie in with your view. I stated that test matches last less time due to limited overs; you disagree and say it is due to the wickets. Fair enough you are entitled to a different opinion but don't question my knowledge and you still haven't said the wickets are different to what they used to be because they aren't. Something other than the wickets is causing test matches to last less time.

Australia has batted extremely poorly most innings and not bowled well in most. England have played better, Lords excepted.

Broad, Anderson etc bowl very few balls on the stumps and put it in the corridor outside off; at the '5th or 6th stump'. Due to limited overs cricket the batsmen don't have the patience they used to, to leave the ball time and time again to make them change their line. Instead they have pushed hard and early at balls they don't have to play.

Australia basically invented the new style of test batting which was to try to score at 4 runs per over which was the benchmark to measure batting progress against. That idea needs a re-think.

Beoz

I haven't read any moaning from the players and why would they. They knew what type of pitches they were going to get. Had England had a decent spinner they were going to get spin friendly pitches. If seamers are the go you get seam friendly.

You are right, Lillee, Thompson and McGrath would have licked their lips at the prospect of green decks. So would have Harris and Hazlewood should have. Johnson would prefer Aussie/SA decks and Starc is just a mystery. He could do both on his day.

Beoz

Where did I question your opinion on the short test thing? Can you please show me? You stated your opinion, had I disputed your opinion I would have replied to you. I didn't reply to your opinion. I just voiced mine. Talk about paranoid.

scrubbedexpat098

this is almost as entertaining as the cricket

OzTennis

The short nature of tests, especially this Ashes, is largely down to pitch preparation suiting bowlers.

On Sky in the UK, Shane Warne came into the commentary box at 11.30 am to the comment from the English commentators that Australia haven't done well this series. The very first words he spoke were - 'it's a 5 day game' and then went on to say the batsmen have not been playing test innings and leaving more balls go. They were just discussing Australia's bowling attack moving on from now. Warne said Hazlewood has been very disappointing (you trumpeted him) and that Johnson will be first pick and then it's between Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins, Pattinson etc who else plays. He was disappointed in Siddle being picked this time and wanted Cummins instead. You say how great an observer Warne is incidentally, it's why I quote him.

What's happened this time? The ball is moving about but Warner and Rogers haven't gone at it T20 style and have let balls go from Broad, Finn, Stokes and Wood more often. 0/44 the result so far. Go off to Spain and check how the test is going when you get there - it won't be the formality you think just because England won the toss and it's at the Oval. The batsmen thus far are applying a test match brain to their batting and it's not as easy for the bowlers as previous tests.

scrubbedexpat098

that makes for far better reading than blaming grass, hard to disagree I reckon, bet someone does though

Beoz

Correct. But I never quoted you so are you happy I never attempted to take on your IPL theory?

This is all riveting, (turn on the BBC radio, you'll get a better insight) and as much as I am a fan of Warne's cricketing brain, lets ask him one question. If it was all about poor batting by Australia, why did England never score 800 in a test like we should see in a 5 day test? You know the answer sits with bowler prepped pitches. When both sides aren't getting close to 800 (bar Lords) the only way you will see the 800's and 5 day tests is to make them more batter friendly.

Have England actually hit the right areas before lunch? Have they made Australia play consistently. I think you know the answer is no.

So as we come full circle in this discussion, and like in a science project conclusion, here we have it. Australia have been swinging it all series and haven't hit the mark therefore haven't taken the wickets like England have. England have been far more consistent hitting the spot. This morning is a perfect example of what happens when you don't use the perfect line and length with conditions that assist.

The end. Thanks for your time

Amazulu

Agree it was more the press than players - although some did say that the wicket was prepared to favour England

Beoz

It is prepared to favour England. But that's fine, its in England, they can prep it how they want.

Only fools would prep it to suit the opposition. (See Ashes 2010/2011)

spouse of scouse

BEVS, it looks like the rules are you have to have a penis, the tactics are the angle of the dangle, and the game is called Push the Crystals.

Or were you talking about cricket?