Originally Posted by Alfresco (Post 11736671)

Yep, well done to them.

Originally Posted by cresta57 (Post 11736732)

I didn't watch any of the matches, I would if they swapped shirts at the end like the blokes used to.

Originally Posted by Alfresco (Post 11736734)

:D

Maybe they do in Rugby.

Originally Posted by cresta57 (Post 11736803)

Some of those would fail a sex test I'm sure:eek: That prop is bigger than Waerea-Hargreaves:scarper:

Originally Posted by OzTennis (Post 11730058)

Tis you who is out of your league. It's very noticeable if anyone puts up a decent argument backed up with facts that you resort to the belittling tactic and can't argue back. Your league incidentally is clearly one of English village cricket.

The irony of this series is how incredibly the momentum has shifted. Again evidence that the modern test cricketer has lost the ability to fight back. Whoever wins the first couple of sessions in this series stays on top. Cardiff to Lords; Lords to Edgbaston (momentum stayed at Trent Bridge but one session and no fightback from Australia); Trent Bridge to the Oval. This has been unique. Why? Wickets of course (I'm extracting the urine). I reckon again it is the influence of the pyjama cricket at play.

The further irony is that England have batted worst on the wickets which have done the least - Lords and the Oval. It's not surprising they have bowled the worst on these wickets. The other irony is that Siddle and Mitch Marsh, who both should have been in for Edgbaston and Trent Bridge instead of Hazlewood who has been very disappointing (got some wickets but every astute observer noted he was bowling fairly at best) have shown the English bowlers that there is some movement to be extracted at the Oval. In many ways the Oval pitch has been the fairest for both bat and ball in this series.

Series over I know but England were absolutely desperate to do what they've not done before and win 4 at home.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11738964)

The funny thing about this is you've come full circle and end up recognising bowlers win Ashes in England. Not sure why its taken you 5 tests to realise this ..... an incompetent cricket supporter I guess.

So after you've taken the piss out of me holidaying in Spain (sure nothing beats a caravan park somewhere on your beloved Port Phillip Bay) and come to the conclusion that Mitchell Johnson can't bowl in England, despite desperates sells that he would, and Josh Hazelwood taking 16 wickets in 4 tests, 3rd overall, and bowling pretty badly at that, where to from here?

I hope you have learned a thing or 2 from this thread. I know you would never admit it, too proud, too many degrees, too much of a lifetime in education to preach rather than listen.

Originally Posted by OzTennis (Post 11739516)

N Bowl in a certain pocket and it's game over according to you.

Every Sky commentator (Ponting, Warne, Gower, Hussain, Atherton, Lloyd and Holding) to a man said Hazlewood was a disappointment in the series despite what the stats say - they expected better simply. You know more than 4 test captains and your darling commentator Warne?

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11740331)

Of course. It was always going to come down to who bowled best in this Ashes. Both teams evenly matched in the batting stakes, it was always going to come down to who bowled the best. If fact not too dissimilar the past 4 Ashes series in England really.

Hazlewood was a disappointment which I have repeatedly said. Had he bowled like he test in previous series we should have seen 25 - 30 wickets which is the exactly reason why I would have him first or second pick. English wickets are perfectly suited to his style which is come in from height, bang it on the money, use the wicket for a bit of swing and seam - happy days. Unfortunately he did not hit the money. I think Siddle's effort in the 5th is a prime example on how easy the line and length bowlers can have it in England should they hit the spot.

So it was an easy selection from the get go and as I said Harris, Hazelwood, Starc and Lyon. Unfortunately we lost Harris so Johnson got the nod. Bowled well but just not effective on these wickets.

Really you don't need to pay Sky to listen to these guys - I told you this from day one. We've gone full circle again and you end up agreeing with me. How about you just need to pay me instead, then listen in on the BBC for free - you'll get way more chat and better quality with it. :p

Originally Posted by OzTennis (Post 11740341)

If you think Johnson only played because Harris broke down then that says it all. If you think listening to sport rather than watching and listening is better then again that says it all too. The series was about who bowled best AND batted worst as it turned out. Next series see if you can mention the batsmen. I don't know why you keep saying WE either.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11740371)

But you don't go to games remember, unless its at the MCG. You need to go to these games, and if you are lucky like me, play on these pitches to really understand what's going on. Hopefully you are taking all this in. Its ok to admit you are wrong and still be proud :)

Originally Posted by Alfresco (Post 11771188)

India whinging already...
India to lodge official complaint against umpire Kulkarni | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
Are they not using technology in these games?

India are usually the ones that don't want to use it. Hmmmm.