Originally Posted by fraser (Post 7865491)

If we had of picked a second spinner wouldn't we have lost Broad?

Originally Posted by Generali (Post 7865516)

Another 100 runs and it's curtains for the Aussies surely. Even 240 is looking like a tough 4th innings score.

Originally Posted by fraser (Post 7865491)

If we had of picked a second spinner wouldn't we have lost Broad?

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 7865524)

There was none to pick anyway. Rashid? Too big a risk to try him in a critical game. Panesar has been bowling pies.

Think Harmison would have been dropped. Broad got a five fer at Headingly.

Even Pietersen would be handy. But he's injured.

So they'll have to do it with one.

Originally Posted by stuckinblighty (Post 7865457)

I stayed up till 4.30 this morning watching it :)
If England get rolled for less than 100 its still game on IMO....and the way they batted the last 90 minutes theres a very big chance..so its still game on.

Originally Posted by fraser (Post 7865184)

I went to bed when it was raining, woke up at 6.30 looked on the net and must ave woken the whole house..gutted I missed it.

Not entirely confident of victory yet as this is England, Strauss and Trott can put on another 50 odd we're there I believe.

Originally Posted by Fleaflyfloflum (Post 7864621)

And what did i say this morning?

Naaah dont listen to me, i'm a middle aged grandma. What do i know about cricket? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by stuckinblighty (Post 7865520)

But the Aussies can actually bat,unlike England....i reckon we need 330 minimum.

Originally Posted by Siren & Brian (Post 7863250)

Bat for 2 days and then there is no way England can win

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack (Post 7865664)

The beauty of cricket is that you never know..



Would it make any difference if you were an old-aged grandma?

Originally Posted by stuckinblighty (Post 7865520)

But the Aussies can actually bat,unlike England....i reckon we need 330 minimum.

Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede (Post 7866051)

Anyone who claims that the Oval was doctored is simply munching on sour grapes. The groundsmen said they would prepare a typical Oval pitch, and they've done exactly that. There's no funny business here. England have simply bowled better, that's all there is to it.



No, you'll be safe at 200. Australia clearly can't cope with swing bowlers; that's been obvious since the first Test. We came to the UK with a relatively weak bowling attack and a few rookies in the team, so I expected us to lose the Ashes - and we have!

We'll lose our #1 ranking and probably have to wait a while before we get it back, but that's fair enough; you can't stay on top forever. We've dominated international cricket for some decades now, so there's nothing to be ashamed of.

England's performance has been somewhat haphazard to say the least, and a 2:1 victory isn't exactly superstar material; more like "Phew, that was lucky"! But it will give the Poms some consolation after the 5:0 whitewash in 2007.

:)

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders (Post 7866054)

As I've said before this has been a fascinating contest between two very average teams

Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede (Post 7866051)

We'll lose our #1 ranking and probably have to wait a while before we get it back, but that's fair enough; you can't stay on top forever. We've dominated international cricket for some decades now, so there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Originally Posted by stuckinblighty (Post 7866123)

Yep Australia have been too bloody good for the last 2 decades,much longer really than most countries dominate for normally.
I'm just waiting for England's turn at being 'the daddy' .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .............