A rain forced draw and a remarkable win paper over what has been a terribly one sided series. This is not a great Australia side. It has some good players (Cummins, Smith and Warner) but there are also a lot of average performers, but this England team is less than the sum of its parts. We have some talent, but there are some players who have not performed at all consistently enough and some of the batting collapses have been embarrassing. Bowling has been patchy, with long stretches of ineffectual bowling, allowing the Aussies to rack up large totals on not great batting surfaces.
TBF the only difference was that Smith and Cummins are Australian, Stokes is English. So 2-1 in the series ....
Luckily we had many equal to him in this particular match. He'd walk into our side if eligible though.
Nope. Stone cold sober for that one. I'm surprised nobody has yet engaged constructively with it. Surely I'm not the only one p.ssed off by batter/battist and 4 for 207.
The reverse score thing only really happens when an Aussie is commentating. I don't think any of the English guys go in for it. And Sky show the score the right way.
Very much an Aussie habit. Perhaps it's to do with the water going the other way down the plughole,as the Ashes have!
Though early in an England batting innings, the scores sometimes look more healthy the other way round.
So for the now less important 5th game will we field our strongest team....or stick with the same 11 ?
It's more a case of 'symmetry' when referring to scores and individual performances. The Aussie way, for example, a team score can be referred to as 4/207 and a bowlers stats referred to as 4/20 - it just seems to make more sense to say them the same way rather than mix them up as the English do. And if a bowler manages to capture five wickets, the English way of describing that as a 'five wicket haul' is too much of a mouthful for Aussies - far easier and more sensible to call it a five-fer.
Good to see they have stuck with the same squad. They deserve another chance after such a brave defeat.
It's actually hilarious that it's being spun as a 'brave' England defeat. What is this, the ******* 90's again?
I also watched a report which was talking about how this series has had everything, ups and downs in a close tussle etc. It's been laughably one sided and the scoreline has been very kind to us.
Who else should come in? Because of 20/20 matches there has been 1 round of four day matches played in 2 months. There is no form to go on. Even before this period there were no openers making a case to open for England which is where the biggest issue is. Ollie Pope might have been a possible but that's about it. The bowling has been ok. It will be worse next season when The 100 starts. We have not been good enough but there are two players that have made a massive difference. Steve Smith and Jimmy Anderson
Anyone who has their own bat would do. Take your point but RD & Keighley have mentioned a few names of promising youngsters from CC. There must be some possibles for the winter tours who could be given a game ?
I would always argue the English convention is more logical. A cricket score is measuring the performance of the batting side, so they should be the ‘subject’ of the score line: e.g. England have scored 250 (runs) for (the loss of) 6 (wickets). The way the Aussies express it makes the bowling side the subject of the score line, which is not really correct. Conversely, when it comes to bowling figures, it is the bowler’s performance that is being measured, so he should be the subject: e.g. Broad has taken 5 (wickets) for (the expense of) 68 (runs).
Not really correct?? The way the Aussies express it - 'England have lost six (wickets) for 250 (runs)' - gives exactly the same message whilst retaining the batting side as the subject of the sentence. But who says that a cricket score is to measure the performance of the batting side? The game has gone beyond the days of W.G.'I'm-too-important-to-be-given-out' Grace - each aspect of the game is as important as the other, and a scoreline measures both. I'd say it's perfectly natural to express it either way really - Australians may focus on the bowling aspect because it is a traditional strength, even though they've had more than their fair share of the world's best batsmen. And if you went by logic alone, England shouldn't, by sheer weight of numbers, be losing a cricket match to Australia - so maybe logic doesn't have a place.
The batting score is more important than the wickets because that's what determines who wins a cricket match. You can take more wickets than your opponent but lose. You can't score more runs and lose, so runs should always be the first number to be quoted when describing a match status.
Maybe they just aren't that fussed about giving anyone new a debut until the new coach comes in for the winter tours who will have his own ideas. Start afresh then...potentially! In some ways the Leeds test win masked the big faults in the team and the "brave effort" yesterday which was again more down to the lower order sticking around. Only Denly got more than 50... And then there will be the Steve Smith excuse - had he not been in great form we might have had more of a chance the ECB will say.
But in the most popular formats globally they certainly would - T20 closely followed by ODI, with Test a distant third.
Yes but even then it's a very small % of games. In the vast majority of games in ALL forms of cricket, runs dictate the winner, not wickets.
Every time I go to Australia I check which way the water goes down the plughole. The trouble is, I never remember which way it goes down in the UK and by the time I get back here, I've forgotten which way it goes in Oz.
T20 is an abomination. it's just about who can bash the ball furthest most often. And don't start me on this new Hundreds thing. Both conspire to waste valuable cricketing time which could have given our players a chance to practise proper cricket in the one-day and longer formats.