5th Test, the Oval. 27-31st July

Some random thoughts:

So it's not even August and the Ashes has been stuffed into 6 weeks to accommodate the hit and giggle. Dear me. In 2005 the 1st Test started the 22nd July and the last started I think September 9th. Times haven't got better.

"Best series ever" they say. Depends on your point of view: whether you like an extended T20 type of silly bazball or the long game with its ups and downs, highs and lows. I know what I prefer. To me the best series ever during my watching days was 1981, with 2005 a whisker behind. Indeed the Aussie side of 2001 was probably the best Test side I've seen.

Stokes says Anderson is "the best ever fast bowler" Mmm. I say best medium pace seamer of his generation in English conditions. Or rather was. You can only really define players in the era they played in. For instance 1980s: Holding, Garner Marshall, Botham, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan etc. and oh yes Sylvester Clark who would walk into any side today.

Anderson doesn't want to retire. I fear he's making the classic mistake of many sportsman of going on too long. I'd rather not see a great bowler make a fool of himself. But they'll pick him on sentamentality. Anyone else who had only taken 4 wickets in the series would be dropped. And we probably won't see Wood, Woakes, Ali and Broad and maybe not Stokes, in 4 years time. England's Dad's Army.

Like others on here I've sort of gone off England of late. Stokes says he doesn't care about results. Really? It's the Ashes for **** sake.

But the good old British weather is going to have the last laugh on this "series" I reckon.

I think we'll be OK weather-wise judging by the radar.

Australia have certainly looked burnt out, especially their bowlers at Old Trafford. It's a bit of a shame the Ashes isn't going to the final test, but this is where we were in 2019 and England dominated that last game to draw it 2-2.

I do wonder if Australia are tempted to try Neser/Abbott and Boland or Murphy again, as Cummins had a horrid run at Old Trafford. Anyway, I do hope we get a dominant England performance at The Oval, their shot selection has significantly improved since the Lord's aberration.

It's interesting you praise the 01 Aussie side, which often scored at 5 an over, but hate this England team which score similarly and hit 592 last week. Isn't that just hypocrisy?

Anderson bowled well at Old Trafford without reward; it's the same XI I'd have picked.

Weather very iffy for today and Monday on at least 3 weather sites. At least at Taunton the game is well advanced.
As for burn out, well with most bowlers well into their 30s and above, the crammed schedule is knackering. You can't play your best attack when games are 3 days apart. Bring the youngsters on. I think Abbot will play in this one. England batsmen watch out. He's bloody good.
I don't hate the England side. But I don't like this take a chance all the time camacazy type of cricket and this old boys network of selection that keeps out the best players. Crawley has improved as an opener, but has very good luck. And the 2001 Aussies scored highly by playing intelligent cricket, and what a bowling attack!
But I think Australia may win this weather dependant.

Chinaman wrote:Some random thoughts:

So it's not even August and the Ashes has been stuffed into 6 weeks to accommodate the hit and giggle. Dear me. In 2005 the 1st Test started the 22nd July and the last started I think September 9th. Times haven't got better.

"Best series ever" they say. Depends on your point of view: whether you like an extended T20 type of silly bazball or the long game with its ups and downs, highs and lows. I know what I prefer. To me the best series ever during my watching days was 1981, with 2005 a whisker behind. Indeed the Aussie side of 2001 was probably the best Test side I've seen.

Stokes says Anderson is "the best ever fast bowler" Mmm. I say best medium pace seamer of his generation in English conditions. Or rather was. You can only really define players in the era they played in. For instance 1980s: Holding, Garner Marshall, Botham, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan etc. and oh yes Sylvester Clark who would walk into any side today.

Anderson doesn't want to retire. I fear he's making the classic mistake of many sportsman of going on too long. I'd rather not see a great bowler make a fool of himself. But they'll pick him on sentamentality. Anyone else who had only taken 4 wickets in the series would be dropped. And we probably won't see Wood, Woakes, Ali and Broad and maybe not Stokes, in 4 years time. England's Dad's Army.

Like others on here I've sort of gone off England of late. Stokes says he doesn't care about results. Really? It's the Ashes for **** sake.

But the good old British weather is going to have the last laugh on this "series" I reckon.

I agree that squeezing 5 tests into 6 weeks makes a mockery of the series. and dont forget that Australia played the WTC the week before that. its no wonder that they look tired

Just about remember 1981 but obviously seen the highlights. and of course 2005 was very good

I also agree that some WI bowlers would argue that Anderson is the best fast bowler ever. He is the best weve had for a long time, but best ever is overstepping the mark. I also agree that he has probably gone on too long, as this series has shown. and of course Dads Army as you put it wont be around for long, and I get the impression this will be the last home Ashes test for a number of players

Therefore, if the weather doesnt ruin the test (it ruined the series last weekend) I think that due to England not wanting to lose and the retirement of many of our players, I think we will edge this one

Our only chance of winning this Test is if we produce a seam friendly pitch. The reason for Anderson’s lack of success in this series is the lack of pitch conditions which suit his type of bowling. If this pitch is similar to the others we have seen,he’ll be just as ineffective here. He has been picked for sentimental reasons, not for the right ones!

The test summer ending on 1st August is a massive crock of shit

Too many games for Australia? The West Indies played 5 tests, most of the counties and one day matches in the 60s
Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith's bowled in a lot of them. They were very fit through running, running, running. Garry Sobers said bowlers bowl with their legs and too much stuff in the gym would lead to other problems. Maybe that's why modern bowlers get stress fractures of the back.

DRS reviews are 'used' or 'spent', not 'burned' or 'burned off'.

They are DRS reviews, not warts.

Sad to hear the otherwise impeccable Athers coming up short in this regard.

Longshanks wrote:Too many games for Australia? The West Indies played 5 tests, most of the counties and one day matches in the 60s
Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith's bowled in a lot of them.  They were very fit through running, running, running. Garry Sobers said bowlers  bowl with their legs and too much stuff in the gym would lead to other problems. Maybe that's why modern bowlers get stress fractures of the back.

Yes but they had more than 3 days between them. Test series were once spread almost from late June to early September. That allowed many county games, which importantly gave many people the chance to see the stars, and who couldn't go or afford test matches. Surrey vs the Australians in the 50s was a sell out for example.
I definitely agree with their over training regime by all these so called expert hangers on. Too many injuries. You don't need to be an Olympic athlete to play cricket. Probably half of it is played in the head, and as for bowlers the best training is to actually bowl and not run around the field or pump iron. This area of the game requires a review.

A three day break helps, but it's still a lot of games. Fast bowlers have to be fit, so running fit is a must for stamina. Wasn't one of England's bowlers declared as embarrassingly unfit in Australia? Wonder if he did some winter training.

Nothing in the pitch for our bowlers,very disappointing that we have provided a pitch for batsmen in a match England have to win to square the series. Other countries prepare pitches to suit the home team’s strength , but we seem to make them to maximise income and last 5 days.

That was an amazing catch from Joe Root

But it highlights just how bad Bairstow is - just watched it fly by him

I read he just stood there. Obviously didn't even see it.
What a Dad's Army of bowlers we've got. By 3pm Anderson will be legless. Attritional test cricket, the Bazball brigade don't like it.

16 byes already, more than 10% of the current total (150)! I can never recall such a ratio in any first-class game. Only one of the bowlers is genuinely fast and none of them is wild: goodness knows how Bairstow would have done in the era of the four West Indies' quicks.

In Bairstow's defence a lot of those byes weren't really gettable, and even Foakes would have probably struggled with a few of them

The bowling overall has been very good today, not much loose stuff at all

On the subject of wicket-keepers (and rather than start a separate thread...) I see Essex have signed Jordan Cox from Kent for next year. I am happy that we did not go in for him if we are confident that Ben Foakes will continue to be overlooked by England. But if that gamble does not pay off, then I think we would have missed a trick. The last thing we need is for Jamie Smith to be lumbered with the gloves on a regular basis. The difference in his batting when he is able to specialise is very obvious.

And now Iron-Gloves has cost England Smith's wicket by dislodging the bail with his glove before the ball arrived.

Foakes put one down yesterday.

What a mistake to select Anderson for this Test, has taken a handful of wickets in the previous 3 Tests he’s played so far, and hasn’t looked threatening in this one.

dougieginn wrote:What a mistake to select Anderson for this Test, has taken a handful of wickets in the previous 3 Tests he’s played so far, and hasn’t looked threatening in this one.

Not sure what game you're watching but Anderson has beaten the bat on more than enough occasions in this innings, he's been very unlucky.

Taking wickets is what counts,not beating the bat. Judging by his previous numbers,he must have been very unlucky in those matches as well!

Hope I’m wrong wouldn’t be the First time ! Worried about Our 2nd dig in the morning hope we don’t fall in a heap not sure who will bat at No.3 Mo can’t bat for 2 hours or 5th wicket down.

Have we (Surrey) ever had zing bails? I seem to recall them at the WTC final but that may be mandela effect. The reason being is Kumar Dharmasena has said Smith's run out would have been given had they been used.

Alex! wrote:In Bairstow's defence a lot of those byes weren't really gettable, and even Foakes would have probably struggled with a few of them

The bowling overall has been very good today, not much loose stuff at all

Come on Alex. Bowling bouncers to a no. 10 batsman with 5 on the boundary! How ridiculous is that? So he then helps the ball on its way for 3 sixes. Whatever happened to bowling fast, full and straight with 3 slips especially for tail enders when they have just come in.

This seems to be the latest idea even at county level. Why don't the batsmen just duck under the ball and tire the bowler? Of course, some of them, particularly England, take on the bouncer and hit it straight down someones throat.

So you're going to pick out the worst part of the day, which is fair enough, and ignore the rest of the bowling through the day? They had the squeeze on them through most of it, particularly that first session where Australia couldn't buy a run