Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Why we lost the Ashes
OK, everyone else will have written about. That won't stop me commenting, however.
Here's my ten reasons why we lost the Ashes
1) Injuries - Since winning the Ashes, (actually even before), we've been unlucky with Simon Jones and Michael Vaughan missing out. Both were absolutely key to winning them, with Vaughan an excellent captain and Jones maintaining the pressure with an old ball. Also, Flintoff was also just on his way back and Trescothick's absence upset the top order in that we didn't have a batsman who couold naturally take the game to the Aussies.
2) Lack of preparation - Basically, when the first Test came, we weren't ready, as could be seen from Harmison's first ball and our bating collapse. To beat Australia, we needed to be on top of our game. We weren't even close at the start.
3) Poor selection. Yep, Panesar should have played. Giles is a better batter but Panesar was the only player that looked like taking wickets with an old ball. You don't leave Harmison out because someone else might score more runs. Ditto Monty.
4) We were too negative. Both in selection and in tactics, we were looking for the draw. That mindset meant we lost the second Test and played Monty rather than Giles.
5) Wrong captain. Flintoff is a brilliant cricketer and an inspriation. But he was coming abck from injury and was expected to bat and bowl. Strauss had not only shown leadership qualities but could step back and make decisions. Strauss could also have Flintoff to turn to for inspiration, Freddie could only turn to himself.
7) Poor tactics. In England, there was a tactic to get every batsman out This time, Ponting and Hussey seemed inpregnable and we looked devoid of ways of getting them out until the third Test.
6) We weren't good enough. We never looked like we could take 20 wickets in a match. Our batting also looked alarmingly suspect at times, with too many off form, notably Strauss and Flintoff
8) We were playing in Australia. We haven't won there for 20 years. No team has won there for donkeys years either.
9) Australia were better than us. In 2005, Ponting and Gilchrist mainly failed to contribute, while the openers were soon separated as well. Bowling-wise, McGrath missed two Tests and their third seamer was unthreatening and easy to score runs from. This time, Stuart Clarke was the pick of the bowlers, McGrath played all the time, while Ponting and Hussey were both brillitan. They have won every Test they have played in this year. They were on form and deserved to win.
10) Australia wanted it more. Since they lost the Ashes, the Aussies have been planning how to get it back. It hurt them to lose it and they were going to do everything they could to win them back. We had relaxed since winning them back, rather than trying to push on. We'd have need to be better than we were in 2005 to retain the Ashes. We weren't as good because we were relaxed.
Still, there's always the World Cup to look forward to. Bugger
Here's my ten reasons why we lost the Ashes
1) Injuries - Since winning the Ashes, (actually even before), we've been unlucky with Simon Jones and Michael Vaughan missing out. Both were absolutely key to winning them, with Vaughan an excellent captain and Jones maintaining the pressure with an old ball. Also, Flintoff was also just on his way back and Trescothick's absence upset the top order in that we didn't have a batsman who couold naturally take the game to the Aussies.
2) Lack of preparation - Basically, when the first Test came, we weren't ready, as could be seen from Harmison's first ball and our bating collapse. To beat Australia, we needed to be on top of our game. We weren't even close at the start.
3) Poor selection. Yep, Panesar should have played. Giles is a better batter but Panesar was the only player that looked like taking wickets with an old ball. You don't leave Harmison out because someone else might score more runs. Ditto Monty.
4) We were too negative. Both in selection and in tactics, we were looking for the draw. That mindset meant we lost the second Test and played Monty rather than Giles.
5) Wrong captain. Flintoff is a brilliant cricketer and an inspriation. But he was coming abck from injury and was expected to bat and bowl. Strauss had not only shown leadership qualities but could step back and make decisions. Strauss could also have Flintoff to turn to for inspiration, Freddie could only turn to himself.
7) Poor tactics. In England, there was a tactic to get every batsman out This time, Ponting and Hussey seemed inpregnable and we looked devoid of ways of getting them out until the third Test.
6) We weren't good enough. We never looked like we could take 20 wickets in a match. Our batting also looked alarmingly suspect at times, with too many off form, notably Strauss and Flintoff
8) We were playing in Australia. We haven't won there for 20 years. No team has won there for donkeys years either.
9) Australia were better than us. In 2005, Ponting and Gilchrist mainly failed to contribute, while the openers were soon separated as well. Bowling-wise, McGrath missed two Tests and their third seamer was unthreatening and easy to score runs from. This time, Stuart Clarke was the pick of the bowlers, McGrath played all the time, while Ponting and Hussey were both brillitan. They have won every Test they have played in this year. They were on form and deserved to win.
10) Australia wanted it more. Since they lost the Ashes, the Aussies have been planning how to get it back. It hurt them to lose it and they were going to do everything they could to win them back. We had relaxed since winning them back, rather than trying to push on. We'd have need to be better than we were in 2005 to retain the Ashes. We weren't as good because we were relaxed.
Still, there's always the World Cup to look forward to. Bugger
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Bog standard blog
Was watching tv last night and an advert claimed your toilet seat was cleaner than your chopping board and work surfaces.
That's quite a claim - notwithstanding the fact that they don't know how clean my toilet seat is. Also, considering the fact I'd just cleaned the kitchen, an erroneous one.
But that's not the first time the poor old toilet seat has been sued for comparison. Apparently, it's also cleaner than your work station, dishcloth most of your house, car seat, which makes you wonder whether the toilet seat is where you start eating all of your meals (no it isn't) or maybe there's one toilet seat in a research factory that they keep in absolute pristine condition so they can make up all these bullshit claims.
Christmas dinner today with work. I don't know whether I'm more pleased about a good old meal with people or the fact I didn't have to make my lunch the night before. And by the way, when I do, I clean the breadboard first
That's quite a claim - notwithstanding the fact that they don't know how clean my toilet seat is. Also, considering the fact I'd just cleaned the kitchen, an erroneous one.
But that's not the first time the poor old toilet seat has been sued for comparison. Apparently, it's also cleaner than your work station, dishcloth most of your house, car seat, which makes you wonder whether the toilet seat is where you start eating all of your meals (no it isn't) or maybe there's one toilet seat in a research factory that they keep in absolute pristine condition so they can make up all these bullshit claims.
Christmas dinner today with work. I don't know whether I'm more pleased about a good old meal with people or the fact I didn't have to make my lunch the night before. And by the way, when I do, I clean the breadboard first
