The Ashes 2013

[Paul McKeown]

If you think about it, the very best English batsmen in history are all long dead. Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Compton, perhaps Paynter. Since then, until the present team, there was Boycott. And Boycott was one-paced. Now, though, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bell; there isn't a single English team in history in which those players would not have been instant selections. Prior, too, could have been selected as a specialist batsman in almost any earlier English team. These batsmen are clearly better than the titans of my youth, including outstanding batsmen such as Gooch, Gower and Botham, whose own remembrance will be garlanded as long as cricket is played.

[Alex Holowczak]

If you think about it, the very best English batsmen in history are all long dead.

And on that cheery note...

Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Compton, perhaps Paynter. Since then, until the present team, there was Boycott. And Boycott was one-paced. Now, though, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bell; there isn't a single English team in history in which those players would not have been instant selections. Prior, too, could have been selected as a specialist batsman in almost any earlier English team. These batsmen are clearly better than the titans of my youth, including outstanding batsmen such as Gooch, Gower and Botham, whose own remembrance will be garlanded as long as cricket is played.

I recently purchased International Cricket Captain 2013, which features the concept of an All-Time Greats Series. I initially complained that its creators made some glaring oversights (no Tich Freeman, Wilfred Rhodes, Patsy Hendren, or wicket-keepers other than Prior or Stewart...), but these were added to a patch that I downloaded soon thereafter. My England XI was: Hutton, Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Barrington, Hammond(c), Hendren, Ames(w), Tyson, Freeman, Statham, Trueman.

At e2e4 Sunningdale, while waiting for the rooms to clear so that we could set up, this XI took on a West Indies XI of Greenidge, Davis, Headley, Sobers(c), Lara, Weekes, Walcott(w), Marshall, Ambrose, Gibbs, Walsh. I controlled the England XI, and Jack Rudd controlled the West Indies XI. England won fairly comfortably, thanks principally to Hobbs bashing the West Indian quicks around in the second innings. The scores were tied after the 1st innings.

Even excluding these players, you could come up with some decent 2nd XIs. No room in these teams for Boycott, Mead, Richards, Holding, Botham, Flintoff, May, Grace, Laker, Locke, Verity, Wardle, Larwood...

[Paul McKeown]

I think you will find the present England team would be about the equal of the best English team in almost all periods of cricketing history. Although they could certainly do with Trueman to bowl the other end from Anderson!

[Martin Benjamin]

You would normally expect a fourth innings chase of 311 to be too much

You would indeed. One of the more arresting stats to emerge from this match is that, over the history of Test cricket, a target of 300+ has been set 555 times, and chased down on only 26 occasions (and never at Trent Bridge). That's a 4.6% success rate. So England, at the bottom of the 3rd (to borrow a phrase), were fully nailed on to win at odds of 20/1 on. No need for panic then

I heard quoted on Test Match Special that statistic of a 4.6% (I thought they said 5.3%) success rate chasing over 300 to win. Whilst anything over 300 is without question a stiff challenge, the winning percentage quoted gives a slightly misleading impression, because it does not take into account the many occasions when there has been insufficient time to achieve 300 in the fourth innings, so the best the batting side could have hoped for was a draw.

Incidentally, why do radio, TV and even newspaper reporters almost always talk about "chasing down" a target rather than "chasing" it?

[Paul McKeown]

Whilst anything over 300 is without question a stiff challenge, the winning percentage quoted gives a slightly misleading impression, because it does not take into account the many occasions when there has been insufficient time to achieve 300 in the fourth innings, so the best the batting side could have hoped for was a draw.

Absolutely nailed it there, Martin. That's why I suggested setting 380 by lunch. Even that was only the best I could think of given the situation facing England at the time and, not quite entirely safe.

There was some geezer at the pub on Saturday complaining that England was still batting. "Rubbish," opined he, "bowl 'em out for 150!" I love listening to Michael Vaughan, he's so relentlessly upbeat. He's exactly what England needed as captain at the time; the team had for years been beaten up, but was gradually moving out of the doldrums. It needed some crazy optimist to drag them to the top of the world. MV was the perfect man for the job. But I find his recommendations for a declaration from the safety of the commentary room hair raising. "Two hundred and fifty ahead? They'll never get that. No one ever gets that. Declare! Declare now!"

Strewth. Give me a lead of 400 and 5 sessions, then I'll feel comfortable. Or close on 100 per session for fewer sessions. 130 minimum for the final session, seven wickets in hand.

The truth, for various reasons, is that its easier these days to chase bigger targets.

[Paul McKeown]

Like let's have a thought experiment here. Imagine England had played a decent match and went into tea on the last day with Australia having lost Slater, Hayden and Ponting. Mark and Steve Waugh are at the crease, both with twenty or thirty on the board. Oz have Martyn and Gilchrist to come, then Warne. You can choose whoever you like to bowl and field, but you're betting your firstborn on England saving the match. How many runs do you want on the board?

[Martin Benjamin]

Although it was a mistake to select Finn ahead of Bresnan for Trent Bridge (slow pitch, no bounce), swapping them now might be just as much of a mistake. It depends on the Lords wicket. If it has some pace and bounce, Finn is a much better bet than Bresnan there (see Bresnan's records at Trent Bridge and Lords respectively).

As for the batting, a reasonable case can be made for either Bairstow or Compton. One player I think has been poorly treated is James Taylor. He got three innings against the best Test attack (South Africa) in the world last summer, with one solid/promising knock (34 at Headingley while Pietersen was playing a blistering innings at the other end), one failure in the first innings at Lords (10) and one on which it would be unfair to pass judgement (run out for 4 - Trott's misjudgement). It is strange that Taylor has had few opportunities compared with others.

[Martin Benjamin]

I love listening to Michael Vaughan, he's so relentlessly upbeat. He's exactly what England needed as captain at the time; the team had for years been beaten up, but was gradually moving out of the doldrums. It needed some crazy optimist to drag them to the top of the world. MV was the perfect man for the job. But I find his recommendations for a declaration from the safety of the commentary room hair raising. "Two hundred and fifty ahead? They'll never get that. No one ever gets that. Declare! Declare now!"

Vaughan is beginning to irritate me. He and Tuffnell are too desperate to play up their "comic value". Boycott is at it these days too. He can be unintentionally hilarious when he is playing it straight, but I find his intentional attempts at humour desperately unfunny. If we have to have "expert summarisers" or "co-commentators" (how much value do these people add?), they can be allowed the occasional wry remark or flippant off-the-cuff comment (David Gower used to get the balance about right when he was on the BBC many years ago; don't know what he is like on Sky), but they should mainly stick to what they are paid to do - tell us something which we, as non-professional cricketers, might neither know nor be able to work out for ourselves. Vaughan in particular should indulge less in "banter" and devote more thought to proper analysis. For example, during England's second innings, Vaughan said that the ball would turn square in the fourth innings (despite contradictory evidence from this season at Trent Bridge) and Swann would be a totally different proposition compared with the inexperienced Agar.

[Alex Holowczak]

One player I think has been poorly treated is James Taylor. He got three innings against the best Test attack (South Africa) in the world last summer, with one solid/promising knock (34 at Headingley while Pietersen was playing a blistering innings at the other end), one failure in the first innings at Lords (10) and one on which it would be unfair to pass judgement (run out for 4 - Trott's misjudgement). It is strange that Taylor has had few opportunities compared with others.

For whatever reason, I don't think the England selectors have much faith in him. He's averaged 47 in his career so far. Much more than Joe Root when he was selected for England. I'd prefer Taylor to Bairstow.

[Phil Neatherway]

Bairstow looked really scratchy. He will be lucky to keep his place.

[Greg Breed]

For example, during England's second innings, Vaughan said that the ball would turn square in the fourth innings...

Really? A square ball? That would be entertaining Maybe they could start using Rubik's cubes...

[Phil Neatherway]

I see on cricinfo that Haddin has admitted that he knew he'd hit the ball that ended the match. I wonder if the Australian media is saying he should have walked?

[Phil Neatherway]

Another poor session for England. When will Cook score some runs?

[MartinCarpenter]

Well he got some second innings last test Not the thousands we're used to perhaps but I'm sure it'll happen at some stage. This Australian team have a genuinely useful bowling unit.

Its their batting (and fitness for some of the bowlers) which has been letting them down rather badly in recent times. Doing sane things like bringing Rogers in and Haddin back has helped with that a bit.

[Phil Neatherway]

Lucky Bairstow!