Don't think Australia where particularly good, England just didn't perform. Luke Wright is rubbish and doesn't deserve his place.

To lose a T20 match by 4 runs with 4 wickets in hand is shocking batting on our behalf. The running was terrible and not enough big shots late on!

See what today brings.......

England bowled out for 294 after 49.4 overs.

KP top scores with 78

Watson leading aus home here

Again England have been poor. I know they posted a reasonable total but twas 20 or 30 too few for me after the initial 25 overs.

The bowling and fielding have been lacklustre, allowing far too many easy singles all over the park.

Having said that, Shane Watson has played an outstanding knock



Swanny himself said he didn't give a f*** about the 1 day series at the end of test series party.

Watson wins the game with a six in the last over.

Aus win by 6 wickets

Frankly I don't blame him. It's the poorest form of the game for me and completely pales into insignificance alongside a major Test series. I don't mind the odd T20 match, but seven 50 overs games between the same two teams is just going to be dross. Then we've got the six week bore-fest that is the ICC World Cup. The last one was the worst ever and they've kept the same bloated format for this one. Roll on the new English season in April.

Fully agree.

Am I imagining things or did the ODI series (of 3 or 5 games) used to take place before the test series? I'm sure they used to act as a warm up to the main event of the tests (in our summers anyway), I did passively watch the second half of the Aussie innings when I got up this morning, but I find it hard to get too excited by it.

As for the World Cup I'm sure I'll take an interest in it - once it gets to the Quarter Final stage.

That was certainly the case in our home series - three ODIs before the Test series, although I think they've always been after the Tests down under, and there always used to be a third team involved. The format was everyone plays each other four times and the top two contested a final.

Surely it can't be a coincidence that the team that wins the Ashes always seems to lose the ODI series? The Aussies even managed to lose them after the notorious Ashes whitewash four years ago.

Don't like ODI's, prefer Tests and then 20/20 matches. Great knock by Watson. England need an extra batsmen in the side, too many bits and pieces cricketers.

They had six specialist batsmen in the side for the first ODI - Strauss, Davies, Trott, Pietersen, Bell and Morgan.

Hence they were scratching around for a sixth bowling option in the middle of the Australian innings.

England got done by an outstanding knock from Shane Watson, that was the difference between the two sides IMO.

Haddin looked like he had gloves of steel

Trott, Bell & Pietersen were all reasonable part-time bowlers in county cricket before they established themselves for England. The trouble is that they never get asked to bowl much for England and play so seldom for their counties that they never get any bowling practice. Part-time bowlers need to be given a role regularly, not just asked to suddenly produce the goods when we're desperate.

So let me get this right.

You would prefer a game thats dragged out over 5 days (unless a few of them get rained off) where the run rate could be around 2.5 an over to one thats over in just one day where a run rate of 6 or 7 is about normal?





I don't particularly like any form of cricket but at least a one day game is slightly interesting. It's great when a side need 50 runs from 30 or so balls under flood lights and they really need to push things along a bit.

Test cricket

On a thread dedicated to the Ashes series, I don't think you're going to get much support here. Test cricket is a fascinating tactical battle. Sadly some people don't have the attention span for it.

A 'fascinating tactical battle'??!!!!

Would that be the 'fascinating tactical battle' that involves bowling the other side out twice unless it rains constantly after day 3 and it ends up as a draw?

There's plenty of middle order collapses in Test cricket to make it a good viewing spectacle. Cook's knock in the 5th match was also a joy to watch. Test cricket is not for x-box addicts - it's for the grown ups and the laid back chilled out community.

Test cricket = 2 Grandmasters playing chess.

One Day cricket = 2 halfwits playing draughts.....

I much prefer test cricket. One day cricket can be decided by one batsman hanging around and getting a century. You have to earn a win in test cricket.

Excellent analogy



.....and having been to South Africa, New Zealand, Australia (twice) and Bangladesh to watch England's test series', I am happy to be a chess grandmaster!!






(Although I did some ODI's too)

England havent got the right balance at all and bringing Prior back in has been a masterstroke

.....why do we persist with a wicket-keeper at the top of the order,it clearly isnt working and why dont we go in with Strauss and Bell with Prior/Davis/Keiswetter down the order at 7.

The bowling should be bolsterd by the return of Broad,Anderson and Swann and add Bresnan too who is now injured.

Strauss
Bell
Trott
KP
Collingwood (lucky to be in)
Morgan
Prior/Davis/Keiswetter
Bresnan
Broad
Swann
Anderson

Would be scratching for a 5th bowler unless we leave colly out.

How on earth can you say that???!
You seem to be under the illusion that test cricket is some incredible tactical battle that hasn't been seen since Garry Kasparov took on that 'Deep Blue' computer programme at chess a long time ago





Test cricket is a more boring long winded drawn out version of the one day game (which in itself is not that interesting but sort of ok to watch if there is nothing else on)

Are you really honestly saying you would prefer to watch a game where the run rate in a days play (if it's not ruined by rain) is averaging about one run every 3 balls at the very most?

WHY??!

Oh dear.

....Oh dear indeed.....Look, I find Golf very, very tedious, yet I respect that some find it entertaining.

Just accept you are on the wrong thread to start throwing about 'Cricket is boring' barbs.

Is it 3-0 now?
We seem to be good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Nowhere near the jaws of victory yesterday, a poor batting performance (again) as the selectors desperately try to justify picking Prior for the World Cup.

Given the luxury of multiple failures accorded to some further down the order, Davies must be wondering exactly what he's done wrong.

This is something that continues to wind me up. Seems that we feel we need to have the wicketkeeper open the batting, just because it worked for Gilchrist. Disregarding the fact that Gilchrist was one of the best batsmen in the world!

England's selection of the ODIs seems as confused as Australia's for the test series. What's Luke Wright's role in the team? He batted at 8 and bowled 2 overs in the last match.

I think we have to pick 5 frontline bowlers, with 3 of them capable with the bat. If everyone's available for the world cup I'd pick;

Strauss
Bell
Trott
Pieterson
Morgan
Prior
Broad
Bresnan
Yardy
Swann
Anderson


We just don't seem to produce any batting all rounders any more, which means picking only 4 bowlers means you risk the extra 10 overs going for 70/80+