The Ashes: Australia in England 16th Jun - 31 July

[Arthur Crabtree]

Although the rain has stopped again!

[Durhamfootman]

what's really annoying me is this seeming conveyor belt of reporters gearing up to blaming the weather should Australia walk away with ashes retention today

yes that's right..... if Australia retain the ashes it was just the bad luck of the British weather that caused it.... the dozy session where England gifted Australia 100 runs before marginally losing the first test and the dozy run out of Bairstow which contributed to England marginally losing the second test had absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.......... it was just the weather

damn this blasted weather

[alfie]

No , it is true Australia will retain the Ashes because they built a 2-1 lead - and then a hardly unlikely weather ruined draw makes the last match (sort of) dead. So no grumbles from me about that result.

However , I think it is a damn shame such a tightly fought contest should have been "settled" in such an off-field , soggy anti-climax. Would have much sooner seen a decider - even if Australia won that easily - than this result : even if England were to draw the series next week.

But that's life - and cricket. Anyway : I saw some moans the other day from some Northern Officials about no more Ashes Tests scheduled for the foreseeable future in The North ... after this match I'm not sure they'll be getting much sympathy

(I know that is unfair on Leeds. But Manchester - oh dear...)

[Arthur Crabtree]

I suppose they'll sit it out to the end. But time has run out.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Ground is under water. Everyone has either drowned or gone home apart from the umpires who have scheduled a pitch inspection for 2am.

Congratulations to Australia.

[Durhamfootman]

Australia keep the ashes.... of course. That became blindingly obvious in the 5th session of a 75 session series

I'm preparing myself for a couple of weeks of every Tom, *modded* and Harry coming out and claiming that Australia might have kept the ashes, but England were the better team. If you can't win the ashes back you can always claim that this was the best series ever to re-inforce how much better than Australia England really were. They did it after the conclusion of the women's ashes and they'll do it again

although there's still another test to go, so there's a chance for the said Tom, *modded* and Harrys to try and claim that somehow not losing the series and not winning the ashes is actually the greatest England win since 2005.... or some such nonsense

moral of the series..... don't give it away and try to claw it back later

or maybe... fail to prepare, prepare to fail. Some things never change, sadly

[Arthur Crabtree]

I feel a bit more positive (I think). There will be a lot of excuses and yes, look in book, Australia won. But I don't think England's efforts can be dismissed without some respect. They came back well from being 2-0 down, and the loss of five sessions here did fall unfortunately for them.

Still, English conditions, so England had that considerable advantage. So the Aussies kept the Ashes against the head.

For me, neither side was exceptional. Compare with the Australian side of the Mitchwash, or England's team of 10-11. Either of those versions would have beaten the present opposition.

Entertaining series though. And good competitive pitches.

[Durhamfootman]

I'm only annoyed because England genuinely were the better team, imo, especially once the established spinners were taken out of the equation. It could and probably should have been a thumping series win for England, but there you go. The Aussies will crow, but they'll also be making plans for 2 years time now that they've seen at first hand how destructive England can be. There were times in the last two tests when Australia didn't have a clue how to fight back. This was a very real opportunity for England and they kind of let it slip away through a lack of preparation, a lack of fitness, a lack of ruthlessness, a lot of doziness and bit of old boy/head boy mentality

I thought they'd be better, tbh. Glimpses just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid

still.... Rome wasn't built in a day and sometimes a team has to slip backwards to then drive forwards again.

[Gingerfinch]

I feel a bit more positive (I think). There will be a lot of excuses and yes, look in book, Australia won. But I don't think England's efforts can be dismissed without some respect. They came back well from being 2-0 down, and the loss of five sessions here did fall unfortunately for them.

Still, English conditions, so England had that considerable advantage. So the Aussies kept the Ashes against the head.

For me, neither side was exceptional. Compare with the Australian side of the Mitchwash, or England's team of 10-11. Either of those versions would have beaten the present opposition.

Entertaining series though. And good competitive pitches.

It's been great to watch (highlights only) and talk about. Stokes and England have made me want to watch them again.

[GarlicJam]

...The Aussies will crow, ...

I don't think too many will crow really - if/when I do, it will only be in reply to your Tom, Modded and Harries spouting their usuals.

We know we got away with one here. That's how it goes though, each nation has been on both ends of tests decided by the weather.

[bigfluffylemon]

Agreed here - can't it be both? England were robbed by the weather this test, but only in a position to be robbed, or for it to matter, due to going 2-0 down in the series. Lord's Australia deserved to win, and I don't believe the Bairstow dismissal would have changed that, but Edgbaston England should have won if they'd done the basics a bit better, and it would have been Australia needing to force a result here against the rain.

The fact that England have got better as the series has gone on just goes to show how important preparation is. A few days in Scotland playing golf just doesn't cut it. Australia prepared by beating the number 2 side in the world. It showed in the first test - they had that big match sharpness that England lacked.

Hopefully the planning will start for 2025 now. Of course, they said that last time, and turned up a complete shambles. It would be nice if we could at least learn from the basic mistakes that I think we have made every single trip to Australia since at least 2006 - ensure adequate preparation and acclimatisation time, have a settled XI with fast bowling cover, pick the right team and don't keep playing injured players. Away Ashes are hard enough without giving yourself an insane disadvantage before a ball is even bowled. The one time England got all that right was 2010, and guess what, we won.

[bigfluffylemon]

I've heard a lot of discussion of the declaration, although I don't think it alone made that much difference. Declare 10 overs earlier and Australia at 214-5 are 30 ahead rather than 60 behind. Can you take 5 wickets and score 30 runs in 10 overs? Seems unlikely. You don't win a test inside three days unless one side collapses for under 200 at least once.

But that said, I know it's deeply unfashionable to care about over rates, but why hasn't this been raised more? England won the toss, bowled, and finished day 1 well short, when they knew they were up against the weather forecast and needed to force a result, which is pretty unforgivable. And then when Australia were bowling, they could also slow the over rate right down, knowing that the longer they push the game out, the less likely a result is, with absolutely no repercussions. Of course England long since lost any moral high ground on over rates so can hardly complain about Australia deliberately taking their time when playing for a draw. But if both sides had bowled their allocations, we'd have had at least 15 more overs of cricket in this match. Add in another 10 from a more aggressive declaration, and then maybe there could have been a result.

[Durhamfootman]

I don't think too many will crow really - if/when I do, it will only be in reply to your Tom, Modded and Harries spouting their usuals.

The Tom, *modded* and Harrys really get on my wick. After seeing all the headlines from every single day of the first 2 tests, you could be forgiven for thinking that England had trounced Australia on every day of those tests instead of losing them both. Chief TD&H, MPV, was more or less claiming yesterday that if England could only get on the field on day 5 that they'd win the series 3-2, somhow forgetting that they did get out there for 30 overs on day 4 and Australia added 100 runs for the loss of only one wicket...... the big, daft pudding

[GarlicJam]

One of the best things about this test - and the Lords drama - was the tearful indignant bleating of Piers Morgan.

Shouldn't he have gone to gaol some time ago?

The fact that he has a platform for his rot is a blight on England/UK.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There has been some pretty whiney, and crazy, stuff out there about how cricket is ridiculous because it doesn't accommodate whatever on the hoof rule change necessary which would have given England the chance to win. And a shame that Honest Joe went there too.

But as one eyed and biddable as England fans are, long experience has shown me this is a human trait, not an English one. With the media and the internet, it's better- I think- just to avoid it, rather than be triggered by it.