*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[Lillian Thomson]

That's not a bad analogy (numbers somewhat exaggerated mind), but I'd add England scoring on the break and Australia lacking a playmaker in midfield.

Are you sure you wouldn't like to add that the goal was offside.......

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ponting was fair and gave the interview as he always does: no bull****.

The reason people dislike him saying that is because it's true. If this series was a football match, it would be Australia with 70% possession, 20 shots on goal, 15 corners and 1 penalty miss; yet somehow losing.

Well, firstly there was BS, because it's obvious where the series was lost, but my point was really that chippy remarks like he made don't fit my definition of gracious.

 

[oitoitoi]

Are you sure you wouldn't like to add that the goal was offside.......

There's nothing wrong with scoring on the break, it's the best reason to be quick, Owen's almost made a career on it. I was trying to illustrate that England pounced when it counted, while being on the back foot for much of the series.

 

[Ikki]

Well, firstly there was BS, because it's obvious where the series was lost, but my point was really that chippy remarks like he made don't fit my definition of gracious.

He didn't use them as excuse, he didn't even use the pitch nor the toss as an excuse and he congratulated England repeatedly. He was being asked how he thought of the series and he gave his honest reply. I am, personally, tired of the cookie-cutter post-interviews where they try to absolutely drain opposing players of any incisive thought and not letting them instead actually speak their mind. Once someone says something half-truthful, that doesn't sound like smooching on a butt-cheek, people get all sensitive.

 

[pup11]

Ish. Thought the line about "looking at the runs made and wondering how we lost" was unnecessary. It was lost with 3 shoddy first innings efforts.

He wasn't entirely serious about it though, it was more of a lighthearted comment, he was pretty clear with his views that grabbing the initiative during the key moments of the game is where we floundered and England were good enough to capitalise on that.

 

[Nate]

Go die in a fire Dale. You're not even really sick anyway.

 

[Marcuss]

Just saw the 2 run outs.
Ponting's - what a throw, seriously an absolute rocket arm at the stumps.
Clarke's - sharp work but I'd back myself to hit the stumps 10/10 times

Collingwood's catching was pretty ordinary today

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ponting was fair and gave the interview as he always does: no bull****.

The reason people dislike him saying that is because it's true. If this series was a football match, it would be Australia with 70% possession, 20 shots on goal, 15 corners and 1 penalty miss; yet somehow losing.

God, I think I agree with you here. Ponting did what everyone wants him to do; speak the truth. Nothing more annoying than soming pulling out a load of cliches. I agree with Ponting when he said that the stats didn't reflect the scoreline and if anyone disagrees then they are on another planet.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He didn't use them as excuse, he didn't even use the pitch nor the toss as an excuse and he congratulated England repeatedly. He was being asked how he thought of the series and he gave his honest reply. I am, personally, tired of the cookie-cutter post-interviews where they try to absolutely drain opposing players of any incisive thought and not letting them instead actually speak their mind. Once someone says something half-truthful, that doesn't sound like smooching on a butt-cheek, people get all sensitive.

Whaaat? How is a failure to see that collapsing in a heap in three out of five first innings is going to hurt his team over a series "half-truthful"?

My points were:

a) Ponting didn't need to say what he said &

b) what he said isn't true anyway.

 

[zaremba]

First up I'd like to say that the Aussies deserved to draw the series. Even though in some respects they underperformed, they are still a very very tough team. Chasing that kind of target, their 2nd innings dig showed their character once again.

Now that's out of the way, WE WON! I am so incredibly happy about it; so happy for the team; and so happy for a bit of revenge for 06/07. It hasn't sunk in yet but it will. Nothing beats beating the Aussies. All the sweeter because of the crim overconfidence after Headingley.

 

[Manee]

Aussies were terrible throughout a large portion of the series and England often outplayed them. I went into the series with a slight Australian support but England grew on me.

On that note (haha),

"Aaaaaand did those feet,
In ancient time,
Walk upon England mountains green,
And did the hoooooooooooooooly lamb of God,
Etc"

 

[Ikki]

Whaaat? How is a failure to see that collapsing in a heap in three out of five first innings is going to hurt his team over a series "half-truthful"?

My points were:

a) Ponting didn't need to say what he said &

b) what he said isn't true anyway.

I don't understand what you mean.

A) He didn't "need" to? For whose sake? He was asked his opinion and he gave it. It was truthful and not biased and didn't deserve booing. You want to say that by making such a comment it makes him a sore loser? I disagree, he wasn't sore and gave England their dues. All he was, was sorely realistic.

B) Ehem, we'll have to disagree there. England sneaked this Ashes and most people from both sides know it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I thought Ponting's interview was diplomatic but with an edge. It was probably the worst Oval pitch since 1882 and handed the toss winners probably about a 75-25 advantage - but he only said it was "poor" and didn't influence the result - I doubt that's what he really thinks.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't understand what you mean.

A) He didn't "need" to? For who's sake? He was asked his opinion and he gave it. It was truthful and not biased and didn't deserve booing.

B) Ehem, we'll have to disagree there. England sneaked this Ashes and most people from both sides know it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just trolling?

Let's go slowly:

pup11 said Ponting was very gracious in defeat; I demurred slightly and pointed out he was quite gracious. Saying what he said (which he has a perfect right to do) doesn't fit my definition of graciousness.

With me so far?

So, secondly, Ponting saying "I don't know how we lost" is either him displaying a monumental lack of insight (surely a test captain can see that the defeat is down to the first innings scores at Lords, Edgbaston & The Oval) or just not true.

That can't be so hard to grasp, surely?

 

[Pigeon]

I don't understand what you mean.

A) He didn't "need" to? For whose sake? He was asked his opinion and he gave it. It was truthful and not biased and didn't deserve booing. You want to say that by making such a comment it makes him a sore loser? I disagree, he wasn't sore and gave England their dues. All he was, was sorely realistic.

B) Ehem, we'll have to disagree there. England sneaked this Ashes and most people from both sides know it.

I think a bit of grace in losing will do a lot of good for everyone. England sneaked the Ashes? WTF! They gave a thrashing in the final test match by around a 200 runs margin. And the Lord's win was as convincing as any other win. Agreed there was the Headingley thrashing as well, but overall England did when it mattered the most.

And god, don't throw in those stats. Australia's batting stats in this series are heavily skewed by the first test performances, which finally didn't matter because the flat was pitch enough for No10 and 11 to hold out for an hour.

 

[Ikki]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just trolling?

Let's go slowly:

pup11 said Ponting was very gracious in defeat; I demurred slightly and pointed out he was quite gracious. Saying what he said (which he has a perfect right to do) doesn't fit my definition of graciousness.

With me so far?

So, secondly, Ponting saying "I don't know how we lost" is either him displaying a monumental lack of insight (surely a test captain can see that the defeat is down to the first innings scores at Lords, Edgbaston & The Oval) or just not true.

That can't be so hard to grasp, surely?

You say it doesn't fit your definition of graciousness, ok, fine. I replied saying that it's a silly point and that I tire of politicking to the point where the person in question can't speak their mind. Saying, "when you look at the stats, you scratch your head in wonder how we lost" is hardly as crude as you are suggesting since everybody that understands the game would have been thinking the same thing.

He said England won the big moments, no excuses, and congrats. Anymore gracious than that he'd have to have puckered up to Strauss' behind.

 

[zaremba]

Ponting can say what he likes post-match, and if he cops some booing for it I doubt he gives a monkey's.

But let's not be so naive as to believe he was "only answering the questions put to him honestly." He was very deliberately making a point of mentioning the poor pitch, he said precisely the same thing to Aggers and Athers within the space of 5 mins. He wanted to get a message across.

As for it being a poor pitch, well it was certainly quirky. But it can't have been that bad, or offered that much of an advantage to the team batting first, if the highest scoring innings in the game were the 3rd and 4th innings of the match.

 

[Ikki]

I think a bit of grace in losing will do a lot of good for everyone. England sneaked the Ashes? WTF! They gave a thrashing in the final test match by around a 200 runs margin. And the Lord's win was as convincing as any other win. Agreed there was the Headingley thrashing as well, but overall England did when it mattered the most.

And god, don't throw in those stats. Australia's batting stats in this series are heavily skewed by the first test performances, which finally didn't matter because the flat was pitch enough for No10 and 11 to hold out for an hour.

In the whole series, Australia only had 2 bad 1st innings and those 2 innings were so bad that they cost them both matches. They then went on in both 2nd innings batting better than both teams did during those matches chasing unlikely wins/draws. So calling it a thrashing is just ignorant since we gave away so many wickets in such a small time for so few runs. It was so bad, it'd be generous to say that England bowled well enough to take them like that. So don't even start that BS with stats being inflated due to one match because Australia were good in all innings bar 2 essentially. And if the pitch was so flat that tailenders held out for an hour, why did their top order crumble? Oh yeah...

 

[Ikki]

But let's not be so naive as to believe he was "only answering the questions put to him honestly." He was very deliberately making a point of mentioning the poor pitch, he said precisely the same thing to Aggers and Athers within the space of 5 mins. He wanted to get a message across.

Erm, no, he didn't make it a point to mention it. He was asked if he considered the pitch poor by Aggers initially. He said whilst he believed it was poor, that it didn't excuse the result - Australia losing. And it really didn't. 160 was an atrocious score, bad pitch or not. Yes, it did heavily favour the team that won the toss and that's why it was poor. But Australia were so bad that they cannot simply use that to keep them warm at night. That was his point.

 

[marc71178]

In the whole series, Australia only had 2 bad 1st innings

So which of Lords, Edgbaston and the Oval wasn't bad then?