12/21/24
August 07, 2005
England win by 2 runs!: In a tense and nail-biting 4th day, England bowl out the Aussies and win by 2 runs to level the ashes at 1-1.
I'd just like to Warney for manfully standing on his wicket when it seemed easier to go on and win the game and become a legend. Oh how I laughed.
posted by squealy at 04:06 AM on August 08, 2005
I was getting slagged mightily on Thursday for pointing out to anyone who would listen that while we scoring plenty, we were losing wickets too quickly. I still believe that........ we were a gnats cock away from defeat and if Trescothick in particular doesn't start playing like a test opener, rather than a one day biffer we will be doomed. It was bloody brilliant though!
posted by Fat Buddha at 04:48 AM on August 08, 2005
Tony Grieg was calling it a tie from midday Saturday - he was nearly bloody right. Stunning cricket all round.
posted by JJ at 07:03 AM on August 08, 2005
I was at the match on Friday and Saturday and I can honestly say that Saturday was the most exciting sporting event I have ever attended. I was watching at home on Sunday morning and that was probably the most stressful sporting event I've ever had to sit through. Nice to see that the Ashes are catching the interest of non-cricket obsessives - especially as the football season kicked off on the same weekend.
posted by Pete at 01:57 PM on August 08, 2005
The Guardian recap certainly captures some of the high drama. Just wondering though, JJ I guess, how does a cricket match end in a tie? From what I understand, the Aussies were one batted ball (for a three or four or a six) from winning it. The odds of them losing that critical wicket when the scores were exactly the same has to be mighty low, ie England was trying to get that critical wicket and only managed to do so when the gap was down to 2 runs, what is the basis to expect them to end the Aussie scoring when the runs were equal? Or can you have a tie when the scores aren't equal? I have heard about dastardly underhand deliveries at critical moments in matches meant to make it difficult for the batsman to hit it well but I don't have enough knowledge to understand the intricacies of the overall scoring and strategy. Cricket, I am still learning but that Guardian recap certainly makes it sound like one of the most exciting sporting moments this year.
posted by gspm at 03:59 PM on August 08, 2005
gspm: Most of those underhanded tactics occur in one-day matches, where a team's innings is ended either by losing all ten wickets or by the completion of 50 overs (300 balls). In a Test, on the other hand, you have to get the other side out. A tie does indeed only result when the scores are equal, and has happened only twice in the 1,759 Tests played to date--involving Australia both times, the first at home against the West Indies in December 1960, the second in India in Spetember 1986. (A draw, on the other hand, occurs when no result can be obtained in five days, and has occurred 629 times, v. 1,128 decisive results). Ties are (logically enough) most common on one-day internationals, having occurred 21 times in the 2,267 played to date. (Two others would have been tied under current rules, but for a tie-breaking rule no longer in force.) The most recent was between England and Australia during the warm-ups to the Ashes.
posted by silverpie at 10:23 AM on August 09, 2005
What do you mean by "when no result can be obtained in five days," that either one or both sides have not gone out?
posted by billsaysthis at 03:55 PM on August 09, 2005
that's it bill. normally when a test fails to finish in time, it's normally due to rain, or obstructive batting practises, or both.
posted by BigCalm at 06:50 PM on August 09, 2005
Wow, that is so not American style! Look at the NHL, the last place in top tier American sports with ties and despite the traditionalists' howling even they're dumping them this year. To just let a game/match/test dribble out, wow. Cool though.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:46 PM on August 09, 2005
A classic finish. I thought Kasprowicz and Lee would just about do it, particularly after Flintoff went for 5 byes. It keeps the series alive, but England will have to play a whole lot better to win again - Australia won't bowl or bat as badly as the first innings next time.