September 09, 2005

The Final Ashes test!: Follow all the action from the guardian right now. England only need a draw to win the series and therefore the coveted little urn. History of the ashes here.

posted by BigCalm to other at 07:23 AM - 12 comments

It's not something (as a Northern Irish man living in England) that I am often heard to shout (especially this week), but "Come on England!" Just spent my lunch hour in the pub with half my office. I'm not liking how comfortable the Aussie batsmen are looking.

posted by JJ at 08:28 AM on September 09, 2005

Yeah, but their run rate is very slow. Is it too early to start praying for rain?

posted by BigCalm at 08:52 AM on September 09, 2005

The BBC reckon there's the chance of a storm later, but not until play as finished I fancy. Their run rate was slow until England unleashed the King of Spain - that bolstered it a bit. Hayden and Langer have managed their first hundred partnership of the series. Good old England (in every sport), they can't resist dramatic incompetence. *nailbite*

posted by JJ at 09:04 AM on September 09, 2005

Mm, bad light, and the Aussies took it. Unusual decision that one, given that they need to win it. 112-0 isn't bad I suppose, but they're going to have to score lots of runs quickly tomorrow and put England back in.

posted by BigCalm at 09:42 AM on September 09, 2005

The way Hayden and Langer have batted today, I suspect there is a stiffened resolve in the dressing room - if there is, you could see them batting all day tomorrow and some of Sunday to set England 300 (or a day and a half) to avoid losing. A storm this evening isn't enough - for a weather-induced draw, England need to lose at least a complete day's play, if not two.

posted by JJ at 10:37 AM on September 09, 2005

Pat Murphy, the BBC'S pet Viler, said that when he asked Giles about the Aussie decision to take the light, he basically pissed himself, which is an entirely appropriate reaction, in the circumstances.

posted by Fat Buddha at 05:53 PM on September 09, 2005

Well, I asked a cricket buff and he said it was a good decision. Apparently they knew that rain was virtually inevitable before the end of play today. Why risk losing a wicket and getting a new batsman coming in when the light was bad? If they'd turned down the offer of bad light when offered, it wouldn't be offered again unless conditions deteriorated further. Oh, and something about the pitch getting wet and the ball turning more or somesuch gibberish. I'd just about lapsed into a coma by this stage anyway.

posted by squealy at 07:24 PM on September 09, 2005

Winning through rain wouldn't be unfair, given that the only reason Australia aren't down 3-1 instead of 2-1 is bad weather. Does anyone else find it bizarre the degree to which Ponting appears to be losing it? That speech to the press declaring everyone should blame the other players was beyond belief. Not the level of mental toughness expected from an Australian cricket captain, and I imagine Alan Border had words with him about it.

posted by rodgerd at 05:54 PM on September 10, 2005

From what I understand, minutes lost due to weather/bad light can be made up on subseequent days, so perhaps the batsmen choosing an early evening wasn't a bad decision. Especially when you could be facing a 145 km/hr reverse swinger from Flintoff in the gloom.

posted by owlhouse at 10:43 PM on September 10, 2005

Looks like England are doing their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Hold on there!

posted by BigCalm at 06:35 AM on September 12, 2005

Step up, KP! Touch of class from the big man.

posted by JJ at 09:26 AM on September 12, 2005

It's over. Two early drops of Pietersen proved to be the deadly moment--if they get him early, the final Australian innings might well have been a thrilling ODI-style run chase, but with him burning off 187 balls, Australia had no chance at making 341 in eighteen overs...

posted by silverpie at 12:29 PM on September 12, 2005

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.