England v Australia, 3rd Investec Test, Old Trafford, 5th day August 5, 2013

England retain Ashes on rainy day

305

Australia 527 for 7 dec (Clarke 187, Smith 89, Rogers 84, Swann 5-159) and 172 for 7 dec (Warner 41) England 368 (Pietersen 113, Cook 62, Bell 60, Siddle 4-63) and 37 for 3
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

England will keep the Ashes for the next five months at least after Manchester's weather proved a far more impassable barrier to Australia's bowlers than the hosts' top order batting on a grey final day at Old Trafford. The retention of the urn arrived formally via the underwhelming circumstances of an announcement that play had been abandoned at 4.39pm local time, due to a solid belt of rain that could delay its arrival no further than three balls into the afternoon session.

By that time England had lurched to 37 for 3, Ian Bell stung on the thumb by a prancing delivery from Peter Siddle that rather summed up the danger posed by a committed and skilful Australian attack, who have grown increasingly confident in their ability to snip the top off their opponents' batting. Confounded by the rain in Manchester, they will look back ruefully on the failure of Australia's batsmen to provide them with anything to bowl to at Trent Bridge and Lord's, where England established their decisive advantage.

This is not to say that Old Trafford will be a source of entirely happy memories for Alastair Cook's men nor completely forlorn ones for Michael Clarke's. Australia have broken a streak of six consecutive Test match defeats, and in the final two Investec Tests have the chance to press for parity in this series and a platform from which to regain superiority at home in the southern summer. England by comparison have appeared to lose steam, their bowlers decreasing in threat while the batsmen grow increasingly dependent on the middle and lower orders to bail them out.

A Test match at Durham in four days' time will provide plenty of questions for both sides, not least whether the admirable Ryan Harris will be able to back up without the benefit of the break he had between Lord's and Old Trafford. Harris and Siddle were the outstanding performers in the 20.3 overs of play that were possible, finding life in the air and off the pitch to dispose of Cook, Jonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen before the showers set in.

It might have been even worse for England, had Clarke held onto the sort of slips chance he would usually claim when Joe Root snicked Siddle. Pietersen looked distraught to be given out, though a noise at precisely the moment the ball passed the bat backed up Tony Hill's call and that of the third umpire Kumar Dharmasena.

Rain overnight and this morning left many pessimistic about the chances of any resumption at all, with England needing only a draw. However the skies cleared enough for a concerted cleaning and drying effort from the ground staff, starting at around 10am, and following an inspection at 10.45 Hill and Marais Erasmus informed the captains Clarke and Cook of their plans to resume.

Clarke immediately declared, and threw the ball to Harris when play began at 11.30. As he has done repeatedly when called on, Harris responded with a spell of heart and skill, picking up the two early wickets that his captain required. Cook was drawn across his crease by balls angled towards the slips and then pinned lbw by an inswinger. He referred even though the ball was curling in to hit middle stump, the loss of a review adding to the gravity of the blow.

Trott has looked out of sorts in this match, and Harris worked him over in similar fashion, moving outswingers away then arrowing the odd ball back in. Harris' first attempt at the plan resulted in an awfully close lbw shout declined by Hill. Australia's referral was lost as the ball was hitting less than half of leg stump, but in Harris' next over Trott again fell across his crease, this time glancing straight into Brad Haddin's gloves.

Pietersen announced his arrival with a pull shot that signalled Harris' withdrawal. In Siddle's first over replacing him, Root was squared up by a ball angled in and seaming away, but Clarke surprised everyone in attendance by dropping the chance. Australian heads were not to be bowed for long however, as Siddle appeared to extract a fine edge from Pietersen as he prodded forward.

Hill's finger was raised, an upset Pietersen referred, and Dharmasena upheld the on-field call after a sound could be heard at the moment ball passed bat. Pietersen walked off muttering, and minutes later Australia followed him with a spring in their step. They returned with hope as the afternoon began, but within three balls were shuffling back to the pavilion, where a few hours later England had cause for celebration, acknowledging the commitment of a small, soggy crowd from the Old Trafford balcony.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • NorfolkApple on August 6, 2013, 15:51 GMT

    I have to say that I agree with this comment by whoster

    Clarke is a fine ambassador for the game of cricket, and he's earned a lot of respect by being honest and full of good grace after what must've been an incredibly frustrating 24-hours. He's a great player and a great sportsman.

    He didn't whinge about the rain - just accepted that sometimes that happens. He gave due credit to England for their performance in the first two tests and acknowledged some shortcomings in the Australian performance. Direct answers, intelligently put by a terrific player. No-one can doubt his commitment and will to win (there's no such thing as a "good" loser), but Clarke handles failures with great dignity.

    I always thought this would be a tougher series than some pundits were predicting and aside from the woeful 1st innings batting by Australia at Lords it has been a close contest. I think the last two tests have all the signs of being gripping encounters.

  • cric_J on August 6, 2013, 4:08 GMT

    Now, now , this was not how any of us English supporters (the Aussies as well !) wanted England to retain the Ashes. With a draw and that too a rain washed one. As Dobell's another article correctly says , it was a highly underwhelming and unsatisfactory way to secure something as precious as the Ashes. And honestly for me , the Ashes still aren't retained. It's as good as gone if Australia win the last 2 matches or even draw both. England must sort out their issues and play to their potential in the coming matches.

    But well done to Australia for this match. They were surely the better team here and deserved a win. They showed everyone and proved me right in saying that it won't be a 5-0 for England.

  • whoster on August 5, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    Never ideal that the weather has the final say in any Test, and it's tough on the Aussies that they were denied the opportunity to push for a win after such an excellent performance. Even so, they have nobody but themselves (or specifically the batsmen) to blame for being in the position of having to win this game. Harris and Siddle are two fine bowlers, and hopefully for the Aussies, they'll now realise that Lyon is their best spinner. They've proved that they have a strong all-round bowling attack, but the question still remains of how capable their batsmen are when Clarke isn't leading from the front.

    One last point: Clarke is a fine ambassador for the game of cricket, and he's earned a lot of respect by being honest and full of good grace after what must've been an incredibly frustrating 24-hours. He's a great player and a great sportsman.

  • Harmony111 on August 9, 2013, 11:23 GMT

    @JG2704: Ind fans and Eng fans have seen much better days, I for one used to think that Eng fans are the most unbiased, sporting & learned fans in the world. I really did. I still remember the wonderful dignity Mr Boycott showed in WC99 after Thorpe had been wrongly given lbw to Srinath and Eng had lost. I have always enjoyed Bumble's wonderful honesty. I used to enjoy Hussain's appreciation for all.

    Somehow all that is gone now and I hope now you know upon whom much of the blame lies. The 'trash' and 'ghastilies' comments are two of the many such that should take the blame.

  • JG2704 on August 8, 2013, 21:38 GMT

    @5Wombats - Good for you. A friend is back from Aus for a couple of weeks. He said there are theories that Aus are making too much effort on the BBL and the more effort they make with BBL , the more it has an adverse affect on the first class game.

    I would disagree on one thing. I'd say Siddle and Harris are also definitely world class - presuming you meant Clarke as the 1

  • Harmony111 on August 8, 2013, 21:06 GMT

    @5wombats: You are among the most verbose Eng fans here and to see you completely speechless and in a corner here is a huge delight for me. This is +5 for me. You are paying for starting on a wrong foot here. You are quiet hoping this page is locked soon. Your so called "well founded" reasoning was shredded by me here, anyone can see that. Half of your reasons didn't even fit the context. So as a face saver, you are talking about weather and climate. But you still couldn't help it and had to pass yet another supercilious comment about 'trash'. That is an entirely new level of condescension.

    It's not as if you don't want to reply, the truth is that YOU CAN'T REPLY. You just can't. Everyone on this page sees the truth dear wombats, even JG2704 knows that.

    Talking about rain, we all saw how the rain helped Eng in the CT Final when it kept breaking the rhythm of Indian Batsmen but even with all that advantage and chasing a paltry ~130 total in an uninterrupted innings, Eng lost :-)

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 8, 2013, 8:29 GMT

    @Mitty2 & Shaggy076: McKay doesn't have the height!? He's over 6 feet tall! I'm 5 foot 6 and get decent bounce! He plays first class cricket and picks up wickets regularly; certain players have got into the Aus. team for much, much less.

    By calling someone a short-format specialist (Hughes and Warner), I don't necessarily mean they've played a lot of short-format cricket; I mean their styles and approach to cricket are generally not suitable for tests in my opinion. A balanced team does need 1 or 2 players to up-the-ante (like England have KP), but Aus. are not a balanced team and need more Clarke's/Mike Hussey's/Ponting's etc. - not Sehwag's/Gayle's/Viv. Richards.

  • 5wombats on August 8, 2013, 8:19 GMT

    @JG2704. Yeah bud! Life is sweet and far too short to waste on trash. I should know. Australians are curiously quiet about this series. I've never seen anything like this before whilst in Aus. Normally we are getting a pasting and I get my ears boxed. Aussies know their team is weak in relative terms; only one world class player as opposed to eleven just a few years ago. Even my old club mates are fairly sanguine! The other thing is Australia, like the rest of the world, is changing. I've read a couple of sports pages here that say kids aren't going for cricket in the way that they used to; the big money rewards for sporting kids are in footy and aerial ping-ping (Aussie Rules football). I can't tell because it's off season here so none of the community or club ovals are in use. Membership of my old club is down on what it was. BBL attracts people who don't normally do cricket. Difficult to assess where cricket in Australia is as the situation has changed a lot in the past 10 years.

  • JG2704 on August 7, 2013, 21:50 GMT

    @ 5wombats on (August 7, 2013, 10:49 GMT) Sounds like you're enjoying life to the full although I thought you'd be here for the Ashes. Personally , despite the escapes you mentioned I can't make a realistic case here. Harris and Siddle were immense, our top 3 were back in the pavilion and Root and Bell were both lucky to still be there. England were lucky , but you're right re how some folk go overboard , however most Aus fans have been very dignified about it to their credit - what are they like out there?

  • Harmony111 on August 7, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    @5wombats: Spare us the details of your travels, that's irrelevant (or maybe you must tell us cos you got not much else). Let us see what happened in the 8 test matches you referred us to. Even at a glance one can see that 4 of them are totally irrelevant to the moot point here. Ha Ha, you thought no one would check your list? Google+Cricinfo is an easy combo my dear. Tell us how is Lord's 2010 useful here? Eng were chasing 160 there, you call that a good enough basis? How is Brisbane 2010 or TB 2011 relevant here? Did Eng bat in the 4th innings there? How is Dunedin 2013 relevant here? Were Eng 40/3 there? Nope, they were 200/0 so the situation was very different.

    I'd say Oval/Lord's - 2012 are fitter counter-examples here. Batting last, Eng had a similar poor start and were a.o. for <300 in both.

    Ofc, best examples are the UAE matches. Chasing 324, Eng managed 250 and CHASING 145, Eng WERE ALL OUT FOR GUESS HOW MUCH --- 72!!!

    Worry not, I forgive you for your biases. Cheers !!!

  • NorfolkApple on August 6, 2013, 15:51 GMT

    I have to say that I agree with this comment by whoster

    Clarke is a fine ambassador for the game of cricket, and he's earned a lot of respect by being honest and full of good grace after what must've been an incredibly frustrating 24-hours. He's a great player and a great sportsman.

    He didn't whinge about the rain - just accepted that sometimes that happens. He gave due credit to England for their performance in the first two tests and acknowledged some shortcomings in the Australian performance. Direct answers, intelligently put by a terrific player. No-one can doubt his commitment and will to win (there's no such thing as a "good" loser), but Clarke handles failures with great dignity.

    I always thought this would be a tougher series than some pundits were predicting and aside from the woeful 1st innings batting by Australia at Lords it has been a close contest. I think the last two tests have all the signs of being gripping encounters.

  • cric_J on August 6, 2013, 4:08 GMT

    Now, now , this was not how any of us English supporters (the Aussies as well !) wanted England to retain the Ashes. With a draw and that too a rain washed one. As Dobell's another article correctly says , it was a highly underwhelming and unsatisfactory way to secure something as precious as the Ashes. And honestly for me , the Ashes still aren't retained. It's as good as gone if Australia win the last 2 matches or even draw both. England must sort out their issues and play to their potential in the coming matches.

    But well done to Australia for this match. They were surely the better team here and deserved a win. They showed everyone and proved me right in saying that it won't be a 5-0 for England.

  • whoster on August 5, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    Never ideal that the weather has the final say in any Test, and it's tough on the Aussies that they were denied the opportunity to push for a win after such an excellent performance. Even so, they have nobody but themselves (or specifically the batsmen) to blame for being in the position of having to win this game. Harris and Siddle are two fine bowlers, and hopefully for the Aussies, they'll now realise that Lyon is their best spinner. They've proved that they have a strong all-round bowling attack, but the question still remains of how capable their batsmen are when Clarke isn't leading from the front.

    One last point: Clarke is a fine ambassador for the game of cricket, and he's earned a lot of respect by being honest and full of good grace after what must've been an incredibly frustrating 24-hours. He's a great player and a great sportsman.

  • Harmony111 on August 9, 2013, 11:23 GMT

    @JG2704: Ind fans and Eng fans have seen much better days, I for one used to think that Eng fans are the most unbiased, sporting & learned fans in the world. I really did. I still remember the wonderful dignity Mr Boycott showed in WC99 after Thorpe had been wrongly given lbw to Srinath and Eng had lost. I have always enjoyed Bumble's wonderful honesty. I used to enjoy Hussain's appreciation for all.

    Somehow all that is gone now and I hope now you know upon whom much of the blame lies. The 'trash' and 'ghastilies' comments are two of the many such that should take the blame.

  • JG2704 on August 8, 2013, 21:38 GMT

    @5Wombats - Good for you. A friend is back from Aus for a couple of weeks. He said there are theories that Aus are making too much effort on the BBL and the more effort they make with BBL , the more it has an adverse affect on the first class game.

    I would disagree on one thing. I'd say Siddle and Harris are also definitely world class - presuming you meant Clarke as the 1

  • Harmony111 on August 8, 2013, 21:06 GMT

    @5wombats: You are among the most verbose Eng fans here and to see you completely speechless and in a corner here is a huge delight for me. This is +5 for me. You are paying for starting on a wrong foot here. You are quiet hoping this page is locked soon. Your so called "well founded" reasoning was shredded by me here, anyone can see that. Half of your reasons didn't even fit the context. So as a face saver, you are talking about weather and climate. But you still couldn't help it and had to pass yet another supercilious comment about 'trash'. That is an entirely new level of condescension.

    It's not as if you don't want to reply, the truth is that YOU CAN'T REPLY. You just can't. Everyone on this page sees the truth dear wombats, even JG2704 knows that.

    Talking about rain, we all saw how the rain helped Eng in the CT Final when it kept breaking the rhythm of Indian Batsmen but even with all that advantage and chasing a paltry ~130 total in an uninterrupted innings, Eng lost :-)

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 8, 2013, 8:29 GMT

    @Mitty2 & Shaggy076: McKay doesn't have the height!? He's over 6 feet tall! I'm 5 foot 6 and get decent bounce! He plays first class cricket and picks up wickets regularly; certain players have got into the Aus. team for much, much less.

    By calling someone a short-format specialist (Hughes and Warner), I don't necessarily mean they've played a lot of short-format cricket; I mean their styles and approach to cricket are generally not suitable for tests in my opinion. A balanced team does need 1 or 2 players to up-the-ante (like England have KP), but Aus. are not a balanced team and need more Clarke's/Mike Hussey's/Ponting's etc. - not Sehwag's/Gayle's/Viv. Richards.

  • 5wombats on August 8, 2013, 8:19 GMT

    @JG2704. Yeah bud! Life is sweet and far too short to waste on trash. I should know. Australians are curiously quiet about this series. I've never seen anything like this before whilst in Aus. Normally we are getting a pasting and I get my ears boxed. Aussies know their team is weak in relative terms; only one world class player as opposed to eleven just a few years ago. Even my old club mates are fairly sanguine! The other thing is Australia, like the rest of the world, is changing. I've read a couple of sports pages here that say kids aren't going for cricket in the way that they used to; the big money rewards for sporting kids are in footy and aerial ping-ping (Aussie Rules football). I can't tell because it's off season here so none of the community or club ovals are in use. Membership of my old club is down on what it was. BBL attracts people who don't normally do cricket. Difficult to assess where cricket in Australia is as the situation has changed a lot in the past 10 years.

  • JG2704 on August 7, 2013, 21:50 GMT

    @ 5wombats on (August 7, 2013, 10:49 GMT) Sounds like you're enjoying life to the full although I thought you'd be here for the Ashes. Personally , despite the escapes you mentioned I can't make a realistic case here. Harris and Siddle were immense, our top 3 were back in the pavilion and Root and Bell were both lucky to still be there. England were lucky , but you're right re how some folk go overboard , however most Aus fans have been very dignified about it to their credit - what are they like out there?

  • Harmony111 on August 7, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    @5wombats: Spare us the details of your travels, that's irrelevant (or maybe you must tell us cos you got not much else). Let us see what happened in the 8 test matches you referred us to. Even at a glance one can see that 4 of them are totally irrelevant to the moot point here. Ha Ha, you thought no one would check your list? Google+Cricinfo is an easy combo my dear. Tell us how is Lord's 2010 useful here? Eng were chasing 160 there, you call that a good enough basis? How is Brisbane 2010 or TB 2011 relevant here? Did Eng bat in the 4th innings there? How is Dunedin 2013 relevant here? Were Eng 40/3 there? Nope, they were 200/0 so the situation was very different.

    I'd say Oval/Lord's - 2012 are fitter counter-examples here. Batting last, Eng had a similar poor start and were a.o. for <300 in both.

    Ofc, best examples are the UAE matches. Chasing 324, Eng managed 250 and CHASING 145, Eng WERE ALL OUT FOR GUESS HOW MUCH --- 72!!!

    Worry not, I forgive you for your biases. Cheers !!!

  • din7 on August 7, 2013, 12:58 GMT

    well played aussies! really disappointed to see match draw which aussies would have won 100% had there been no rain and they thoroughly deserved to win. Aussies shd try hard and win the last two, then it wont matter eng holds the ashes because its just because of rain....healine for the match shld be "Scared england saved by rain"..teams like eng, ind could never become the worlds best ever..they are way too defensive...the way eng were tryin to waste time they were clearly lookin scared of losing...clarke still way better captain than cook..dont have quality players but still positive and aggresive! well done clarke and well done australia

  • Samdanh on August 7, 2013, 11:38 GMT

    @Swombats: One important scenario you are conveniently forgetting while stating your dreams, is that England was batting 4th and on 5th day. In fact comparing 3rd Test situation with Trent Bridge and Lords scenarios does equate to more nonsense than anything else mentioned here

  • 5wombats on August 7, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    @JG2704 The wombats are currently in North Queensland enjoying life to the full. Check these recent England "saves", some of them famous, and see if you still think my optimism was unfounded... Cardiff 2009. Centurion 2009. Cape Town 2010. Lords 2010. Brisbane 2010. Trent Bridge 2011. Dunedin 2013. Auckland 2013. None of this is imaginary; All of these are in the cricinfo database. Plenty of sides that England have played against in that time frame were saved by rain - e.g New Zealand at Wellington 2013, Sri Lanka at Lords in 2011 - but you don't read comments from anyone saying they were lucky. Such comments are reserved exclusively for England, for some reason. I guess it comes back to the very dry year of 2011 and the fact that not enough rain fell during that particular summer. Also in India a few months ago. It didn't rain enough there either, did it? Inconvenient stuff rain. It never turns up when needed. Very dry here in Queensland atm. Lovely!

  • H_Z_O on August 7, 2013, 10:42 GMT

    @thebrotherswaugh on (August 7, 2013, 8:13 GMT) I tend to agree with you on lots of things, but I disagree that England had the best of the conditions in the first two Tests. It was more because we squandered the advantage rather than bad luck, but still.

    The first day at Trent Bridge was overcast, perfect bowling conditions. In fact, even back then, I said it was probably a better toss to lose than to win. The surface was dry so you'd have been a brave man to insert, but the cloud cover was so tempting. Of course England could, and should, have toughed it out, instead of playing stupid shots, gotten to the end of the day with wickets in hand and batted on day 2, when I thought conditions were at their best for batting.

    At Lord's, the first day pitch had a touch of moisture in it that quickly disappeared. Day 2, the pitch was a belter, which is why England rued those four late wickets on Day 1, and why Australia's 128 was so disappointing.

    Contd.

  • Devmanus on August 7, 2013, 10:01 GMT

    Can we try this solution? put the second Umpire with headphones and a tablet PC with live telecast and if the first Umpire has doubts about the decisions then this second Umpire can take the final decision based on the technology independant of the first Umpire decision (in case of LBW he can check only no bat-ball touch and nothing else).

  • Shaggy076 on August 7, 2013, 9:03 GMT

    Sailboatmike - Are you saying it should be easy to beat England inside of 4 days on a road. From your comments I take it you dont rate England at all. Also not sure of the best of DRS comment - one poor decision all test which went against Australia.

  • Shaggy076 on August 7, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    R_U_4_REAL_NICK - 1) Hughes has rarely played the short form of the game, all the runs he made to get into the side was the long form of the game. Not sure how you can deride picking short form specialist "Hughes" and then say they must pick the ultimate short form specialist in Mckay. He doesnt have the stamina, first class record to be a test cricketer. Outside of the bowlers that have been tried in ENgland we have Bird, Faulkner, Sayers, Hazlewood, Cutting, Hilfenhaus, Johnson and many more who would be in front of Mckay in the queue.

  • JG2704 on August 7, 2013, 8:53 GMT

    @5wombats on (August 6, 2013, 13:06 GMT) Have to say (having read your comms again) , I think that while Eng are not always saved by rain (as some would have it) , in this match I can't justify anything else. While Eng were 3 down - they were are 3 statistically most consistent batsmen and Root was lucky Clarke dropped him and Bell lucky his gloved ball flew over the slips. Honestly don't see any way , with the pitch starting to do things and Harris and in particular Siddle bowling so well that Eng had a hope of saving the game if Sunday and Monday were not rain affected

    @thebrotherswaugh on (August 7, 2013, 8:13 GMT) (some from) Both sets of fans have been guilty of one eyed whinging. And some others too. However thanks for being so balanced about this series so far yourself

    @ Mitty2 on (August 6, 2013, 9:14 GMT) Again - when was the other game where Eng were saved by weather? Please respond

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 7, 2013, 8:13 GMT

    @sailboatmike - Funny how the DRS comes into play as the major villain now that ENG were on the wrong side of the equation. Oh, I forgot, it's only the Aussie supporters who whinge when they get the bad decisions, not the genteel ENG supporters, who just copped it on the chin during all of the bad decisions they endured in the first two tests, but enough is enough, and so they had no choice but to voice some dissent in the 3rd test. And how dare those upstart Aussies win a toss for a change, that's not very fair (still laughing at your best of conditions comment, as if that's a valid excuse, after ENG had exactly that same advantage in the 1st two tests). I also agree with the unbiased comment regarding Clarke's captaincy - it pales into comparison against the attacking genius of Cook. ENG looked right on the cusp of claiming that test as well, were it not for the weather. Thanks for your gracious comments regarding the display by OZ though, truly heart warming.

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 7, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    Congrats to ENG for retaining the urn. Very pleased with the level of fight displayed by OZ in the 3rdtest - hopefully, we have no more bating performances like Lords in the next two tests.

  • on August 7, 2013, 7:18 GMT

    Every one is calling for the culling of Watto, lets not forget as most have is his value as a bowler, hasnt taken many wickets, what he has done is sry up the runs for the opposition giving other bowler at the other end to take wickets, sure he hasnt fired yet as a Batsman, just lack of form due to prolonged injury break.

  • 2MikeGattings on August 7, 2013, 6:12 GMT

    I suppose England can expect a certain lack of grace from some opposition fans. After the burial at Lord's and 2 other disappointments they have only cheap points left to score.

    Exceptions duly noted - in particular, the good folks actually present at the test match supporting their team.

  • Harmony111 on August 7, 2013, 5:42 GMT

    Did anyone else hear sounds of gunshots during one of the breaks when Shane Warne and one more person were analyzing Nathan Lyon'e bowling? Of course the sounds couldn't have been gun shot sounds but I can't think of anything else that can make sounds that sound like gunshot sounds. Perhaps someone was bursting balloons in the adjoining room of Sky Studio :-p

    @5Wombats: A very typical comment from you, miles away from proper reasoning. It is one thing to recover from poor starts in the 1st inns or to get runs when you already have a lead and a very unlike thing to be able to survive a day when you are 40/3 chasing 300+ in 80+ overs. Who knows, England might still have survived but that would have been a very very long shot. Teams have saved matches in the past too, sometimes after batting for ~2 days but in general, to say that Eng were saved by the rain is NOT nonsense. But since I know your ultra bias always comes out in such situations so I will forgive your lack of reasoning.

  • Mitty2 on August 7, 2013, 3:32 GMT

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK, Hughes only started playing limited overs cricket last year and has never played a 20/20 for Australia, how exactly is he a 'limited overs specialist'? He is one of our few batting talents, and he has thoroughly improved his technique against pace, but has yet to find a plan against spin. But all of that and he still made an absolutely crucial, under pressure 81* at TB when everyone else failed (bar of course Agar) - why persist with Watson as an opener when he is 32 and has a worse series and recent record than Hughes when he is 24?

    Warner I'll grant you that, but despite that he averages almost 40 - best under Clarke - so why in all hell would we drop our second best batsman? He scored a century against SA, and one on a ridiculously green Hobart pitch when everyone else failed, why not persist with one of our few talents?

    Mckay: he doesn't have the durability, the height, the consistency or even pace of Bird and Mcgrath. He IS the short form specialist.

  • sailboatmike on August 7, 2013, 3:31 GMT

    I think the point that most are missing is Australia had the best of the conditions and the DRS and still couldnt win the game due to inept captaincy.

    Clarke knew the forecast was bad for the last two day yet did nothing to show that he had any intention of trying to win the game, he was just happy to end the seven test losing streak, it will go down in history as Australia didnt stop the seven match losing stream, rather the weather stopped play on the last day and ensured England couldnt win

  • Happy_hamster on August 6, 2013, 23:29 GMT

    How come everyone is sure Kuwaja was denied a big score, his one notable score was a fifty where he looked like getting out to Swann every ball. The statements of sportsmanship against England is ironic as Aussie invented it. Predicting 3-1 for the series as I did before it started. On another note Harris and Siddle bowled very well and I think Starc will develop into a valuable asset, I like the look of Bird from what I've seen. Clarke was always going to get one biggie, as are Cook and Trott. Not sure what to do with England attack as we need to have more strength in depth do we play Onions? I will still be getting up at 6:00am (EST) to watch before work but the nervous pressure will be gone for me and I guess the players too.

  • rolwinl on August 6, 2013, 21:06 GMT

    @mikkkk Thanks for clearing my confusion regarding which series are called the Ashes. It is the current exception of a series that caused my doubt.

  • JG2704 on August 6, 2013, 20:36 GMT

    @Ms.Cricket on (August 5, 2013, 23:44 GMT) Clarke possibly could have declared earlier on day 4 but as I've said before , he had no idea how much time he had. Had he known I'm sure he would have. 280 was a score someone else mentioned but Australia would probably have only got in another 15 overs or so play (about 8 for the time it took them to get from 280 to 330 lead and 7 for the time between coming off for light and the rain coming down) and against the (compared to Siddle/Harris) their less threatening slower options it is possible Eng would have come through that day unscathed and with more confidence going into day 4. PS you also have to take a few overs out for the changearound. As said before if Clarke knew how it was all going to pan out with the weather he'd have declared earlier.

  • JG2704 on August 6, 2013, 20:36 GMT

    @ 5wombats on (August 6, 2013, 13:06 GMT) I responded to one of the neutrals who said "Eng always gets saved by the weather when they're losing at home" myself. I genuinely courteously asked him to give examples (which obviously would not have had a response anyway) but unlike the quality posts we've received from others it was not published. Only the most deluded Eng cheerleader would say that if there was a full day's play on Monday , Eng would have survived but the truth is that Eng (in tight matches) have been saved by other factors - whether it be luck or skill/mentality , often depending on how you see it

  • JG2704 on August 6, 2013, 20:35 GMT

    @ Mitty2 on (August 6, 2013, 9:14 GMT) I don't think anyone really takes FFL's comms seriously anymore , but when was the other game where Eng were saved by weather?

    @ Joseph Langfordon (August 6, 2013, 19:21 GMT) The 1st 2 tests had nothing to do with the underwhelming nature of the way the game/series was settled in this test. The Ashes was only retained with the draw in this test so Cric J was spot on in his comms

  • on August 6, 2013, 19:21 GMT

    @ cric_J ..... have you considered that the reason for this being an underwhelming and unsatisfactory conclusion to the series was Australia's underwhelming and unsatisfactory performance in the first two tests.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 6, 2013, 16:13 GMT

    @Mitty2: so your answer to Aus. test cricket is to stick with short-format specialists like Hughes and Warner, and then Lyon who yes has been treated unfairly and I do rate him - but let's face it surely O'Keefe or another wrist-spinner MUST get in there? Interesting...

    You then go on to claim the likes of Cummings as depth! Seriously? In test cricket? Hurts his back after 3 overs at the most.

    Glad you've stuck with Haddin at least (can't believe people are calling for Wade!) and we've both been calling for Bird since before the series. Still disagree with me about Clint McKay? Closest bowler you got to McGrath/Bird/Siddle in my opinion - certainly for U.K. conditions; you know more about Aus. conditions for the series down under!

  • 5wombats on August 6, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    A lot of myths and nonsense is being peddalled here by a few Aussies, but mostly others. Who says England were "saved by the rain"? I looked up on cricinfo all these recent examples of why it is mistaken to think that England at 3/37 after 20 overs were certain to be beaten. There should have been a further 78 overs if rain had not fallen. At Trent Bridge England were 2/11 in their second dig. They went on to bat for a further 142 overs scoring 375. At Lords England were 3/28 (1st Inns) but went on to bat a further 94 overs scoring 361. Second Inns they were 3/30 but went on to bat for a further 100 overs. At Old Trafford they were 2/49 but went on to bat for a further 112 overs. It is a huge MISTAKE to think that England were dead and buried. In New Zealand too England dug themselves out of a hole; In the 3rd Test second innings at 2/60 England went on to bat for a further 115 overs to save the game. England only had a further 78 overs to bat here - they would have done that easily...

  • Samdanh on August 6, 2013, 11:43 GMT

    Sad that weather impacted the result which was hurtling towards an Aus victory. Aus will be disappointed. But they should quickly start focusing on turning out another solid performance in the Test to begin later this week. Well done Aussies. You have made your fans happy. Without the glaring on field umpire error in Trent bridge, and without the weather interruptions on 4th and 5th days in 3rd Test, you are virtually 2-1. Keep that in mind and progress positively and play to win the next 2 Tests. Wish you all the very best

  • Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on August 6, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    What this test match showed is England are not as good as most thought and Australia are not as bad, don't get me wrong England have a better side(particularly the batting), but the Australian pace attack as a whole is far better than England's who rely way to much on Anderson. It will be far closer in Aus.

  • on August 6, 2013, 11:22 GMT

    Hi Shaggy076, I guess we disagree with selection criteria but here is my theory.

    Australia had to with the Test Match and to achieve this goal Australia needed to take 20-wickets. Given that we were all expecting a rain effected game then Australia needed to take these wickets without England scoring 500runs ..... I would hope for less than 450runs.

    Now I would like you to then consider that Australia has played the 3-top Test Match Teams nine times over the past 12-months ..... and then consider our record against these top teams. Only on two of these nine occasions over this period has Australia bowled out any of these teams in both innings, with a the minimum number of runs being 590-runs.

    My only conclusion is that, to give us the highest probability of winning the Test Match (taking 20-wickets in less than 500runs), Australia needed to select 5-bowlers.

    Of course selecting 5-bowlers would also ensure, if they won, that the bowlers would be fresh for the 4th test match.

  • calcu on August 6, 2013, 10:34 GMT

    Unlucky australia. They would have won the match within 35 overs had the rain not came

  • Mitty2 on August 6, 2013, 9:25 GMT

    (Cont), the best team we can pick IMO is: Hughes, Rogers, Khawaja, Clarke, Smith, Warner, Haddin, Siddle, Harris, Lyon and Bird. No bloody Shane Watson, no bloody Mitchell starc. Hughes, Warner and Khawaja are our future (with Maddison, silk and burns being the depth) and absolutely HAVE to be persisted with at all costs. Chopping and changing doesn't ever work - it hasn't worked for us recently and it didn't work for England in the 90's.

    Stick with a spinner, and considering Lyon's age and record, stay with him! Get rid of the ridiculous left arm seam policy, and pick bowlers who average UNDER 20, not ABOVE 30 (Bird and Starc anyone?). We have a plethora of fast bowlers, so why would we possibly select on 'potential'?!? In fact, get rid of selecting on 'potential'! Harris is an amazing bowler, and siddle is the necessity and envy of all attacks (even SA), Bird takes 5 wickets a match on average, compared to Starc's 3. WHY? Cutting, Cummings, Patto and Sayers are the depth.

  • yorkiedarnsarf on August 6, 2013, 9:15 GMT

    All this fuss over technology has spoilt the modern game. If you compare this to football - where the financial rewards for success or failure are far greater - the referee makes a decision based on what they see and the game moves on. Play isn't stopped to see if it was offside, if the ball crossed the line, if it was a bad tackle or a penalty. If the referee has a bad game they are "relegated" to a lower level to atone for their sins. Let's get back to how it used to be, when the umpire's word was God and the players respected it. This allows everyone to focus purely on cricket and not the ifs, mights and maybes of possible disputeable decisions. Those, like myself, who play the game at a much lower level don't have the benefit of such technology and simply get on with it!

  • Mitty2 on August 6, 2013, 9:14 GMT

    Alright, so we got robbed by rain in a test which we only lost one session, so what? The rub of the green has gone England's way, with this rain (who else remembers 'FFL' continually saying that Aus get 'saved by rain'... That's two in five months for England!), plenty of marginal and shocking calls going their way, not to mention a ridiculously furtuitous Broad innings at TB in the second innings which proved the difference, but who cares? We were never expected to win, and many predicted 5-0, but we showed what was absolutely vital: fight and resistance. This was clearly evident in the first test, where we were behind the eight ball a lot but kept at it, completely evaporated in the second test so we got our absolute hammered in the press, and not evident in this test, because we dominated! Good signs; positive signs. Oh and credit to England despite (once again) playing in second gear.

    Now all that is left is to pick the right team for the future/the return leg (cont)

  • Rowayton on August 6, 2013, 8:33 GMT

    JG2704, I must admit that as a 60 year old Australian, I'm not too distraught by this turn of events. Since seeing my first Ashes test in 62/63 - Davidson bowling to Pullar! I've seen the Ashes come and go a number of times. On the ther hand Rugby League tests against Great Britain, that we have won since about 1970, are boring with a capital B. Lords 1968 - look that one up, talk about us being saved by the rain, and a game in South Africa in 66/67, when we only had 2 wickets left. It happens. So long as the Aussies put up a performance, I don't mind getting beaten. Good luck toBell especially - I wish the Aussie selectors would have a think about him, and how he has been developed even though his previous performances against us weren't great.

  • JG2704 on August 6, 2013, 7:54 GMT

    Isn't it amazing that most of the whinging isn't from the set of fans who saw their Ashes hopes blown away by the weather but from the so called neutral fans. I'd like to say absolute fair play to the majority of balanced comms coming from the majority of Aus fans

  • JG2704 on August 6, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (August 5, 2013, 23:54 GMT) As I said with JB , Willis said he falls into the "Must Do Better" category (averaging 32 for the series) but KP (who's averaging 32) is performing fine according to Bob.

  • JG2704 on August 6, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    @Chris_P on (August 5, 2013, 23:22 GMT) Interesting comms. I always thought that the umpires were supposed to treat Hotspot as Gospel , but maybe they too were told of this. I wonder what happens now? Do we have tests to find out if this is true? Do ICC ban such bats - meaning the bats would have to be tested every time a batsman walks out? Can Hotspot be improved to override this? It opens a whole new can of worms. Re the performance I'm guessing that once it surpassed expectations it was heartbreaking not to win. I mean it wasn't like no one knew how the Eng inns would go as they were 3 down with Root dropped and Bell edging over the slips and Siddle looking particularly dangerous

  • JamesBlond on August 6, 2013, 7:33 GMT

    @Bharat Shah - 100% Agree. We should be picking our best 4 bowlers. Bird has got to be close to the top of that list, but cannot get a game at the moment. Lyon is not even in the top 10 in the country, yet somehow gets a prolonged run because we stuck with one spinner who was amazing (Warne) and are trying to turn Lyon into that. Lyon is not and never will be a Warne. I don't understand how he keeps getting a game... consistently performing worse than the other 3 bowlers in the side, despite having played more tests than them all and batting at #11! It's like the team is constantly playing with 10 men.

  • on August 6, 2013, 7:32 GMT

    Things to improve in DRS. 1.USE 3D cameras and 3D Display systems. 2.On field Umpires review it like runouts not the players. 3.On filed umpire take decision by using Head mounted displays. 4.Remove 3rd umpire concept even for run outs. 5.Hold the spirit of the game like it was played all these years.

  • JamesBlond on August 6, 2013, 7:15 GMT

    Agree with Wefinishthis. I don't know what O'Keefe has done to the selectors to constantly get overlooked, although I don't think Maddinson is ready yet. Lyon I would argue has cost us this game by constantly playing in the English batsmen. A strike rate of 66 with an average of 35 is absolutely atrocious for a frontline spinner with 20+ tests under your belt. Those are part timer type figures. At least O'Keefe can bat! Lets look at the FC stats: Lyon: Bowl: Avg=39.17 SR=72. Bat: Avg=14.5 Okeefe: Bowl: Avg=26.49 SR=63. Bat Avg=30.91

    Tell me again why this guy is in the team? Surely a better option for the current tour would be to play 4 quicks? Whatever happened to playing your best 4 bowlers? Who cares how you get the batsmen out?

  • mondotv on August 6, 2013, 6:40 GMT

    DRS Dilemmas..the game is too slow with DRS at the moment. Why aren't checking the validity of an LBW before looking for edges on hotspot? If a batter is not out, very little time wasted. Pietersen perfect example - not out get on with game. Instead we spent 5 minutes searching for a non existent edge. Why aren't they using snicko for the DRS? It seems far more clear cut than hotspot, which is iffy infra-red technology at best. The camera is positioned off the field some 100 metres away from the heat source. Obviously faint snicks do not register on hot spot. Both Warner and Pieterson were out yesterday and snicko would have resolved it in 30 seconds not 7 or 8 precious wasted minutes. There was one in the first innings as well where only Haddin appealed off Bell and once again he was proved right and hotspot wrong. So umpires 1 from 3, keepers and snicko 3 from 3, Hotspot 0 from 3. Do the ECB and ACB have shares in Hotspot or something?

  • mondotv on August 6, 2013, 6:35 GMT

    Two questions remain unanswered 1. How will Australia's (and England's) batters hold up when the ball starts swinging? Probably at Durham. That's intriguing because both teams have an excellent seam attack and speed doesn't necessarily matter when the balls moving.Plus Aus have not had a great record against good quality swing bowling. 2. Why does Lyon persist in bowling around the wicket to right handers when the track is turning? Sure use it as a variation but he poses far more questions spinning in sharply from outside off. batsman has to decide whether to leave or play, brings the arm ball into play (something he needs to perfect) and doesn't rule out LBW. Spinning straight back down the line allows batters to get on the back foot and play with impunity and takes the rough outside off out of play. Just the odd uneven bounce to deal with.

  • on August 6, 2013, 6:20 GMT

    I think England saved the match because they batted very well in their first innings. They lasted for 140 overs, and saved the follow on in the process. KPs innings was special. Had England followed on, they would have lost before the weather closed in. I think Australia should go into the fourth test with four seamers, as it is a result oriented wicket, and replace Lyon with a seamer.

  • Rowayton on August 6, 2013, 6:19 GMT

    jmcilhinney, while you're analysing the effect of Pietersen's LBW on the game, don't forget that he would also have been out LBW earlier if Mr Hill hadn't been confused by Pietersen's wanderings about. Interesting that if they change the DRS rule so that you don't lose the review on umpire's call, as has been mooted, then I think there is little doubt that Australia would have reviewed that and KP would have been out for 67 or thereabouts. And as I said for Khawaja I will say for KP's second innings - if you play rubbish shots outside off stump, you're not that unlucky if the umpire gives you out.

  • jmcilhinney on August 6, 2013, 6:00 GMT

    @Wefinishthis on (August 6, 2013, 3:04 GMT), I think that you're going off the deep end there. Yes, Clarke's contribution was the most significant but it's often the case that a big innings owes more to one batsman than the rest. That innings also contained scores of 65*, 66*, 84 and 89, Khawaja got a seriously dud call and they declared with 3 wickets still in hand. Clarke was the main reason that Australia got a big score but certainly not the only reason. Take out Clarke's runs and they were still 340-7 and that's still a competitive score in the context.

  • jmcilhinney on August 6, 2013, 5:43 GMT

    @Shaggy076 on (August 6, 2013, 5:08 GMT), I wouldn't go by what the commentators say when viewing replays for reviews. Sometimes I wonder whether they're even looking at the same footage as I am. I don't know whether their monitors are small or poor quality or they all need new glasses but they have no idea half the time. With regards to KP's LBW in the first innings, there was undoubtedly a mark there. I saw it immediately but began to doubt myself when it seemed to get no attention at all from the third umpire; much less than the LBW review against Trott in the second innings when a single view could prove that he didn't edge it. The mark on KP's bat was not there in the frame before the ball passed the bat and it was there in the next frame and Snicko later showed a noise as the ball passed the bat. It was a thin edge but an edge none the less. The mark was an odd shape and that may have been the issue but that's because it was the seam that made contact and not a smooth surface.

  • Shaggy076 on August 6, 2013, 5:08 GMT

    jmcilhinney; Listening to Warne ramble through his thoughts, I don't think he had any idea what your saying. I agree with you that both the Pietersen and Hughes incidents should remain umpires call. As for the Hot Spot on the LBW, maybe my TV set is average I saw nothing there. The commentators didn't pick anything up. There was a flash off white close to the handle but the ball passed the center of the bat. Colombo - I really shouldn't even take the time to respond, but as was mentioned yesterday whether the ground is fit for play is completely determined by the neutral umpires. As for Karma its farcical to even respond, considering Australia had 200 on the board in that game and Sri Lanka didn't make that all series. It maybe the umpires didn't let a ludicrous D/L target be set, but once again those umpires are Neutral.

  • cric_J on August 6, 2013, 4:14 GMT

    Also , I said yesterday that Australia could well bowl out England in just 2 sessions thanks to England's habit of lifting the foot off the pedal and being "generous" to the opposition everytime they are in a commanding position in a series /match. They looked all set to do just that here at 37/3.

    But I agree with @Shan156 that even after that I backed the England lads to grind out a draw. And that's because even after being 30/3 twice at Lord's and being in trouble initially at TB as well , they managed to score decently and hang on there. And those were much worse day 5 batting surfaces.

    So it probably would be unfair to say that England would surely have lost had the rain not played spoilsport. Cricket is a funny game and you can NEVER predict or guess what happens next or what would have happened.

  • jmcilhinney on August 6, 2013, 3:54 GMT

    @SL_rockz on (August 5, 2013, 16:35 GMT), without a doubt Australia outplayed England but without a doubt noone won the match. If what you're saying is that there's no doubt that Australia would have won the match if there had been no rain then you're conveniently forgetting that England came back from 30-3 twice at Lords and both Bell and Root have already made big scores this series. Australia were favourites, no doubt, but to assume that England weren't capable of hanging on for a draw is as stupid as assuming that Australia would roll over for 5 Tests in a row.

  • Wefinishthis on August 6, 2013, 3:04 GMT

    Australia only posted a competitive score because of their only world-class batsman Michael Clarke. The batting still has major problems. Half of them have never even scored a test century before! I think Warner and Smith are good to have in the team and I don't mind Rogers being there, but there's still 3 batting spots up for grabs in Australia's lineup. I wouldn't mind seeing Jordan Silk be given more Aus A opportunities whilst Maddinson has been impressive in recent times. I'd just like to see them handled properly for a change (ie bring them in at no.6 and back them for 2-3 series, then either drop or move them up the order). That said, besides the weather, the bowling yet again cost Australia this test match. Bird needed to be playing instead of Starc as well as Australia's no.1 spinner Steve O'Keefe instead of the not bad but not great Lyon, who has cost Australia several test match wins now in failing to take wickets in favourable conditions.

  • Barnesy4444 on August 6, 2013, 2:53 GMT

    I'm a big critic on the way DRS is implemented, but that Pieterson decision by the on-field umpire was excellent. Faint edge, given out as it should have been.

  • Kheruvim on August 6, 2013, 2:35 GMT

    Quite amazing how just one match can transform the evaluation of a team. After Lord's Australia were appalling, now they've turned a corner. England were brilliant, now ordinary. Australia played well in this match, but England played into their hands. The bowling wasn't restrictive enough, didn't build pressure, and the batting was exceptionally poor from England - 3 leg side strangles out of those 13 wickets - that is poor batting not great bowling. Trott, Cook, Pietersen all woefully out of form, KP's hundred wasn't exactly a return to form, but a welcome glimpse at least. This does seem to be the best form Australia can show and as England know, maintaining that sort of form can be very hard indeed.

  • jmcilhinney on August 6, 2013, 2:14 GMT

    To those people suggesting that D/L be used in Tests, I can only conclude that you have no idea how the D/L method works or you don't know how Test cricket works or both. D/L is based on run rate and, as we all know, run rate is all but irrelevant in Test cricket.

  • jmcilhinney on August 6, 2013, 1:26 GMT

    @RandyOZ on (August 5, 2013, 19:07 GMT), you sound like an actual human being now. This time in the UK has been very good for you. Let's hope it doesn't wash off too soon.

    While I'll readily agree with you regarding Australia being unlucky with the weather, I actually think that it was England who were more affected by the umpiring than Australia. The decision against Khwaja was a shocker, granted, but Australia declared with 527 on the board in that innings. Would they have done any better than that if Khawaja had been rightly given not out? I doubt it. There were some close calls on both sides that could have gone either way so I don't think that either team can complain about those. The decision that could have swung the match was KP in the first innings. HotSpot showed a mark that was apparently ignored by the third umpire and Snicko confirmed that there was an accompanying sound, so that really should have been not out. England likely would have done better if KP had stayed.

  • jmcilhinney on August 6, 2013, 1:12 GMT

    One thing I found rather funny was Shane Warne on commentary when KP was out in the second innings. When Phil Hughes reviewed a caught behind decision in an earlier game, Warne was going on and on about the fact that Hughes obviously didn't think that he'd hit it and that that constituted evidence that he hadn't, even though there was a noise, confirmed by Snicko, and a mark on HotSpot. This time, KP seemed quite vehement that he hadn't hit the ball, despite consulting his partner before reviewing, but Warne seemed happy that the right decision was made because there was a noise. I have no issue with KP's dismissal but it's interesting, although not surprising, that Warne had a rather different perspective depending on what team the decision was against. I just wonder whether KP was as mad as he was because he was given out in the first innings LBW even though HotSpot showed an inside edge while this time HotSpot showed no edge but he was out caught behind.

  • C0l0mb0 on August 6, 2013, 1:03 GMT

    One word..."KARMA"

    If everyone remembered, Aus vs SL match at Sydney, after 10 min rain Aussies didn't wanted to start the game saying dangerous outfield.

    Well... i just hope Aussies not whining after seeing this rain...:P

  • Rowayton on August 6, 2013, 0:11 GMT

    Two points - some people are saying Clarke should have declared on the fourth afternoon and bowled the spinners. What? Anybody who thinks that having Smith open the bowling is a good idea needs psychiatric help. And second - people who say Australia only do well when Clarke performs - probably true, but it is no great secret that every side in history does better when their best player performs. It is merely stating the bleeding obvious.

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 23:54 GMT

    There has obviously been a lot of speculation regarding Root position in the batting order and Bairstow's place in the team. I think that both will have success where they are, given time, and England seem to agree. Now that the Ashes have been retained, I have no doubt that Root and Bairstow will both remain where they are for the next two games and selections will be re-evaluated at the end of the series.

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 23:51 GMT

    For those who haven't previously, I think it's time for England fans to accept that Peter Siddle is not the bowler he was when England last won the Ashes in Australia.

  • OneEyedAussie on August 5, 2013, 23:45 GMT

    Congratulations to England on retaining the Ashes. Seems one good game was all it took.

  • Ms.Cricket on August 5, 2013, 23:44 GMT

    Dropping Phil Hughes certainly strengthened Australian batting and attitude. Clarke should have been more aggressive on Day 4 and declared early and used his spiinners (Lyon and Smoth) in the fading light.

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 23:40 GMT

    I would suggest that there's still quite a bit to play for in this series, despite the Ashes having been retained. I doubt that anyone has forgotten the return series coming up fast and both teams will want to finish this series strongly in order to go to Australia with some confidence. England have been consistently middling in this series so they will be very keen to improve while Australia have been very inconsistent and will want to prove that the real Australia is the one from Old Trafford and not Lords. Despite the big prize having been secured, I see the last two games being just as hotly contested as if it hadn't.

  • Shaggy076 on August 5, 2013, 23:29 GMT

    In the end the rain has spoilt what would have been a thrilling test match, as an Aussie supporter can take a lot of heart out of this performance after probably our worse performance of all time at Lords. Think in the end we were unlucky to win but the weather has always and will always be a factor in the game. Hopefully take heart from this and put in just as good performance over the next couple of tests and we should see some great cricket. Overall there seems to be a lot of controversy with DRS but everyone should remember how unhappy they are with how it went, every decision in this game was on umpires call so DRS or no DRS nothing would have changed. Personally its closer to the way I like the system, it should always be umpires call unless there is conclusive proof but in the case of Khawaja there was conclusive proof. I would also prefer a system where DRS isn't tactical and the umpires could look at the Smith LBW. The umpires made 2 mistakes in 4 days not to bad by them.

  • Chris_P on August 5, 2013, 23:26 GMT

    I really did want us to be competitive, albeit understanding we were always going to be up against it, so was happy with the overall performance. England probably would be a little disappointed with their efforts, but these off days happen from time to time & I don't expect them to repeat it. Although that said, Anderson does look like he is struggling a bit so perhaps these 4 days off may be all he needs for a full re-charge. Imaginative captaincy by Clarke switching bowlers about, it would have made a day full of intrigue without the weather interruption.

  • Shaggy076 on August 5, 2013, 23:23 GMT

    Joseph Langford; This was a test match where only 4 days of cricket was played on a road, with one team only batting for a draw 5 bowlers and no Lyon wouldn't have made any difference. The Aussies played great cricket and its unfortunate they didn't win but to label it a selection blunder is drawing a big straw.

  • Shaggy076 on August 5, 2013, 23:22 GMT

    H_Z_O ; Got to admit I haven't seen the champions trophy decision you are talking about. It was one day cricket and not involving Australia, I will watch other nations playing test cricket but very rarely the 50 over game. If it was anything like the Agar decision then Im not sure how they could possibly give Bell out. The batting crease is worn, the video is grainy to me that's inconclusive.

  • Chris_P on August 5, 2013, 23:22 GMT

    @ JG2704, landl47, H_Z_O & 5Wombats. Listening to our own local commentary during the rain, Dominic Thornley, former NSW player (now player agent) let the guys know that bat-makers are coating the bats with some kind of substance of which one effect is deadening the heat that hot-spot picks up. Not sure if the reason is for this or if this is one of the side effects, but it would now make sense why some edges aren't being picked up if what he suggests is happening. In fact, Brett Lee & Ian Healy (the panel) did speak at some length about it. All very interesting & if correct would throw up questions about hot-spot's dependability.

  • Shaggy076 on August 5, 2013, 23:20 GMT

    Got a good laugh reading some of these comments - @ maximum6 "KP's face said black and blue he didn't hit it" - You know what so did Warners maybe we should recall Warner as well. In the first innings KP took an age to refer the LBW then in his interview said he thought he nicked it. If he nicked it why didn't he call it straight away. There was no evidence to suggest he nicked it. On this you would have to think KP facial expression/or his judgement isn't trustworthy. Cook was unamionous he wasn't out, as was Warner batsman get it wrong. The evidence to me suggests there was the faintest nick (not that I am 100% sure of that) and how can you overturn the umpires decision on that.

  • Moppa on August 5, 2013, 23:13 GMT

    Bizarre as it sounds, play being rained out after 20-odd overs was actually not a worst case scenario for Australia at the start of the day. It would have been far more deflating to get most of a day and make limited inroads, meanwhile putting more work into our bowlers. As it is, the three quick wickets land a psychological blow and, importantly, it is feasible that Harris could back up for Durham on Friday given the short fifth day. There is still lots to play for in the context of back-to-back series: a win, even in a 3-1 series loss, would be a big boost for Australia for the return series. I think we need to be a bit bold for Durham and play five bowlers, my team: Watson/Cowan, Rogers, Khawaja, Clarke, Warner, Haddin, Faulkner, Siddle, Harris, Lyon, Bird. Smith unlucky to be dropped, but his was a very lucky and scratchy innings at Old Trafford. Faulkner plays pace about as well as him too. Watson can be dropped if Faulkner plays, but could get one last chance. Bird MUST play.

  • Chris_Howard on August 5, 2013, 22:54 GMT

    Cook, Trott, Prior still to make significant contributions. Anderson wicketless until gifted a couple by the Aussies. Broad not taking many.

    The only real concerns for Australia are Watson's batting (hide him at 6 or 7), and the failure of our spinners to make an impression.

    Provided our batsmen can put enough runs on the board - admittedly it's still only happened once - then Siddle and Harris can do damage to the English lineup.

    On current form, an Australian five-nil whitewash is on the cards when Poms visit us. Which would mean, out of 10 Tests, we might just come out ahead!

    Australia could have and should have won this Test though if it had been more bold in both its declarations.

  • Bonehead_maz on August 5, 2013, 22:44 GMT

    Congratulations to England on retaining the ashes. As an Australian, I am reminded of Michael Vaughan's classic line "look at them up there celebrating (they escaped and are happy - shows how far we've come)".

    This is the first decent wicket Australia has been allowed to play on since Sydney in January. It very much reminded me of a modern Adelaide wicket. Thanks to the Lancs committee /ground staff for your excellent work - welcome back to Ashes cricket ! Having said it was a decent wicket it was of course prepared specifically to assist the home team. I wonder how they'll manage to make Chester-le street not seam ?

  • on August 5, 2013, 22:36 GMT

    The razzing of the batsmen goes on. But, when given their chance here, the bowlers did half a job - we were in deep doodoo once it took 130 overs to bowl England out. We made it a war of attrition, and that suits England. And made no allowance for weather.

    We could have scored faster, and declared at 450. Bowled smith more and got them out faster,probably for more..

    Anyway, we are at least half a bowler short. All are trying, but the attack is just not quite good enough. Need a leggie... A leggie....

  • Patchmaster on August 5, 2013, 21:54 GMT

    Clarke can be like a spoilt teenager sometimes, always blaming everything and everyone but his own decisions. At the end of the day, the AUS team has been beaten....again..........

  • hhillbumper on August 5, 2013, 21:39 GMT

    Well done England.Now can we get our act together and start performing. Would also like to congratulate Australia on giving us nearly as hard a time as New Zealand did.This team needs to grow and develop and Cook and Trott need to improve.As for Bairstow can we drop him yet? I have a feeling we will just get another Saffer in. How about Playing Taylor.

  • on August 5, 2013, 21:09 GMT

    England may have retained the Ashes, but in reality this is a ten match series. In this game, Australia looked a much better team with their batters at last finding some form. In the bowling department, the quicks have always looked impressive. England's pace attack lacked, potency, discipline and consistency. Anderson had a rare ordinary game; however, the case to replace Bresnan or Broad with Onions is strong. The latter's stats are far superior and he is in good form. Moreover, the next test is at his home ground. England have retained the Ashes, but this test has demonstrated that there is no room for complacency. Onions should play.

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 21:06 GMT

    Re selection for the next test , I think it's time Onions was was let off the leash.

    It's on his home ground and I feel it's time he was given a proper opportunity. Also I don't feel we can say Bres gives us extra batting depth these days

    Finally , it seems to me that Finn has been totally frozen out with Tremlett his heir apparent. Personally I don't see what Tremlett has done since coming back which is better than what Finn has done

  • gtr800 on August 5, 2013, 21:02 GMT

    @mikkkk No, they didn't let Australia score over 500- that was because they couldn't extract much of the surface/ Australia played well etc. But what followed was batting to draw the test, at a atypically slow rate from the soo called flamboyant batsmen such as 'root', 'pieterson' to add to cook etc. Even KP admitted they were trying more to stay in rather than score heavily. They had anticipated rain & rather than force a result which they should because they are the much better side they decided to play uninspired cricket because they could. Surely this argument is comprehensible even to you? @clarke501 The England team do not have the best players in the world but they are very close to having them. They are close to being 2nd for a reason. Creativity matters because that's what makes cricket an interesting thinking game, otherwise your left with something one-dimensional like rowing.

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 21:00 GMT

    Isn't it amazing that most of the whinging isn't from the set of fans who saw their Ashes hopes blown away by the weather but from the so called neutral fans. I'd like to say absolute fair play to the majority of balanced comms coming from the majority of Aus fans

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 21:00 GMT

    2 things re Sky's commentary

    1 - I noticed that Willis singled out Bell,Root and KP as the only batsmen who could be pleased with their contributions. Bell for sure but Root had one great inns but had a mediocre 4 inns and KP's series average is only 2 more than JB who Bob said had not done well enough

    2 - I'd like to say how much I enjoyed Tom Moody as an analyst and I'm sure many fellow fans will welcome him back to our tv screens with open arms

  • Harmony111 on August 5, 2013, 20:54 GMT

    I like Cook but I think in this series he has looked rather ugly in his technique most of the times. He has scored some runs too but that doesn't hide the fact that the way his bat is coming down + the way his front foot is moving is not smooth. I also think he is bent a bit too much in his stance. The slightly extra angle in his back could be the reason why the bat movement and front foot movement is looking ungainly. It also means that his head is slightly ahead of his eyes when he is facing the ball and it also means that he would have a tendency of falling overdue to the slight dis balance in his posture.

    In the case of Trott, he is moving his feet a bit too much and is moving towards extra cover instead of mid off. This means when his bats comes down it is sometimes at odds with his pad. He is fit for a Warner like lbw/caught case like in the 1st innings here.

    Root is playing a bit toooo straight. But he got that 180 so can't complain much.

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 20:52 GMT

    @ rahulcricket007 on (August 5, 2013, 15:30 GMT) I think 280 in 4 sessions may have been about right as you were always likely lose about a sessions worth of cricket and MC had to go on the side of ambition but I think he would have got to the 280 lead half way through the afternoon session. No one knows what Clarke had planned. Maybe he was thinking along timelines as opposed to how big a lead he had and was going to declare at tea yesterday with whatever lead he had - which would have been quite substantial. Being that 294 was the highest test run chase on this ground and Aus were way on top I don't think 280 in 4 sessions would be giving it away

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    @ maximum6 on (August 5, 2013, 14:57 GMT) The benefit does not have to go to the batsman at all. Acc to DRS the decision should go with the on field umpire unless there is something which proves it was a howler. There was no mark on Hotspot but there was audio evidence and it showed up on Snicko (not used in this series). I think he probably was out and IMO if he knew he hadn't hit it he'd have reviewed it straight away. I think KP (going by how other decs have been overturned in this series) thought/hoped it would go his way

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    @ sachin_vvsfan on (August 5, 2013, 13:35 GMT) True , but I guess KP felt it would be overturned. For me it wasn't a bad review. Cook on the other hand ...

    @ Arrow011 on (August 5, 2013, 13:49 GMT) They're not the worlds best test team and only the most deluded Eng fan would argue with that. They're currently number 3 and I believe that if they don't lose a test in the Ashes series they go back to number 2

    @ Reececonrad on (August 5, 2013, 14:56 GMT) Eng vs SA last year was different as Eng needed the win. They didn't need to win this game

  • Greatest_Game on August 5, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    Test cricket. Five days of fascination: the anticipation, the 1st session, a finely crafted innings, the thrall of skilled & wily bowling, that final wicket, just 14 runs short. Nothing compares.

    Essential to the game is the sanctity of fair play. Integrity, honesty, & trust reflect the cricket fan's want of justice. In the Umpires we must trust, for though human & flawed at the crease, we know & accept their imperfection. The illogical & injudicious UDRS now employed makes mockery of their honest arbitration. It must be fixed, & improve, not endanger, the game.

    For the players, flawed decisions stay on the field, their imperfection made whole each day by post play friendship. Foes shrug off ill fortune, share a beer & a laugh. Therein lies the Spirit of Cricket.

    Many here are bitter, believing injustice has prevailed. The game is fickle, but we know none better. Like the 22, we must dismiss rancour, & embrace the Spirit. Such is the game: to love it, we must honour it's frailties.

  • mikkkk on August 5, 2013, 20:34 GMT

    @gtr800 So England played for a draw by letting Aus score over 500 runs? This drivel surely doesn't make any sense even to you.

  • liz1558 on August 5, 2013, 20:33 GMT

    Not convinced by Cook as captain - England's batting at the top of the order is catatonic at times, and that comes down to him. These scoring rates of 1.8 for 50 overs would be alright if England routinely went on to make 500+, but they don't. It gives the initiative to the opposition and makes it harder for the following batsmen. It is all without conviction and authority, and Root in particular looks vulnerable because he's not playing his natural game. Either Cook has to come out of this cocoon of self-imposed inertia, or the captaincy should go to someone who can lead with some gusto, which would free Cook up. Also in the field Cook only has plan A - toss the ball to Anderson or Swann and England win. All of Cook's victories have only come with a substantial contribution from either man. It's all risk free and unadventurous and England look vulnerable because of it. Swann would be the best man for the captaincy .

  • on August 5, 2013, 20:31 GMT

    As the Australian hopes of winning the Ashes are washed away, I will refer you to my previous comments pertaining to the selection of this Australian Team.

    Australia had to win the Test Match.

    With the prediction of rain prior to the game commencing Australia knew there was little hope that they would be given a full 5-days to achieve this goal.

    Australia needed to take 5-Bowlers into the Match.

    As previously pointed out, there is little to be gained by including an good spinner like Lyon against batsmen who face a great spinner like Swann.

    Again I look at administration and selectors and ponder .... if only!!!

  • shillingsworth on August 5, 2013, 20:24 GMT

    @gtr800 - I'd suggest that Australia's success in the 1990s was precisely because they had the best players in the world at their disposal. The current England team do not. Trying to pretend they do would be rather ridiculous. Your description of the type of test cricket to be promoted seems to describe the Old Trafford test perfectly. Usually the match situation dictates that only one side is offering the creative bit, at Trent Bridge both sides were at different stages. Why does it matter?

  • on August 5, 2013, 20:22 GMT

    Very, very frustrating day for Australia, and an unsettling one for England. However lucky, the first target of the series has been achieved. Onions for Bresnan at Chester-le-Street? The lack of consistent runs at the top of the order is a concern, with Trott being the biggest worry there at the moment. Roll on Friday, and the Fourth Test.

  • RohanMarkJay on August 5, 2013, 20:07 GMT

    Well rain had the final say on weather England retains the Ashes in England or not. It is a shame because its highly probable Australia would have won. Going into the next test 2-1 with all to play for. Who knows what would have happened in the next two tests. I think in Australia, while rain can spoil matches there too as they do have tropical downpours in summer is more unlikely to play apart in ending a match. Rain, the bain of the game of cricket strikes. No one's fault, its just Australia has been very unlucky throughout this series with umpires decisions and now rain. If the luck was even, I think this series would have been very close. I think we will see a proper Ashes series in Australia. Now the next two tests will be dead rubbers. Interest in this series will now be very low as this series is now done and dusted, until the end of the year in Australia.

  • henrystephen on August 5, 2013, 20:04 GMT

    Well done England. Australia still have a mile to go before even thinking about retaining the Ashes, let's not get ahead of ourselves. They have a good day here and there, that's all. A suggestion for England would be drop the ugly negativity that preventing them from reaching the next level. On another note, I have the impression that Clarke is more liked in England than in his home country: certainly unusual!

  • gtr800 on August 5, 2013, 20:02 GMT

    @2MikeGattings Yes at times they definitely do. It was clear at the end that all England wanted to do was draw the test once they had lost the toss, their bowling was uninspired on both the 1st 2 days, partly because they were expecting the whether to intervene. All I am saying is if India had this test side right now, we wouldn't settle for draws in our backyard after the 1st day.

  • zarasibaat on August 5, 2013, 19:51 GMT

    First time after the 7 test matches Australia looked a side who can perform at this level. Otherwise neither Australian have good enough test players nor Clarke is a good captain. i am sorry to say but with these players a drawn is not a bad result for Australia. Even had Clarke been a good enough captain he should have drawn the 3rd test against India. But he gifted that match to India. In this match too on 4th day when umpires asked Cook to bowl with spinners if he want to resume the match and he denied, Clarke should have declared the inning to take chance with his spinners.But he could not take an important decision. Australian not only need good test players but also need a good captain who can make right decision at right time. in my opinion Smith can be a good leader.

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 19:48 GMT

    Re the KP dismissal - In real time and on 1st replay I thought it looked like he didn't hit it. But on reflection I think he did nick it. I think KP himself wasn't sure either way and reviewed it thinking/hoping he'd get the benefit of the doubt. Had he thought he definitely didn't hit it he'd have reviewed it straight away. Out of interest had audio evidence always been part of DRS?

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 19:48 GMT

    @Pyketts on (August 5, 2013, 11:53 GMT) Bring back the snail to speed things up a bit up front. On a serious note , I don't think Cook is any better or any worse than Strauss (in terms of the approach to the game). For me it's Flower that makes all the decisions and I wonder if anyone else who came in to captain the side would get free rein to captain the way they'd want to

    At least Cook was unselfish with DRS reviews

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 19:46 GMT

    Ctd Clarke could have declared the 1st inns later but Eng could have just avoided the follow on , whatever he declared at. This was prob the worst case scenario as far as weather was concerned but had they ambitiously declared 250 ahead and then we had few weather interruptions (which could just as likely have happened) and Eng got to 100-0 or 1 or even 2 at the end of day 4 and there was little bad weather on day 5 then his declaration would have looked reckless

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 19:46 GMT

    There have been plenty of comments re Clarke's captaincy and the timing of his declarations in both innings but the truth is (because of the unpredictable nature of the English weather this weekend) it literally was pot luck as to how much play they'd get in. The weather forecast seemed to change every time I checked and to prove my point , when play got under way today the Sky commentators were saying that there looked to be blue skies and were optimistic for the rest of the day. For me he did everything (with the knowledge he had) right. He played an immense captain's knock at a fair pace and his team batted at a fair pace in the 1st inns and an excellent pace in the 2nd inns. To prove my point re unpredictable weather check out landl47 on (August 5, 2013, 12:31 GMT) comms and then within an hour play is over with. Not even the forecasters knew so how could Clarke?

  • 2MikeGattings on August 5, 2013, 19:46 GMT

    @gtr800 So you think "England lack the attitude to win". God help the Australians if England should discover the X factor you are talking about. Then Australia could expect a real beating instead of losing the series within 14 days.

  • JG2704 on August 5, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    What a shame that we got so little play today , with Australia so on top and TBH as an Englishman the draw feels somewhat hollow. Tremendous spirit from Australia in this test and while they can't regain the Ashes this time round they can certainly take something from this performance for the rest of the series and for the Australian leg of the Ashes

  • dabhand on August 5, 2013, 19:42 GMT

    @milepost - well said

    @ Raki99 - your words are marked - and it will be interesting to see what you come up with if England retain the ashes in Aus.

    gtr800 - get real - professional teams do all they can to make sure of the win - first retain the ashes, then try for the series. As professionals, no doubt Aus will try and do all they can to square the series.

  • gtr800 on August 5, 2013, 19:28 GMT

    @clarke501 I was simply making a point, albeit with a bad example. England do have the tendency to 'sit' out draws when they either a few things go against them or they can't be bothered to take the initiative or lack of creativity etc etc. For whatever reason, this cannot be a good promotion of test cricket! If cricket has the idea that it would like to be 'spread' into other non-test cricket playing countries by broadcasting there then surely they best way would be promote not a flashy brand of cricket ie t20 but creative, grinding at times but full of flair in other parts. Just like the Australia in the 90's won 16 straight tests it wasn't because they had 11 of the best players in the world its because they had the attitude to win- which this England team lack.

  • on August 5, 2013, 19:22 GMT

    Please I said this 2 years ago that Alistair Cook is the best batsman in the world , however England Selectors made 2 mistakes 1. Playing him in the 50 Over 2. Made him captain of both teams Please lets save Cook and England by only playing him in Test Cricket and not as captain and he will regain that great form Dr Cummings

  • GrindAR on August 5, 2013, 19:22 GMT

    Why dot they use D/L method in tests to decide the winner? So, when it rains it is assured there will be a result. So, rain will help having decisive cricket than a rubber like eng batsmen played this match? Aussies played such bad cricket back, before Ponting's era and even to date under Clarkie... the main thing that makes him a good ambassador of game, he try to achieve result either positive or negatvie, never think of dragging for the sake of denying capable attack with something like eng played this match.

  • RandyOZ on August 5, 2013, 19:07 GMT

    Just got back from a wonderful 5 days at Trent Bridge. The crowd on both halves was great with plenty of cheerful banter. It is great when you can all have a beer together at the end of the day. As for the cricket well once again Australia were very unlucky with the rain and the umpiring. Barring the second test we should have won both games. I'd say a 1-1 result would be more accurate about now but fair play to England, we'll let them keep it another 5 months. Thanks Trott too for all the outfield banter!

  • shillingsworth on August 5, 2013, 18:50 GMT

    @gtr800 - How many times did the 1990s Australia concede 500 plus in the first innings? The Australian bowlers were excellent and gave Root and Cook virtually nothing to hit. The idea that they should blindly attack good bowlers in the name of 'promoting test cricket' seems to miss the point of what they are supposed to be promoting.

  • kumarcoolbuddy on August 5, 2013, 18:46 GMT

    @Shan156, thanks for reminding me correctly. I don't even remember 2003-2004 so I am talking about 2008. I have a bad memory but I remember that series because of those unforgettable moments (Symonds issue and famous umpiring howlers). I still remember Steve Bucknor (one of the umpires) who gave reckless decision against Indian batsmen. One example is Ricky Ponting claimed that he had clean catch but replays clearly showed that the ball didn't carry. Surprisingly Steve Bucknor instead of consulting 3rd umpire went with Ricky's judgement before giving OUT. Otherwise India had more chances to win. @mikkkk, when a team is destined to win many unexpected will happen like rain, umpirig errors(despite DRS). My opinion was only based on ENG's performance in 3rd test. AUS was clearly dominating and more chances that ENG crumbles down under pressure on 5th day. I am not a fan of either team.

  • cricketonNet on August 5, 2013, 18:45 GMT

    I loved cricket for a long time and never commented here before. I just made cricinfo account to comment here. Let me say I stopped watch Aus matches after 2005 or so except against Ind, cause they made cricket a one-sided affair. Now I can watch cricket again. Thanks to Aus and their current team. I am not mourning Aus lost the series in fact I am happy i can watch cricket again and enjoy too.

  • on August 5, 2013, 18:41 GMT

    An anti-climax to a good game of test cricket. I think it is fair to say that had the rain not intervened, Australia could have won this game. They put on a very good show after 2 comprehensive losses. England looked average throughout. They will be thanking the rain for saving them and in the process retaining the urn. I think when you are a team that plays consistent cricket, you deserve such luck. Australia will be ruing their chances. They could still make it 2-2 at the end of it all but in order to do that, they need to totally outclass England in every department in the next 2 games. Bring on test match #4.

  • Cricfever_PM on August 5, 2013, 18:38 GMT

    Yes Aussies Back!! Good effort from Clarke & Co!! Now we can see good future Australia as they found some good players likes of Smith and waner getting some runs!! Eng may retain the Ashes but aussies will give the good fighting in next two games!!! Still Aussies have few worries like Watson who is not even getting 50+ runs and he may lose his place to Warner in next game, May be he should be replaced by Cowan in next game!! Their bowlers are shown good character and they can able to carry the form for next two games!!! Good Luck Aussies to draw the test serious!!!

  • OhhhhhMattyMatty on August 5, 2013, 18:36 GMT

    This is a superb Ashes retention for England! Despite playing at around 40% capacity (only Bell, Swann and Anderson have performed to date, with the odd flash from others), they have comfortably retained the Ashes in just 3 matches! This is a period of instability for England as most of their players have begun retiring (Strauss) or are the wrong side of 30 (Trott, KP, Swann, Anderson etc.) and they have started to look towards their new Golden Generation - Root, Robson, Taylor, Ballance, Stokes, Bairstow, Woakes, Finn and Kerrigan.

  • gtr800 on August 5, 2013, 18:27 GMT

    Despite being a neutral in this contest, I immediately supported Australia from the start of the series. They are the clear underdogs which makes it exciting but they also play the more exciting aggressive brand of cricket. England despite being world class play extremely conservatively. England already had their sights on drawing the test and batting 140 overs at 2.5 rr. The way root came on and scored 5 of 58 deliveries it way clear and further reiterated by Cook. This way surely cannot be a great promoter of test cricket in the UK or anywhere in the world. There is no point in alllowing streaming in non-test playing countries if this brand of cricket is going to be played. If you are the better side by far then don't be afraid of losing just because you've lost the toss and the opposition have had a decent start. The 90's Australia would have never played like this & nor do most teams. It's just not entertaining and that's what cricket is supposed to be not boring.

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 17:55 GMT

    @landl47 on (August 5, 2013, 16:18 GMT) yeah, I really hope Cook and Flower take a few risks (Onions for Bairstow at Chester Le Street, for example, rather than just swapping out one bowler for another) and risk drawing the series in order to win it outright. Drawing the remaining two matches and taking the series 2-0 will give us no more confidence than drawing the series 2-2 in going for the win would, where winning the series 3-1 or 4-0 certainly would give us some momentum for the trip Down Under.

    As for the third day, I think that crucial middle session was the only time where the Australians really fell short. 92-0 meant England took both runs and time out of the game, making getting a result more difficult. It's why I'm never a fan of blocking to a draw; scoring runs often works better.

    Suspect CLS won't turn much either, should be pretty good for the seamers, expect low-ish scores and attritional cricket. If the rain stays away (I hope it does).

  • Westmorlandia on August 5, 2013, 17:48 GMT

    Ragav - Anderson's average covers everything back to 2003, when he came into the side. Since 2010 he has averaged 25.79, and lots of his wickets are top-order batsmen. He's much better than Finn - though Finn is still decent.

  • thebeardedblunder on August 5, 2013, 17:41 GMT

    Did anybody else spot the irony in the advertisement haudings advertising "Specsavers" from the square of the wicket tv cameras during the apeall referrals? It made me smile!

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 17:40 GMT

    @Lyndon McPaul on (August 5, 2013, 16:09 GMT) class of you to say that mate.

    Thought Clarke was typically magnanimous at the presentation, refusing to try and take anything away from England's performance. We were thoroughly outplayed in this match, no doubt about that, but as Clarke said, we were 2-0 up, deservedly so, and earned the right to be in a position where a draw was enough for us to retain.

    I don't think Australia lost the Ashes today, they lost it at Lord's. At Trent Bridge it was close, and the Australians showed characteristic grit allied with plenty of skill, but Lord's, especially that first innings, was so very un-Australian. You sort of gave up the ghost without a whimper, and from there it was always going to be hard.

    But this Test showed that when you apply yourselves with the bat, you are capable of beating England, and if you take those positives and work hard, the remaining 2 Tests, and the 5 down under, could lead to very different results.

  • Rally_Windies on August 5, 2013, 17:34 GMT

    regarding KP's dismissal ..

    the best thing for DSR is :

    apparently we need a 4th umpire to review the mistakes made by the 3rd umpire !

    Yeah?

    Or do we need to upgrade the technology in order let the on-field umpire see the review ! ...

    because really ... the 3rd umpire has 1/2 the information and the on-filed umpire has the other half ...

    Won't it be great if the umpire making the decision had ALL the info ?

  • Lmaotsetung on August 5, 2013, 17:34 GMT

    One big Michael Clarke knock and suddenly the 2 teams are even and now Aus are fav for the return series? I didn't know Aus fans were that delusional!

  • shillingsworth on August 5, 2013, 17:30 GMT

    @Paul Rone-Clarke - The weather forecast for today wasn't exactly accurate - even as recently as last night, it was supposed to be raining all morning as well. I wouldn't take too much notice of the a forecast for the next test several days away.

  • mikkkk on August 5, 2013, 17:30 GMT

    @rolwinl No they are both Ashes series. The reason they are close together is to break the cycle for England where they go straight from an Ashes tour to the World Cup. After these two series it goes back to every two years.

  • shillingsworth on August 5, 2013, 17:26 GMT

    Before the series started, the best combined XI was Cook, Watson, Trott, Pietersen, Clarke, Bell, Prior, Pattinson, Swann, Siddle, Anderson. After 3 tests, substitute Root for Watson, Harris for Pattinson and Haddin for Prior and the side is still dominated by English players. 2-0 looks about right.

  • liz1558 on August 5, 2013, 17:22 GMT

    The big question for aus is whether they can bat without a contribution from Clarke. They're a bit like the Windies of Lara in the late 90s.

  • MartinC on August 5, 2013, 17:19 GMT

    Ashes retained. First job done, after just 3 Tests by the way and without playing anything close to our best cricket.

    Next job win the series, get Trott back in some form and hope Bairstow can nail down the number 6 spot.

  • rolwinl on August 5, 2013, 17:18 GMT

    "England will keep the Ashes for the next five months at least....". What does this line mean? I thought not every Eng-Aus series is called the Ashes. Don't the Ashes only come once every two years (Ref: Wikipedia) and since this series in England is called the Ashes, the next Ashes series will be 2 years away? Confusing...

  • king_julien on August 5, 2013, 17:17 GMT

    Before the Ashes I was of the view that it will be a well contested ashes....and when the discussions started of 5-0 scoreline I was actually amused. The reason for that is simple...because Australia was so good before, we compare them to past teams and tend to believe they are weaker than they actually are. And because England have been so poor for most of last 2 decades we tend to give them credit for being better than they actually are...........its a simple attribution error, this same sentiment actually causes economic recessions and bubbles when linked to investing.

    But alas the rains have spoiled it all.....this draw will actually dampen Aussie spirit and might make the scoreline more skewed :( ,and my prediction will look much worse than it actually was.....

  • Raki99 on August 5, 2013, 17:15 GMT

    England is going to lose the ashes down under mark my words, the poms should have lost the first and third test, The first test was only won becasue of board batting two times and adding those valuable runs and this test they got saved by weather. They dominated the second test. England batting is just not clicking as a unit right now.

  • milepost on August 5, 2013, 17:09 GMT

    Hats off to England, they deservedly retain the Ashes. As an Aussie I'm now optimistic this performance will energise the team. @tiny steel orchestra I agree with you and it's nice to hear something about cricket rather than saying anything rediculous or offensive just to support your team. I've said numerous times here that the 2005 series was just amazing and I was an Aussie living in the UK at the time. I want to win but not at the expense of good cricket. Now England have the Ashes, lets hope for some on-field heroics and drama (not weather or DRS!) and that we get some cracking action from both teams rather than a one sided contest. Bell, Anderson, KP, Prior, Swann - all great players. The Aussies will come good, they played a cracking test match and I hope we see some good stuff in the final two tests.

  • CapitalMarkets on August 5, 2013, 17:09 GMT

    Disappointing to see England resort to such negative tactics as time-wasting and lacklustre defending. The fact is that Michael Clarke has already lost the match a couple of days back by batting twice instead of declaring at 600 in the first innings and enforcing the follow on. Haddin, Starc and Harris would have got the 60 odd they needed in another three quarters of an hour and England would have followed on. Clarke would have known exactly how many runs were needed, assuming England got to two hundred second time around, which is doubtful. However, whether Harris would have been able to keep going is also questionable. The lessons for England are that they will need a bowler who is more likely to make things happen than Bresnan and that Root always gives a chance in single figures. Harris and Siddle and Watson are class acts with the ball (yes, the only time KP tried to get after Watson, he should have been lbw). Bairstow gets knocked over too easily and should make way for Taylor.

  • on August 5, 2013, 17:09 GMT

    Hmm, hopefully England will win never win 5-0 again (if you can't beat this Australian team... lol ). For Australia, except 2nd test it isn't a one sided contest as it used to be for England in Athers days (every test ends inside 4 days).

  • on August 5, 2013, 17:08 GMT

    It's tearing it down with rain here in King's Lynn as well now.

  • Micky.Panda on August 5, 2013, 17:08 GMT

    I agree with comment that Clarke messed it up by declaring the 1st innings when he did not need to. Allow he wanted his bowlers to keep relatively fresh, he reduced the flexibility of the options for later. Why not to up the tempo and try to race for 600+ maybe still leaving a little time for a quick bowl on that day. The less runs needed by Aus in the 2nd innings the more control they would have.

  • Thefakebook on August 5, 2013, 17:06 GMT

    OZ are back and yes its more interesting now than ever!

  • on August 5, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    Australia deserved to win the Test, yes. It would have been better, purely from a competitive viewpoint, if Australia did win the Test. However, this Test has proven that Australia can play, and are competitive. The only real interesting stat is that due to the rain forcing the result, Australia have only taken 13 wickets this game, England have taken 14. Nevertheless, England deserve to be 2-0 up, and we'll see either at Durham or at the Oval whether they deserve to win the series outright. You don't need me to tell you that to Australia, they'll have to wait until the return series to complete their main objective. As for England, they've still got to win one more Test to complete theirs.

  • mikkkk on August 5, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    Although I'm pleased we've won the Ashes I just wish the Aussies had been as competitive as NZ were earlier in the season. Still musn't grumble. Perhaps the early end to the ashes gives England an opportunity to play some of their squad players in the next two Tests.

  • Micky.Panda on August 5, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    The gulf between the two teams is not that vast. O.K. England have a capable spinner and Australia don't. England have Bell, easily the most reliable batsman right now. Australia have the best two bowlers in Harris and Siddle. Australian batting is very iffy. Different team selections and this series could have been very close indeed. Warner instead of Cowan from the start. Cowan has never ever been good enough. Hope Bird gets a chance and the spinner probably has to be Fawad Ahmed or an all rounder. Batting Khawaja up the order and Warner at the end seems silly. Surely if Warner is in he must open. Rogers can drop to No. 3 if necessary. Watson doesn't seem to be in good enough form to justify his retention right now. Give another all rounder a go, Faulkner maybe. As an all rounder Smith is doing O.K. Should be bowled more.

  • PhillieFanatic on August 5, 2013, 16:53 GMT

    As soon as England decided "not to lose" this match, they let Australia in with a real chance. Having to rely on the weather, and backing into a draw in this way, is an approach that does not befit a team as talented as England appeared to be. Australia came close in the first test and may well have one this one under different circumstances. Those are matters of history. The main issue now is where these two teams are going forward. The momentum seems to have shifted in this series to the Australians, mainly because their bowling is better (at least when they have some runs to back them). Warner's return to the opener's position is another strength -- he seems to be playing with more determination after his serious mistake with Root -- and his second innings here is a plus to take forward. There's a lot of cricket left in this series and it should be interesting.

  • kearon47 on August 5, 2013, 16:51 GMT

    England retain the ashes because they are the better team, no if's or buts. Revel in the current domination which this england sides have and history will see them equal to the Australian teams of the 90's and early 2000. Well done.

  • SirViv1973 on August 5, 2013, 16:48 GMT

    @Samincoulumbia, Have you actually seen any of this series, or are you just checking the score on a laptop from time to time? I hate to keep coming back to this point but if Agar would have been given out in the first test when he should have been on 6, Aus would have been beaten in 3 days! Although Aus have had their share of rough decisons in this series so have Eng & I would say the count is pretty much equal for both teams at the moment. It's also a case of here we go again with the Anderson jibes 1 bad game and all of a sudden he is overated, Every bowler is entitled to a poor game from to time, average bowlers do not take 300+ test wickets.

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:47 GMT

    England spent to much of the test trying not to lose, rather than trying to win, so now that the pressure is off & the Ashes are retained, I hope that they will play to their strengths again from Friday

  • thecosmicpuppet on August 5, 2013, 16:47 GMT

    So disappointing to lose the Ashes because of rain. Fair enough Australia came late to the party, but it looks like they have at least finally shown up. I think generally it would've been far more exciting for the fans if we'd got it to 2-1 today. As an aside I can't say I'm a fan of the 'play for a draw' tactics of England. No doubt it's a legitimate tactic, but I don't think it's good for the culture of a team. It lacks a certain self belief. Still, the Ashes are the Ashes!

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on August 5, 2013, 16:41 GMT

    With this weather, the scoreline reads as no surprise, it's bucketing down in my usually sunny part of England. Fact is that aside from merely winning the toss and being given a road on days 1 & 2 so that the match could last 5 days, Australia have been hammered by England this series and England are the deserved keepers of the Ashes urn. Australia have at least made one score over 300 this series, but the conditions in the next two games will be very much different to here though. The weather was always going to affect any Ashes series in England too. And it has. Unlucky Australia, that's what you get by being so comprehensively smashed the first two games. You can't come off a 347 run defeat and, despite so many Umpiring howlers go against England, think you have any chance of playing for the urn, which tonight is back where it belongs.

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:39 GMT

    Rain saves Aus the humiliation of 5-0 series result; Perhaps not

    4-0 is still on

    We have yet to beat them by an innings in this series. Should we field our first-team for the next game?

  • BigINDFan on August 5, 2013, 16:38 GMT

    Both teams don't have a clear strategy and neither is dominant. As the first test scoreline suggested 15 runs or one moment of concentration lapse from Brad Haddin cost the match for Aus! The second test was clearly one-sided and Eng were clear winners as a result of Aus batsmen forgetting how to bat! The third test was a mirror image of the second test with Eng working towards a draw as opposed to fighting it out with the Aussies.Aus have lost the Ashes but not the test series since they have 2 opportunities to prove that!

    For the sake of Test cricket ICC need to come up with a plan to ensure every Test has a result - have indoor stadiums, day-night matches, max no of overs per innings whatever makes sense to boost fan interest. Ind, SL, WI, Pak, NZ are slowly getting away from showing commitment to Test matches because the fan base is changing - less attention need results! If nothing is done T20 will be the future as it guarantees entertainment and results!

  • SirViv1973 on August 5, 2013, 16:37 GMT

    @Ragav999, Finn has a slightly better Ave than Anderson but has only played a fracton of the test matches. I rate SF highly but his form isn't good at the moment & I wouldn't be looking to recall him for next match. Having said that I feel we need to look at the bowling options carefully for Durham. We didn't bowl well here we conceded over 500 in the 1st inns & even in Aus truncated 2nd inns they achieved their objectitve of scoring at 5rpo. If a change is to be made then Bresnan would surely be the man to make way, he's bowled ok in the last 2 games but no more than that. Broad has been light on wickets but has still bowled quite well without much luck & has also scored a few runs plus he takes the new ball which I don't think you can give to Bresnan or any of those on the bench. For me Onions for TB would make sense, particularly as its Onions home ground & he has a fine FC record there. Tremlett is the other guy in the frame but personally I just don't think he is ready yet.

  • Shan156 on August 5, 2013, 16:37 GMT

    Whatever happened to Trott? Hasn't scored a century since the 2nd test in NZ and worryingly has a string of low scores against his name. The last time he had so many low scores in a series was in SA 2009-2010, his 1st full series. Cook too looks woefully out of form despite his 2 50s. Still, we are ahead 2-0 and cannot lose the Ashes now. Hopefully, the batsmen will sort their weaknesses and come back strong at Chester.

  • SL_rockz on August 5, 2013, 16:35 GMT

    without a doubt aussie's won the match.......

  • Shan156 on August 5, 2013, 16:34 GMT

    @kumarcoolbuddy, you are talking about the 2003-2004 where India were so much ahead in the Sydney test but were held on by some gutsy batting by Steve Waugh in particular and all the Aussies in general. There were no glaring umpiring howleres in that series. In 2007-2008, when India were at the receiving end of several howlers, Aus. won the 1st two (the 2nd in Sydney infamous for the Symonds edge not given by Bucknor), India won the 3rd in Perth, and the 4th test was a draw with the Aussies slightly ahead in the 1st innings and Virender Sehwag scoring a magnificent 150+ in the 2nd innings. You are mixing up the 2 series.

    You can feel all you want but history will record this as an English win. We won the 1st two tests and even had it not rained, I will back our middle and lower order to squeeze out a draw here. Remember, we were pretty much 30-3 in all innings this series and yet won the 1st two tests.

  • mikkkk on August 5, 2013, 16:33 GMT

    @kumarcoolbuddy "I know this is the destiny for Aussie and need to accept it but I personally consider this as AUS's win."

    So if you want something badly enough it just becomes true in your mind? Amazing. Perhaps Aussies should play the full series in their mind...oh wait...

  • concerned_cricketer on August 5, 2013, 16:32 GMT

    England, saved by the rain! (in this match)

  • GeoffreysMother on August 5, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    Got to love some of you Aussies: one drawn test and is it the 90's again!? No, but they are not as bad as you lads thought they were last week. Nor, by the same argument are England as good as England were proclaimed after the last test. Harris being fit is a tremendous boost, and with Siddle are two of the best seamers on the circuit (along with Steyn and Anderson) and when Clarke doesn't knick it he sets a score for them to bowl at. Rogers really set the tone on the first day and showed he can provide some stability and experience where it is needed most. Just before you get too carried away though, this was an excellent toss to win and bat first on a hot, clear day (whilst the other two tests provided much better bowling conditions on the first day). We should now get the series we had hoped for and for the first time in three series it is England who have more questions to answer going into the next test.

  • mikkkk on August 5, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    Congrats go to Aussies on halting your record breaking run of defeats:-) The way some of you are talking on here you'd think you'd won the ashes in record time instead of losing them.

  • shillingsworth on August 5, 2013, 16:28 GMT

    @samincolumbia - You appear to be another one whose memory of the fist test is defective. DRS errors affected both teams. England won because they batted, bowled and fielded better. They are 2-0 up in the series because, over the 3 matches so far, they've batted, bowled and fielded better. Your statement that England fans have been 'brought done to earth' on a day their team retained the Ashes after just 14 days' cricket is very odd indeed.

  • Charlie101 on August 5, 2013, 16:24 GMT

    We normally lose the 3rd test so I was extremely nervous but with a bit of help from the rain we avoided a loss. We can now push on and hopefully win rather than just retain the Ashes .

    Questions for the next test 1. Will Graham Onions be selected for the Durham test 2. Will Ryan Harris be fit for the next test - he has bowled his heart out and the Aussie team are a much better unit with him.

  • tinysteelorchestra on August 5, 2013, 16:23 GMT

    As a loyal Pom, I have to say I didn't think we could retain the Ashes and I could feel as deflated as I do. The truth is, Australia played superbly in this Test and deserved to win it. Trent Bridge could have gone their way. Apart from several fine individual performances, I think we've played pretty poorly and unless there's an improvement I could see Australia winning the last two games, to say nothing of the return series Down Under. I never bought the hype after Lord's; England are not as good as some think, nor are Australia as bad.

  • batman_gothamcity on August 5, 2013, 16:22 GMT

    Congrats England for retaining the Ashes and no one will deny that they were a better team in the initial part of this series , Australia will be dissapointed but they can take heart from the fight they have shown and also reversed the trend of 6 consecutive losses . They should aim at 2-2 and that will be a huge motivation . This series is sadly going to be remembered for the Dreadful or Doubtful review system blunders .

  • 2.14istherunrate on August 5, 2013, 16:21 GMT

    Very well done to England for their retention of the Ashes. It was not perhaps the perfect scenario for it, but in the end one takes what is given and from 29-3 the rain was indeed a welcome relief. The important thing is that we are still 2-0 up and hopefully we can get back on the right track in Durham. 4-0 must still be the aim of the side and not to let Austrailia take any more points in the series. I do not know if England need a bit of tinkering and a couple of fresh pairs of legs but there are one or two people floating around the periphery who would love a chance to shine. I think of Onions and Tremlett in particular. Neither would let the side down.

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:20 GMT

    Why D/L Method type not introduced on Test match?????

    So Australia won this match by 90 Runs & 1 Session!!!!!

  • 2MikeGattings on August 5, 2013, 16:20 GMT

    @Jose What you are describing is pretty close to BCCI's position really. Hotspot on its own isn't doing much for me right now, but in combination with real time Snicko it might prove its worth, especially if they can speed the whole process up.

  • landl47 on August 5, 2013, 16:18 GMT

    That wasn't a very satisfactory way to retain the Ashes. Hopefully England will win at least one of the last two tests and put the result beyond doubt. However, they will need to play more positively than they did here.

    Congratulations to Australia for taking the game to England, as they needed to. Where they fell short was on the third day. The fact that they were unable to take more than 5 wickets in the day meant that time was always going to be tight, even without the weather. Otherwise Clarke played very well as a batsman and did everything he could as a captain.

    This wicket, unlike the first two, was not a turner, except for the occasional ball. Swann bowled well to take 6 wickets. but at a high cost. Lyon only had 1. Harris and Siddle were the pick of the quicker bowlers- what a pity for Australian cricket that Harris is 33, not 28. If he could stay fit he would be a very fine bowler. As it is, we can only regret what might have been.

  • VAVAVA on August 5, 2013, 16:16 GMT

    Australia played in a better spirit than their opponents did. More sportsmanlike and honorable.

  • mikkkk on August 5, 2013, 16:16 GMT

    @Ragav999

    Don't be surprised if it's Onions that replaces Bresnan at Durham rather than Finn.

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:15 GMT

    If you ask me Shane Watson is a much hyped and mediocre player. I do not know on what basis is he being continued. CA why dont you give a chance to some youngster. Similarly Haddin may come up with an occasional good score but his keeping is awful. CA might as well consider replacing him. As far as England is concerned they have to look for new fast bowlers as Jimmy and Graeme carry too much burden on their shoulders. England batting is very brittle and they show flashes of rilliance occasionally. There must be another 11 players from whom they could find replacements.....This is some food for thought for CA & ECB....rgds

  • Bob10 on August 5, 2013, 16:15 GMT

    Well being an Englishman of a certain age I am ecstatic at retaining the ashes after three games - I remember when we were poorer than the Aussies were in the first two tests for what feels like decades of ashes misery leading upto 2005. Yes Australia played well this test and if there was no time lost to weather an exciting finale would have been enjoyed with the Aussies needing to push for a win - but that just highlights how poor they were in the first two tests - they don't deserve to still be in the contest and the only reason the first test wasn't a total Aussie embarassment was because of Aygar's miracle innings. Bring on Durham I say and see if the Aussies keep the doughnut.

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:14 GMT

    lucky for them it rained bell was on for a triple

  • Devmanus on August 5, 2013, 16:13 GMT

    @Why do we make such a simple lovely game into such a complicated, convoluted, and illogical Gordian knot? answer-because every fan/players want to see their side winning the game without any wrong decision being made. everybody feels that there should be a clear decision making process. out is out and not out is not out, so we need onfield umpires/technology/third umpires, television experts, fans opinion that some one is CLEARLY out/not out irrespective of the decision made by umpires to decide TRUE WINNER! In this game of cricket we have LBW, fine edges, no balls, runouts, stumpings so many things that cant be decided unanimously, there will be always objections from the opposite teams. look at this. the ball hits stumps, OUT? no because bails have not dislodged. but for LBW ball hits the pad infront of stumps. OUT? yes(bails dont matter here), no (because ball would have hit the half part of the leg/off stump which may not be enough. and you call this a simple lovely game!!!

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:13 GMT

    Why D/L Method type not introduced on Test match?????

    So Australia won this match by 90 Runs & 1 Session!!!!!

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:11 GMT

    Shame - forecast for Chester-Le-Street later in the week is rain all day every day. May not have a ball bowled at all in the 4th test.

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:09 GMT

    Well played England; in the series overall I mean. Firstly it was Jimmy Anderson and Ian Bell at Trent bridge. Then it was Graeme Swann and Ian Bell at Lords. Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell held out long enough for the rain to be the deciding factor at Old Trafford so there is no guesses as to who will be the man of the series despite any play that transpires hereafter. Ian Bell is without doubt the class player of this series who stood up when it mattered most. Too little too late Australia but it was a valiant fighting effort in the third test which will hopefully inspire genuine confidence in a developing team. This team seems to have all the basic elements it needs but only requires people to settle into the right roles.

  • mikkkk on August 5, 2013, 16:09 GMT

    Great to see all this Aussie blubbing:-) Nobody "luckily" wins the Ashes. The fact is a missfiring England have still been way too good for Australia. Only took 3 Tests needed. Can't wait till we start hearing "wait till we get you on our pitches with our ball".

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:08 GMT

    you'd think Australia did something special here when in truth all they have done is win the toss

  • kumarcoolbuddy on August 5, 2013, 16:08 GMT

    I know this is the destiny for Aussie and need to accept it but I personally consider this as AUS's win. This is similar to a series when India went to AUS in 2008. AUS won the series with 2-1 but I personally feel that as India's series. A deciding (3rd) test match could have won by India easily as AUS was outplayed but went to draw giving series to AUS just because of so many blatant umpiring errors (of Steve Bucknor as if he didn't like India winning). It would have been a great achievement for India winning series in AUS but that was all destinity regardless how hard you work.

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:05 GMT

    clarke declaring in the first innings was huge mistake. 20 wickets needed. If they had made 600 plus. Follow on would have won it for you. Tough luck. England deserved draw.

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:05 GMT

    @chechong0114...Which "boring, old and dull laws of the game" are you referring to ? If it rains it rains and there's no cricket law that will ever prevent that happening.

  • Game_Gazer on August 5, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    The series has actually been closer than what many english fans believe..certainly not a dominant one-sided display from England as the 2-0 scorecard indicates..I mean..think of it..England were obviously better throughout the most of 2 test matches, but, not thorough enough at the same time ! Aus. lost the 1st Test by 15 runs..just 15...if you were a test match fan that knew cricket you know how close is a 15 runs test defeat..and this 3rd, Aus were winning, though once could not have ruled out a strong English rear-guard !..I mean..If Aus had had a bit of luck her & there, the scoreline would read 2-1 rather than 0-2..such is the amazing game of cricket !!

  • on August 5, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    @chechong0114 - do you know anything about cricket? How many Ashes series have been decided by rain or by draws? What an idiotic suggestion.

    @rahulcricket007 - 280 is a lot of if you want to win the game, if you absolutely, definitely HAVE to win the game. What is the point of comparing non-identical situations with English declarations? I'll tell you, no point whatsoever. Its not a question of saying australia or england are stereotypically negative or not its all about the game situation. If you'd been watching the series at all you'd know that Cook and Trott have hardly made a run , so they are not the big fish at all. I think England have been 30-3 in every innings so far

  • Jaybird67 on August 5, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    Anyone complaining about the Manchester weather: this is the first drawn test at Old Trafford since the 2005 Ashes match (which did lose about half a day to rain, but which ended with 9 wickets down in the fourth innings, so was virtually a complete match). Including today, seven of the last nine tests played there have been played to a positive result. You can find this sort of thing out on Cricinfo: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/match_results.html?class=1;id=75;type=ground

  • Ragav999 on August 5, 2013, 15:57 GMT

    Australia will be a better team without Lyon and provide a stiffer challenge consistently with 4 pacemen attack. The problem though is that one or two of those bowlers need to bowl plenty of overs as Harris is prone to injuries. England will be a better team with Finn instead of Bresnan who is mostly a container. Finn has a better average than Anderson who is considered the leader of the attack.

  • thecosmicpuppet on August 5, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    So disappointing to lose the Ashes because of rain. Fair enough Australia came late to the party, but it looks like they have at least finally shown up. I think generally it would've been far more exciting for the fans if we'd got it to 2-1 today. As an aside I can't say I'm a fan of the 'play for a draw' tactics of England. No doubt it's a legitimate tactic, but I don't think it's good for the culture of a team. It lacks a certain self belief. Still, the Ashes are the Ashes!

  • on August 5, 2013, 15:55 GMT

    @2MikeGattings. On first reading made sense. On second thoughts, the howlers are to be real big howlers for the field decision to be reversed. If that is the case, do we need all these expensive technologies, and waste of playing time and money in trying to use the same. A simple slow-mo will do! (The 'for-profit' business houses, who are pushing for the universal adoption of Halkeye, Hotspot, Snicko et al, wouldn't be happy with such scepticism.)

  • --.-- on August 5, 2013, 15:54 GMT

    Feeling for Aussies.

    They deserved to win.

  • on August 5, 2013, 15:54 GMT

    DRS without hotspot has been completely reliable. It's the UMPIRES continually clearly and bemusingly messing up their decision making based on the most obvious of data that seems to cause the confusion. The tech is fine - the umpires certainly aren't. Frankly they have been awful. Both sides have suffered - maybe over the 3 tests the Aussies a little more, but the standard has been woeful with one glaring blunder after another. Bresnan not referring his "none nick" 2 days ago was a point. I reckon he thought;."I know I didn't nick it, the DRS will show I didn't nick it (which was right) but the umpires will cock this up." He had no confidence in their decision making. Pietersen out once when he nicked an LBW, and out once one he didn't nick an edge! Shocking! IN the end the fuss over 30 minutes last night (and remember Oz HADN'T declared at the time so England wouldn't have been batting anyway) meant nothing. A lot more rain at Chester-Le-Street later in the week forecast.

  • samincolumbia on August 5, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    England lucky to win the ashes. In the first test, was helped by DRS. Won the second test. And lucky not to lose the third test due to rain. Good fight by the aussies. The england fans brought down to earth and Anderson is over rated.

  • on August 5, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    An inferior (in every department) England being under the gun early on, going slow, finally to be saved by rain. Is it the nineties again?

  • CricketChat on August 5, 2013, 15:47 GMT

    This match is pretty much over. Eng might have very well escaped with a draw, thanks to intervention of rain. Aus started the series poorly due to poor team selection and firing the coach. They are facing the consequences now. They will need to get used to these types results for the foreseeable future until a new generation talented cricketers crop up like Waugh brothers. Dean Jones, etc.

  • WBoy on August 5, 2013, 15:46 GMT

    "The Manchester weather claims another test."(hhillbumper) Can't blame this one on Manchester. Looking at today's rainfall radar, it would have been the same at all the main Test grounds except Lords, The Oval and possibly Trent Bridge

  • Englishmanabroad on August 5, 2013, 15:46 GMT

    My only comment is this! Umpires frequently call on the 3rd umpire to adjudicate a call, particularly in the case of "Run Out" or "Stumped". Why cant the on-field umpire simply do this in all cases where he feels unsure about the call. Surely, it is more important that the call be correct, than that the on-field call is "maybe NOT INCORRECT".

  • Murnau on August 5, 2013, 15:42 GMT

    Wonder when the last time was that the Ashes were decided in our favour after three Tests? I don't think I've ever seen it.

    1928/9 by looks of it.

  • Mad_Hamish on August 5, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    @Shreyas Shitre that's a pretty silly argument. DRS doesn't have to be 100% to be better than not having it. Seat belts don't save 100% of lives in car crashes but having them is a huge improvement on your chances of surviving over not having them.

  • Englishmanabroad on August 5, 2013, 15:33 GMT

    @Shreyas Shitre: This decision is not a feasible argument against DRS. The only question that needs to be answered in ANY of these cases, is; If DRS was not in use, would the decision have been any different?? If DRS did not exist, Pietersen would still have been out, because the umpires call was "OUT". DRS and the 3rd umpire cannot over-rule the "on-field" decision unless there is clear unambiguous evidence that the call was incorrect. The third umpire does not have access to "snicko". (unless he is cheating and watching the media coverage), and therefore it only requires the on-field umpire to think he heard something, and the call will stand.

  • izzidole on August 5, 2013, 15:32 GMT

    This is Australia's best performance since their series whitewash of Sri Lanka in January. In fact Australia really dominated play right from the start and had the better of England in every department of the game that England had to use negative tactics to prevent Australia from winning the game. After losing three quick wickets the weather gods seem to have come to their rescue. Atlast the aussies seem to have got on top of England and should be able to dictate terms not only in the rest of the series but also in the return ashes series downunder in November. This is an encouraging performance by the aussies and should go a long way to build up their confidence for the future of the team. I reckon this is Australia's best line up and that Watson should bat in the middle order as the big hitter like Andrew Symonds used to do. The only change that should be made is to include Jackson Bird for Lyon whose bowling is not very effective.

  • Yevghenny on August 5, 2013, 15:31 GMT

    didn't Snicko show that Agar was out in the 2nd test? That didn't stop the aussies whining!

  • rahulcricket007 on August 5, 2013, 15:30 GMT

    really feeling sorry for australia . they came back strongly in this test to show the world that they can defeat england team and make the series interseting .even today they got the big fishes early ( cook, trott, kp) but luck was not on their side . however i m amazed by the english experts who r saying that clarke would have declared after geeting lead of 280 . to be fair 280 is a very gettable score especially in 4 sessions . tell me please how many english captains have declared after just getting a lead of 280 . english captains themselves have been very defensive captains .

  • dabhand on August 5, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    @Shreyas Shitre - then they should be against umpires and everything else in life as nothing is 100%

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 5, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    Lucky lucky Australia: only 295 runs to go, and Root still there blasting away... not to mention England's sturdy tail. Always hated easy England victories being denied by rain :-(

  • on August 5, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    @Devmanus . Why do we make such a simple lovely game into such a complicated, convoluted, and illogical Gordian knot?

  • chechong0114 on August 5, 2013, 15:24 GMT

    Cricket needs to implement a point system at the test level to deal with issues such as this, not only will a point system be better but it will make the game more interesting and keep fans more interested. There is no reason that a series of this magnitude between two of the most fierce rivals of the game be decided on some rain. Australia have fought back beautifully after being badly beaten in the second test and had a real genuine chance at a win in this game to keep the series alive and the cricket loving fans on the edge of their seats for the rest of the series however again the boring, old and dull laws of the game has sealed the series and has made it now just a dead rubber.

  • rahulcricket007 on August 5, 2013, 15:23 GMT

    @murnau . in 1930 ashes .

  • shillingsworth on August 5, 2013, 15:19 GMT

    @Nampally - Your analysis of the first test is decidedly odd. You don't specify the 'fielding lapses' but they went against Australia presumably because they were committed by them. How is that anyone else's fault but theirs? How is that 'unlucky'? As for DRS, some errors favoured, England, others favoured Australia. England batted, bowled and fielded better and deservedly won the match. Your attempt to rewrite history is doomed.

  • Iceman29 on August 5, 2013, 15:18 GMT

    The worst place to play cricket...feel sorry for Aussies

  • ADB1 on August 5, 2013, 15:18 GMT

    @Nampally: "England was lucky to win the first Test by a close margin after several DRS, fielding lapses going against the Aussies."

    Pure garbage. If Agar had been rightly given out in the first innings, Australia would never have got close to England in the First Test. End of. Oz have totally outplayed England in the Third Test, but England won the first two fair and square and without relying on luck.

    Funny how 99% of Aus fans can deal gracefully with England RETAINING THE ASHES but SC trolls can't.

  • 2MikeGattings on August 5, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    Record Aussie losing streak ended by weather #shower

  • --.-- on August 5, 2013, 15:10 GMT

    @ people saying Snicko showed it ???

    If Snicko is showing edge and Hot Spot giving clean chit. Then why trust Snicko but not Hot Spot ? Who knows, Snicko might have got it wrong. It might have showed the disturbance based on air produced by ball while passing the edge.

  • 2MikeGattings on August 5, 2013, 15:08 GMT

    Does this England innings qualify as a slow motion collapse?

  • Murnau on August 5, 2013, 15:05 GMT

    Wonder when the last time was that the Ashes were decided in our favour after three Tests? I don't think I've ever seen it.

  • on August 5, 2013, 15:03 GMT

    The system is never going to be 100% . that why BCCI against DRS

  • hhillbumper on August 5, 2013, 14:59 GMT

    The Manchester weather claims another test. There is a reason that for years Lancashire never won a title.

  • 2.14istherunrate on August 5, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    I do not think there is clarity as to what the rules are regarding use of DRS and what is and what is not admissible. I think the KP one is a case in point. Surely that was not out. KP's face said it all really-black as one is likely to see it. I think it was not out because there was NO evidence to suggest that he had hit it,not even the sound they heard, and when it is that borderline the benefit has to go to the batsman. Rapidly the authority of DRS is being eroded as being too often erroneous and the fact it is being applied like the batsman were at the mercy of a trigger happy dalek. Ironically India are said to be softening their attitude. Personally I have moved from being confident in it to having zero confidence in it. It needs ironing out before 4th test. Hot spot should be regarded as the main point of reference for edges until better is developed.

  • Reececonrad on August 5, 2013, 14:56 GMT

    @Arrow011 they aren't the best in the world they are ranked number 3(although they are far better than India who are number 3), they have a captain who is tactically very good, solid , but is not imaginative. I will say that the current SA side show ruthlessness when they get on top of an opposition and they have that killer instinct.

    I was disappointed at the fact they used some time wasting tactics yesterday, I thought that England might have a go at the target like against SA last year, but they are playing for a draw,which is not bad it just shows a lack of hunger to succeed and dominate the opposition not matter how much their backs are against the wall. The world's best team needs to have that hunger to dominate for lengthy periods of time, like the great Windies or the 2000s Australia.

  • on August 5, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    what about keeping reserve day for test match??

  • Devmanus on August 5, 2013, 14:52 GMT

    This is how they make decisions now a days A-only Onfield Umpires call, B-only DRS, C-DRS with onfield Umpires call OUT, D- DRS with onfield Umpires call NOTOUT 1. Hotspot shows no edge and stump microphone hears no sound and no snico available A- unchanged ,B- NOT OUT ,C- OUT ,D- NOTOUT 2. hotspot shows no edge but stump microphone hear sound and no snico available A- unchanged ,B- OUT ,C- OUT ,D- OUT 3. hotspot shows no edge and stump microphone hear no sound and snico shows no deflection A- unchanged ,B- NOT OUT ,C- OUT ,D- NOTOUT 4. hotspot shows no edge and stump microphone hear no sound but snico shows deflection A- unchanged ,B- NOT OUT ,C- OUT ,D- NOTOUT 5. hotspot shows edge but stump microphone hear no sound and snico shows no deflection A- unchanged ,B- OUT ,C- OUT ,D- OUT 6. hotspot shows edge but stump microphone hear sound and snico shows deflection A- unchanged ,B- OUT ,C- OUT ,D- OUT

  • on August 5, 2013, 14:49 GMT

    In the 1st Innings KP should not have been given out on review but in this 2nd Innings based on the evidence I think the right decision was made

  • Nampally on August 5, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    What a sad way to end the Test match via rain!. Australia & Clarke did everything right but you cannot fight the weather. English weather saved the Test match for England as also the Ashes. England was lucky to win the first Test by a close margin after several DRS, fielding lapses going against the Aussies. Only the second Test was decisively won by England. The third test would have been reversal of the second test in favour of the Aussies if only the weather did not interfere. Many people are blaming Clarke for his late declaration in the second innings. But setting a target of 350 & winning was very much the right decision. The Aussies were aiming for it but for the weather decided the issue. It would have been an interesting series had the Aussies deservedly won the Third test. They were decidedly a superior team in all departments of the game based on their performance. Bad luck Clarke & the Australian side!.

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    @sachin_vvsfan on (August 5, 2013, 13:35 GMT), the ECB and CA are probably mute because they recognise the legitimacy of the current system. Cook was about as out as it gets so his review was wasted and it was his own fault. Even with KP, there was a noise so you can't say that it was a clear mistake by the on-field umpire. Neither of those are what DRS was introduced for so if England ended up being unable to right a genuine wrong later then it would be their own fault. There is no perfect implementation of DRS and there will be people complaining no matter what happens. Everyone sees issues with the current system and has a solution to them but doesn't consider all the implications and what issues their solution might introduce. If the ICC makes changes to DRS they must be considered because if they make a change and it doesn't improve things then the knives will be out even more than now.

  • Iddo555 on August 5, 2013, 14:32 GMT

    @jmc

    Yes the third umpire should have over-turned the Pietersen LBW but he didn't because he is terrified to do so. Even when there is a mark on the bat and a noise he still stuck with the on-field umpire and gave it out LBW. Therefore it's a waste of time reviewing it or even having the review system. The umpire's call on LBW shouts often shows the ball going on to hit the stumps and is given not out, an example was Swann to Smith, where he was knocking leg stump out of the ground (umpire's call, not out). The system is just a waste of time, especially when the 3rd umpire is terrified of over ruling the on-field umpire.

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    @palavadisuresh on (August 5, 2013, 13:58 GMT), you're assuming that they were in fact edges. It's a proven fact that compression of air between the bal and the bat can cause a noise even when there is no contact so the presence of a noise is not definitive proof of an edge. That's exactly why, if a batsman is given not out by the on-field umpire, a noise alone should not be enough to overturn the decision if HotSpot doesn't agree. The noise alone is evidence but not proof of an edge. I say that HotSpot and the audio (or real-time Snicko when available) should have to agree in order to overturn an on-field decision. They did in Khawaja's case yet he was still given out, so I'd call that a mistake. They didn't agree in KP's case so the decision was rightly not overturned. They didn't agree in Agar's case either but his original decision was overturned so, again, I'd consider that a mistake.

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 14:25 GMT

    @Shaggy076 yeah, my big issue with the Trott dismissal was that the umpire didn't have access to one of the pieces of technology (side-on Hotspot), but other reviews were conducted with that same technology. The tech available has to be the same for both sides. I personally would have given Australia the review back and called almost a DRS version of a "dead ball". Decision stays on-field, reviews left intact.

    As for the Agar stumping, my issue isn't whether the umpire gave it out or not, but the consistency of that sort of decision. A similar stumping against Bell in the final of the Champions Trophy went the other way. Given how recently that was, there's understandably going to be a lot of English fans who wonder why one was out and the other wasn't.

    But the Khawaja one in this Test still takes the biscuit. Absolutely horrendous. Not a doubt in my mind, clear daylight, yet given out just because Hill gave it. The idea of sequestering third umpires for DRS is a good one, I think.

  • CricShanghai on August 5, 2013, 14:22 GMT

    Some people are pointing fingers at Clark's decision to bat on instead of declaring earlier but facts are, where are all his supporting teams that will look at the games' statistics I am sure available at their finger tips that perhaps would help him reach his decision at the minimum, based on historical run-chase by the English. His decision reflected the deficiencies of the whole Australian cricket, not his alone. Clark perhaps should have considered the weather issue more seriously during 4th day lunch, wondering if any of the coaches munching food all days at the pavilion discussed with him during that lunch, or have they set the target too high disregarding the weather issue?...

  • 2MikeGattings on August 5, 2013, 14:16 GMT

    I have no problems with KP's dismissal personally. The 3rd umpire clearly doesn't trust Hotspot to pick up thin edges and so it makes sense to defer to the decision of the on field umpire. Snicko or no Snicko, the technology is not good enough to decide marginal calls so umpires are correct to trust it only for obvious howlers. If umpires use it that way consistently the players will follow and we'll have less nonsense all round.

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    @Omer Farooq on (August 5, 2013, 13:26 GMT), just like when they won in Perth and then went on to win the last Ashes series?

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 14:13 GMT

    @salazar555 on (August 5, 2013, 13:27 GMT), that's rubbish. The system is never going to be 100% and everyone knows that. Noone has ever claimed that it is or will ever be 100%. You yourself have pointed out that the technology showed that KP should have been not out but that evidence was not interpreted correctly. Why would you scrap a system when all you have to do to fix it is tell the umpire to give the batsman not out if there's a mark on HotSpot and a noise? That's a simple fix to a procedural issue. The only way that the kinks are going to be ironed out of the procedures used in DRS is to use them. You seem to be trusting it in this case so the technology is fine just as it is.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on August 5, 2013, 13:58 GMT

    @disco_bob hot spot failed twice to detect clear naked edges, so i said drs flawed

  • tony122 on August 5, 2013, 13:53 GMT

    I hear many comments how this Test proves Eng are not a great side. While I agree Eng are not a great side but let us not forget even the great Aussies of late to early 00's often lost Tests and very rarely won 5-0 or 3-0. Same was the case with WI. So it is a little hard on present Eng side to win all matches in a series. Good performance from Aus in this Test is in no way indication of coming two Test matches. Still England has been a superior team to Aus in this series.

  • runout49 on August 5, 2013, 13:50 GMT

    There should be a reserve day for test matches in the UK.

  • Arrow011 on August 5, 2013, 13:49 GMT

    It is hard to believe that England are world's best Test team, they are showing no purpose to win this test by playing so slow & make it 3-0. Since ages England have only been a meek team when their backs are against the wall. England is like India in tests, when everything is going their way they will show as if they are a ruthless bunch, when they have to chase a challenging target they will go inside the shell & go for a draw. Only the Australian team until Adam gilchrist's retirement were real heroes, nowadays there is no team which has that killer instinct.

  • sachin_vvsfan on August 5, 2013, 13:35 GMT

    With KP's dismissal Eng lost all the reviews. When there is no conclusive evidence to overturn the decision then why reduce the review count. I think 90 % of the problems can be solved if the review count is not reduced in such cases. Review count should be reduced only when there is conclusive evidence such as pad bat catch, inside edge lbw.

    I am surprised both ECB and CA remained mute on this. DRS has its own limitations but there are some obvious benefits (although i am not fan of hawk eye) if used properly.

  • Devmanus on August 5, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    @Dangertroy -Why isn't ball hawkeye used to check for edges? It records the path a ball has travelled and should be able to measure the deviation caused by a ball hitting the bat. very interesting point..exactly how this technology records the path a ball has travelled? I think it just records the point where the ball is pitched and then do self calculations as per mathematical formula (remember Duckworth Lewis method?).....or it record the weather profile over the entire pitch or stadium and the pitch profile (with grass, witout grass/sandy/hard) and the grip of the bowlers hand (spin/swing/straigterone/doosra) and the speed of the ball (fasterone/slowerone) and based on these point try to project the path until it hit bat/pad/wicketkeeper/stumps !!!

  • likeintcricket on August 5, 2013, 13:32 GMT

    On paper, Australia looks to be very competitive and their fast bowling is very strong. Probably they need a good spinner otherwise their four bowlers are more than capable of taking 20 England's wickets. They have a pretty decent batting which bats all the way through and if they had won the first match, that could be a different scenario now. Only thing is their handling of good quality spinners. A side like Pakistan which have 4 very high quality spinners can give them a very hard tme on spinning tracks like India did in the last series. If Shane Warne is here England could be bowl out in 2 sessions.

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 13:29 GMT

    @Daniel James on (August 5, 2013, 12:59 GMT), in Smith's case the noise occurred after the ball passed the bat, which was confirmed by Snicko. In KP's case, also confirmed by Snicko, the noise occurred exactly as the ball passed the bat. Also, Smith was given not out on the field while KP was given out. In Smith's case there was no evidence that he hit it while in KP's case there certainly wasn't conclusive evidence that he didn't. Neither decision should have been overturned and they rightly weren't. If there is controversy surrounding DRS in this series, neither of those dismissals should be part of it because DRS worked exactly as it should in both cases. Also, the result in both cases would have been the same without DRS.

  • Iddo555 on August 5, 2013, 13:27 GMT

    The worst decision so far was the LBW to Pieterson yesterday. There was a noise and a mark on the bat on hot spot and he was still given out LBW by the 3rd umpire.

    Terrible decision and one that the DRS was designed for. The 3rd umpire seems terrified of over-turning the on-field decision since the Trott dismissal.

    The system is just so bad at the moment and needs to scrapped until it is 100%

  • on August 5, 2013, 13:26 GMT

    if aus wins today they will win the series.they were only lacking in confidence but now after winning this match they will get a boost in confidence.

  • Shaggy076 on August 5, 2013, 13:22 GMT

    H_Z_O I believe in sticking with the umpires call unless there is conclusive proof so I believe the Trott one in the first test was a bad call. As for the Agar stumping the evidence was poor I suspect he might have been out but would never give a batsman out on that evidence. Think Smith was also very lucky here that England ran out of reviews.

  • vinodbhatia on August 5, 2013, 13:18 GMT

    Win or draw, one really really cant control the weather or the outdated rules or laws sometimes, but what's most important here is the spirit or hunger shown by aus here to win. Really desperate to win and eng really on the back foot and should be really thanking nature they are not out there batting. Not the signs of a true champion team for eng nor the signs of a team one can rule out for aus.

  • on August 5, 2013, 13:15 GMT

    @Daniel James, How does KP decision balance Kawaja error?? Kawaja was obviously not out, you could see daylight between ball and bat.The KP decision was correct in the fact that he had nicked it. No balance at all

  • on August 5, 2013, 13:12 GMT

    This series can match the 2005 Ashes , if not due to proper cricketing reasons ; but definitely on the combination of the cricket and controversy , drama surrounding the DRS and occassional face offs between the aussies and english .What amazas me is the amount of time wasted by the english and commentators sttaing even the aussie Shane Warne saying that england are well within the limits to do that . Even Broad not leaving the field after nicking in earlier test , was defended by aussies that most people never walk and they should not if they get decisions like Khwaja got recently . Clarke would be really furious and frustrated if this match ends in a draw taking into consideration what happened last evening . Their bowlers have bowled brilliantly - this is perhaps the bowling performance of this series . England beware for the rest of the series irrespective of the result today. Coming to DRS , it definitely dramatizes the match and adds tension and excitement to spectators .

  • Iddo555 on August 5, 2013, 13:10 GMT

    @ disco, they do use hot spot so the 3rd umpire would have seen that there was nothing there and he still gave it out. Kp was done yesterday when given out LBW when there was a mark on hot spot and a noise. The third umpire is just backing the on field umpire whatever he sees. It's a waste of time reviewing it

  • Dangertroy on August 5, 2013, 13:09 GMT

    If there was no DRS in this series, then Pietersen would still be out. The on field umpire gave it out, there was no clear evidence that he didn't hit, in fact audio suggests he did. I think that the Hotspot cameras being used in this series need to be checked for calibration, they seem to not be registering edges that the audio is picking up.

    Why isn't ball hawkeye used to check for edges? It records the path a ball has travelled and should be able to measure the deviation caused by a ball hitting the bat.

  • on August 5, 2013, 13:08 GMT

    To be fair, Australia deserve a shot at this win. It would be fun to watch England try to hang on, but I think that the way they are bowling in helpful conditions then Aus would win. As a England fan you can't really argue with 2-1. Saying that England could hang on and have a history of defiance in this situation. Let's hope it doesn't rain too much.

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    @Jonesy37 on (August 5, 2013, 12:44 GMT), even as an England fan, I don't really equate KP's dismissal to Khawaja's. There was a genuine noise at what appeared to be the right time in KP's case so there was genuine evidence that he was out, even if it wasn't overwhelming. In Khawaja's case, I couldn't really see any evidence that he was out. While there may not have been any definitive evidence that he wasn't out, I would consider the complete lack of evidence that he was out should be enough to overturn. As far as I'm concerned, if HotSpot and the stump mic (or real-time Snicko when it's available) agree, as was the case with Khawaja, then that should be definitive enough to overturn in either direction. If they disagree, as was the case with KP, then the on-field decision stands, whatever it may be.

  • on August 5, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    Think Bell is the danger man..get him out and OZ have a chance

  • Shaggy076 on August 5, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    Salazar555; Im pretty sure I know who you are supporting. In both occasions the umpire gave Pietersen out - remove DRS and he is out. The LBW there was no hot spot mark. I saw a flash of white near the top of the bat but the ball passed through the middle. KP didnt know whether to review it - to me says he definetely didnt hit it and was definetely out. As for this one the bat was away from pad, noice no daylight between ball and bat. Yes no hotspot but umpire gave him out- I couldnt say for sure if he hit up but certaninly think he did. There has been a lot worse decision in this series than those 2, both of which I agree with the end decision.

  • Devmanus on August 5, 2013, 13:04 GMT

    @disco_bob one more question you said: "The absence of hotspot is irrelevant because the DRS umpire does not use it. They do use the stump mic and he would have heard an unmistakable sharp sound at the right moment."

    then we can use third Umpire ? btw whats the difference then between DRS and third Umpire?

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 13:03 GMT

    @Shaggy076 well, Warner did hit his pad at almost the same time, so I can sort of understand that one.

    I reckon KP hit it too, I wasn't sure based on just the noise (it didn't sound like bat) but the odds of Snick-O showing the noise at the same time as the ball went by the bat and it being a creaky bat handle or something are incredibly slim. It was clearly not pad or anything (as the bat was miles from his body) so it could only have been edge or a weird artefact, and the odds suggest an edge.

    When it happened with Aussie batsmen I insisted that the batter's reaction doesn't tell you anything other than they think they missed it. And I'm being consistent, the reaction of Pietersen does not mean he didn't hit it, it means he thinks he didn't.

    The two worst decisions of the series, for mine, have been Khawaja's here and the Agar edge at Lord's, so I don't think we can have any complaints. The Trott lbw and Agar stumping at TB were both bad, but not as incomprehensible as those two.

  • noisypants on August 5, 2013, 13:01 GMT

    I disagree Jonesy. The video evidence in the kahwaja decision clearly showed the ball missing the bat

  • on August 5, 2013, 12:59 GMT

    KPs decision balances Khawaja's error but what about Steve Smith in the first innings? Same as KPs - no hotspot, aural evidence but in Smith's case no overturn...

  • azaro on August 5, 2013, 12:59 GMT

    DRS and the umpires are fine. What it needs is the administrators to get out of the way and allow the umpires to figure out how they can best use DRS to make better decisions. Most of the silly ones are caused by the rules surrounding the use of it which do not allow the umpires to use it to make their decisions.

  • PrasPunter on August 5, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    probably the luckiest of the Ashes series victories this for Eng, if they are to win , which I believe is quite likely the case given the weather !! Really proud with the way us Aussies stood up for a fight in Manc!! Chins up !! God bless Australia !!!

  • SL_rockz on August 5, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    @TheBigBoodha I completely agree with your idea.There should be conclusive evidence to overturn the on field umpire's decision. In here hot spot and sound evidence was showing two things.so clearly the evidences are inconclusive. So 3rd umpire cannot over turn the decision of on field umpire.Remember this is same when player is given not out and fielding party reviewed it.If it was inconclusive on field called stand in.I think it is fair.On field call should have more priority.

  • on August 5, 2013, 12:54 GMT

    any latest news???? rain will end soon or not????

  • disco_bob on August 5, 2013, 12:54 GMT

    @Donald Or, not correct. The absence of hotspot is irrelevant because the DRS umpire does not use it. They do use the stump mic and he would have heard an unmistakable sharp sound at the right moment.

  • Ozcricketwriter on August 5, 2013, 12:51 GMT

    If there's no more rain, Australia will probably win. If it rains the rest of the day, it will definitely be a draw. Anything in between and we don't know. 40 overs for the match may be enough for Australia but it might not quite be enough. Sadly, it seems like 40 overs is very unlikely, and most likely that is all the play we will get.

  • Devmanus on August 5, 2013, 12:50 GMT

    ---now tell me the results of following conditions 3. hotspot shows no edge but stump microphone hear no sound and snico shows no deflection 4. hotspot shows no edge but stump microphone hear no sound and snico shows deflection 5. hotspot shows edge but stump microphone hear no sound and snico shows no deflection 6. hotspot shows edge but stump microphone hear sound and snico shows deflection

  • Devmanus on August 5, 2013, 12:49 GMT

    @disco_bob -how does KP show the DRS is flawed, OUT or NOTOUT? 1. Hotspot shows no edge stump microphone hears no sound no snico available only Onfield Umpires call out/notout-decision unchanged (as no DRS) only DRS- NOT OUT DRS with onfield Umpires call OUT-decision unchanged (not enough evidence to overturn the onfield Umpires decision) DRS with onfield Umpires call NOTOUT-decision unchanged (not enough evidence to overturn the onfield Umpires decision) 2. hotspot shows no edge but stump microphone hear sound and no snico available only onfield Umpires call out/notout-decision unchanged (as no DRS) only DRS- OUT (KPcase) DRS with onfield Umpires call out-OUT (decision unchanged) DRS with onfield Umpires call notout- OUT (decision changed) ---continue to next comment

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 12:49 GMT

    @Shaggy076 on (August 5, 2013, 12:16 GMT), that's exactly the case but some people just refuse to see what's right in front of them. The umpire gave KP out based on the noise and the fact that he could see no gap between bat and ball. The footage available to the third umpire showed exactly the same thing, i.e. a noise as the ball passed the the bat and no discernible gap between bat and ball. How can he overrule that decision? It was obviously a thin edge and we know that HotSpot won't always show very thin edges. There was not enough evidence to overturn the on-field decision regardless of what that decision was. The one reason that KP might consider himself unlucky is that the Australians, particularly the bowler, didn't exactly seem convinced so the umpire could well have adjudged him not out in the first place. Personally, I don't see an issue with the decision by either umpire. Close one, yes, but all fair enough.

  • Jonesy37 on August 5, 2013, 12:44 GMT

    Not saying Pieterson's decision was correct, but it balances Kuwhaja's similar decision in the first innings. DRS must show CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn the decision on the field. In each instance, it didn't, so t umpire's decision stands. Similarly, if either player were given not out and the fielding team appealed, the decision would not have been reversed.

    PS - BCCI are just stubborn. They even fight against their own government. Says it all, really.

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 12:43 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (August 5, 2013, 11:45 GMT) I was just thinking that myself but I didn't want to jinx it. Now you've gone and reversed jinxed it!

    Anyone would think you're Australian...

    Oh.

    England haven't got a prayer of saving this one. Pitch is doing just enough, overcast so the ball should swing conventionally until it starts getting scuffed up enough for reverse, and while I don't think Lyon's turning it as much as Swann did, he's getting plenty a lot more bounce, and with men around the bat bounce is more dangerous.

    Have to agree with Pyketts about Cook's captaincy. It's not because he's defensive (so was Strauss a lot of the time) but because he lacks the tactical awareness and inventiveness that even a defensive captain needs. He's a great leader, but tactics aren't his forte.

    I actually think our best tactician is Broad, which is probably why he was looked at for the job. Morgan's a decent one too, and while he's no Test batsman, is he really any worse than Bairstow?

  • 2MikeGattings on August 5, 2013, 12:39 GMT

    Hotspot and the weather forecast proving themselves about equally useful.

  • on August 5, 2013, 12:39 GMT

    In the next hour get BELL out. And weather permitting the game is over.

  • TheBigBoodha on August 5, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    That was a tough one with the KP diissal. I suppose from the 3rd umpire's perspective he has to get a clean slate on visual, sound and hotspot when the umpires call is out. KP was OK on hotspot, but not sound and the last visual looked like it was right on the edge. So it was a tough one. There was a contradiction between hotspot and sound, so some doubt - sadly the benefit goes to the bowler when the original decision is out.

  • Iddo555 on August 5, 2013, 12:35 GMT

    I've lost faith in DRS. Until the tech is 100% accurate then it's better to just let the on field umpire make the decision, good or bad

  • Narkovian on August 5, 2013, 12:31 GMT

    SNICKO clearly showed KP nicked it. So 3rd Umpire got it right.. by luck or otherwise.

  • landl47 on August 5, 2013, 12:31 GMT

    The weather forecast has changed from terrible to not too bad. If anything like a full day's play is possible, Australia has every chance of winning this game.

    Even as a die-hard England supporter, I have to admit that Australia has outplayed England and deserves the win. If England are to get away with a draw, then I hope there's a full day's play and they earn it. Sneaking a weather-affected draw would leave a pretty bad taste in the mouth of every true cricket fan.

  • disco_bob on August 5, 2013, 12:28 GMT

    The moment Cook was out LBW to Harris he just intently watched where the ball was as if he was just about to run, to me it looked like it was meant to try and bluff the umpire.

  • TheScot on August 5, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    I don't think umps are the biggest fans of current DRS system. Moreover I feel that they aren't the happiest bunch around these days for some reason. I believe umps are trying to show ICC that the technology in given to them is not good enough to derive conclusion and make decision; and hence they will go with whatever decision their on field fellows has made. I might be wrong but that's what they have made me feel.

  • 30-30-150 on August 5, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    KP's dismissal was fair enough. There was a faint sound as the ball passed the bat. Real umpiring howlers in this series are the dismissal of Khawaja in the first innings, and the non-dismissal of Broad in the first Test.

  • on August 5, 2013, 12:23 GMT

    As much as I hate to say it; England are still favourites to bat out the day IMO. It seems that to run thtough England you have to go 4 wickets deep with the new ball so Clarke's drop off Root could be critical. 3+wickets in this next session and Australia would be marginal favourites but who would bet against Bell getting some big partnerships going.

  • Iddo555 on August 5, 2013, 12:22 GMT

    Absolute disgrace to give Pietersen out. Nothing on hot spot today and he is given out caught, yesterday he was given out LBW when there was something on hot spot and a noise. If the 3rd umpire is just going to back the on field umpire's decision whatever then there's no point in the review system

  • jmcilhinney on August 5, 2013, 12:20 GMT

    @Pyketts on (August 5, 2013, 11:53 GMT), I agree to a degree. I don't think that it was realistic to expect England to try to chase these runs under the circumstances but that doesn't mean play negatively. They obviously feel that the ultra-cautious approach reduces the chance of their loosing wickets but we have seen on more than one occasion that it actually seems to increase it. That said, Cook got a good one early and KP was hardly playing negatively. Trott was really negative either. I think Root is the only one who can really be accused of not really looking to score and he's under an enormous amount of pressure so it's perhaps understandable. As for your question about whether Cook would have gone for the win if the roles were reversed, of course he would. Why would anyone settle for a draw when doing so would mean the opposition retain the Ashes? I'm not really sure what Clarke has done as captain in this game that is really special anyway. Australia played well is all.

  • on August 5, 2013, 12:17 GMT

    the sword cuts both ways. If Petersen wasn't given out and Australia appealed, the absence of hot spot would have meant he's not out. At the end the day, it's not just DRS but a combination of the onfield call plus DRS. Just saying.

  • Shaggy076 on August 5, 2013, 12:16 GMT

    H_Z_O; Even thick edges in the case of Warner. As for Pietersen after seeing all the footage I really dont know if he hit it or not but suspect he did. As such its easy to see why they went with the umpires call.

  • strikeforce2003 on August 5, 2013, 12:16 GMT

    Its an Aussie win..its just the tail they need to get thru' that will eventually be bothersome, once they get the next 3 wickets hopefully within tea...3 to 4 pm are the expected rain showers.. time for a total of 45 or so overs, with time lost on these showers, enough though to seal the Pommies fate. Amen!

  • heathrf1974 on August 5, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    I'm an Aussie, but can't believe that Pietersen was given out. Although hotpot is not conclusive, how one say there out when there's no spot. It seems to me that if you are given out caught behind, then reviewing is a waste of time.

  • --.-- on August 5, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    OMG !

    KP has been given out. Hot Spot showed no edge but still third-umpire thinks he is OUT. What is Hot Spot for, if you are not following what it tells ?

    If the on-field call is to stay, what is technology for ?

    Poor KP. He felt there was no edge; Gone for review; Hot Spot showed nothing. And still he has been given OUT. Poor Eng. Lost 1 review too.

    No wonder BCCI is against DRS. Now the whole Cricketing World has started to understand why BCCI have doubts about DRS.

    First make it(DRS) flawless. Second, find the ideal how it should be used. And then it should be implemented in all international matches.

  • disco_bob on August 5, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    @palavadisuresh er how does KP show the DRS is flawed, it was given out on field meaning without DRS it would have been out anyway, so where is the flaw? DRS uses vision and sound. Although they do not use snicko they do use the stump mic and there was a sharp sound which was confirmed by snicko at the exact moment. Hotspot can only show a definite edge, if hotspot does not show an edge which it did not this time then that is not used because a very light feather will not leave a mark. So seeing as it was given and seeing as there was a clear sound that could not have been anything other than the ball on bat, how to do reason that in this case DRS was flawed.

  • 2MikeGattings on August 5, 2013, 12:11 GMT

    Australia like dropping their own openers, and they like dropping England's too.

  • sachin_vvsfan on August 5, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    30 for 3. Game nicely setup and i hope weather doesnt interfere the play. A victory is ruled out for England. Will Eng Earn a draw here. Lets wait and see.

  • Joe.W on August 5, 2013, 12:03 GMT

    DRS is supposed to eliminate the errors it would seem from the evidence in this series that all it does is shift the blame to e third umpire! The errors are still there. The lack of evidence or the presence of it seems to make little difference. If they are going to stick with the on field call what is the point of holding up the game for so long waiting?

  • RedRoseMan on August 5, 2013, 12:02 GMT

    @Marky Summers - get real! I doubt whether anyone has made 330 in 50 overs in the fourth innings of a Test match! The highest fourth innings score to win a Test at Old Trafford is under 300 and that was by England against NZ who didn't have a strong attack. Clarke is a very enterprising captain, but his declaration was pretty conservative and England were never going to attempt to chase down 300+. Even in the Australian second innings when wickets didn't matter they couldn't score at 5 an over and lost 7 wickets in reaching 172 - and that was in considerably better batting conditions than today!

  • on August 5, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    Brave and Bold Decision by Aussie Captain... I think they have a better chance than England as odd ball is jumping and odd one is staying low! But I think they have missed a trick by not including the left arm spinner Agar!

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 11:59 GMT

    Massive wicket. Think the umpires got that one right, personally, but after that one against Hughes at Lord's how many Aussies said "look at the batsman's reaction"?

    Hard to think of a more obvious case where the batsman's reaction doesn't tell you a thing. Pietersen was certain he hadn't hit it. But the technology suggests he did.

    I reckon the bigger bats they use these days make those faint feathers really hard to feel. No other way to explain why so many batsmen seem to be insistent they've not hit it when the technology shows they have.

  • humdrum on August 5, 2013, 11:55 GMT

    Well, well, the dear lads don't seem to be up to it.Siddle is looking hot today.Pity about the dropped catch,but still, the wicket of pietersen is a big boost. For a change, the guys at sky channel agree with the third umpire.another wicket before lunch would just about clear the way as the remaining batters would be hard pressed to bat out two sessions

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on August 5, 2013, 11:54 GMT

    again drs technology flawed. This time Not the human error. Agra's dismissal= kp's dismissal. Finally, drs technology and its process all flawed.

  • Pyketts on August 5, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    I'm an Eng fan and I'm so disapointed again at the negative way we're approaching a game.

    Negative (as per most things about Cook) leading from the front again. I'm not suggesting we should have gone out all guns blazing but at least make an attempt to score some runs and take a bit of the pressure off.

    We actually deserve to lose this game. Another question - If Eng would have been in an identical position (in both series and match) would Cook have gone for it like Clarke has. The answer is no.

    Cook out as captain, Mr Safe may be loved by the old school tie ECB but his approach is too negative. Of course, I'm not suggesting we drop him as a player, just as captain.

  • Shaggy076 on August 5, 2013, 11:46 GMT

    Marky Summers; Im guessing you havent watched much cricket and dont know the difference between a first day pitch and 5th day pitch. Im pretty sure that if they played oneday games on a fifth day pitch 150 would be a good score. There hasnt been two many teams that get more than 300 on a 4th/5th day.

  • Mitty2 on August 5, 2013, 11:45 GMT

    This is ominous.... Remember the last time root got dropped in the slips!?!

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 5, 2013, 11:42 GMT

    Looks like young Joe has been asked to weigh anchor and stay 'Rooted' to the crease, whilst the others play around him.

    People arguing that England were playing for the draw before a ball was even bowled need to get a grip; surely if that was Cook/Flower's plan they'd have played the likes of Compton instead of livewires like KP and Bairstow.

    Wonder did Root whisper/mouth to Clarke: "you've just dropped the Ashes!" there?

  • TheBigBoodha on August 5, 2013, 11:33 GMT

    The spirit of Geoff Boycott lives on. Gotta love the Poms.

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 11:32 GMT

    Trott goes. The only saving grace for England fans is that as much as everyone said that Cook and Trott were the key England wickets in this innings, both haven't been in the best of form this series. Our form players are the ones coming up next (Root too, who's already at the crease).

    Bit of cloud cover this morning has actually made for perfect bowling conditions. If anything the "bad weather", while costing Australia time, has given them far better bowling conditions in which to take 10 wickets.

  • on August 5, 2013, 11:30 GMT

    As I posted before, Getting Trott out early gives 50 % of the game to Australia...Get Bell early now and the game is OVER ! KP and Root can't bat out a day !

  • humdrum on August 5, 2013, 11:19 GMT

    @mzm149---Mate,98 overs may be enough,but you forget,laddie,that tis not Aus who is chasing,but the dear british (and a few SA guys)who will do the chasing. Mind you,even in the 1st innings,the thought of winning had never occured to them,tis not in their mindset. So just relax and watch the fun as Eng get bowled out.

  • on August 5, 2013, 11:13 GMT

    Anshu Anand, as a Kiwi with strong memories of Eden Park, I'd say it'd be 30% more likely if you got both Bell and Prior out quickly, maybe even 35%. Cook hasn't impressed for a while actually - he has appeared bereft of ideas for some time, and just lets his team lead the way. Get Trott, Pietersen, Bell, and Prior, and you've got about 60-65% of the English resistance removed right there.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 5, 2013, 11:10 GMT

    Just a hunch really - but I'm guessing England aren't going for the 320-odd runs to win then eh?

  • on August 5, 2013, 11:08 GMT

    330 runs can be made in 50 overs and England have 90 in which to get them. Trust the poms to shy away from the challenge and block out for the draw. England were never worthy of the No.1 test ranking and nor will they ever be!

  • on August 5, 2013, 10:53 GMT

    Cook going early increases the Australian cause by about 30 %. Loss of good player plus the added pressure. If they get Trott early too, 50% of the game is in the bag.

  • Maccanui on August 5, 2013, 10:47 GMT

    Poetic justice for Cook there. Cant imagine many neutrals want to see England successfully block out a whole days play.

  • Mitty2 on August 5, 2013, 10:46 GMT

    If only I could watch it tonight. We bowled almost 140 overs (Eng bowled just 6 more overs, and not surprisingly, we scored 160 more runs!) with considerable control and bowled to some good plans. The contrast between our seamers and Eng's in the first innings was very pronounced, and hopefully we can continue that. Will be interesting to see how Harris has pulled up. I've constantly criticised Starc's selection, but I'll take it away and hope he finally plays to his potential!! C'mon Starcy, you are key! We need him to blow away the top order above all. The rain will come soon.

  • lankymanky on August 5, 2013, 10:45 GMT

    For all I admire Cook's batting skills to put on big scores, There are things which I find really irritating. His captaincy skills are VERY limited and relies on everyone else doing his job, bowlers take wickets prior decides DRS. Then there is his DRS use when batting. Twice in the champions Trophy he wasted the sole review on plum LBW's. He doesn't encourage Bresnan to use it in this test when he was clearly not out! AND then he wastes another one for another PLUM LBW They say the players are all behind Cook as a captain but I seriously have to wonder why when tactically he is absolutely clueless!!! Having said that I have no idea who would make a good captain, unless Prior can handle it as well as the gloves.

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    Early strike for Australia (and a review down for England). Nervy day ahead, I fear.

  • cccrider on August 5, 2013, 10:35 GMT

    Starc spraying it. Wasting the new ball. Imagine my surprise.

  • mzm149 on August 5, 2013, 10:30 GMT

    Clarke should have played a bit more say 10 overs. 98 overs are enough to score 332.

  • mzm149 on August 5, 2013, 10:30 GMT

    Clarke should have played a bit more say 10 overs. 98 overs are enough to score 332.

  • cccrider on August 5, 2013, 10:35 GMT

    Starc spraying it. Wasting the new ball. Imagine my surprise.

  • H_Z_O on August 5, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    Early strike for Australia (and a review down for England). Nervy day ahead, I fear.

  • lankymanky on August 5, 2013, 10:45 GMT

    For all I admire Cook's batting skills to put on big scores, There are things which I find really irritating. His captaincy skills are VERY limited and relies on everyone else doing his job, bowlers take wickets prior decides DRS. Then there is his DRS use when batting. Twice in the champions Trophy he wasted the sole review on plum LBW's. He doesn't encourage Bresnan to use it in this test when he was clearly not out! AND then he wastes another one for another PLUM LBW They say the players are all behind Cook as a captain but I seriously have to wonder why when tactically he is absolutely clueless!!! Having said that I have no idea who would make a good captain, unless Prior can handle it as well as the gloves.

  • Mitty2 on August 5, 2013, 10:46 GMT

    If only I could watch it tonight. We bowled almost 140 overs (Eng bowled just 6 more overs, and not surprisingly, we scored 160 more runs!) with considerable control and bowled to some good plans. The contrast between our seamers and Eng's in the first innings was very pronounced, and hopefully we can continue that. Will be interesting to see how Harris has pulled up. I've constantly criticised Starc's selection, but I'll take it away and hope he finally plays to his potential!! C'mon Starcy, you are key! We need him to blow away the top order above all. The rain will come soon.

  • Maccanui on August 5, 2013, 10:47 GMT

    Poetic justice for Cook there. Cant imagine many neutrals want to see England successfully block out a whole days play.

  • on August 5, 2013, 10:53 GMT

    Cook going early increases the Australian cause by about 30 %. Loss of good player plus the added pressure. If they get Trott early too, 50% of the game is in the bag.

  • on August 5, 2013, 11:08 GMT

    330 runs can be made in 50 overs and England have 90 in which to get them. Trust the poms to shy away from the challenge and block out for the draw. England were never worthy of the No.1 test ranking and nor will they ever be!

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 5, 2013, 11:10 GMT

    Just a hunch really - but I'm guessing England aren't going for the 320-odd runs to win then eh?

  • on August 5, 2013, 11:13 GMT

    Anshu Anand, as a Kiwi with strong memories of Eden Park, I'd say it'd be 30% more likely if you got both Bell and Prior out quickly, maybe even 35%. Cook hasn't impressed for a while actually - he has appeared bereft of ideas for some time, and just lets his team lead the way. Get Trott, Pietersen, Bell, and Prior, and you've got about 60-65% of the English resistance removed right there.