[Cricket] The Ashes - England v Australia - 4th Test, Old Trafford, July 19-23, 2023

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



dangull

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2013
5,119
Anywhere south of Manchester and England would almost certainly won. Frustrating to say the least.
 




Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,307
Darlington
Sorry you're wrong. Playing test cricket at the wettest county ground in the UK is the issue.
Never, ever give a 4th / 5th test to the wettest ground in England ever again.

Biggest Ashes anti-climax I can remember.
Less than 20 fans left in the ground as above poster said absolutely madness to give old Trafford a 4th Test in bloody July
Oh well let’s hope we do win at oval even though the weather is going to be dodgy as well
On the other hand, Old Trafford generally has the best cricket pitch out of any of the test grounds in the country.
And it has a real ale tent.
This was the first draw at Old Trafford since 2013 (when England were the team who were happier it was raining).
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
23,844
Just stop playing internationals at Old Trafford it's not fit for purpose it always f***ing rains, shit ground
Old Trafford is a famous old ground and the scene of some memorable cricket. It is also the second oldest appointed in England.

Sydney in Australia isn't far behind Old Trafford for days washed out. Australians have been calling for the New Year Test to be removed from there, when it doesn't suit them.

Nobody was calling for Cardiff to lose it's status after 2009. There may be a reason for that.

If you play cricket in England it might rain.
 


PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
18,746
Hurst Green


Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,307
Darlington
Rarely at test level IMO. Unless yourself and @Sid and the Sharknados know otherwise. I like the idea re breaks.

Re playing later - It’s hardly about playing on demand though is it, particularly if it is clear to everyone in advance. Lose an hour, play an hour later up to 3 hours (9.30pm - 10pm).

It doesn’t seem that daft to me 😃👍
Off the top of my head, in test matches since I've been watching, they've introduced or changed:
Day/night tests.
Playing under floodlights (which has drastically increased the amount of play we get, and the amount of play in bowling friendly conditions).
DRS (largely effective after some initial teething problems).
4 day tests (for some countries)

There'll be some very boring and/or technical rule changes on top of that.
 




Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
12,144
Cumbria
Series isn't over. A big win for us at The Oval and they can go packing with their little urn knowing that next time they turn up they won't have won here for 26 years.

I've just taken a look at the historical series results.

26 years would be LONGEST any team have gone without an Ashes series win away.

All to play for.
Quite right. The players will be well up for it. Send them back home deflated and knowing they have been outclassed and only hold the urn thanks to the weather. It will be a bit of a hollow 'win' for them.
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,894
Manchester
Series isn't over. A big win for us at The Oval and they can go packing with their little urn knowing that next time they turn up they won't have won here for 26 years.

I've just taken a look at the historical series results.

26 years would be LONGEST any team have gone without an Ashes series win away.

All to play for.
Absolutely. All this stuff about Australia ‘retaining’ the ashes is just a load of ceremonial bollocks. This is a test series that we have a very realistic chance of drawing 2-2, and if that happens we can consider ourselves to have had the upper hand over the 5 games.

Do you think the Aussie team will just put their feet up now that the weather has meant that we can’t actually beat them? Absolutely not - they’ll want to try and win the series. We beat Palace last time out, but i guarantee that if we were to give up a 2-0 half-time lead and draw 2-2, none of us would take the fact that we’d retained bragging rights as any sort of consolation.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
23,844
If you play in Manchester it WILL rain
Yet since 2000 there have been 19 Tests there and only 4 draws.

This is the first draw in 9 Tests. The previous one being a rain affected draw that worked in England's favour against... Australia
 




Questions

Habitual User
Oct 18, 2006
24,956
Worthing
Yet since 2000 there have been 19 Tests there and only 4 draws.

This is the first draw in 9 Tests. The previous one being a rain affected draw that worked in England's favour against... Australia
Nevertheless I think Manchester should lose tests from now on…,,,
Actually seriously haven’t the north of England lost their tests next time
 


Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
64,652
Withdean area
I screen shot this at close of play Friday, a smug Marsh and Labuschagne imho looking like “job done”. Knowing the weekend was a near certain wash out. On Saturday Ponting and friends arrived early at Hoylake, having abandoned any idea of viewing cricket.

Outclassed, saved by almost 40% of the event lost.

IMG_0033.png
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
23,844
Nevertheless I think Manchester should lose tests from now on…,,,
Actually seriously haven’t the north of England lost their tests next time
For the next Ashes, yes. Some of us may not even live to see another Ashes Test at Leeds or Manchester. Shame really. Both have produced some splendid games.
 






A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
18,199
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Feels like getting dicked by a Sean Dyche team. Australia turned up this week to shithouse a draw and we let them get away with it. Grr.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
23,844
No test at Headingley next year.
And Chester-le-Street is (apparently permanently) banned from hosting tests, despite being fit to.
I'm not sure why that is. Most of it has been late spring against nations that aren't as much of a draw. Sophia Gardens seems to have had a bad deal as well.
 




zefarelly

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
21,940
Sussex, by the sea
One has to applaud the ECB for not even bothering to ask to borrow the urn for a few years, safe in the knowledge its grim up north and not fit for cricket. What a bunch of cockwombles.

Manchester is great but one of the worst places in the country for sport. The wettest cricket pitch on the planet.
 




Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,307
Darlington
I'm not sure why that is. Most of it has been late spring against nations that aren't as much of a draw. Sophia Gardens seems to have had a bad deal as well.
Genuinely banned due to Durham's financial issues a few years ago.
As you say, most of the games they got were early season matches against Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Had one Ashes test in 2013 (which England won, clear evidence we should play there more often).
Meanwhile Hampshire, who somehow managed to weasel out of relegation due to Durham's financial issues (I'd have thought it'd make more sense to promote Kent, or just give Durham a points penalty the next season, but anyway) get one of 3 southern Ashes tests next time.
Have I made it clear how much I hate Hampshire? :lolol:
 


Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,307
Darlington
As part of the punishment Durham had for needing to be bailed out by the ECB in 2016, they had the right to bid for test matches taken away. On top of relegation and a points deduction the following season (just in case they might actually do well enough to go straight back up).
The debts weren't notably large by the standards of other CCCs, but since Durham didn't have a third party willing to fund it and had to go to the ECB, this apparently required numerous separate punishments to be given out.


That the ECB have since jizzed most of their financial reserves up the wall on the Hundred (including payouts to counties to get them to vote for it) is of course an entirely separate issue and doesn't carry any degree of hypocrisy at all.
 




Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
23,844
Genuinely banned due to Durham's financial issues a few years ago.
As you say, most of the games they got were early season matches against Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Had one Ashes test in 2013 (which England won, clear evidence we should play there more often).
Meanwhile Hampshire, who somehow managed to weasel out of relegation due to Durham's financial issues (I'd have thought it'd make more sense to promote Kent, or just give Durham a points penalty the next season, but anyway) get one of 3 southern Ashes tests next time.
Have I made it clear how much I hate Hampshire? :lolol:
Well I can see why. Hampshire just sounds so dull in the speaking. The media seems to have invented a 'derby' for Sussex against them which I guess you have no objection to. It's Surrey who I don't like for multiple irrational reasons.

Something that occurred to me recently is how little success Middlesex have had in comparison to the esteem they are held in as a county. Take out the Brearley years and the rest of the 80s and there is so little. I wondered why that might be and then it occurred to me that it's possible that they have no actual stake in Lords, just an historical playing arrangement. I wonder if anyone can cast light on that.
 


essbee1

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2014
4,202
Well I can see why. Hampshire just sounds so dull in the speaking. The media seems to have invented a 'derby' for Sussex against them which I guess you have no objection to. It's Surrey who I don't like for multiple irrational reasons.

Something that occurred to me recently is how little success Middlesex have had in comparison to the esteem they are held in as a county. Take out the Brearley years and the rest of the 80s and there is so little. I wondered why that might be and then it occurred to me that it's possible that they have no actual stake in Lords, just an historical playing arrangement. I wonder if anyone can cast light on that.
Surrey are steeped in history. Yoos talking shite :)

(signed: a Surrey supporter)
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top