Wow! It was quite a day, which England seem to have emerged from with a slight advantage.
Not being willing to give up on my beauty sleep, I only saw the final session - though I shall be watching the hour's highlights package later
--a but that packed in more incident than many full days, with eight
wickets falling.
Given the pitch, I suppose it's not surprising that two
bowlers were the dominant figures of the day: Starc and Stokes. (The
other England bowlers were also good. Not yet having seen the England innings, I can't comment on the other Aussie bowlers.)
Does anyone know why play ended at about eight minutes to the hour? With
the over rate having been very slow all day and the extra half-hour
being taken, I'd expected the full half-hour's play rather than just 22 minutes. There was still bright sunshine, though there were long shadows across the pitch, but they don't normally go off for thise.
On 21/11/2025 10:53, John Hall wrote:
Does anyone know why play ended at about eight minutes to the hour?
With the over rate having been very slow all day and the extra half-
hour being taken, I'd expected the full half-hour's play rather than
just 22 minutes. There was still bright sunshine, though there were
long shadows across the pitch, but they don't normally go off for thise.
They did use the full half-hour. Start of play is 10:20 (2:20 UK time) -
I have no idea why.
On 21/11/2025 10:53, John Hall wrote:
Wow! It was quite a day, which England seem to have emerged from with
a slight advantage.
Yes, it turned out quite similar to the first day at Lord's 2005 in
reverse.
Not being willing to give up on my beauty sleep, I only saw the final
session - though I shall be watching the hour's highlights package
later --a but that packed in more incident than many full days, with
eight wickets falling.
As Andy Zaltzman said on TMS, 19 wickets is the most on the first day of
an Ashes Test since Old Trafford 1909, when both sides were bowled out. There were 106.5 overs on that day, though, compared to 71.5 today.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1909-61356/england-vs-australia-4th-test-62499/full-scorecard
It's the most wickets on the first day of any England-Australia series, although in the one-off Test at The Oval in 1882 (the one that gave rise
to The Ashes), both sides were bowled out on the first day, and again on
the second.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1882-61352/england-vs-australia-only-test-62404/full-scorecard
Given the pitch, I suppose it's not surprising that two bowlers were
the dominant figures of the day: Starc and Stokes. (The other England
bowlers were also good. Not yet having seen the England innings, I
can't comment on the other Aussie bowlers.)
The consensus among the TMS commentators was that Doggett bowled pretty
well on debut, but that Boland was well below his usual standard; also
that Starc bowled very well, but not as well as 7-58 would suggest.
David North wrote:
On 21/11/2025 10:53, John Hall wrote:
Wow! It was quite a day, which England seem to have emerged from with
a slight advantage.
Yes, it turned out quite similar to the first day at Lord's 2005 in
reverse.
Not being willing to give up on my beauty sleep, I only saw the final
session - though I shall be watching the hour's highlights package
later --a but that packed in more incident than many full days, with
eight wickets falling.
As Andy Zaltzman said on TMS, 19 wickets is the most on the first day
of an Ashes Test since Old Trafford 1909, when both sides were bowled
out. There were 106.5 overs on that day, though, compared to 71.5 today.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-
england-1909-61356/england-vs-australia-4th-test-62499/full-scorecard
It's the most wickets on the first day of any England-Australia
series, although in the one-off Test at The Oval in 1882 (the one that
gave rise to The Ashes), both sides were bowled out on the first day,
and again on the second.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-
england-1882-61352/england-vs-australia-only-test-62404/full-scorecard
Given the pitch, I suppose it's not surprising that two bowlers were
the dominant figures of the day: Starc and Stokes. (The other England
bowlers were also good. Not yet having seen the England innings, I
can't comment on the other Aussie bowlers.)
The consensus among the TMS commentators was that Doggett bowled
pretty well on debut, but that Boland was well below his usual
standard; also that Starc bowled very well, but not as well as 7-58
would suggest.
The TMS comms are 100% correct. Boland bowled *very* badly and, barring another outbreak of FFBS (Fragile Fast Bowler Syndrome) or a 2nd inning miracle, Bolo may well be playing his last Test.
For Pomland, Stokes gotthe figures, but *all* of their quicks were terrific. Faster & more
accurate than ours, the only Oz batter who looked even remotely
comfortable against the three quicks was Green. So, after all of one
day, I'm tipping, and possibly betting, on the poms to take the series
if I can get acceptable odds.
alvey
Wow! It was quite a day, which England seem to have emerged from with a slight advantage.
Not being willing to give up on my beauty sleep, I only saw the final session - though I shall be watching the hour's highlights package later
--a but that packed in more incident than many full days, with eight
wickets falling. Given the pitch, I suppose it's not surprising that two bowlers were the dominant figures of the day: Starc and Stokes. (The
other England bowlers were also good. Not yet having seen the England innings, I can't comment on the other Aussie bowlers.)
Does anyone know why play ended at about eight minutes to the hour? With
the over rate having been very slow all day and the extra half-hour
being taken, I'd expected the full half-hour's play rather than just 22 minutes. There was still bright sunshine, though there were long shadows across the pitch, but they don't normally go off for thise.
In spite of the cost of TNT Sports, their coverage still has adverts,
though at least it's only when a wicket falls or there's another break
in play rather than between overs.
The TMS comms are 100% correct. Boland bowled *very* badly and, barring another outbreak of FFBS (Fragile Fast Bowler Syndrome) or a 2nd inning miracle, Bolo may well be playing his last Test. For Pomland, Stokes got
the figures, but *all* of their quicks were terrific. Faster & more
accurate than ours, the only Oz batter who looked even remotely
comfortable against the three quicks was Green. So, after all of one
day, I'm tipping, and possibly betting, on the poms to take the series
if I can get acceptable odds.
On 11/21/2025 2:53 AM, John Hall wrote:
Wow! It was quite a day, which England seem to have emerged from with
a slight advantage.
Not being willing to give up on my beauty sleep, I only saw the final
session - though I shall be watching the hour's highlights package
later --a but that packed in more incident than many full days, with
eight wickets falling. Given the pitch, I suppose it's not surprising
that two bowlers were the dominant figures of the day: Starc and
Stokes. (The other England bowlers were also good. Not yet having seen
the England innings, I can't comment on the other Aussie bowlers.)
Does anyone know why play ended at about eight minutes to the hour?
With the over rate having been very slow all day and the extra half-
hour being taken, I'd expected the full half-hour's play rather than
just 22 minutes. There was still bright sunshine, though there were
long shadows across the pitch, but they don't normally go off for thise.
In spite of the cost of TNT Sports, their coverage still has adverts,
though at least it's only when a wicket falls or there's another break
in play rather than between overs.
Promoting Travis Head to open in I2 was a brilliant move which worked
like a charm.
60-40 England odds of winning at the beginning of Aus I2 became 10-90
odds by the 12th over.
Most likely Travis Head will get Player of the Match award even though
Starc got 10 wickets in the-a match.
On 22/11/2025 08:59, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
On 11/21/2025 2:53 AM, John Hall wrote:
Wow! It was quite a day, which England seem to have emerged from with
a slight advantage.
Not being willing to give up on my beauty sleep, I only saw the final
session - though I shall be watching the hour's highlights package
later --a but that packed in more incident than many full days, with
eight wickets falling. Given the pitch, I suppose it's not surprising
that two bowlers were the dominant figures of the day: Starc and
Stokes. (The other England bowlers were also good. Not yet having
seen the England innings, I can't comment on the other Aussie bowlers.)
Does anyone know why play ended at about eight minutes to the hour?
With the over rate having been very slow all day and the extra half-
hour being taken, I'd expected the full half-hour's play rather than
just 22 minutes. There was still bright sunshine, though there were
long shadows across the pitch, but they don't normally go off for thise. >>>
In spite of the cost of TNT Sports, their coverage still has adverts,
though at least it's only when a wicket falls or there's another
break in play rather than between overs.
Promoting Travis Head to open in I2 was a brilliant move which worked
like a charm.
It was. Khawaja's stiff back may have been a blessing in disguise for Australia, as I doubt that Head would have opened had he been fit.
60-40 England odds of winning at the beginning of Aus I2 became 10-90
odds by the 12th over.
The odds certainly see-sawed today. At the start of the day it was
probably 60-40, when England were 65-1 it was probably 85-15, then as
you say still about 60-40 at the start of the Australian innings, from
where their chances rapidly declined.
I didn't stay watching for the presentation, but I assume they would
Most likely Travis Head will get Player of the Match award even though
Starc got 10 wickets in the-a match.
have given it to Head. I think they had to. While Starc bowled very
well, he did have conditions in his favour - not to mention the
fallibility of the Enland batsmen.
Meanwhile I see that India preparing a very spin-friendly pitch for the first Test against South Africa - while understandable - didn't turn out
so well. Perhaps they underestimated the quality of Harmer and Maharaj.
I don't think Head's promotion has anything to do with Khawaja because Australia opened with Weatherald and Labuschagne in I1.
So Smith promoted Head in I2 as a tactical move to unsettle England with aggressive batting and knock off some 50 odd runs of the 205 target to
make it easy for Australia to chase.
On 21/11/2025 20:32, alvey wrote:
<snip>
The TMS comms are 100% correct. Boland bowled *very* badly and,
barring another outbreak of FFBS (Fragile Fast Bowler Syndrome) or a
2nd inning miracle, Bolo may well be playing his last Test. For
Pomland, Stokes got the figures, but *all* of their quicks were
terrific. Faster & more accurate than ours, the only Oz batter who
looked even remotely comfortable against the three quicks was Green.
So, after all of one day, I'm tipping, and possibly betting, on the
poms to take the series if I can get acceptable odds.
I hope you didn't get as far as placing that bet!
What a monumental cock-up by the England batsmen. And a brilliant innings by Travis Head
of course.
John Hall wrote:
On 21/11/2025 20:32, alvey wrote:
<snip>
The TMS comms are 100% correct. Boland bowled *very* badly and,
barring another outbreak of FFBS (Fragile Fast Bowler Syndrome) or a
2nd inning miracle, Bolo may well be playing his last Test. For
Pomland, Stokes got the figures, but *all* of their quicks were
terrific. Faster & more accurate than ours, the only Oz batter who
looked even remotely comfortable against the three quicks was Green.
So, after all of one day, I'm tipping, and possibly betting, on the
poms to take the series if I can get acceptable odds.
I hope you didn't get as far as placing that bet!
Fortunately, no.
What a monumental cock-up by the England batsmen. And a brilliant
innings by Travis Head of course.
That 4th innings was surreal. Did the poms celebrate too hard on night
One? Were the bowlers all drugged? They all looked distracted and
knackered with as much life in them as a cemetery.
Given the state of the pitch, the quality of the bowlers and the
happenings of the previous 10 hours, it was possibly the best Test
innings I've seen in Oz(a). How he didn't get MotM can only be explained
it being selected by the NSW enriched Fox comms.
Anyhoo, where to for the series now? Stuffed if I know.
alvey
(a) "Test" innings specified as Sobers 254 for the Rotw in 1970/71 still
my pick for Best Innings.
On 22/11/2025 20:52, alvey wrote:
John Hall wrote:
On 21/11/2025 20:32, alvey wrote:
<snip>
The TMS comms are 100% correct. Boland bowled *very* badly and,
barring another outbreak of FFBS (Fragile Fast Bowler Syndrome) or a
2nd inning miracle, Bolo may well be playing his last Test. For
Pomland, Stokes got the figures, but *all* of their quicks were
terrific. Faster & more accurate than ours, the only Oz batter who
looked even remotely comfortable against the three quicks was Green.
So, after all of one day, I'm tipping, and possibly betting, on the
poms to take the series if I can get acceptable odds.
I hope you didn't get as far as placing that bet!
Fortunately, no.
What a monumental cock-up by the England batsmen. And a brilliant
innings by Travis Head of course.
That 4th innings was surreal. Did the poms celebrate too hard on night
One? Were the bowlers all drugged? They all looked distracted and
knackered with as much life in them as a cemetery.
I suppose it's never easy for the bowlers when a batsman comes at them
all guns blazing. I also wonder if the pitch had eased a bit, given that Atkinson and Carse were able to put on some useful runs.
-aHead was fantastic.
Given the state of the pitch, the quality of the bowlers and the
happenings of the previous 10 hours, it was possibly the best Test
innings I've seen in Oz(a). How he didn't get MotM can only be
explained it being selected by the NSW enriched Fox comms.
I didn't leave the TV on for the presentations, but from what you say I assume that Starc must have won MotM. I agree with you that it should
have been Head.
Anyhoo, where to for the series now? Stuffed if I know.
I fear the worst (from an England POV).
alvey
(a) "Test" innings specified as Sobers 254 for the Rotw in 1970/71
still my pick for Best Innings.
That must have been a phenomonal innings. But as England toures in
1970-1 - and actually wone the series, I think it must have been the following year.
On 11/22/2025 2:31 AM, John Hall wrote:
On 22/11/2025 08:59, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
On 11/21/2025 2:53 AM, John Hall wrote:
Wow! It was quite a day, which England seem to have emerged from with >>>> a slight advantage.
Not being willing to give up on my beauty sleep, I only saw the final >>>> session - though I shall be watching the hour's highlights package
later -a but that packed in more incident than many full days, with
eight wickets falling. Given the pitch, I suppose it's not surprising >>>> that two bowlers were the dominant figures of the day: Starc and
Stokes. (The other England bowlers were also good. Not yet having
seen the England innings, I can't comment on the other Aussie bowlers.) >>>>
Does anyone know why play ended at about eight minutes to the hour?
With the over rate having been very slow all day and the extra half-
hour being taken, I'd expected the full half-hour's play rather than
just 22 minutes. There was still bright sunshine, though there were
long shadows across the pitch, but they don't normally go off for thise. >>>>
In spite of the cost of TNT Sports, their coverage still has adverts, >>>> though at least it's only when a wicket falls or there's another
break in play rather than between overs.
Promoting Travis Head to open in I2 was a brilliant move which worked
like a charm.
It was. Khawaja's stiff back may have been a blessing in disguise for
Australia, as I doubt that Head would have opened had he been fit.
I don't think Head's promotion has anything to do with Khawaja because >Australia opened with Weatherald and Labuschagne in I1.
On 22/11/2025 11:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
I don't think Head's promotion has anything to do with Khawaja because
Australia opened with Weatherald and Labuschagne in I1.
Khawaja didn't open in the first innings because he'd been off the field towards the end of the England innings becauseof his bad back, and so
wasn't allowed to bat until he had "-userved his time".
So Smith promoted Head in I2 as a tactical move to unsettle England
with aggressive batting and knock off some 50 odd runs of the 205
target to make it easy for Australia to chase.
I agree that the choice of Head rather than some other stand-in opener
was for the reason you suggest, but I'm not sure it would have happened
had Khawaja been fully fit.
On 22/11/2025 20:52, alvey wrote:
-aHead was fantastic.
Given the state of the pitch, the quality of the bowlers and the
happenings of the previous 10 hours, it was possibly the best Test
innings I've seen in Oz(a). How he didn't get MotM can only be
explained it being selected by the NSW enriched Fox comms.
I didn't leave the TV on for the presentations, but from what you say I assume that Starc must have won MotM. I agree with you that it should
have been Head.
On 11/22/2025 10:26 AM, John Hall wrote:
On 22/11/2025 11:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
I don't think Head's promotion has anything to do with Khawaja because
Australia opened with Weatherald and Labuschagne in I1.
Khawaja didn't open in the first innings because he'd been off the field
towards the end of the England innings becauseof his bad back, and so
wasn't allowed to bat until he had "userved his time".
Agreed, but I thought he was fit to open for I2 but still Smith promoted >Head ahead of Khawaja.
Khawaja couldn't open in the first innings because he'd been off the
field with back spasms
On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 22:50:05 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2025 10:26 AM, John Hall wrote:
On 22/11/2025 11:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
I don't think Head's promotion has anything to do with Khawaja because >>>> Australia opened with Weatherald and Labuschagne in I1.
Khawaja didn't open in the first innings because he'd been off the field >>> towards the end of the England innings becauseof his bad back, and so
wasn't allowed to bat until he had "-userved his time".
Agreed, but I thought he was fit to open for I2 but still Smith promoted
Head ahead of Khawaja.
he'd been off the field with more back problems
wasn't allowed to open
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:51:02 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,735 |