Hi both Pawaqatsi and Inspades.
I will respond to both of you in this single message rather than submit two.
Inspades.
Depending on the amount you wagered on the series outcome, and if you followed my advice, you have lost on two already. Then you are better to take some profit than the chance of none at all.
Say you had played all three recommendations for $50 each. That's $150 staked with a possible $450 returned if Australia win the final test. A profit of $300.
From a personal stand point I am in the position to oppose Australia using betting exchanges which I am going to do. If you reside in North America, that option isn't really open to you so your course of action should be to wager on England to win and wager on the draw.
Your purpose in this is to limit your losses, although of course your profit would be decreased.
I will point out this though, England have a good record at the next venue (the Oval). Against Australia they have won 15 out of the last 33 matches played there between these countries with Australia winning just six and there being 12 draws.
Pawa,
Hi Buddy.
My take on the series is that there is very little between the teams. The first test was won by Australia through poor Batting by England and also the Poms dropping 7 catches.
The second test could have gone either way, yet England showed their inability to get the tail out cheaply. this has been an area of concern over the last few years.
The third test, the weather saved Australia as 71 overs were lost to the weather and England needed just one more wicket.
The fourth test was an empathetic win by England, although they did their best to throw it away. I don't know what it is about chasing small totals down in the last innings. Even the mighty Australians have struggled in recent times, losing a few tests in the process. England dominated nearly every session of play.
Only 18 months ago in the series down under, Australia needed 110 to win and were 91-7 before coming through. And let's not forget 1988 when Willis and Botham between them scuttled Australia all out for about 108 when they needed 123 to win.
I am in agreement with you that Australia have had some poor decisions against them. especially Martyn, but Warne has had a couple go his way when TV replays showed the batsman wasn't out. But the balance of poor umpiring has favoured England admittedly.
As for the substitution of fielders for bowlers, when Ponting was out, there was only one sub on the field for Simon Jones who was clearly injured as he did not participate in the remainder of the game and is a major doubt for the final test.
I have two points further on this matter.
1. Ponting should have been suspended for two games for the abuse and dissent is displayed and not just fined 75% of his match fee. Only recently Gangulay got a 2 games suspension for far less dissent.
2. All this bowlers getting substituted after bowling a spell was introduced into the game by none other Australia and then continued on by the West Indians. I remember, in the late 80's early 90's when Lillee finished his spell he would leave the field and sit in the hutch for 2 hours only to return fresh. And then Australia would substitute bowlers during the world cup in Australia (1987 i think the year was) with better standard of fielders giving them a real advantage in the limited over version of the game. That is why the law got changed saying a player may only leave the field due to injury or to freshen up, showered and clean kit. However, if his time exceeds 15 minutes away from the field, then he may not bowl again until he has been back on the field for the length of time he was away from it.
It is a tactic that is used by all Countries around the world and it is Ponting who is clutching at anything to divert the true problems that Australia are a aging team who are on the decline unless new blood is introduced. If Ponting doesn't like the fact that it goes on then he should address the whole of cricket and appologise for the tactics first used by his country men to seek an advantage and to say it should never have happened and that all results from those occasions that Australia have used it should be wiped from the record books and make a suggestion to all other captains that no one from now on bends the rules to gain an advantage. But that's not going to happen.
It has become part of the game for the last 27 years and will remain so until the ICC decide otherwise.
When was the last time that any Australian attack has been hit around the park for a series average of over 4 an over. And when McGrath was playing, England still went at over 4.3 an over in the third test.
Australia have it all to do to retain the ashes and they will come out fighting and show the tradition of Australian cricket of never going on the back foot (as the national emblem depicts). As for England, they will continue to attack, that is the nature of this team and that is what has got them this far in terms of world cricket in such a short time. They won't go out with the intention of playing not to lose, but events during the game may dictate otherwise.
The scoreline aside for one minute. This has been an excellent advertisement for cricket, and although it will be nice to win back the ashes, whatever the outcome, I've enjoyed every minute of it from both sides.
