Although, normally when English cricket fans say this, we don't actually mean it literally. This time, however, (after losing the second Test to South Africa by an innings and 93 runs) it does seem to be more or less an accurate description. In the one-day series, a similar set of personnel trounced the South Africans, and more to the point, the England team just isn't this bad - even against the Australians the games were closer. Cricket teams just don't concede >500 runs twice in a row. Except that they have. It's worrying.
I think that there are two big problems here. The current set of English batsmen have not had enough Test innings. However, they have a hell of a lot of one day innings, and seem to think that they can play like that in a test match. Not gonna work. Secondly, changing your captain in the middle of a test series is not going to help at all. Perhaps the outgoing captain should have thought about this, and left earlier to give the new cap a chance of getting his team the way he wanted a while ago. That way, we would have a match, not a total rout. I fear for the rest of the series.
Now that is more like it, an excellent victory for the England team. Lets hope that they can keep up this level of intensity for the remaining two test matches. - Tsunami
Bah. We were lucky - the game went with the toss. That said, the batting on the first day was impressive, and the attack was much improved over Lord's. Now if only we could get some runs from our much-vaunted opening pair, a 2-1 win might be a possibility. Headingley next, with England at a definite advantage on a seamer-friendly pitch as Pollock won't be playing. SF lives close enough to Leeds that he'll be in the Northern Enclosure on at least one of the five days, and is looking forward to it.
A solid performace with both bat and ball to square the series at the Oval; the only real worry is Vaughan's continuing indifferent performance with the bat. 2-2 was probably the right score for the series; both sides exhibited powerful batting and weak (also inexperienced) attacks, with little to set them apart. The winter tours ought to be interesting -StuartFraser
Cricket is also a name for the a grass-hopper shaped insect. Are they related in any way?
No; the Cricket is called a Cricket because that is (roughly) the sound it makes when it chirps.
PaulPower is amazed that no-one has added to this page anything since the South Africa series. No mention of the fact that we've now won 10 of the last 11 Tests we've played, were finalists in the ICC Champions Trophy, and currently possess some of the best players in their field in the world? Shame! ;-)
StuartFraser is pretty much the only Wikizen interested. And he'll believe the hype when they beat South Africa, and not before. Right now England have two proven world-class performers (Vaughan and Thorpe), a variety of good ones, and a lot of potential.
It occurs to King DJ that complaining about losing the cricket is a great British tradition like talking about the weather. When the team actually wins nobody wants to talk about it anymore.
Well, the BBC TMS forums (which both myself and PaulPower frequent, although I've not been commenting since my logon was lost in the Hard Disk crash) somewhat disprove this. There's quite a lot of people wishing to comment on our likelihood or otherwise (definitely otherwise) of regaining the Ashes. --SF