Can England bring back the ashes with only one Tyke selected? I don't think so.

It will be struggle, and its the wrong tyke. ! Bresnan isnt a match winner at test level. I'd rather have seedn Ajmal Shahzad or Adil.
But India have just beaten them !

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-64

Current location (optional) Wirral

Could be sackcloth and ashes before it's all ower
Dan.ix.3.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

Call me 'old-fashioned' but I have always felt that the only players that should be entitled to play for a country are those that were actually born in the country that they wish to represent.

Develop our own born and bred talent instead of 'imports'!

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1959 - 66

Current location (optional) Embsay

Agree with all that - except I'd remove the "r" from the operative qualification.

Never could understand why supporters of KRLFC got so excited at going to Wembley with a stash of Foreigners (Welsh) players.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

On considering this topic ,I can trace my lack of interest in the County Championship to the time they [The Committee] dropped the qualification to play for Yorkshire requiring the person to have been born in the County.I think Michael Parkinson made his wife return to Yorkshire to give birth so that his children at least qualified.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 43-46

Current location (optional) Tasmania

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1947-51

Current location (optional) Auckland NZ

I must just say how pleasant it is to follow the Test match on Guardian OBO and then go to one of the bars frequented by Aussie ex-pats and asking if anyone knew the scores. If they didn’t I would tell them- and preen.
Let's hope it lasts- somehow I think it will.

We won! We bloody won!! 0-1 to England. Don Bradman! Richie Benaud! Warwick Armstrong! Ned Kelly! and the rest of you convicts ! Do you hear. England won! We marmalised yuh! get out of thet! You can't, can you?

Hang on there, Richie Benaud is South African

Richard "Richie" Benaud OBE (pronounced /ˈbɛnoʊ/) (born October 6, 1930, in Penrith, New South Wales) is a former Australian cricketer who, since his retirement from international cricket in 1964, has become a highly regarded commentator on the game

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1947-51

Current location (optional) Auckland NZ

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 55-60

Current location (optional) Harrogate

OK So we were beaten. I take it like a true Englishman, after all we are used to it now. That makes it one all. Game on. If we cant have the Ashes we must make do with the sackcloth.

The trouble with any kind of triumphalism is that there is always tomorrow.

One of the benefits of losing the third Test is that there are two more to play. There's always tomorrow.

I like the way the Aussie newspapers refer to the South African-born Jonathan Trott (and same with Strauss and Pieterson). Have they forgotten a certain Australian opening batsman called Keppler Wessels.

Given England's superiority in all aspects of the game during this series, one can be forgiven for musing that they threw the last test (3rd), to keep the series alive.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

..... and to embarass me!!

Tomorrow I am meeting a cruise ship in Auckland to pick up some very old friends from my early days in Australia. We used to play in the same cricket team in Geelong ( Trevor Pickles country!). Do you think the subject of the Ashes will come up? You betcha and I can't wait! Cheers.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1947-51

Current location (optional) Auckland NZ

Not wishing to sound triumphalist but I will just say that that was fairly comprehensive. We should now look to make it 2-1.
Can anyone tell me what a 'drop-in' pitch is?

Isn't it already 2-1.

Drop-in = made to order?

Yes Chris it is and just a draw would mean a won series, at 2-1. I would be happier with 3-1 of course but a good hard fought draw would be nearly as satisfying and am I alone in thinking the Aussies are not really as bad as that but, on the day, we were exceptionally good at everything. Nice to see a Yorkshireman playing an important role , too.
Thanks for the information also. I fail to see the connection between drop-in and made to order though. Is this another Australian euphemism?
It is good to see Ponting being found wanting. He was and will always remain a great batsman but as a captain, no. Anyone could captain a side that opened with Hayden and Langer and then Ponting at number 3 with Adam Gilchrist still to bat, and then open bowling with Mcgrath and as he tires toss the ball to Warne. What is there to captain? My granny could win tests with that side.

I didn't realise your granny was Australian / South African !!

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1950-55

Current location (optional) KEIGHLEY

I haven't studied the Australian 1st Innings card to be sure of the following - but the commentators on ITV4 stated that every wicket was out "caught".

That speaks volumes for the England fielding side - on top of their game and their opponents.

As for the Ozzie batsmen? Eventually they would all get out sometime somehow - but perhaps they hadn't sussed out what the England attack was up to,and if they did, they could not counter - and so they all fell quicktime.

And therein lies the root of the victory.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

Yes Terry all caught but Prior took six of the catches.

Australia are at present not a good side compared with the teams with Hayden,Langer,Warne,the Waughs and Ponting has had a tough task, not only with his poor run of batting but captaining a side where there's no "big" players.The English bowlers put it in the right place on the first day of the last test, but the ball did move, but when England batted either the conditions or the pitch changed, nor were the bowlers putting it "there"(apart from Siddle).Mitchel J had one really good spell in this series but has been too unpredictable.People have been quick to criticise Ponting (still the best Australian batsman since the war); but he's had his work cut out with this team and his own batting.A heavy burden, especially when Michael Clarke can't muster a run either.Australia will rebuild and it will be interesting to see the young side that comes to England in 2013. But I hope Ponting isn't sacked and his form comes back. preferably with a ton in the final test, including a couple of blocked 6's with no follow-through : a wonderful, wonderful batsman.But the best batsman in world cricket of late? A.B.de Villiers.

Some interesting points raised here.

But which war, alan? WW2 or the Falklands?

I saw Hutton, Compton, May, Bailey, Willie Watson et al in the '50s - batting with distinction on uncovered English wickets where "either the conditions or the pitch changed" by the meal break or the cloud change.

There were few Australian batting successes (Miller, Harvey excepted) in that (post Bradman) period of tests in England.

Hutton captained England to Ashes success in 1953 with no "big" players. His own performance was not exceptional - except where it came to astute captaincy - where Ponting has failed when deprived of "big" players.

(I think both England and Yorkshire captains,Ray Illingworth and Brian Close, took some pointers from Hutton's example - Close being the best Ashes captain England never had - to the Ozzies' relief.)

Covered wickets have changed the whole approach to test cricket technique and tactics. To date Oztralian teams have adjusted best. English teams (where perhaps conditions are more variable than in the southern hemisphere)are beginning to catch up. (All credit to the South African anglos for their accelerated progress.)

One of the main English sops to overseas' good fortune has been the easy access to (the unique) English cricketing conditions afforded to overseas players (many Oztralian)by English county teams eager to emulate the success of Yorkshire CCC throughout its illustrious history.

These then turn out for their national side on our/their home grounds and excel at the expense of young English players who have played 2 winters on Australian wickets and find Edgbaston and Old Trafford alien territory.

I don't think "the conditions or the pitch change" in Oztralia are as variable as in England when the wickets are covered. Talk this series about pitches prepared for a particular (Oztralian) team's success (Melbourne)are the first to me since Oztralian accusations that the Surrey groundsman prepared "sticky dogs" for Lock and Laker at The Oval.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

I think "Drop-in" pitches were first used when Packer started the World Series stuff in the 80's. Pitches were grown away from the venues, which were often Aussie Rules Ovals, and trucked in and the complete square on pallets was then laid in the space reserved for it .Isn't this how Wembley manages to replace its surface now , I read that it had already done it 11 times.

Current location (optional) Tasmania

Ah!

No Yorkshire bias then,Terry :)
Days of uncovered pitches? That old chestnut.
A captain can tell his bowlers where to put the ball, tell his batsmen to bat as they can, but we all know it's up to them to deliver.And we have the nature of the opposition's bowling.I believe Ponting, well, obviously I believe, has taken too much criticism.Perhaps his eye's going; I know he's received a few good balls to get him out.Statistics never tell the whole story.
Which war? oh dear........
Since Bradman.then!!

England Premier League soccer clubs renew their pitches regularly, Mike. Gone are the days of the penalty shot sticking in the mud just short of the goalie. I was in Newcastle a year ago July and made a visit to "The Toon's" ground. The turf had gone and the whole pitch had been resown and was under a light spray - no grass with just a month to go to the first kick-off.
The contribution of the Sports Turf Research Institute (St Ives Estate, Bingley) to excellence in playing surfaces is known around the world.
There is a very interesting web site at http://www.stri.co.uk/en/about-stri/the-story-of-stri/the-early-years-19291931/

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

An umpiring question to all you cricket buffs.Two batsmen at the crease, one is hitting the ball all over and rapidly homing in on a century , the other is a rabbit newly arrived at the crease. The rabbit is facing the bowling and hits a return catch to the bowler who takes the catch cleanly and legally but declines to ask for a decision and instead turns and breaks the wicket of the free scorer who has backed up and is out of his crease. The bowler asks for the runout decision. What is the umpires call?

Run out, I think.
The umpire can only give a decision as a result of an appeal.
How's that?

Appellants rarely specify an appeal to the umpires (who without Snicker etc are the ultimate arbiters) as follows "How's that for a catch / stumping/ run out etc?"

"How's that?" is a question put to the umpire as to whether in the umpire's opinion a batsman is out.

The umpire in this example, once asked to intervene, would decide that it wasn't cricket on the part of the bowler to ignore a true catch and try to determine himself which of the two batsmen should be removed. He would give the catch.

Further if he took the two incidents in sequence, he would have to decide on the catch before the run out.

The question also presupposes that the rabbit wouldn't already be half way to the pavilion before the umpire reached a decision.A rabbit is not necessarily ignorant of procedure and tactics. I should know.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

Not enough details, Arthur, leading to too many assumptions, Terry; however,believing that Arthur would follow the rule of never asking a question to which he did not already know the answer - what is it,Arthur?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 55-60

Current location (optional) Harrogate

I honestly don't know but I think if I were the umpire I would go with the catch but I really would like an honest true answer. I have asked this question of test match special and all the programmes that cover cricket without getting even an acknowledgement. I was once fielding next to Malcolm Doverner, who was bowling, he dropped a return catch and leapt upon the fallen ball grabbed it and ran out the following up batsman. Very quick thinking. It just raised the question in my mind at the time and I have looked for an answer many times.

The umpire should adjudicate if there is no agreement between the two teams as to whether a batsman is out or not - hence many batsmen walk without an appeal having to me made to the umpire.
If the "rabbit" walks and the bowler says he is not out, then the umpire should adjudicate (and give him out).
If the "rabbit" does not walk then both teams have agreed that he is not out so the umpire has no decision to make other than in relation to the appeal for the run out - OUT!
If someone can prove me wrong I'll buy Mike Boothroyd a pint.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1958-65

Current location (optional) Leeds

You are all wrong ! According to my wife ,being a strong supporter of the Australian team , if the two batsmen in question were batting for England they would be both out. .

Current location (optional) Tasmania

Let me see if I have got this right,Arthur. The bowler takes what he believes is a fair catch. He cannot,however,pre-judge the umpires decision on the matter for a number of reasons, so the bowler breaks the wicket of the non receiving batsman to be on the safe side! The bowler still cannot be sure of the decision over the "catch" so appeals the more likely run out. Which as far as I can see must be given.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 55-60

Current location (optional) Harrogate

I still maintain an appeal is an appeal to the umpire - to make a decision on the play he has seen.

No player can dictate to the umpire that he should make a decision on "this" but he can't on "that". If he's seen something, he has to take it into account. Once you appeal, you are in the hands of the umpire and he will decide on what he has seen and should take events into account sequentially.

How many times has a batsman, playing forward to spin bowling, been appealed for LBW and been given out caught for a pad/bat deflection the bowler did not see? The batsman may or may not have been plumb, but, if the umpire disagrees with the LBW appeal, he will still find for the catcher who may not be aware that he caught the ball off the bat. The umpire responds to the appeal and decides on all he has seen.Modern fielders would probably like to make an appeal "in the alternative".However, the game is not like the civil courts where the judge and jury make a decision on the case as pleaded - even if they can see another possibly more successful case, not pleaded.

The umpire decides on all that he has seen - not just an incident selected by a player. If he doesn't, he should - in the interests of "cricket".

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

OK Terry but in my scenario the umpires did not see if the catch was taken cleanly for whatever reason.......?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 55-60

Current location (optional) Harrogate

Good job the umpire wasn't Arthur. The decision would have been "bad light stopped play".

I think I may have spilled this once previously ....
I remember Jim Wilkinson (ex-Preef) returning to school (after a few years away) as a member of the teaching staff. He was appointed to umpire a Longsdon v Brigg housematch after school at Keighley CC, Lawkholme Lane.
We had a good opening attack - Alec Stone and Alec Bailey.
Alec Stone hit the pads and appealed "Owzat, Jim?"
Instant reply from Jim, "Not out - and less of the bloody 'Jim' !!"
I wanted to refer it. :-)

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

Hey, Pete Carr (The Ashes originator) - that one Tyke (I will call him Brezhnev) did some stuff in only 2 matches and maybe still more to come in this one.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

It doesn't become the English to gloat in victory but if you paste in the url below and watch, you won't feel so bad if you do.

Just paste in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3bDStlZxeI

But beware - scenes of nudity and some really NAUGHTY WORDS. You have been "warne" d.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

We batted well, we bowled well, we fielded well but at the end it was all quite easily done.

What do you call an Australian who can handle a bat ? A vet

What do you call an Australian with a bottle of Champagne in his hand ?? A waiter

What do you call an Australian cricketer with 100 beside his name ?? A bowler

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1950-55

Current location (optional) KEIGHLEY

There's more.........

Q. What do you call an Aussie who can hold a catch?
A. A fisherman


Q. Why can no one drink wine in Australia at the moment?
A. They don't have any openers


Q. What's the difference between Cinderella and the Aussies?
A. Cinderella knew when to leave the ball


Q. What do you call a world class Australian cricketer?
A. Retired


Guy walks into a brothel and says: "I'm a bit kinky, how much for TOTAL humiliation?"

The Madam replies: "$60"

"Wow what do I get for that?" the punter enquires.

"A baggy green cap and an Australian Cricket shirt" she replies.

They just had to come.............

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1952-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

"punter" being a good choice

Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust, bejabers !!

Better dig out your whites and boots Terry !!

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1950-55

Current location (optional) KEIGHLEY

Bejabers Derek, the Irish won !!

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 43-46

Current location (optional) Tasmania

I notice that the cheeky chappies at Ryanair have put the following on their website;
"Visit Ireland, home of Cricket"!

We're doing it again, 129-0, 176 all out!