Despite not being an expert that is a fair summary.I don't pretend to be a cricket expert but I think some of the doom and gloom in the English media has been a bit over the top. Australia have obviously been the better team but the main difference has been that their bowlers have been consistently good and they have Steve Smith. If you take away Smith's runs and replace them with what a 'normal' test batsman might achieve it gets a lot closer. The opening batsmen on both sides have been poor and the rest of the batting very patchy. England have had the Aussies in some tight spots but have not been good enough to make it count. Plus some loose fielding, especially in this test with dropped catches and that no-ball. Losing those two wickets at the start of the second innings was the clincher.
For me, as the expert who wrote off the Aussies a fortnight ago, that's the single biggest difference. As nice Mr Boycott says, defend the good balls, and when a loose one turns up, put it away. The problem with the Aussies is that they bowl on line, on length, relentlessly. Even Broad can be relied on for enough loose ones to keep the batsmen cheerful and the scoreboard ticking along. The Aussies seem to have a tight group of bowlers who just never stray, building pressure, denying runs, creating desperation. Did Cummins bowl a bad ball this summer?the main difference has been that their bowlers have been consistently good
At last, Mr Boycott is being honoured with a knighthood. (I don't want to be political but that may have been Teresa May's best ever decision as PM).
Well i do declare.I know in leap year we get an extra day,but here in Yorkshire we get an extra Knight also,how good is that.
Stokes's Headingley innings will be the only thing anyone will remember from this series. Must be very galling if you're an Aussie. Ho ho.Not getting too excited for Thursday .... Stokes' two innings this summer will be a nice memory though.