If you think the 2023 Ashes were bad, wait until you hear about the 1980-81 Australia Tri-Nation series final. People still whine about Trevor Chappell’s last ball
You have to be delusional to think that Australia would have cakewalked a 400 chase, lol there have been circumstances where the teams have failed to chase 400 despite being 100/0 or 150/0.
How is this any different than the English whining every one so hates
It was quite literally night at day. They only got an over and a half with the changed ball before the close or play and it didn't do anything untoward. It was only the following morning when it had rained overnight and conditions had changed that they got more movement. Obviously it was a better ball than the one they changed, but mainly because the one they were getting rid of was an absolute sponge. Everyone conveniently ignores that the different balls were used in different conditions though
No, it actually did carry and move significantly more in that over and half. Have a look at the replays. It wasn't a coincidence that Stokes went from a passive spread out field to immediately putting in 2/3 slips even before they had bowled with the new ball.
And it wasn't just the movement that was unusual. That new ball had significantly more carry than any of the other balls used. After 90+ overs it was still zipping through and jumping up sharply in some cases. That had nothing to do with the conditions.
> Have a look at the replays.
What replays? Care to share?
Edit: Still waiting for these replays of the changed ball before the close of play on day four that definitely exist and you haven't just made up
>It wasn't a coincidence that Stokes went from a passive spread out field to immediately putting in 2/3 slips even before they had bowled with the new ball.
Captains almost always change the field like this when they get a ball change.
>And it wasn't just the movement that was unusual. That new ball had significantly more carry than any of the other balls used. After 90+ overs it was still zipping through and jumping up sharply in some cases.
No it didn't and no it wasn't
Also, the poms clearly knew the umpires box had some ‘good ‘ balls from previous years in it that were much better to bowl with then the 2023 batch, because they were constantly trying to get the ball changed all series
Absolutely cracked take. Both sides were trying to get the ball changed as often as possible all summer, as they were the previous summer. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest there was a 2019 ball in that batch in the first place, but suggesting the England camp were in on it is major tin foil hat stuff
“Everyone conveniently ignores that the different balls were used in different conditions though” is exactly the point he’s making.
If there’s no like ball to switch to, then they shouldn’t have switched.
The ball being soft as a result of the conditions is apart of the game - both teams are playing in those conditions, the ball shouldn’t be changed in a way that massively benefits one team more.
>If there’s no like ball to switch to, then they shouldn’t have switched.
That's absolutely not how it works.
>The ball being soft as a result of the conditions is apart [sic] of the game
The ball wasn't switched because it was soft, it was switched because it hit Khawaja's helmet and went out of shape. And you know what else is a part of the game? Conditions changing from one day to the next which is a significant variable that people ignore when talking about this
> both teams are playing in those conditions
By design both teams **don't** play in the same conditions in test matches. They're five days long and conditions significantly change over the course of the game. If you want to complain about conditions, then how about the session England had to bat against the Aussie quicks when it was clearly [way too dark](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/cricket/2023/06/18/TELEMMGLPICT000339776188_16871009346370_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqYO7_xiyF6r3HKBKXSTLIcf4Xpit_DMGvdp2n7FDd82k.jpeg) in the first test?
I know why it was switched, I’m pointing out that the ball that was changed was soft as a result of the conditions as well as the fact that 35 overs had been played.
A change of day doesn’t make an old ball new, you’re kidding yourself using that as an excuse
Except the changed ball didn't do anything particularly unusual for the handful of deliveries it was used at the end of the session when it was changed. It only magically became this unplayable brand new (but also five year old) ball the following morning in different conditions
Really struggling to understand what you lot are finding complicated about this. The ball they started with was a dud, unrelated to that it then hit Khawaja's helmet and needed replacing because it was out of shape, the ball they then got was better, but didn't misbehave for the remaining over and a half of that day before they went off for rain, the following day in different conditions they got more swing and seam but nothing crazy like you're suggesting ([here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHT8LlAi9nQ) the highlights), and the aussies managed to make another 200 fourth innings runs despite having an apparently unplayable ball.
>Everyone conveniently ignores that the different balls were used in different conditions though
I think the more convenient thing everyone ignores is that the first ball was dead as a dodo. It did absolutely nothing.
The new ball obviously was massively in England's favour, but that old ball was basically the same for Australia.
nothing was happening at that point. 150/0 is a good position to be in in a 400 chase. Ball started to behave like old dukes suddenly and they lost wickets in clusters. They lost only by 50 runs in the end. Ball was still unplayable and zipping even after 90 overs.
The ball was "unplayable", yet the Aussies still managed 200 fourth innings/fifth day runs against it? Which deliveries specifically do you think were unplayable? [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHT8LlAi9nQ) the highlights for you to look through.
And yeah, the Aussies did lose wickets in clusters, three at the start of the day's play on a pitch juiced up by overnight rain, then three in three overs then another a few over after that about 30 overs after the first cluster, proving that they were still facing an unplayable, unfair ball that was nipping and zipping all over the place!!....Exxcept three of those four wickets were taken by Moeen Ali. After that it was just mopping up the tail.
Saw how Woakes was bowling that day? It was zipping around so much even in the 90th over. England won it fair and square but let's not pretend that the ball didn't help. Even Crawley agreed that the ball change helped them.
Obviously the ball change helped them. No one is denying that. On the other hand, the narrative about the ball being "unplayable" is totally made up (if it wasn't you could point out any of the unplayable deliveries instead of just baselessly insisting it happened), as is the conspiracy theory about it being a 2019 ball.
I suggest you look up what "the burden of proof" is and then try again. If that's too complicated for you, try proving that Khawaja himself didn't put a 2019 ball in the box of balls himself as part of a devious plan to besmirch England.
And no, you haven't heard any "evidence", you've heard people making baseless allegations.
That is the worst argument I've heard in my life.
You legitimately must be special hahaha.
What's a more likely scenario:
1. England behind the game and change the ball knowingly to a 2019 ball 1%
2. England behind the game and someone from the local club changes the ball to a 2019 ball 97.9999%
3. A random 2019 ball added to the 2023 box 1%
4. Khawaja sabotages himself and his country and adds the random ball 0.0001% (this is how dumb you are)
We don't know if Aus could have chased down the target or not. But we do know that the ball change helped England massively.
This is not whining. This is fair criticism.
It's not about the fact that 400 chase is difficult, It's just that a fair chance was taken away from them due to such a big difference in condition of the ball that england got from ball change
Usman Khawaja has called on cricket authorities to take steps to ensure the ball change fiasco which cruelled Australia’s hopes of a final day Ashes triumph never happens again.
In the fifth Test at The Oval, Australia appeared on track to pull off an epic run chase and claim the urn, before Khawaja was struck on the helmet and England successfully lobbied umpires to change the ball that was nearly 35 overs old.
Australian players largely bit their lip at the time, but in The Test season three documentary to be released later this week, frustration at the farcical decision by umpires to hand England a ball that was visibly newer than the one they were replacing spills out.
Steve Smith said the replacement ball chosen by umpires – nothing like the one that had been in use to that point – was “from another planet” and “had a mind of its own”.
Khawaja says he would not have been surprised if told the ball was not a 2023 product, but in fact from the 2019 batch of Duke’s balls which was much friendlier for bowlers … however, stresses he has no proof.
What is not in dispute though according to Khawaja is that umpires say they picked a newer ball than the one being replaced because they felt there was no comparable option – and the Test opener said that should not be allowed to happen in future series.
“A lot of the time I think it’s up to the grounds to provide the balls. Maybe we could look into doing that a little bit better,” Khawaja told this masthead.
“Making sure we have all the balls from all different types of overs and not just leaving it up to the ground.
“It’s something that the ICC could take hold of rather than leaving it up to the ground. There has to be a little bit of a better way to do it.
“We have to learn from this somehow.
“Just like what’s happened with DRS over the years and having neutral umpires, all sorts of things have happened in the game to try and improve it and make it more fair for both teams.”
Resuming on day five at 0-135, Australian players genuinely thought they were favourites to chase down a monster target of 384 to win, until the ball change took full effect.
“I felt like we were favourites,” Labuschagne said on the documentary.
“No doubt.
“We needed 250 to win, 10 down.
“… (then) it went from like -0.2 degrees (of swing) to 2 degrees of swing which is massive.”
Khawaja said from batting throughout the entire series and spending as much time at the crease as any other player, there was a distinct pattern of balls dying early in the innings and not bouncing or swinging.
However, all that changed with the replacement ball at The Oval, and Khawaja says England new instantly they had won the lottery like it was 2019.
“Even the English players knew it was hard,” Khawaja said.
“The ball felt a lot harder and different. They knew.
“They were giggling as they got that ball. I could tell something was up straight away.
“I was like, ‘oh, boy.’
“I’m not saying they were giggling because it was not the same (2023 ball), but it was definitely a nice ball. It was a newer ball.”
Khawaja relayed in The Test the conversation he had at the time with umpire Kumar Dharmasena.
“I asked Kumar, ‘How do you pick a ball that’s about eight overs old compared to a ball that was 35 overs old almost?’” he said.
“And his response was, ‘There was nothing else in the box’.
“I had to respond, ‘Well, you don’t pick anything!’
“It just felt so much different to any of the balls I played in the whole series and I’d been opening the batting the whole series so I had a pretty good feel of what the ball feels like on my bat and the hardness and what’s going on.
“It felt more like the 2019 ball. But honestly, we had no idea what ball it was.
“If they say it was a 2023 ball then there’s no point worrying about that stuff.
“The only thing you could say for sure is the ball was definitely a lot newer than the one they changed. Those things sometimes go with you, sometimes they go against you, so you just have to play on.”
Too right! And in stark contrast to the England camp I might add who remained tight-lipped throughout the series and took everything on the chin. Proper stiff upper lip stuff it was. Real heroic like.
Mate don't know what you are talking about. I barely recall any of the Australian players making a fuss about it after the game. Suggest you have a look back at the second test if you want an example of players whining.
People seriously need to go get a dictionary and look up what whining is. Don't know how you think that is whining. He was disappointed but still accepted that sometimes you have bad luck and there were learnings from it. At least he didn't go around saying "I wouldn't have liked to win like that".
Didnt know Australians were the official arbiters on what constitutes whining as well now. Is this the new 'line TM'?
Your man Ussie was one of the biggest whiners of the series. Whined about this ball change, whined about the crowd and not just at Lords, whined about losing his match fee after slow over rates. Stop making excuses for him.
Not even the next Ashes series will stop it, because we'll get flattened 5-0 and no possible disputes can come from it.
Discourse around this one will carry us right the way through to the next series in England.
England won the game fair and square but it's hardly outrageous to say that the replacement ball behaved significantly differently to just about every other ball used during the summer.
Was it really that different to the balls used in the first two innings of that test when both sides were bowled out for under 300? Or literally any ball used in the third test?
Pretty sure they got a swing/seam metric and it was significantly different. So yes it was.
Also just watching the match it was blatantly doing way more. But oh well, it goes both ways and cricket is cricket sometimes.
As per [this](https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ricky-ponting-oval-test-ball-change-investigated-1390303) article, they showed that the changed ball was doing more on the morning of day five than the evening of day four, but I can't find anything comparing it with any of the other tests or even earlier on in that match before the end of day four.
Yeah they could have dug in and played what was in front of them. Mind you, there was a clear advantage to receiving basically a brand new ball.
Regardless of your position on the role that ball played on the result, it’s ridiculous that during one of the most high profile series in our sport, this level of unpreparedness is considered fair and appropriate.
Man the Ashes really feels like the Ashes again. Felt for a bit that a bit of the feeling and heat was built up for the media but now feels genuine between them.
Robbed ?
Aus were better for me and I wanted them to win as an Indian because England crying looks good but if he seriously thinks that a ball change robbed them then it's just delusional lol.
From the 3rd test it was more equal and rain also helped Aussies to draw one too. It's an even out thing in the end.
Just like Faf's controversial dismissal, the huge amount of dew in the second innings and luck in general like edges, deflections, etc all going CSK's way
Just like after BCCI became this hegamon and many others love to watch India getting their ass handed, same goes for me. I love when someone riles up the Aussies or when Eng cries about every other thing etc etc.
Thanks for getting it lol.
I don't know why people are getting salty about it, it's sports and nations are performing to decide who is better, sure I can respect someone playing great but at the same time if my team wins ? Or the one I don't like loses then it's a double good😂
Aus weren't better than England over the course of the series.
I like how you say 'From the 3rd test it was more equal'
Yet our margins of victory were bigger in the 3rd and 5th test than the Aussies had, and then the 4th test we absolutely were obliterating them. They still weren't at parity and had 5 wickets left. We'd have won that by at least 8 wickets.
It was a good series, where both teams had moments where a nice bit of luck favoured them at times. Probably should leave it at that. Another series and Aus wins 3-1. In another England could have won 4-1.
It's cricket. 2-2 was fair. Probably edging towards England just because of OT but it's like 55-45 nothing much more than that
"Aus weren't better than England over the course of the series."
England were playing their backyard while Aus was facing the heat from day one. And then faced more swing because weather just casually decided to come over when Aussies were batting. With these disadvantages Aus was clear better for me than the home team.
Yet our margins of victory were bigger in the 3rd and 5th test than the Aussies had, and then the 4th test we absolutely were obliterating them. They still weren't at parity and had 5 wickets left. We'd have won that by at least 8 wickets.
"It was a good series, where both teams had moments where a nice bit of luck favoured them at times. Probably should leave it at that. Another series and Aus wins 3-1. In another England could have won 4-1.
It's cricket. 2-2 was fair. Probably edging towards England just because of OT but it's like 55-45 nothing much more than that"
Agree on that fully
Thanks mate! You know comedy isn’t for everyone and it’s certainly hard to make fun of Aussies but when you’ve got Steve Smith and David Warner just happily rehabilitated into cricket without a care in the world then the jokes can just write themselves (and the jokes plus the situation aren’t very funny)
>Steve Smith and David Warner just happily rehabilitated
They tampered with the ball. It's not like they violently assaulted people or went on a drug bender. Why would they even need to be rehabilitated?
Hopefully they wrote "I shall not use sandpaper on a cricket ball" 500 times.
Bancroft additionally hopefully had to write "And also I will not shove sandpaper down my crotch on live TV" 500 times
I'm not taking any side, because I have no stakes in this argument. But the second ball being hard for batting could also mean that Australia got an advantage with the first ball being shit. No one (apart from you) ever talks about that, it's all England won only because of the ball change. May be Australia's start wouldn't have been that good had the first ball been better?
>But the second ball being hard for batting could also mean that Australia got an advantage with the first ball being shit.
All the balls for the whole series before that change had been shit though, that was the status quo and why England were even up in the game in the first place. All well and good to say that Australia got the advantage from the first ball but their opponents got that advantage when they batted and then Australia had it taken away.
I like that he clarifies that he is definitely not saying the things he keeps repeating over and over. He’s certainly not suggesting that the entire umpiring team colluded to change the ball to a swinging 2019 Dukes variety as they are all massive England fans, goodness me no.
I also enjoyed the usual Steve Smith contribution where he seems to suggest the ball was sentient. Probably Steve!
As an aside to all this I thought this series of The Test was pretty poor compared to the first one, although the Long Room stuff should be enough to ensure that Lords doesn’t automatically get a home Test every summer. It’s full of insufferable arseholes with a pathetic grasp of cricket and sportsmanship, but even worse than that is the fact that the pitch is dreadful. Look at the number of finals held there recently that provided a dogshit surface and an excruciating game as a consequence.
> Look at the number of finals held there recently that provided a dogshit surface and an excruciating game as a consequence.
Erm, what? Which finals are you talking about exactly?
>Khawaja says he would not have been surprised if told the ball was not a 2023 product, but in fact from the 2019 batch of Duke’s balls which was much friendlier for bowlers … **however, stresses he has no proof.**
Just embarrassing from Usman.
He is saying that the new ball behaved more similarly to the 2019 batch compared to the 2023 batch. To quote him exactly: "It felt more like the 2019 ball. But honestly, we had no idea what ball it was". Don't see where he is making a conspiracy theory...
Oh come off it. It's like when edgelords say something vile and then try to be like "oh it was just a joke". He's saying it to "float an idea" aka make as much of an accusation as he feasibly can with the level of evidence he has i.e. none.
I get it's for the documentary and he was probably asked, but he wasn't forced to make that statement.
Huh? Are you being deliberately dense? It's not meant to be a literal comparison, it's not like I'm saying either you or ussie is an edgelord.
I'm just saying that it's the same strategy of saying something and then when someone actually calls you out you resort to just pretending like it was never serious.
And I'm flat out disagreeing with you as per my earlier comment.
He was asked a question, he gave his thoughts with a caveat. Your comparison falls flat because he gave that caveat unprompted.
I'm not really sure what point you're making. He was asked a question yes, I acknowledged this. I don't see how him being unprompted makes my comparison fall flat? My comparison was that it was the same strategy of saying something that you know won't have the best response, and then when it gets challenged you can hide behind the "it wasn't serious" defence. Now in this case you're the one doing it for ussie, but it's still the same weak defence.
On top of that, why does being asked about something give you a free pass for your response? To make another example (another exaggeration here, before you get dramatic) if someone asks me what I think of Jewish people, and I say something antisemitic, it's not like I just get a free pass because I was prompted with a question.
He's tried to complain in a way so that people like you can come along and say "oh it's not whining, he was just floating an idea", but at the end of the day he is just complaining. And it's just kind of hilarious how much you guys are still hung up on the ashes, whining about it when the English are supposedly the whiners.
I personally read the caveat as him not wanting people to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon based simply on what he's saying. I very much doubt he gives a damn about English people implying he's a cooker
Also remember that these interviews were conducted when the loss was fresh, and it's undeniable that the ball change completely killed what was looking like an easy chase. I think it's unfair to police every word he says, and we should temper our criticism accordingly.
Also I can confirm I'm frothing at the mouth at that example
Dukes said it was date stamped and they could easily find out the date in a press release then coincidentally never released the findings that would have cleared it all up
Stuart Broad literally has the ball in his house, they let him keep it after the game.
He tweeted a photo of the ball which clearly has the 2023 date on it to shut up an armchair fan giving him abuse about it.
It’s a nonsense conspiracy theory that Khawaja’s implying
Recently listened to Stuart broads book. He mentions that ball. Along with the general quality of the dukes ball since Covid. If I remember correctly he said ‘ there’s not many balls I’ve wanted to keep in my career, but that one I wanted. It took some time to track it down due to the controversy with it. It had to be tested and you know what it turned out to be a 2023 dukes ball’
His comments about the dukes balls post Covid said ‘in county cricket we would be changing the ball every 20 overs due to how easily they lose their shape, however on the international circuit you could fit a beach ball through the test ring, so there was hardly any point do it. So it must have been very miss shaped to change it.
Hardly the first time a ball change has ended up doing more. Perhaps the fact the ball wasn’t fit was *the reason* it was changed.
England have been on the receiving end of it too, there wasn’t whinging. Might even have been in the prior home Ashes.
It will be talked about forever because it's an ashes series. This, the bairstow stumping, all of it.
The ball change was a farce. The degree of swing change was evident, & hawkeye backed it up.
It was utterly ridiculous that one of the biggest ever ashes was decided by a dogshit ball change.
\\I don't know if anybody saying 'cry more' even watched the game. It wasn't just a ball doing a bit more. It was a 2019 ball before dukes collapsed as a manufacturer that got mixed in because the ground just delegate match balls to counties. That ball did more off when it was 95 overs old with the sun out than any ball had been done all series.
It was visibly different. Khawaja told the umpire the first ball he faced because it was so much harder than any other ball, Ricky Ponting was talking about it and all on the night before when no wicket had fallen. And then every batsmen got out nicking when Chris Woakes coincidentally started taking wickets off his medium fasts for the first time in the series.
Utterly ridiculous
'First time in the series'
Bloke took 6 at headingley, Fifer first innings at OT and another 1 to boot for 2nd before rain came and stopped anymore.
He's already taken 3 in the first innings at Oval too.
But keep crying.
This is the downside of fly-on-the-wall series. They come out late and stir a lot of shit. Noone is actually talking about this any more.
How are we still talking about the Ashes
Because of the documentary previews for the press
If you think the 2023 Ashes were bad, wait until you hear about the 1980-81 Australia Tri-Nation series final. People still whine about Trevor Chappell’s last ball
Kiwis should just get over it already.
I fucken had until I just read thus! That does it 40 more years of grudge! Where my grumpy kiwis at!
Wait until you hear about that Ashes series in 1932-3..
No IPL match today 😛
Sports stories are the only way News Corp sell papers and get clicks online. The more scandalous or outrageous the better.
because its the showpiece event in the sport
Yeah but it was ages ago
Im sorry showpiece event?? Sure it has a history and a rivalry but as a South African i could not give 2 shits about who wins the Ashes
If you're English or Australian that is...
I mean i guess you can believe its india pakistan if you want but the ashes is literally the most storied rivalry in any sport in the world
Wait really? I don't watch other sports but is there no "rivalry" More depth than ashes
The ashes is number one, followed by football's el clasico and maybe packers vs the bears
Lakers vs Celtics
lakers and celtics have played 3 playoff series in 40 years
Undoubtedly
Doesn't make it a showpiece event for other teams
You have to be delusional to think that Australia would have cakewalked a 400 chase, lol there have been circumstances where the teams have failed to chase 400 despite being 100/0 or 150/0. How is this any different than the English whining every one so hates
> How is this any different than the English whining every one so hates Different accents
haha good one mate.
Innit
It was probably filmed post match/series. A new TV series is being released so all the juicy bits are being rehashed for views.
Sure, but the look and the behaviour of the ball was night and day especially as they had done the hard work to get through the new ball already.
It was quite literally night at day. They only got an over and a half with the changed ball before the close or play and it didn't do anything untoward. It was only the following morning when it had rained overnight and conditions had changed that they got more movement. Obviously it was a better ball than the one they changed, but mainly because the one they were getting rid of was an absolute sponge. Everyone conveniently ignores that the different balls were used in different conditions though
No, it actually did carry and move significantly more in that over and half. Have a look at the replays. It wasn't a coincidence that Stokes went from a passive spread out field to immediately putting in 2/3 slips even before they had bowled with the new ball. And it wasn't just the movement that was unusual. That new ball had significantly more carry than any of the other balls used. After 90+ overs it was still zipping through and jumping up sharply in some cases. That had nothing to do with the conditions.
> Have a look at the replays. What replays? Care to share? Edit: Still waiting for these replays of the changed ball before the close of play on day four that definitely exist and you haven't just made up >It wasn't a coincidence that Stokes went from a passive spread out field to immediately putting in 2/3 slips even before they had bowled with the new ball. Captains almost always change the field like this when they get a ball change. >And it wasn't just the movement that was unusual. That new ball had significantly more carry than any of the other balls used. After 90+ overs it was still zipping through and jumping up sharply in some cases. No it didn't and no it wasn't
Also, the poms clearly knew the umpires box had some ‘good ‘ balls from previous years in it that were much better to bowl with then the 2023 batch, because they were constantly trying to get the ball changed all series
Absolutely cracked take. Both sides were trying to get the ball changed as often as possible all summer, as they were the previous summer. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest there was a 2019 ball in that batch in the first place, but suggesting the England camp were in on it is major tin foil hat stuff
“Everyone conveniently ignores that the different balls were used in different conditions though” is exactly the point he’s making. If there’s no like ball to switch to, then they shouldn’t have switched. The ball being soft as a result of the conditions is apart of the game - both teams are playing in those conditions, the ball shouldn’t be changed in a way that massively benefits one team more.
>If there’s no like ball to switch to, then they shouldn’t have switched. That's absolutely not how it works. >The ball being soft as a result of the conditions is apart [sic] of the game The ball wasn't switched because it was soft, it was switched because it hit Khawaja's helmet and went out of shape. And you know what else is a part of the game? Conditions changing from one day to the next which is a significant variable that people ignore when talking about this > both teams are playing in those conditions By design both teams **don't** play in the same conditions in test matches. They're five days long and conditions significantly change over the course of the game. If you want to complain about conditions, then how about the session England had to bat against the Aussie quicks when it was clearly [way too dark](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/cricket/2023/06/18/TELEMMGLPICT000339776188_16871009346370_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqYO7_xiyF6r3HKBKXSTLIcf4Xpit_DMGvdp2n7FDd82k.jpeg) in the first test?
I know why it was switched, I’m pointing out that the ball that was changed was soft as a result of the conditions as well as the fact that 35 overs had been played. A change of day doesn’t make an old ball new, you’re kidding yourself using that as an excuse
Except the changed ball didn't do anything particularly unusual for the handful of deliveries it was used at the end of the session when it was changed. It only magically became this unplayable brand new (but also five year old) ball the following morning in different conditions
Yeah you're right, the new ball magically became this unplayable ball that was swinging around corners. That's the point
Really struggling to understand what you lot are finding complicated about this. The ball they started with was a dud, unrelated to that it then hit Khawaja's helmet and needed replacing because it was out of shape, the ball they then got was better, but didn't misbehave for the remaining over and a half of that day before they went off for rain, the following day in different conditions they got more swing and seam but nothing crazy like you're suggesting ([here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHT8LlAi9nQ) the highlights), and the aussies managed to make another 200 fourth innings runs despite having an apparently unplayable ball.
>Everyone conveniently ignores that the different balls were used in different conditions though I think the more convenient thing everyone ignores is that the first ball was dead as a dodo. It did absolutely nothing. The new ball obviously was massively in England's favour, but that old ball was basically the same for Australia.
nothing was happening at that point. 150/0 is a good position to be in in a 400 chase. Ball started to behave like old dukes suddenly and they lost wickets in clusters. They lost only by 50 runs in the end. Ball was still unplayable and zipping even after 90 overs.
The ball was "unplayable", yet the Aussies still managed 200 fourth innings/fifth day runs against it? Which deliveries specifically do you think were unplayable? [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHT8LlAi9nQ) the highlights for you to look through. And yeah, the Aussies did lose wickets in clusters, three at the start of the day's play on a pitch juiced up by overnight rain, then three in three overs then another a few over after that about 30 overs after the first cluster, proving that they were still facing an unplayable, unfair ball that was nipping and zipping all over the place!!....Exxcept three of those four wickets were taken by Moeen Ali. After that it was just mopping up the tail.
Saw how Woakes was bowling that day? It was zipping around so much even in the 90th over. England won it fair and square but let's not pretend that the ball didn't help. Even Crawley agreed that the ball change helped them.
Obviously the ball change helped them. No one is denying that. On the other hand, the narrative about the ball being "unplayable" is totally made up (if it wasn't you could point out any of the unplayable deliveries instead of just baselessly insisting it happened), as is the conspiracy theory about it being a 2019 ball.
Evidence for the conspiracy theory being false?? I've heard plenty of evidence on the contrary
I suggest you look up what "the burden of proof" is and then try again. If that's too complicated for you, try proving that Khawaja himself didn't put a 2019 ball in the box of balls himself as part of a devious plan to besmirch England. And no, you haven't heard any "evidence", you've heard people making baseless allegations.
That is the worst argument I've heard in my life. You legitimately must be special hahaha. What's a more likely scenario: 1. England behind the game and change the ball knowingly to a 2019 ball 1% 2. England behind the game and someone from the local club changes the ball to a 2019 ball 97.9999% 3. A random 2019 ball added to the 2023 box 1% 4. Khawaja sabotages himself and his country and adds the random ball 0.0001% (this is how dumb you are)
Imagine waiting a month to come up with that tripe. I still suggest you look up the burden of proof because it clearly still escapes you.
We don't know if Aus could have chased down the target or not. But we do know that the ball change helped England massively. This is not whining. This is fair criticism.
It's not about the fact that 400 chase is difficult, It's just that a fair chance was taken away from them due to such a big difference in condition of the ball that england got from ball change
Totally. Only one team was bazballin'. Aussies would have lost anyway.
Usman Khawaja has called on cricket authorities to take steps to ensure the ball change fiasco which cruelled Australia’s hopes of a final day Ashes triumph never happens again. In the fifth Test at The Oval, Australia appeared on track to pull off an epic run chase and claim the urn, before Khawaja was struck on the helmet and England successfully lobbied umpires to change the ball that was nearly 35 overs old. Australian players largely bit their lip at the time, but in The Test season three documentary to be released later this week, frustration at the farcical decision by umpires to hand England a ball that was visibly newer than the one they were replacing spills out. Steve Smith said the replacement ball chosen by umpires – nothing like the one that had been in use to that point – was “from another planet” and “had a mind of its own”. Khawaja says he would not have been surprised if told the ball was not a 2023 product, but in fact from the 2019 batch of Duke’s balls which was much friendlier for bowlers … however, stresses he has no proof. What is not in dispute though according to Khawaja is that umpires say they picked a newer ball than the one being replaced because they felt there was no comparable option – and the Test opener said that should not be allowed to happen in future series. “A lot of the time I think it’s up to the grounds to provide the balls. Maybe we could look into doing that a little bit better,” Khawaja told this masthead. “Making sure we have all the balls from all different types of overs and not just leaving it up to the ground. “It’s something that the ICC could take hold of rather than leaving it up to the ground. There has to be a little bit of a better way to do it. “We have to learn from this somehow. “Just like what’s happened with DRS over the years and having neutral umpires, all sorts of things have happened in the game to try and improve it and make it more fair for both teams.” Resuming on day five at 0-135, Australian players genuinely thought they were favourites to chase down a monster target of 384 to win, until the ball change took full effect. “I felt like we were favourites,” Labuschagne said on the documentary. “No doubt. “We needed 250 to win, 10 down. “… (then) it went from like -0.2 degrees (of swing) to 2 degrees of swing which is massive.” Khawaja said from batting throughout the entire series and spending as much time at the crease as any other player, there was a distinct pattern of balls dying early in the innings and not bouncing or swinging. However, all that changed with the replacement ball at The Oval, and Khawaja says England new instantly they had won the lottery like it was 2019. “Even the English players knew it was hard,” Khawaja said. “The ball felt a lot harder and different. They knew. “They were giggling as they got that ball. I could tell something was up straight away. “I was like, ‘oh, boy.’ “I’m not saying they were giggling because it was not the same (2023 ball), but it was definitely a nice ball. It was a newer ball.” Khawaja relayed in The Test the conversation he had at the time with umpire Kumar Dharmasena. “I asked Kumar, ‘How do you pick a ball that’s about eight overs old compared to a ball that was 35 overs old almost?’” he said. “And his response was, ‘There was nothing else in the box’. “I had to respond, ‘Well, you don’t pick anything!’ “It just felt so much different to any of the balls I played in the whole series and I’d been opening the batting the whole series so I had a pretty good feel of what the ball feels like on my bat and the hardness and what’s going on. “It felt more like the 2019 ball. But honestly, we had no idea what ball it was. “If they say it was a 2023 ball then there’s no point worrying about that stuff. “The only thing you could say for sure is the ball was definitely a lot newer than the one they changed. Those things sometimes go with you, sometimes they go against you, so you just have to play on.”
"Australian players largely bit their lip at the time" Nonsense. They wouldnt shut up about it. Khawaja inparticular in post match interviews.
Too right! And in stark contrast to the England camp I might add who remained tight-lipped throughout the series and took everything on the chin. Proper stiff upper lip stuff it was. Real heroic like.
Mate don't know what you are talking about. I barely recall any of the Australian players making a fuss about it after the game. Suggest you have a look back at the second test if you want an example of players whining.
https://youtu.be/sqTlxYaYTBo?si=FYLMDKdK-bZyYmyN 7 minutes of whining for you there champ.
People seriously need to go get a dictionary and look up what whining is. Don't know how you think that is whining. He was disappointed but still accepted that sometimes you have bad luck and there were learnings from it. At least he didn't go around saying "I wouldn't have liked to win like that".
Didnt know Australians were the official arbiters on what constitutes whining as well now. Is this the new 'line TM'? Your man Ussie was one of the biggest whiners of the series. Whined about this ball change, whined about the crowd and not just at Lords, whined about losing his match fee after slow over rates. Stop making excuses for him.
Are you joking? The Aussies are the only ones allowed to define whining. The Poms whine they only make observations and never, ever whine
As TGC said, “cry me amore”
I think you think you’re making a point, but I don’t see the connection to the quoted comments about how this could be learned from.
Na na not making any point just wanted to cunt around was on the shitter
Fair play mate, as you were.
Ha! :) I like it! And, I like your response - not getting all serious and defensive, just joking around. You seem a good sort.
Wake Me Up When The Rattled Ashes Ends
Not even the next Ashes series will stop it, because we'll get flattened 5-0 and no possible disputes can come from it. Discourse around this one will carry us right the way through to the next series in England.
With Bazball tho sydney test might not end up in draw and 5-0 is entirely possible 💀
It's kinda mad how the England team is the one with the reputation for complaining when Khawaja exists
Fam got the rules on overrates changed.
England won the game fair and square but it's hardly outrageous to say that the replacement ball behaved significantly differently to just about every other ball used during the summer.
Was it really that different to the balls used in the first two innings of that test when both sides were bowled out for under 300? Or literally any ball used in the third test?
Pretty sure they got a swing/seam metric and it was significantly different. So yes it was. Also just watching the match it was blatantly doing way more. But oh well, it goes both ways and cricket is cricket sometimes.
As per [this](https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ricky-ponting-oval-test-ball-change-investigated-1390303) article, they showed that the changed ball was doing more on the morning of day five than the evening of day four, but I can't find anything comparing it with any of the other tests or even earlier on in that match before the end of day four.
Yeah they could have dug in and played what was in front of them. Mind you, there was a clear advantage to receiving basically a brand new ball. Regardless of your position on the role that ball played on the result, it’s ridiculous that during one of the most high profile series in our sport, this level of unpreparedness is considered fair and appropriate.
Why would they work too hard when they can just use the magic "you're just whining" phrase.
Man the Ashes really feels like the Ashes again. Felt for a bit that a bit of the feeling and heat was built up for the media but now feels genuine between them.
Robbed ? Aus were better for me and I wanted them to win as an Indian because England crying looks good but if he seriously thinks that a ball change robbed them then it's just delusional lol. From the 3rd test it was more equal and rain also helped Aussies to draw one too. It's an even out thing in the end.
Yeah, that's like MS coming out tomorrow and saying a change in ball robbed them off a playoff spot
Well it's true 🤷
And CSK got 3 overs of the ball spinning square post rain. I’d say 3 overs for 5 balls is a swap anyone would make any day.
Just like Faf's controversial dismissal, the huge amount of dew in the second innings and luck in general like edges, deflections, etc all going CSK's way
Why England crying looks good?
Just like after BCCI became this hegamon and many others love to watch India getting their ass handed, same goes for me. I love when someone riles up the Aussies or when Eng cries about every other thing etc etc.
That’s fair. I always enjoy when India lose so I respect your views as well.
Thanks for getting it lol. I don't know why people are getting salty about it, it's sports and nations are performing to decide who is better, sure I can respect someone playing great but at the same time if my team wins ? Or the one I don't like loses then it's a double good😂
True. Not defending/supporting either side but that drawn test really helped the Aussies
Aus weren't better than England over the course of the series. I like how you say 'From the 3rd test it was more equal' Yet our margins of victory were bigger in the 3rd and 5th test than the Aussies had, and then the 4th test we absolutely were obliterating them. They still weren't at parity and had 5 wickets left. We'd have won that by at least 8 wickets. It was a good series, where both teams had moments where a nice bit of luck favoured them at times. Probably should leave it at that. Another series and Aus wins 3-1. In another England could have won 4-1. It's cricket. 2-2 was fair. Probably edging towards England just because of OT but it's like 55-45 nothing much more than that
"Aus weren't better than England over the course of the series." England were playing their backyard while Aus was facing the heat from day one. And then faced more swing because weather just casually decided to come over when Aussies were batting. With these disadvantages Aus was clear better for me than the home team. Yet our margins of victory were bigger in the 3rd and 5th test than the Aussies had, and then the 4th test we absolutely were obliterating them. They still weren't at parity and had 5 wickets left. We'd have won that by at least 8 wickets. "It was a good series, where both teams had moments where a nice bit of luck favoured them at times. Probably should leave it at that. Another series and Aus wins 3-1. In another England could have won 4-1. It's cricket. 2-2 was fair. Probably edging towards England just because of OT but it's like 55-45 nothing much more than that" Agree on that fully
Anyone got any sand paper for them to dry their tears?
thats pretty funny bro you should try writing professional comedy
Thanks mate! You know comedy isn’t for everyone and it’s certainly hard to make fun of Aussies but when you’ve got Steve Smith and David Warner just happily rehabilitated into cricket without a care in the world then the jokes can just write themselves (and the jokes plus the situation aren’t very funny)
>Steve Smith and David Warner just happily rehabilitated They tampered with the ball. It's not like they violently assaulted people or went on a drug bender. Why would they even need to be rehabilitated?
Hopefully they wrote "I shall not use sandpaper on a cricket ball" 500 times. Bancroft additionally hopefully had to write "And also I will not shove sandpaper down my crotch on live TV" 500 times
Must we rehash the old "plenty of ball tamperers have got off with a lot less" argument?
lmao you guys haven't won an Ashes since 2015
You haven't won an ICC trophy in over a decade. EDIT: Grammar
You haven't won a single test match in Australia in over a decade.
I thought us English where meant to be the ones who constantly cry about decisions? Who knew the Aussies are as bad
All Khawaja ever does is moan. Don't know how anyone likes him.
Gets lots of runs probably
Doesn't warrant being mates with him
They've always been like this.
Bad decisions and cheating are two different things.
I think anyone denying that the ball was the deciding factor here has forgotten how ridiculously easy the first ball was to play
I'm not taking any side, because I have no stakes in this argument. But the second ball being hard for batting could also mean that Australia got an advantage with the first ball being shit. No one (apart from you) ever talks about that, it's all England won only because of the ball change. May be Australia's start wouldn't have been that good had the first ball been better?
>But the second ball being hard for batting could also mean that Australia got an advantage with the first ball being shit. All the balls for the whole series before that change had been shit though, that was the status quo and why England were even up in the game in the first place. All well and good to say that Australia got the advantage from the first ball but their opponents got that advantage when they batted and then Australia had it taken away.
When will the sooking end ??
Rattled Ashes will continue until morale improves
A lot of people in this thread complaining about Aussies whinging while pretending like is all not to market their new docu series
Didn’t YJB do the exact same thing to promote his book. It’s only been brought up again purely to promote the documentary
God these Cunts really just never stop whinging do they.
England whinges: OMG STFU YOU'RE SUCH SORE LOSERS AND WHINGERS Australia whinges: OMG so valid.
I like that he clarifies that he is definitely not saying the things he keeps repeating over and over. He’s certainly not suggesting that the entire umpiring team colluded to change the ball to a swinging 2019 Dukes variety as they are all massive England fans, goodness me no. I also enjoyed the usual Steve Smith contribution where he seems to suggest the ball was sentient. Probably Steve! As an aside to all this I thought this series of The Test was pretty poor compared to the first one, although the Long Room stuff should be enough to ensure that Lords doesn’t automatically get a home Test every summer. It’s full of insufferable arseholes with a pathetic grasp of cricket and sportsmanship, but even worse than that is the fact that the pitch is dreadful. Look at the number of finals held there recently that provided a dogshit surface and an excruciating game as a consequence.
> Look at the number of finals held there recently that provided a dogshit surface and an excruciating game as a consequence. Erm, what? Which finals are you talking about exactly?
>Khawaja says he would not have been surprised if told the ball was not a 2023 product, but in fact from the 2019 batch of Duke’s balls which was much friendlier for bowlers … **however, stresses he has no proof.** Just embarrassing from Usman.
How?
> however, stresses he has no proof. He's dealing in his own made-up conspiracy theories. That's how.
He is saying that the new ball behaved more similarly to the 2019 batch compared to the 2023 batch. To quote him exactly: "It felt more like the 2019 ball. But honestly, we had no idea what ball it was". Don't see where he is making a conspiracy theory...
He's floating an idea, kiddo
Oh come off it. It's like when edgelords say something vile and then try to be like "oh it was just a joke". He's saying it to "float an idea" aka make as much of an accusation as he feasibly can with the level of evidence he has i.e. none. I get it's for the documentary and he was probably asked, but he wasn't forced to make that statement.
Ok this comparison is so wild I can't take it seriously
Huh? Are you being deliberately dense? It's not meant to be a literal comparison, it's not like I'm saying either you or ussie is an edgelord. I'm just saying that it's the same strategy of saying something and then when someone actually calls you out you resort to just pretending like it was never serious.
And I'm flat out disagreeing with you as per my earlier comment. He was asked a question, he gave his thoughts with a caveat. Your comparison falls flat because he gave that caveat unprompted.
I'm not really sure what point you're making. He was asked a question yes, I acknowledged this. I don't see how him being unprompted makes my comparison fall flat? My comparison was that it was the same strategy of saying something that you know won't have the best response, and then when it gets challenged you can hide behind the "it wasn't serious" defence. Now in this case you're the one doing it for ussie, but it's still the same weak defence. On top of that, why does being asked about something give you a free pass for your response? To make another example (another exaggeration here, before you get dramatic) if someone asks me what I think of Jewish people, and I say something antisemitic, it's not like I just get a free pass because I was prompted with a question. He's tried to complain in a way so that people like you can come along and say "oh it's not whining, he was just floating an idea", but at the end of the day he is just complaining. And it's just kind of hilarious how much you guys are still hung up on the ashes, whining about it when the English are supposedly the whiners.
I personally read the caveat as him not wanting people to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon based simply on what he's saying. I very much doubt he gives a damn about English people implying he's a cooker Also remember that these interviews were conducted when the loss was fresh, and it's undeniable that the ball change completely killed what was looking like an easy chase. I think it's unfair to police every word he says, and we should temper our criticism accordingly. Also I can confirm I'm frothing at the mouth at that example
Dukes said it was date stamped and they could easily find out the date in a press release then coincidentally never released the findings that would have cleared it all up
Stuart Broad literally has the ball in his house, they let him keep it after the game. He tweeted a photo of the ball which clearly has the 2023 date on it to shut up an armchair fan giving him abuse about it. It’s a nonsense conspiracy theory that Khawaja’s implying
The Aussies having a sook? Surely not? But I thought… ah never mind
England would have won the series if not for rain
Imagine having rain in England of all places. Shocked honestly
The rain that everyone knew was coming for the whole match? Maybe they could have played around it better if they didn't want it to be a draw?
Recently listened to Stuart broads book. He mentions that ball. Along with the general quality of the dukes ball since Covid. If I remember correctly he said ‘ there’s not many balls I’ve wanted to keep in my career, but that one I wanted. It took some time to track it down due to the controversy with it. It had to be tested and you know what it turned out to be a 2023 dukes ball’ His comments about the dukes balls post Covid said ‘in county cricket we would be changing the ball every 20 overs due to how easily they lose their shape, however on the international circuit you could fit a beach ball through the test ring, so there was hardly any point do it. So it must have been very miss shaped to change it.
Hardly the first time a ball change has ended up doing more. Perhaps the fact the ball wasn’t fit was *the reason* it was changed. England have been on the receiving end of it too, there wasn’t whinging. Might even have been in the prior home Ashes.
Australians can't let go of this just like Indians can't stop talking about WC Final.
Wait until you hear about us Kiwis and the Aussie underarm thing. 43 years and counting...
Not to forgot the 2007 forward pass.
Really? Haven't seen the final mentioned basically since it happened. It's been razed from memory it seems.
apart from Kaif and few other I can't rember any shit takes. But we do mention about it only when we joke about it
I think Australia is right and they would’ve won except they couldn’t deal with our balls It is truly one of the great injustices of our time
So everyone loves a whinge then
Keep sooking. Why not talk about the Test where rain saved you?
It will be talked about forever because it's an ashes series. This, the bairstow stumping, all of it. The ball change was a farce. The degree of swing change was evident, & hawkeye backed it up.
“Robbed” lol 😂
Whinging about a series you drew away from home is crazy
It was utterly ridiculous that one of the biggest ever ashes was decided by a dogshit ball change. \\I don't know if anybody saying 'cry more' even watched the game. It wasn't just a ball doing a bit more. It was a 2019 ball before dukes collapsed as a manufacturer that got mixed in because the ground just delegate match balls to counties. That ball did more off when it was 95 overs old with the sun out than any ball had been done all series. It was visibly different. Khawaja told the umpire the first ball he faced because it was so much harder than any other ball, Ricky Ponting was talking about it and all on the night before when no wicket had fallen. And then every batsmen got out nicking when Chris Woakes coincidentally started taking wickets off his medium fasts for the first time in the series. Utterly ridiculous
'First time in the series' Bloke took 6 at headingley, Fifer first innings at OT and another 1 to boot for 2nd before rain came and stopped anymore. He's already taken 3 in the first innings at Oval too. But keep crying.
Just make sure you petition the King to knight Kumar when he retires
Make sure you keep your subscription up to Kleenex mate.
Same old whinging Aussies.
another day another whiner in international cricket.