What's impressive about England's performance in The Ashes so far is the way they

[SWv2]

How can a side that has managed 400 from the first innings not be favourites (or at very least not nailed on to draw).

Apologies for the probable stupidity or naivety of the question.

[Burney]

How can a side that has managed 400 from the first innings not be favourites (or at very least not nailed on to draw).

Apologies for the probable stupidity or naivety of the question.

Nothing stupid about it. It would normally be a commanding position. However. in part because they've scored so quickly and in part because they collapsed so quickly, they haven't actually taken that much time out of the game in scoring 400. That means that, if Australia score equally fast (as they are), they could take a lead by the end of day three that would put England under severe pressure with two days left in the game. And, given England's propensity for collapse, that puts them under threat.

[PSRB]

Nothing stupid about it. It would normally be a commanding position. However. in part because they've scored so quickly and in part because they collapsed so quickly, they haven't actually taken that much time out of the game in scoring 400. That means that, if Australia score equally fast (as they are), they could take a lead by the end of day three that would put England under severe pressure with two days left in the game. And, given England's propensity for collapse, that puts them under threat.

Lets not forget that England made 551 in Adelaide in the 06/07 series and still managed to lose

[Burney]

Lets not forget that England made 551 in Adelaide in the 06/07 series and still managed to lose

Yeah. That was special even by our standards.

[7sisters]

How can a side that has managed 400 from the first innings not be favourites (or at very least not nailed on to draw).

Apologies for the probable stupidity or naivety of the question.

Think Arsenal, sw. You know how we manage to dominate games by having over 70% possession and peppering the opponents goal with 20 plus shots per game ?

[SWv2]

Think Arsenal, sw. You know how we manage to dominate games by having over 70% possession and peppering the opponents goal with 20 plus shots per game ?

I was always a staunch conscientious objector to the nonsense of how we used to dominate but lose games, arguing about the futility of possession stats when failing to ultimately capitalise and make it count.

It was often used after valiant European defeat when the opposing team knew they had probably done enough in the first leg and didn’t need to force the issue.

[Burney]

I was always a staunch conscientious objector to the nonsense of how we used to dominate but lose games, arguing about the futility of possession stats when failing to ultimately capitalise and make it count.

It was often used after valiant European defeat when the opposing team knew they had probably done enough in the first leg and didn’t need to force the issue.

It always seemed to me to be based on the misapprehension that football is a game like rugby where possession is the be-all and end-all. It blatantly isn't. Counter-attacking is a time-honoured and legitimate tactic and - because football only has one means of scoring - the idea that you can almost attritionally grind opposition teams down by virtue of possession alone is fundamentally flawed.

[7sisters]

Indeed. If league position was assessed by any other measure than the end result, City would be looking cautiously over their shoulder at us.