Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, who's looking forward to this?

It's a little weird because the last series was only three months ago, but I guess if there's ever an excuse for an odd sports schedule 'we were hosting the Olympics' is a good one.

As to the series itself, I'm optimistic but far from confident. In the last series Australia was much more competitive than the final score indicated, but at the same time they were still a long way off England. 3-0 didn't reflect the closeness of the contest, but 2-1 would have been too flattering.

But we did end the series with a batting line up that looked a lot more solid, and the recent run of domestic cricket has seen the Test incumbents all making good scores and proving they deserve selection, which has something that hasn't happened for quite a few years. It's been a fair while since you could look at our batting line up and name anyone other than Clarke who had clearly performed well enough to demand selection. The exception is Bailey, who's jumped in to the test team through ODI runs and apparently being a really nice guy, only to then look extremely ordinary when he started playing red ball cricket again. I hope he does well, but I've got more than a few doubts.

But on the other hand, the bowling has been a much greater worry. We've actually got real bowling depth, but with Pattinson, Starc and Bird all injured, we're forced to look to Mitchell Johnson as the third seamer. Now, most sides have a significant drop off in quality when you get to the third seamer, even the much vaunted Australian line ups of the 90s and 00s had to settle for the likes of Bichel and Kasprowicz, but this current Australian bowling line up doesn't have the raw strike power to cover that weaker bowler. Instead the Australians have adopted a more workmanlike method - sticking to tight defensive plans for each batsman, looking to grind out wickets. That doesn't work when whatever pressure has been built up is released when the third seamer comes on and bowls all over the shop. People keep saying Johnson is bowling much better, but they base that on bowling performances in ODIs, where he's always bowled well. He did play a domestic match here in Australia and would have taken 6 or 7 wickets if WA could catch, but he still didn't have great control and against high quality test batsmen that could be a real issue.

And then there's England. It's the same solid core of really high quality players (Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Anderson, Swann & Broad) that have thoroughly outplayed Australia in the last two series. But England has struggled to find replacements for quality players who've left. There's been a lot of players tried in the opening and #6 slots, and none have grabbed their chance - in England both Root and Bairstow always looked like Australia was in with a chance. But Root moving to 6 looks a much better spot for him, where he's less likely to be exposed for his lack of footwork. Carberry at the top of the order seems like a real punt though - lots of people are happy to talk about how he's a great guy and a great story, but I haven't heard anyone say 'this guy has the ability to perform at the top level'. WIll be interesting to see.

England also have the same problem Australia do with the third seamer - Finn might have penetration but lacks control, and Tremlett might minimise the runs he hasn't looked threatening enough to really build pressure. The talk seems to be indicating they'll go for Tremlett, which is interesting given his lack of wickets against the very weak touring teams England has played. This might reflect that England believe they're got enough quality in the other three bowlers, and third quick merely needs to do no harm for England to win.

My other thought on England is that a lot of people look to write off the limited scores of Cook and Trott in England as an abberation, a blip that will soon fix itself. That may be right, but those guys will be facing the same bowlers that troubled them in England, and if Siddle and Harris do genuinely trouble both batsmen and they don't produce a lot of scores again, well that opens the door a bit for Australia.

But only a little bit, as I think for Australia to really compete in this series then both Cook and Trott have to have bad series, and probably one of either Pietersen and Bell as well. And then from there two out of Watson, Warner and Smith will have to turn their talent in to big scores - not just one innings here or there, but across a whole series. And Clarke will have to have a big series on top of that. Talented players can suddenly emerge and start delivering across a whole series, but two of them at once? That doesn't happen often.

And for that reason I think England are starting as warm favourites in this series. Too many quality English players will be needed to have poor series, and too many under-performing Australian players need to improve dramatically. But cricket is a funny game and sometimes you can scam a win despite all that (such as England in 2009). Looking forward to seeing what happens.

Bring it on!

This should be a close fought battle on both sides although I think that England have the edge a couple of strong performances from Australia could swing things in their favour.

Batting wise we are fairly evenly matched so I think how well the bowlers perform will decide the outcome of this series - As it did the last.

Wonder if any of this will be on TV in the States. I can't say I've ever watched a contest.

I would need an American sports to Cricket dictionary so I would know wtf is going on.

I had to google The Ashes...pretty cool history! I liked how it's tied 31 each. I've always been interested in Cricket, but never actually watched a match. I'll have to look up some matches on YouTube I suppose, haha.

I'm looking forward to this, should be a good contest if the summer was anything to go by.

My initial prediction is 2-1 England, they have not done as well down under as at home in recent series, so I'm expecting a close-run series.

Of course, with Pietersen and Prior out of the side due to injury we could be in trouble, but I think England's batting lineup is looking good. Cook and Bell are usually reliable, barring the odd blip, and when Root does well, he does well. Bring in Bairstow, and we can manage without Pietersen.

Providing our bowling attack can stay fit then I think we have an advantage there, Anderson is still in good form, Broad is doing fairly well and Swann is always good. Sebster is right in that the slot for the 3rd seamer does seem a little contested with no clear option. Bresnan and Tremlett both have merit (as does Onions) but none of them are really consistent enough to fully take the spot.

I think the problem with Australia in the last series was the lack of consistency in their players' performances, they all had good games but none (except possibly Clarke) were able to hold a long run of form, like they will need to pull off a win here.

So, my guess is England for a 2-1 series win, and the first game will probably go their way. That said, I don't think either side has ever won 4 ashes series in a row, so there's everything to play for.

Bring it on, Aussies!

Just don't let the robots steal the Ashes.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Just don't let the robots steal the Ashes.

But we must never forget the horror of the Krikkit Wars! (I assume that was what you were referring to, otherwise I'm going to look like a total plonker )

Interesting start. Great atmosphere. Good toss to win as people seem to think the pitch will be great for batting early before deteriorating as the match wears on - you could see Clarke's visible relief when he won the toss. That said, lots of drop in pitches get talked about as likely to wear, but just seem to get flatter and easier to play on as the match wears on, so we'll see.

And to any curious Americans, let dakka be your cricket dictionary

 Paradigm wrote:
I think the problem with Australia in the last series was the lack of consistency in their players' performances, they all had good games but none (except possibly Clarke) were able to hold a long run of form, like they will need to pull off a win here.

Yeah, I think that's the difference. You know when Cook, Trott etc hit a good run of form they'll turn it in to multiple big scores and set up a series. Too many Australian batsmen squander good starts. Our batting has been so weak of late that a handful of brave attacking shots are confused with dominant batting. You can see it this morning with Warner - don't get me wrong he's batted well, but too many people are making too big a deal of a few good shots, and not realising that great, match winning batting is about playing those shots over and over again, alongside lots of solid defence and plenty of singles. And then doing it again in the next test.

 sebster wrote:

And to any curious Americans, let dakka be your cricket dictionary

That sounds like a good idea, this could end up being an Ashes/general cricket thread. I like it.

On topic I feel like such an old man (which I'm really, really not) when I find myself going '[insert current opener]? [INSERT CURRENT OPENER]?? You call him an opener? Justin Langer was an opener. Matthew Hayden was an opener. [Insert current opener] isn't good enough to knock in their bats.' or '[insert current best pace bowler]? Really? He's who we are relying on for pace bowling? Now McGrath, he was a true bowler!' etc etc. I really don't know who the team is, or even care, they are all uncouth tattooed slobs who care more about their looks and off field stories, paycheck disputes, and what not, than playing a good game of cricket. They probably wouldn't know when to walk and when to stay if it was plain as day, unlike the good old days of Gilly et al.

Do excuse the rant, I'll probably end up flicking it on today and becoming engrossed, I just wish it was the team I grew up loving is all.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, 2/71 at lunch? I stand by my 'you call him an opener?' comments.

Local paper up in Queensland is refusing to say Broad's name for the duration of the first test. When he took the first wicket they tweeted 'some English bowler just dismissed Rogers'

 motyak wrote:
On topic I feel like such an old man (which I'm really, really not) when I find myself going '[insert current opener]? [INSERT CURRENT OPENER]?? You call him an opener? Justin Langer was an opener. Matthew Hayden was an opener. [Insert current opener] isn't good enough to knock in their bats.' or '[insert current best pace bowler]? Really? He's who we are relying on for pace bowling? Now McGrath, he was a true bowler!' etc etc. I really don't know who the team is, or even care, they are all uncouth tattooed slobs who care more about their looks and off field stories, paycheck disputes, and what not, than playing a good game of cricket. They probably wouldn't know when to walk and when to stay if it was plain as day, unlike the good old days of Gilly et al.

There's a few precious little twerps in the side, like Watson and Johnson, but there's also some really tough, hard working guys. It's hard not to admire the likes of Siddle and Harris, or enjoy Rogers late emergence in tests.

Do excuse the rant, I'll probably end up flicking it on today and becoming engrossed, I just wish it was the team I grew up loving is all.

You can't ever go home again

Also, 2/71 at lunch? I stand by my 'you call him an opener?' comments.

Well if Rogers isn't an opener then I don't know who is. He missed out in this game, but the guy has a mountain of runs all over the world from playing the role of a really traditional opener. Warner is a lot less traditional of course, but then so were Hayden and Langer

 sebster wrote:

Also, 2/71 at lunch? I stand by my 'you call him an opener?' comments.

Well if Rogers isn't an opener then I don't know who is. He missed out in this game, but the guy has a mountain of runs all over the world from playing the role of a really traditional opener. Warner is a lot less traditional of course, but then so were Hayden and Langer

Ah but you see, they were MY less traditional openers, so that makes it ok I'm fully aware of how silly my opinion is about the current cricket team, I know a lot of them must work really hard to be there and maintain their levels of fitness and what not. Also, 3/74 now. Good to see pup is at his best.

 motyak wrote:
Ah but you see, they were MY less traditional openers, so that makes it ok I'm fully aware of how silly my opinion is about the current cricket team, I know a lot of them must work really hard to be there and maintain their levels of fitness and what not.

Yeah, I know how it works. I grew up watching Taylor and Marsh, so I've never really been able to think of an opening batsman unless he was at least a little bit fat

Also, 3/74 now. Good to see pup is at his best.

Pup's dismissal seemed pretty weak to me, though you have to hand it to Broad, who is bowling beautifully. 3 down for less than a hundred on a road is not good.

Well - That was a nice surprise this early in the morning.

Aus 273-8

Waking up to news that Broad has a five-fer.

Tremlet gets to 50 wickets in only 12 tests ( I thought it was fewer!)

Haddin and Johnson put up a good show by all accounts (i'll have to watch the highlights).

Set up for an interesting day tomorrow (today? I get confused with these time zones).

A good response by Broad to the silliness shown by some; as if not walking was a new thing in Australia!

I don't think it's as good a position as some think: this is on a knife edge and tomorrow's play will define this test match. England need a few to hit form with the bat.

 mega_bassist wrote:
I had to google The Ashes...pretty cool history! I liked how it's tied 31 each. I've always been interested in Cricket, but never actually watched a match. I'll have to look up some matches on YouTube I suppose, haha.

Try some Twenty20. Test Matches do not make very good after the fact watching. More importantly you don't really want to watch 5 days of play. Test cricket is not a sport to sit and watch like a football match. I have found just jumping in to highlights can be confusing for the new to cricket. Tewnty20 however is much faster, only being about 3 hours long, and much more exciting as players are trying to score runs fast, not playing a long game. Little defensive play or over after over of little action. Whilst test cricket is interesting and exciting until you see the nuances of the game it can seem like they are doing nothing.

Of course the only proper way to 'watch' test cricket is to listen to TMS.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
A good response by Broad to the silliness shown by some; as if not walking was a new thing in Australia!

I don't think it's as good a position as some think: this is on a knife edge and tomorrow's play will define this test match. England need a few to hit form with the bat.

I still find it worrying that we cannot skittle sides out after we get to their no6 onwards. Many a huge partnership late in the batting order has come at the expense of our bowling and fielding.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 notprop wrote:
A good response by Broad to the silliness shown by some; as if not walking was a new thing in Australia!

I don't think it's as good a position as some think: this is on a knife edge and tomorrow's play will define this test match. England need a few to hit form with the bat.

I still find it worrying that we cannot skittle sides out after we get to their no6 onwards. Many a huge partnership late in the batting order has come at the expense of our bowling and fielding.

I think that it is certainly something that cost us a lot of runs in the last series. The real problem is not as much the runs they score (although that is certainly an issue) but the fact it takes so much time to dismiss them, meaning there's a longer wait before we get a bat. This means that our batsmen are tired when they take the crease, and we can't take as much advantage of pitches that favour teams batting early on. It''s certainly something they need to look at.

That said, it's unfair to be too harsh on the England bowlers, they've done pretty well to keep the score to under 300 and get 8 wickets on day one. Very good performance from Broad as well, which bodes well for the rest of the series. A good start by him is likely to give him and the rest a lot of momentum going forward.

If Australia can pull up their score to around 310ish tomorrow before being bowled out, it should set up a balanced game. Anything less than that, it's more in favour of England. That said, it remains to be seen whether the low score is due to an excellent bowling attack or whether the pitch just favours bowlers. If the latter is true, then it's anyone's game.

And Motyak, I agree that the days of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist, Mcgrath and Warne ect were always great to watch (even when they were utterly destroying us Brits over by over ). The 2005 Ashes series with that lineup against the likes of Freddie, Harmison, Vaughn and Pietersen (when he was in form) was an awesome contest.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Of course the only proper way to 'watch' test cricket is to listen to TMS.

True, but I doubt the heathens in the US can pick up Radio 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

That said, it's unfair to be too harsh on the England bowlers, they've done pretty well to keep the score to under 300 and get 8 wickets on day one. Very good performance from Broad as well, which bodes well for the rest of the series. A good start by him is likely to give him and the rest a lot of momentum going forward.

If Australia can pull up their score to around 310ish tomorrow before being bowled out, it should set up a balanced game. Anything less than that, it's more in favour of England. That said, it remains to be seen whether the low score is due to an excellent bowling attack or whether the pitch just favours bowlers. If the latter is true, then it's anyone's game.

IMO It will all rest on the first 2-3 overs in the morning. If they can take Haddin before he gets back in the rhythm then Harris and Lyon should fall quite fast. If Haddin can build a partnership then they could put a good few more runs on. However if they can get a good few balls at Harris in the first over then there is a chance of braking any partnership before it gets going and getting a go at Lyon nice and early.

I haven't seen the highlights, but I assume from the scorecard that England are being quite conservative in the bowling, with not to many extras and only one bowled, the rest caught. Worries me a little as conservative bowling is a little easier on the night watchmen, but if they can get them to swing for something silly then you never know.

 sebster wrote:

There's a few precious little twerps in the side, like Watson and Johnson, but there's also some really tough, hard working guys.

Not to be completely ignorant here (because I am), but did you really just describe a cricket player as tough?? I mean, from what I've seen of it, it's a game of guys standing around a golf course sized lawn, tossing a ball at some sticks while a bloke with a wider, paddle looking stick takes a swing at it. I mean, if you were talking Adam Ashley-Cooper, or Digby Ioane, I could see "tough" but circket?



Also, doesn't everyone wear white, with the only major distinguishing mark being the team/national crest on the vest?


Just to stay on topic here, can someone explain to me how this scoring thing works? I mean, I see people here talking about 300 points, and wickets, and overs and whatnot... and you all know we yankees love our scoring to be simple

This is a golden opportunity, a golden, golden opportunity!

For years, we've watched the Aussies romp to victory at various sports, but this year, there have been a myriad of blows against the Australian nation:

1) British Lions defeating Australia 2-1

2) Julia Gillard defeated! Mel Gibson cracking up, fosters exports are down

This is a chance for the England team to singe the Australian king's beard, to sweep the famous Aussie grit under the carpet

Seize the day!!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just to stay on topic here, can someone explain to me how this scoring thing works? I mean, I see people here talking about 300 points, and wickets, and overs and whatnot... and you all know we yankees love our scoring to be simple

Think we'll start with the basics and work our way forward.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Just to stay on topic here, can someone explain to me how this scoring thing works? I mean, I see people here talking about 300 points, and wickets, and overs and whatnot... and you all know we yankees love our scoring to be simple

Not sure how simple to go, so sorry if this sounds insulting. It is not meant that way.

At any one time two batsmen are batting. They get runs by hitting the ball and running to the opposite end of the wicket (the bit in the middle with the little wooden sticks, known as stumps, or wickets.). Each time they run is one "Run". It is possible to run more than once from a single hit, as long as you can get to the other end before the fielding team get the ball to the stumps. A bit like running a base in baseball. For getting the ball outside the boundary of the pitch you get 4 (If the ball hits the pitch on the way, for example rolling over the boundary) or 6 if it dose not touch the ground on its way. That is the first number in the score.

Wickets are the batsman getting "out" just like in baseball. If the ball is caught, the blower manages to get the ball past the batsman and hit the stumps, and an number of other ways (I'm not explaining LBW here) the batsman is out and is replaced by the next one. When a batsman is out it is called loosing a wicket from the fact that in the normal ways of getting out the wicket is knocked down. That is the second number.

So, 300 for 8 would mean the batting team have scored 300 runs and lost 8 batsmen out of 11.

An over is the number of balls bowled from one end of the wicket before you swap ends. You have one bowler who bowls from one end, then when the "over" is over another bowler bowls from the other end. This is normally 6 balls, although sometimes you will see more where there are no balls.

I think that explains it (and is correct). Any more questions and I will try an answer them.

 notprop wrote:
I don't think it's as good a position as some think: this is on a knife edge and tomorrow's play will define this test match. England need a few to hit form with the bat.

The pitch is pretty much another 'gabba road. Minimum par score in the first innings was 400. England did very well on the first day. Well, it's more that Australia did very badly - Anderson bowled very well but without luck, and Broad bowled very well but most of the wickets were hardly deliveries that should dismiss top order batsmen. It was a pretty weak effort by the Australians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
If Australia can pull up their score to around 310ish tomorrow before being bowled out, it should set up a balanced game. Anything less than that, it's more in favour of England. That said, it remains to be seen whether the low score is due to an excellent bowling attack or whether the pitch just favours bowlers. If the latter is true, then it's anyone's game.

The pitch is very true, with the odd ball just bouncing slightly more than you'd expect. There's been little movement in the air for either side.

Australia have now got England 2 down, though, with Cook edging behind, and Trott getting roughed up by the short stuff. But both wickets kind of came out of the blue, the only false shots Australia seemed to create.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not to be completely ignorant here (because I am), but did you really just describe a cricket player as tough?? I mean, from what I've seen of it, it's a game of guys standing around a golf course sized lawn, tossing a ball at some sticks while a bloke with a wider, paddle looking stick takes a swing at it. I mean, if you were talking Adam Ashley-Cooper, or Digby Ioane, I could see "tough" but circket?

Here's the thing, as a bowler you run in, building up to a sprint, the dig your spiked boots in the ground and transfer all that speed in to your upper body in order to release the ball down the pitch. Then you turn around and do it again five more times. Then another bowler does the same thing, while you 'stand in the field', chasing the ball down. Then you start running in again. Over the course of a match you'll do this sometimes upwards of 300 times. And the thing is, most of the times when you do that the batsman plays the ball pretty safely - even an elite bowler won't produce even a half chance of getting the batsman out more than once every few overs. So the real toughness comes from keeping up your workrate, running in again and again even when you're given little encouragement that a breakthrough is coming.

For batsmen, there's little real need to be physically tough. Most of them these days are fit, but it doesn't impact batting a lot (there's a guy playing for Tasmania that's morbidly obese). The toughness for batsmen comes from needing to bat for a long time (a good innings can go for four hours or more)... without making a single mistake. Because unlike baseball you don't get three chances to hit the ball - one screw up and you're out. So the measure of a great batsman is to be able to come out when a match is on the line, and then have perfect concentration every single ball for an extended period of time.

Also, doesn't everyone wear white, with the only major distinguishing mark being the team/national crest on the vest?

In the long form of the game, Test cricket, they do. In the shortest form of the game

Just to stay on topic here, can someone explain to me how this scoring thing works? I mean, I see people here talking about 300 points, and wickets, and overs and whatnot... and you all know we yankees love our scoring to be simple

The easiest way to think of it is how it's just a little different to baseball. In baseball each side gets nine innings, and at the end of that whoever scored the most runs in aggregate wins. In cricket there isn't nine innings but just two. However, unlike in baseball where the innings ends when three guys are out, in cricket you have to get all but one player out for the innings to end.

It's also a little different to baseball in that once you hit the ball, you don't stop batting. So while a hitter in baseball might hit a home run and then go sit down and have to wait for another chance at the plate, in cricket a batsman can keep batting, and batting, and batting until the other side does something to get him out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


And now England in are in the midst of an epic collapse of their.

But seriously, the pitch is a road and there's basically nothing in it for the bowlers, but batsmen are just getting out anyway. Incredible.

Arrrgh, another tragic collapse from England! Good to Carberry staring off fairly well, but 136 is just abysmal. All the England batsmen were caught out, were they playing particularly aggressively? It certainly seems a particularly low score if the pitch isn't doing much. With only 295 to chase England were really at liberty to take their time about it, but it seems they rushed it and threw it away.

And Australia seem to be off to a good start in the 2nd innings, and now have a lot of time to play with. If they take it slow and can get a lead of 400-odd before the end of day 4 England are really in trouble.

It seems I may have spoke too soon regarding England's chances.

That is just horrific... Not insurmountable but a hard job. In theory if England's bowlers can put some pressure on Australia tomorrow they could do something with there final innings. Most likely however Australia can start from fresh tomorrow morning, put in another 150-200 runs and have 2+ days to take England's batsmen apart at there leisure.

What were England's batsmen doing? Sounds like they were just being far to aggressive and swinging hard at aggressive bowling rather than taking the time they had to play safe and let the bowlers tire.

I hate cricket, it's so damn boring.

Would'nt mind so much if it were not mandatory at school.

 Steve steveson wrote:
That is just horrific... Not insurmountable but a hard job. In theory if England's bowlers can put some pressure on Australia tomorrow they could do something with there final innings. Most likely however Australia can start from fresh tomorrow morning, put in another 150-200 runs and have 2+ days to take England's batsmen apart at there leisure.

What were England's batsmen doing? Sounds like they were just being far to aggressive and swinging hard at aggressive bowling rather than taking the time they had to play safe and let the bowlers tire.

It was shock and awe.

According to Sir Geoffrey (who I defer to in such matters) our batsmen thought Nathan Lyon was bowling hand grenades! All he did was bowl round the wicket and Bell et al thought he was Shane Warne!

Tragic. But I am used to such mishaps when England are batting on a decent wicket.

Peterson was dreadful, he really isn't able to adapt his technique, when he gets bogged down he just has to be even more aggressive.

Still, Anderson, our 27 year old medium pacer , Swanny and Tremlett to dig us out of hole and Root and Bell for the win!

Ah well, looks like the game's gone to Australia. 537 to win from two days is doable but looking very unlikely, especially with Carberry and Trott gone so early on. If Pietersen and Cook can get some big scores and hold the partnership for most of tomorrow and get it down to under 300 for the last day, we might be in with a fighting chance, but I can't see that happening.

Alternatively, we can just pray for rain...

On the plus side, I doubt England will play this poorly again. It's the traditional England-Away Rude Awakening.They seem to have got complacent over the summer, this will hopefully remind them that Australia are still a team to be reckoned with.

Well, the end result was a very emphatic win for Australia, and this is leading to lots of people crowing about a power shift and how England can't handle Johnson's pace and bounce. But all of that is a lot of people getting miles ahead of themselves, same as England were when they started talking legacy after thumping India a couple of years ago.

I mean, straight up Johnson bowled brilliantly in both innings. And when Johnson does that he complements Harris and Siddle in such a way that the whole attack looks unbelievable (it leaves Lyon to play a supporting role of breaking dangerous partnerships, something he does very well). But Johnson has done this before and won test matches, only to turn up next match and bowl pies and cost us a test, and then keep on bowling pies after that. Don't forget Johnson bowled us back in to the Ashes last time in Australia with an incredible spell in Perth... only to bowl absolute crap in the rest of the series and help Australia on their way to two innings defeats. So I think at this point we're a long way from just hoping Johnson will keep on doing this all series. That said, he bowled well in both innings, and did it through aggression, not just on throwing it up and hoping it swings for him... those are signs that maybe Johnson has found a more consistent method.

The other really good sign for Australia was Warner. His batting in both innings showed a maturity and patience that is really encouraging. He's blasted opposition teams apart before but it was with an aggression that you knew was unsustainable, but here he seemed happy to trust in his defence when he needed to, and it bodes well for his future. Other than that there's probably still plenty of question marks on Australia's batting, Watson's two innings at 3 were both ended with poor shots - it still seems that you can just starve him of runs with specific field placings, and sooner or later he will try and slog his way out. And Bailey's debut was nothing great, a failure in the first innings, and just enough runs in the second innings to avoid immediate questions about his place - he'll play in Adelaide and Perth but he will still need a score to silence his many, many doubters.


For England, well on the bowling front the biggest question ought to be on Swann. Not to drop him, because he's been a fine player for a long time, but to challenge him to find a way back to ripping sides apart again. Other than that Broad was excellent, Andersen was better than his figures showed, and Tremlett was pretty solid (people obsessed with speed guns dismissed him because of his low pace, but he bowled with good control and excellent bounce, and took his share of wickets). The bowling unit as a whole worked well in the first innings, but was up against a hiding in the second, after the batsmen left them with no scoreboard pressure.

The bigger concern is on the batting. Much has been made about Trott's complete inability against the short stuff from Johnson, and while that is a real issue for England, it's far from disastrous in itself (Australia hasn't had a decent #3 in about four years). Nor is one bad test the whole of the problem - but England have a batting order that on paper is better than anyone other than South Africa, but they haven't posted 400+ in a year and half. And the problem is a fairly hard one to solve - because really it comes down to high quality batsmen that just aren't making the scores they ought to. Cook is always going to be a chance of edging behind early in his innings, but his quality has always come from making sure that once he was set he produced big hundreds, but in the second innings in Brisbane he ended up finding a way to get out once he looked set, as he had done so many times in the Ashes in England. Pietersen looked solid before picking out fielders in both innings, but you know with him that a big hundred is never that far away. Bell missed out in both innings, but you can't really say anything negative about him after his series in England. Root actually looked pretty good in the second innings, and looked at this stage in his career to be much better suited to #6 than opening. And Carberry looked really solid in the first dig - the wild swings with hands leading the body that I'd seen in ODI cricket were gone, and his game looked tempered and effective (his second innings dismissal was just one of those unlucky things). Prior would want to make some runs fairly soon - the days of ignoring a keeper's bad batting form as long as he takes catches are long gone.

And so that's the puzzle for English batting now. Lots of good players, and only Trott and Prior ought to feel any pressure. And yet they've gone a long time without producing a score that decides a test, let alone one that plays a major part in deciding a series. 1 for 517 seems an incredibly long time ago now. Finding that grinding, attritional mindset again seems the key. Adelaide is the next game in the series, and if the test pitch is anything like the pitches we've seen in domestic cricket this season, then there'll never be a better chance to return your batting to form.