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.

Warner should be suitably shamed by getting out so cheaply.

500+ on the cards. reckon 600 to allow scoreboard pressure to build and then Australia can attempt to bowl us out cheaply - twice.

Our batsmen will be sorely tested on day 3. They need to show they can match their counterparts when offered a road to bat on.

On a positive note Broad bowled really well on a pitch that offered nothing.

I like seeing Australia do well, but I prefer good cricket. The pitch was very flat, and outside of some quality bowling from Broad and some support from Stokes the batsmen were rarely challenged. Rogers had his share of luck, but ultimately one wicket in a day’s cricket is just terrible.

England have now produced pretty lifeless pitches for a few series against Australia. In the past it was to mitigate our quicks, and let Swann dominate against our weaker spin options. This time around it seems more to cover English weakness – both sides have quality quicks but I think England is more nervous about the ability of their batsman to combat good bowling on a tough pitch.

Whatever the reason, it’s produced bad cricket. I look forward to watching cricket in England because there’s generally a lot more in it for the quick bowlers, edges to the slips and seeing stumps fly about is great stuff. As a batsman I’ve always thought the best innings were when every ball is a challenge. But this kind of thing just boosts batting averages and breaks fast bowlers.

 Paradigm wrote:
Conspiracy theory for the day: Haddin:'s injury is fake, he's actually being punished for dropping Root on 0 last week...

If they were concerned about getting someone more reliable than Haddin behind the stumps then they wouldn’t have picked Neville, he gave up 31 byes in the tour match Haddin is out for personal reasons – the rumour is that his child has had a relapse, Haddin took time off a couple of years back when she got cancer.

@Sebster - I agree with you wholeheartedly. This road England requested is terrible for cricket. AND, in a brave new era for English cricket is totally a step backwards in positive thinking.

It puts even more pressure on our batsmen to perform, especially our vulnerable top order and just flogs the bowlers to death.

Produce a track that has enough for all aspects and let the players decide the outcome of the match.

My prediction is: An Aussie win.

Oh and just thought: Australia need only draw the series to retain the Ashes so we need results pitches.

I think unless the pitch suddenly wakes up we're looking at a draw here. 450+ from both sides in the first innings and the only outcome being knackered pace bowlers.

Or, the Aussies could hit 600 this evening, then bowl us out twice before the end...

 Paradigm wrote:
I think unless the pitch suddenly wakes up we're looking at a draw here. 450+ from both sides in the first innings and the only outcome being knackered pace bowlers.

Or, the Aussies could hit 600 this evening, then bowl us out twice before the end...

600+ and Aussies bowling us cheaply is the more likely outcome. In fact I will go so far as to say that declaring right now Australia would bat again end of day 3 with a bit of a lead.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
FETHING HECK!

Lyth out for nowt! 2nd ball.

Aussies are literally swarming like wasps to be around Ballance.

41-4.…. You may be right about England just getting skittled twice.

You don't win matches by preparing a wicket which negates
your main strength.

Feth! This match was decided by the coin toss before start of play day one.

I'll be buggered if I am going to pray for a draw though- had enough of that begging to the gods nonsense in the nineties and noughties.

Make the aussies toil for a few days to earn their win....please.

7-285 At tea.

Stokes batted well.

Cook was brilliant for his 96, shame he fell before his century.

I don't think we'll see England pass the follow on score but I think we'll see the Aussies bat again, BUT I don't think they'll have such an easy time of it second time around.

Yeah, Cook's knock was a standout, he did well there. I agree, the follow on is probably unlikely, but I think we might be heading for an Aussie win here

Its a tricky one now.

Personally I would love some nice, tight bowling to slow the Aussies run chase down - so they bat past lunch tomorrow.

Skittling them out for sub 150 would be great but leaves - IMO - a more dangerous score.

 Paradigm wrote:


Or, the Aussies could hit 600 this evening, then bowl us out twice before the end...

I was joking, I was joking! :(

All out for 103... This is just embarrassing...

Its just.............


Feth me. Feth me hard. What a dismal performance.

Can't say anything else.

After the first test the media was filled with stories about Australia's problems - no control in the bowling without Harris, a batting line up dependent on Smith. One single game later and Australia is wonderful while England is now worried about its bowling make up, and saying their batting order is too dependent on Root.

In sport it's easier to perform when you're in front, and when your best players are performing the second tier players are generally dragged along as well. This counts doubly so for cricket, where typically every advantage makes gaining further advantage even easier - batting is much easier when the top order has done well as you come out with less pressure and against tired bowlers. Similarly it is much easier to come on to bowl when the other guys are taking wickets, you get to bowl to new batsmen who are under pressure to salvage the innings.

Point is, I guess, it has to be kept in mind this is just one game, and in one game of cricket anything can happen. After the first test there was a whole lot of panic in the Australian media, but the coaching staff kept things pretty stable, and the only unforced change they made was one that should have been made before the first test (Marsh in for Watson).

All the talk about England's batting order isn't unwarranted, as Lyth, Ballance and Bell have all produced little, but you need to be wary about too much change. And it's also a conundrum of a sorts, because Lyth is the worst contributor, but he's gotten some pretty good balls in this series and that happens to openers (it wasn't so long ago there was a lot of pressure on Cook). Bell has failed to give the return he should for a long time now, but he's still got a strong overall record and bringing in someone else will make the line extremely inexperienced. Ballance has actually contributed runs in this series, but that's been more through luck than anything, and his technique on the back foot is being exposed too easily. So ideally Ballance should be the one to go, but there's always problems with dropping the guy who recently made runs while leaving a non-contributor in the team.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
@Sebster - I agree with you wholeheartedly. This road England requested is terrible for cricket. AND, in a brave new era for English cricket is totally a step backwards in positive thinking.

It puts even more pressure on our batsmen to perform, especially our vulnerable top order and just flogs the bowlers to death.

Yeah, and it produces boring cricket. And outside of some fearsome bowling from Johnson against a rattled England trying to avoid humiliation, I can't think of any part of that test I enjoyed watching. Even Smith's batting, which is normally a great reason to go to the cricket, was kind of dull because it was on a pitch with so little challenge in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I don't think we'll see England pass the follow on score but I think we'll see the Aussies bat again, BUT I don't think they'll have such an easy time of it second time around.

Australia went back in with a huge first innings lead behind them, so while there were some challenges in the pitch they were offset by the lack of pressure on the batsmen. Once Warner got going it was basically impossible for England to stem the tide as each new batsman would come out with as much freedom to swing. From there it was just case of watching some fireworks before Clarke decided he had enough runs and had demoralised the English well enough.

Sort of Ashes related. The betting site Paddy Power had a bit of a brain fart when they nearly showed this advert...



They did scrap it, but it's obviously managed to get leaked to the press. Would've been in poor taste regardless of comedy value.

In other Ashes news our womens team won the first ODI in their series.

Looks like Bairstow is in for Ballance - This is a good move as Ballance really needs time to work on his technique, particularly his footwork.

Though this means reshuffling the team with Bell and Root moving up to accommodate Bairstow at 5. Now, I'm not sure Bell still deserves his place, since he has been suffering a slump since before the tour to the West Indies however there is a real lack of talent from 2 to 5 and It maybe the case that we offer Bell as a sacrificial lamb for the rest of the series before we look at who - if anyone - can replace him.

At this point I'm pretty sure the Women's team could outplay the men, especially in ODIs! It might not get as much coverage (it should!) but they play great cricket!

I'd like to see James Taylor in for Lythe or Bell, I think. He's excellent on the county circuit, and I think he could make a considerable difference to England; his manner of play is very positive, him and Root could be a dangerous combination.

I saw a worrying stat earlier; in test cricket this year, there were about a dozen times the England top 3 failed to reach 50! Pretty embarrassing stuff.

Jesus Christ listen to you whinging Poms!

You lose one match and suddenly it's 'abandon all hope, ye who enter here!'.

It's one match. Out of 5. And you've already won one of the other four.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Jesus Christ listen to you whinging Poms!

You lose one match and suddenly it's 'abandon all hope, ye who enter here!'.

It's one match. Out of 5. And you've already won one of the other four.

To be fair our top order are noticeably rubbish. Given the pitches I think we'll have our day, I'd like the ashes back, but it ain't going to happen with a misfiring top order.

Jimmy is due a few wickets and Broad is doing well. Some controlling overs from Ali with Wood and Stokes chipping in will help us out. A stoic captain and a fluent Bell would be the best situation all round!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Jesus Christ listen to you whinging Poms!

You lose one match and suddenly it's 'abandon all hope, ye who enter here!'.

It's one match. Out of 5. And you've already won one of the other four.

True. But we did get utterly destroyed in that match, both in batting and bowling lol. gak performance by our cricket team.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Jesus Christ listen to you whinging Poms!

You lose one match and suddenly it's 'abandon all hope, ye who enter here!'.

It's one match. Out of 5. And you've already won one of the other four.

True. But we did get utterly destroyed in that match, both in batting and bowling lol. gak performance by our cricket team.

It's more the fact that this kind of dismal performance isn't all that unusual of late. Maybe we haven't been crushed as badly in a match by NZ or the Windies, but all year there have been signs that something is definitely up, especially with the top order batsmen.

I'm not sure we're quite abandoning hope, but particularly with the top 4 or 5 batsmen there's not a lot to lose by changing things up a bit. Cook and Root are fine for the most part, but I don't think it could hurt to rest Bell or Lythe and bring in Taylor or Morgan.

Paradigm. The problem is that to bring anyone in, Bairstow is an exampe we have to shuffle the order.

With Root being moved up one place from a position he has been killing it in, to a place where he has struggled against the same opposition.

I would like Moeen to bat up to 3 but his role atm is to fend of the 2nd new ball or plunder the old ball and work with the lower order to stabilse and then press on.

There is no one at county level who can currently go from 2 or 3 and into the same position within the England set up.

I think this was one of the reasons Trott was rushed back and was made to play as makeshift opener on the WI tour. Lyth was always meant to go in as an opener but I suspect the set up wanted a proven batsmen just to make sure. That decision hastened Trotts retirement. we could do with a fully working Trott at 3 or 4.

Bairstow should work well in the set up. he has got runs under his belt and more importantly has seen lots of balls and overs so has his eye in. Lets make the most of him and hope he's there to plunder runs off a flagging attack with a ball which isn't hard and shiny anymore. Over to Cook Lyth and Bell for that.

Morgan should stay where he is. And be a success in the ODI format. He's had his chances in the test arena.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Paradigm. The problem is that to bring anyone in, Bairstow is an exampe we have to shuffle the order.

With Root being moved up one place from a position he has been killing it in, to a place where he has struggled against the same opposition.

The reason Root struggled against Australia at 4 was because it was on bouncy Australian pitches – where you can bowl a fuller length without risky being driven. While Root has strong footwork when driving he’s fairly static when defending, and this meant the Australians could force him to defend some very awkward length deliveries.

The difference between 4 and 5 is non-existent. If you have the technique and temperament for 5 then you’re capable at 4. Especially with Root, who’s opened a lot in county cricket.

Really, the problem with England’s current reshuffle is that they’ve settled for a half measure, pushing Root up by one and putting more pressure on the struggling Bell. They should have shifted Root to 3.

The Australian and English batting orders are quite similar at the moment, both very dependent on one high quality player. If Root makes runs England typically makes a good score, and if Smith makes runs Australia normally makes a good score. The difference now is that Smith is at 3 and able to shape an innings from the start, while Root is typically first required to rebuild, before he can set about playing his own game to build a strong score.

Root should do better on our normal pitches. I guess it really comes down to 1 and 2 taking the brunt of the new ball attack.

Do you think Clarke could move down the order 1 place?

He failed to make runs, again, in the first innings against Derbyshire. Is his place secure as long as Australia perform well?

Marsh got a ton though.

Also a question in general. There has been some commentator talk about retiring out during tour matches. mainly when centuries are scored. Is it the nature of the batsman to retire rather than give his wicket away, via offering the stumps or swatting a ball to a waiting fielder.
Some commentators have said that if you are going to retire, against lesser opponents, it would be more sportsmanly to offer a cheap wicket rather than just not batting through.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Root should do better on our normal pitches. I guess it really comes down to 1 and 2 taking the brunt of the new ball attack.

1 and 2 should, ideally, but it only ever takes 1 ball to bring the #3 out to the wicket, so your 3 needs to able to work as an opener.

And our pitches are normal - yours are weird

Do you think Clarke could move down the order 1 place?

He failed to make runs, again, in the first innings against Derbyshire. Is his place secure as long as Australia perform well?

Marsh got a ton though.

4 or 5 isn't really much of a difference. In most teams you line 4-6 in seniority, sometimes with one player being so much of a standout in talent he pushes his way to 4.

That said, given Clarke's technique he's probably best suited to 5, for the odd time that two early wickets send the #4 out against the new ball. But the issue is that out batting pool is really shallow. Voges is currently in at 5, and as a parochial West Aussie I'm proud and hopes he keeps his spot, but the reality is that he's come in to the team on the back of one good domestic year. When you're picking 35 year olds based on one good domestic season then you've got a real problem with batting depth.

The next in line is Shaun Marsh, who's got undeniable talent but has never strung a series of good scores together. After him, well there's some promising youngsters but they're all a couple of years away, at best. So Clarke has to bat 4 and will do so for some time even if he battles because there really isn't a lot else out there.

Also a question in general. There has been some commentator talk about retiring out during tour matches. mainly when centuries are scored. Is it the nature of the batsman to retire rather than give his wicket away, via offering the stumps or swatting a ball to a waiting fielder.
Some commentators have said that if you are going to retire, against lesser opponents, it would be more sportsmanly to offer a cheap wicket rather than just not batting through.

It used to be that players would hit out, looking to slap as many 4s and 6s as they could before they got out, for a bit of fun if nothing else. Seems retiring out is the new fashion. I'm not sure it really matters, to be honest. When players are retiring because they've had enough practice, by definition you're in a match that doesn't matter

I'd prefer blokes hit out until they got out - makes for a better highlight reel

38-3, rain stopped play. Where was this deluge when we were being smashed last week?

99-7.

Rain saves Australia's blushes again.....

Well 136 all out. I what Starc and Johnson (the new MItchell Brothers!) can do in a few minutes.

Rogers has shown how to bat on this surface, leave the good balls and tap the bad. See if Lyth has been taking note.

Rain on the first day doesn't matter as new playing conditions extend mean you start earlier and finish later to make it up later in the test. And with 13 wickets on the first day I can't see too much chance for a draw, unless this pitch really flattens out.

All the fame is going to Anderson, but I think England as a group bowled really well - didn't try for unplayable deliveries but just kept it tight and let the conditions do the work. When Australia came out they made the mistake of chasing wickets to bring us back in to the match, and gave up too many four balls as a result. I suspect that will be quickly identified and you'll see a different Australian approach tomorrow.

Still, get Root early and minimise the English lead, then bat very well second time around and its still game on.

Stay in your seats as this test is moving along at a fair clip.

Johnson has a brilliant burst early doors. Starc is taking the mantle of swinging left, right, up, down and being 'poop'.

200 odd for 7. Root gone for a decent 60. Butler walking is a sore point. Should have reviewed his lbw dismissal. Nathan Lyon is proving to be a strike bowler in this match 3 in 3 overs!

Ali is groping for runs - and is looking like it may pay off for a decent score.

Great stuff!

Crikey! Turning like a beast for Lyon!

Well that was good! Almost thought we were looking at a 2-day, 3-innings test match at one point! Alas, 'twas not to be, but still it's something of a forgone conclusion at this point.

The biggest loss, though, is Anderson. If he's not fit for the next game, Wood will have to step back up, I guess.