The Ashes, Second Test Lord's

Harris and Khwaja in.
Aus's bowling depth is so good that they can drop who was rated to be their top fast bowler without blinking an eyelid.

The second test of the series that started with a superb first game begins today at Lord's today. England are 1-0 up in the series after their 14 run win in the first game.
England are considered slow starters, and they weren't up to their best in the first game. Only James Anderson and Ian Bell made outstanding contributions. Alastair Cook, Kevin Pietersen and Stuart Broad scored 50s but failed to carry on. Graeme Swann was below his best despite a couple of important interventions, Stuart Broad couldn't bowl for most of the Australian first innings and struggled in the field. Apart from one early decisive intervention on day one, Steven Finn had a forgettable test match. Jonny Bairstow hasn't convinced yet at that number 6 slot, and Joe Root couldn't straightaway produce his A game up the top of the order.
Despite all that, England won. Apart from 2 difficult last wicket partnerships, they looked in control with the ball, and their batsman managed to find just enough to get them over the line. Jonathan Trott should be back to his consistent ways sooner rather than later, Kevin Pietersen has a fabulous record at the HQ. Alastair Cook usually prefers to lead from the front and Ian Bell has just played his best innings in the Ashes. Graeme Swann should get a bit more pace of the wicket at Loards and and conditions are expected to offer a bit more than usual to the spinner this summer. Finn has an outstanding record at his home ground, and that is the major advantage going for him in the tussle for the 3rd seamer's position.
Finn's place is the only real questionmark for England, but his record at Lord's might just see him through though Alastair Cook wasn't quite forthcoming on the lineup.
As for Australia, they performed much better than expected, and they ran England very close. However after the immediate aftermath, the underlying reality is more complex than the projected conception of a team on the upswing. Their batting continued to struggle, and had it not been for an outstanding hand from youngster Ashton Agar, the first innings could have been a total disaster. None of the top 7 made an outstanding contribution with the bat. Despite his superb effort with the bat, Agar didn't look like the type who could trouble the England batsman a great deal. Mitchell Starc was some way below his best, and even James Pattinson wasn't as consistent as his side would like him to be. On top of all that, the ripples from the sacking of former coach Micky Arthur continues to take the focus away from real cricket itself.
But at the end, there is not as much difference as was expected by many between the 2 sides. A comeback will be very difficult for Australia if they go down here. So expect another good game of test cricket.

Getting rid of Cowan at 3 was a no-brainer; I look forward to seeing whether Khawaja has improved his work ethic, which was the main stumbling block to him being an international cricketer.

Harris for Starc (if true, so far the only source is the Sydney Herald I think) will give them more control, but they lose a bit of magic (IMO Starc can produce spells which Harris isn't capable of) and of course the variety of the left-armer. Harris is probably the more cultured batsman (just - Starc is a reasonable bat also) but less mobile in the field. Starc has looked strangely off colour this tour though (he seems to be just putting the ball there without much intent) so I can't say I'm surprised.

Cowan and Starc out for Australia, replaced by Khawaja and Harris (presumably not Rolf). Big toss to win this...simply have to bat first.

Merged these two threads.

I think England will be pleased at the omission of the left armer..it is an angle they've never looked truly comfortable against and the left arm over the wicket fuller inswinger is a dangerous delivery to get first up for the right handed batsman.

Fists of Fury wrote:Merged these two threads.

Thanks Fists.

Good point Fists. Trott because of the way he plays is more vulnerable to the inswinger from left-arm over (apart from Starc in the last game I'm fairly sure MJ has gotten him out a few times as well) whilst Cook has had issues with left-armers in the past.

Having said that Harris at his best is a class act. But he hasn't played test cricket for rather a long time now - how will he cope?

Australia will want a bit more of Pattinson - he bowled OK at TB, but he's better than an OK bowler. He never really hit his straps like he can.

Ryan Harris with a test batting average of 18 and a highest score of 68* is pretty good batsman for being listed down at No.11

Despite his fragile body that can give Shane Watson's a seriously good run for money, I consider Ryan Harris as the best of the lot of a quality group of fast bowlers that Australia have. Good to see him getting a game, but the big question is , how fit is he, and will his body take the strains of a 5 day game? Starc certainly didn't make a strong case for himself in the first game, but as Mike just mentioned, he is one bowler who has something extra about him, but Australia have good depth in quality and Harris is a pretty good replacement.
Cowan has had a good run in the side, he never crossed over to good from being just adequate. For such a batsman, the lack of runs coupled with the way he got out had to mean way out of the side. Good to see Khawaja getting some game time at last.

I hope england win the toss and bat. The last test was amazing in the way the control swung from one side to the other several times each day. However, this time I would prefer a more sedate day, if we bat first, a score of 260/280 - 4 would do me fine laying a solid foundation for the remainder of the test. Of course if the aussies bat first then I would like a day every bit as frenetic and controversial as the previous test.

KP_fan wrote:Ryan Harris with a test batting average of 18 and a highest score of 68* is pretty good batsman for being listed down at No.11

I'd be surprised if Harris bats below Pattinson and even Siddle for that matter in the batting order. He has a more cultured approach than either of them, though very effective they both are with the bat. Agar at 8, Harris at 9, Siddle at 10 and Pattinson at 11 would be the way to go about.

msp83 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Ryan Harris with a test batting average of 18 and a highest score of 68* is pretty good batsman for being listed down at No.11

I'd be surprised if Harris bats below Pattinson and even Siddle for that matter in the batting order. He has a more cultured approach than either of them, though very effective they both are with the bat. Agar at 8, Harris at 9, Siddle at 10 and Pattinson at 11 would be the way to go about.

In fairness any one of those 4 could happily bat at 8. Strong tail, something England have to accept and deal with.

Harris is a dangerous bowler, no doubt. Has always impressed me when I've seen him.

As an interesting aside, Pat Cummins is currently playing for Australia A out in South Africa against a Zimbabwe XI. An exceptional talent if he can regain fitness and remain fit. A pace trio of Starc Pattinson and Cummins could be around for years to come if they are managed properly...a potentially fearsome unit.

David Warner is out for 6, by the way.

Australia continue to re-invent the batting wheel, Eleven batsmen got them close last time out.
Khawaja
Clarke
Hughes
Smith
Just looks a looks a little more steely, I'm backing Clarke to come good at Lord's

I have a horrible feeling that the more england look at the batting strength of the aussie tail, the greater the temptation will be to strengthen our own tail by bringing in bresnan for Finn. And to be fair bresnan, broad, swann, anderson on paper looks good for numbers 7-11.

Warner's failings in the Toe-end of South Africa, mean nothing. Vastly Different conditions.

Didn't Anderson hold the record for the most consecutive innings without a duck once?

Have to say I'm concerned at the noises made by Cook recently. Suggests that Finn is set to be left out, which IMO would be a mistake. As I once said to a co-coach if confidence is the main issue dropping him/not bowling him is hardly going to help is it?*

*I accept that the objectives and perogatives of myself and Andy Flower (to say nothing of our respective abilities) are entirely different: as a coach of a junior team the main part of my brief is developing young players; Flower's is 'simply' to win test matches.

To be honest, I can't see anything other than an England win this time.

Yes, the first Test was close, but it was a battle of which of two mis-firing batting lineups would make more runs. The only reason it ended close was the unexpectedly strong performances from the AUstralians fo rthe 10th wicket - even given the relative strength of their lower order, you can't rely on adding 225 runs for your two 10th wicket partnerships, so the top order needs to fire.

The main reason though I can only see England winning is that they must have been buoyed by the victory and the Aussies deflated by coming so close to a shock result.

England can play a lot better than they did - too many starts but failures to go on from the batsmen (which has become a worrying trend in the last year) and a lack of contribution with the ball from Finn and Broad. In truth, I think this England team playing at 7/10 should be too strong for the Aussies iin our conditions, as other than Clarke and Watson, I'm not convinced that the Aussie batsmen have the technique to stand up to the challenge consistently.

Mike Selig wrote:Have to say I'm concerned at the noises made by Cook recently. Suggests that Finn is set to be left out, which IMO would be a mistake. As I once said to a co-coach if confidence is the main issue dropping him/not bowling him is hardly going to help is it?*

*I accept that the objectives and perogatives of myself and Andy Flower (to say nothing of our respective abilities) are entirely different: as a coach of a junior team the main part of my brief is developing young players; Flower's is 'simply' to win test matches.

And where better to rebuild the confidence of a player than in a team that just won a match? There is a reason that 'Never change a winning team' is a truism.

Morning all.
 
Looking forward to this.
 
Hoping England have got their first test batting jitters out of the way and that they are ready for a good five days of top quality cricket.
 
Aussie have shown they are more than up for this and going to make this a close series.
 
Englands team looks fairly set.  Bairstow is to be given more time (can't say they are reactionary) to settle.   The question is over Fin..  He got rattled at Trent but it could just catch them out going after him on this ground.
 
Interesting.  For Aussie I just read about two possible changes but not sure who.  [edit] I should have read above.

I wonder if England will realise now you have to start looking at some batting all the way down. Aussie seem to be reinventing things here.

Important toss this to win. Lords, sunny day, flat deck means scoreboard pressure is the way to go. Plus, England would like to give Anderson another days rest given his workload last week. Also, Finn if picked, which he should be, must be given the new ball.

dummy_half wrote:To be honest, I can't see anything other than an England win this time.

Yes, the first Test was close, but it was a battle of which of two mis-firing batting lineups would make more runs. The only reason it ended close was the unexpectedly strong performances from the AUstralians fo rthe 10th wicket - even given the relative strength of their lower order, you can't rely on adding 225 runs for your two  10th wicket partnerships, so the top order needs to fire.

The main reason though I can only see England winning is that they must have been buoyed by the victory and the Aussies deflated by coming so close to a shock result.

England can play a lot better than they did - too many starts but failures to go on from the batsmen (which has become a worrying trend in the last year) and a lack of contribution with the ball from Finn and Broad. In truth, I think this England team playing at 7/10 should be too strong for the Aussies iin our conditions, as other than Clarke and Watson, I'm not convinced that the Aussie batsmen have the technique to stand up to the challenge consistently.

I think that is a fairly one-sided viewpoint though. Australia also played well below par, and I could make a similar case the other way.

Their much-vaunted (for good reason IMO) pace attack on the whole didn't fire, yet had it not been for a good tail-end innings from Broad (assisted by some poor officiating) - something which recently has been a bit of a rarity - they would have dismissed England twice for well under 300.

With the bat, their two best batsmen failed to fire - this is unlikely to happen all that often - whilst they were on the receiving end of some marginal LBW decisions (Rogers, Watson and Hughes). Their opening partnership looked reasonable, and Khawaja can scarcely do much worse than Cowan. Hughes looked more solid at 6 than he ever has done in the past, and Smith has obviously improved beyond measure.

Yet despite all these problems, they ran a decidedly superior (on paper) England side desperately close, and but for some good tail-end resistance from Broad and some dodgy umpiring the result would surely have been different.

===

Of course the above is somewhat tongue-in-cheek and I accept your basic premise: england have the better team, and should win. However, cricket is not played on paper, and England's superiority is not as marked as some seem to think - Australia's bowling is good enough, and England's batting brittle enough (particularly with Root opening and Bairstow at 6) that they have a chance, and IMO a better one than you give them credit for.

Also, I'm not wholly surprised that Aus have dropped Starc. When he was at Yorkshire, his 4 day form was very hit and miss. He took wickets but he was wayward and was far too floaty with the old ball. Having said that he was key to our run to finals day in the T20 last year, but this is a different ball game altogether - obviously.

Why is it, according to cricinfo, an 11.15 start?

Yes! Big toss to win that.

Finn dropped. Bresnan in. I'm not too happy with that, would at least have gone with Onions.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Why is it, according to cricinfo, an 11.15 start?

Because her majesty the Queen is visiting.

England win the toss and bat. Bresnan in, Finn out.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Why is it, according to cricinfo, an 11.15 start?

Because her majesty the Queen is visiting.

Could she not have visited a bit earlier?

I hope England have picked Bresnan over Finn because they think that Bresnan will be able to do a better job with the ball, rather than just the fact Bresnan adds a bit of depth to the batting line-up.

Brilliant that England are batting first in these conditions. Good decision to drop Finn for Bresnan as well, our bowling will be a lot tighter as a result. That won't stop some ill-informed idiots over the next few days calling Bresnan a "trundler". If you want a bad selection choice, that would be Australia picking Harris over Starc - the left-armer was causing England all manner of difficulties in the first test.

I also hear that her most glorious and excellent Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, ruler of the British Empire and her fleets, is here today. The best place to watch Test cricket is packed to the rafters today - oh how glorious it is to be English. Gallant, noble and true.

Come on England!

I'm a little surprised Finm has not been given a second chance, here at his home ground, especially as Flower rarely seems the knee jerk sort.

Still, he knows better than I do and perhaps Finns general confidence and form are also poor in training and he needs some county games to get his mojo back.

Mat wrote:I hope England have picked Bresnan over Finn because they think that Bresnan will be able to do a better job with the ball, rather than just the fact Bresnan adds a bit of depth to the batting line-up.

I think it's a control issue. I don't agree with the decision but I expect England thought that they could rely on Bresnan to bowl tighter overs for longer spells than Finn.

Plus if they were going to rotate Finn and Bresnan, it really should have been the other way around. Finn for Lords and Bresnan at TB.

Time for Rooty to step up and cement his place. Come on lad, make yourself into an immovable little tree out there.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Why is it, according to cricinfo, an 11.15 start?

Because her majesty the Queen is visiting.

Could she not have visited a bit earlier?

Take it you won't be nominating Her Majesty for our Hall of Fame then, Hoggy?

liverbnz wrote:

Mat wrote:I hope England have picked Bresnan over Finn because they think that Bresnan will be able to do a better job with the ball, rather than just the fact Bresnan adds a bit of depth to the batting line-up.

I think it's a control issue. I don't agree with the decision but I expect England thought that they could rely on Bresnan to bowl tighter overs for longer spells than Finn.

Plus if they were going to rotate Finn and Bresnan, it really should have been the other way around. Finn for Lords and Bresnan at TB.

That is what puzzles me the most, this is Finn's home ground where he has a great record for England so it should suit him a little more than Trent Bridge.

Finn can be expensive but the bloke is a wicket-taker. After our 215 all out at Trent Bridge, we needed early wickets and Finn got Watson and Cowan, that's the sort of impact you want your bowler to have, can Bresnan do the same? Suppose we'll have to wait and see, hopefully he surprises us all like he did in Australia.

So Finn dropped. Looks like the only player for whom the benefits of continuity in selection does not apply in any formats. Tough on the lad, but I am sure he'll bounce back.
I hope this choice doesn't come back to haunt England.

Is the Queen going to snub Stuart Broad's handshake in protest of him not walking?

No.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Why is it, according to cricinfo, an 11.15 start?

Because her majesty the Queen is visiting.

Could she not have visited a bit earlier?

Take it you won't be nominating Her Majesty for our Hall of Fame then, Hoggy?

Not unless she stays on to score a double century batting at 6, and then takes 10 wickets, with Alec Bedser like right-arm fast-medium.
Can't see that happening

And off they go.

Swing from ball one.

This will be tasty for the Aussie Bowlers. They won't want England to settle.

Captain Cook has got England going with a 2nd ball boundary of James Pattinson.

Ryan Harris is the closest thing to Dale Steyn. Skiddy, pace and out swing. Remains to be seen how his body will last for 5 days in this heat. Nonetheless Harris is an exceptional bowler.

Mitchell Starc, whilst talented, needs to get more control.

Cowan was a cert to be axed, Khawaja claims to have improved so let's see how he goes.

Disappointed Onions wasn't given a go at Lords.

Pattinson seems an intense young man.

Chill dude. Someone sit him down with a yorkie and a cup of tea and give him a nice hug. That's what he needs.. Some love.

Pattinson not exactly finding his line right here in the first over so far.

Ryan Harris from the other end, Joe Root on strike on strike for the first time in the match. A couple of early leaves for young Joe to start with.

Be interesting to see if the young man can reproduce his heroics from Trent Bridge. He's too young to worry about failure so I'd back him to give it a right go.

Maiden to start with from Harris.

Batting first.. good times!!

Prediction(like I am ever right these days!!)

750 declared.

Bat well and give them some first innings scoreboard pressure and see what happens from there. Ideally.