Ashes second test, Lords, continued.

First topic message reminder :

Please continue here guys.

Don't we all.

"Once we used to count consecutive wins, now
we are counting loss."
"Once who used to be invincible, are now falling
apart."
"Once Impossible for others looks like an easy
going for them, now easy task is impossible."
"Once a win against them is like a celebration,
now they are hunting for a single win."
"Once who used to be the King, now have
become a mere prey."
I still believe they will be back to rule again.

As expected, the Australian batting went through yet another collapse. Captain Michael Clarke might perhaps start a fresh round of reflection on the sacking of Simon Kattich now.
A bit unhappy that young Joe didn't score his first double hundred today, but the lad made it up by picking 2 important wickets. Graeme Swann and James Anderson also chipping in as expected.
Michael Clarke at last getting among some runs, though he has to thank Matt Prior for the extended opportunity. Uzman Khawaja scoring a 50 as well. Shane Watson yet again falling LBW and Chris Rogers not able to transform his first class record and level of performance to the international level. Phillip Hughes confirming that his first innings of the series was a serious exception. England would do well to let him score a few next game!.
And how on earth is Tony Hill allowed to come anywhere near an international umpiring panel. We all might have our differences on who among the international umpires of the present is the best, but the worst has to be Hill. The DRS does require some urgent attention from the ICC. Hiding behind a cloud of stats won't help. Even a critical supporter like me having more doubts by the minute.

Does anyone else feel a little sorry for Phil Hughes? Makes 80 odd not out at TB and maybe starts to look like he might actually be able to play this game after all and then gets shoved up to number 4. Harsh.

kingraf wrote:About six me think... Bradman, Ponting, Waugh, Greg Chappel and Hayden above him?

 Surely Alan Border would be rated above Clarke?

JDizzle wrote:Does anyone else feel a little sorry for Phil Hughes? Makes 80 odd not out at TB and maybe starts to look like he might actually be able to play this game after all and then gets shoved up to number 4. Harsh.

Well, bearing in mind he started out as an opener with two hundreds.

hughes can go of and have a drink with compo and drown his sorrows  if he wants..

Compo is clearly happier though. Better not playing than playing for Oz!

Can I say that I am taking very little satisfaction from this win (beyond the feel of turn-about after what the Aussies did to us through the 90s and early 00s). In 2005 England had to play outstanding cricket to beat a very fine Australian side. Even in 2009 we had to play well to beat a good side, but so far this series we've played little better than OK and yet have won the first test (which bar the 10th wicket partnerships from the Aussies would have been a hammering) and absolutely dominated the second.

OK, we have at times had the rub of the green - Aus could have got themselves somewhat back into the game early in our second innings, but Root got a life when edging through the slips with Haddin and Clarke just looking at each other (Haddin at fault) and Bell being given not out on a ball that probably carried (I'm not a fan on the use of video evidence to judge catches, because the slightly downward camera angle makes it look like the bal is touching the ground before it is). That Root then scored a huge hundred and Bell a fluent 70-odd to set an overwhelming match position is just the typical thing that happens.

almost every batter gets a bit of luck at some point in a big innings- none of that shoud go against root, just as it should go against agar or bell in this series..

mystiroakey wrote:almost every batter gets a bit of luck at some point in a big innings- none of that shoud go against root, just as it should go against agar or bell in this series..

Myst

Obviously luck plays a part, and one of the big things is to make the most of every break you do get, which Root and Bell did to some extent. It just seemed this Test that England had most of the luck and did a lot more to exploit the breaks they did get than did the Aussies. Better side + the rub of the green = a very big win.

nah we crushed them and if the opposition misses a catch thats not actually luck but bad fielding..

every team misses catches. the bell catch was not conclusive by any means either, I have no idea how that could have been out considering it was only part in his hand. The umpires should allways give benefit of doubt to the batter

I thought where England got the most luck was being allowed the extra over before lunch on day 2 - at an entirely similar time on the previous day, the umpires called lunch. Watson then got out, wasted a review, and the rest of course is well known.

It is not unlucky to drop a catch (it is as mysti says poor fielding) however it is lucky to be dropped by someone - you have made the exact same error as had you been out, but are not, through no skill of your own.

In any case, the dominant side always has the most luck, because they create the most chances - so it was with the Aussie side of the 90s-07, they always seemed to get the rub of the green.

Root played a fantastic innings, and has allayed many of my fears concerning him as an opener.

As others have pointed out, the scary thing from an Aussie PoV is surely that England haven't yet played anything like their best. Of course, neither have Australia, but in their state of mind things are unlikely to improve...

I hope they do, if only for the purpose of spectacle.

Mike Selig wrote:

Root played a fantastic innings, and has allayed many of my fears concerning him as an opener.

Great innings no doubt, and hopefully one that will fill him with confidence, but I'm still not entirely convinced seeing as he should, really, have been out early on.
Of course you have to take advantage of such luck and Root did that magnificently, but I'd like to see him play a couple of chanceless innings as opener before I'm absolutely sure (although I fully expect him to do so in the near future).

I hope Australia improve, because if two of the top 3 can hang around for a long time at the same time - things could get tough for them.

Just imagine if Cook and Root could actually build a partnership and stay together for 50+ overs. Suddenly the situation is a lot easier for the strokeplayers coming in from 4 down.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Root played a fantastic innings, and has allayed many of my fears concerning him as an opener.

Great innings no doubt, and hopefully one that will fill him with confidence, but I'm still not entirely convinced seeing as he should, really, have been out early on.
Of course you have to take advantage of such luck and Root did that magnificently, but I'd like to see him play a couple of chanceless innings as opener before I'm absolutely sure (although I fully expect him to do so in the near future).

It is very, very rare to see a completely chanceless innings from an opener. the key is to really kick on once set.

LondonTiger wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Root played a fantastic innings, and has allayed many of my fears concerning him as an opener.

Great innings no doubt, and hopefully one that will fill him with confidence, but I'm still not entirely convinced seeing as he should, really, have been out early on.
Of course you have to take advantage of such luck and Root did that magnificently, but I'd like to see him play a couple of chanceless innings as opener before I'm absolutely sure (although I fully expect him to do so in the near future).

It is very, very rare to see a completely chanceless innings from an opener. the key is to really kick on once set.

Yeah. I suppose I'm expecting a bit too much, but I'd just like to see him play a couple of innings where A) he doesn't get out and B) he doesn't get such a large slice of luck to set him on his way.

The encouraging thing with Root's innings was how he came back out on day 3 and played without the fidgety nervouseness that seemed to have characterised his brief stint as an opener up to that point. Could be the innings to transform him from potential to cemented long term at the top of the order.

I like Root as a player (and that isn't just my Yorkshire loyalties coming through) - he has shown decent technique and temperament, but even moreso he has shown an ability to play to the match situation that is unusual in such a young player. Start of day 3 it was important England just wore down the Aussies and killed off any chance of a momentum swing, which he did perfectly alongside Bresnan. Then he was able to free up his play later in the day, with his progress from 100 to 170 coming at pretty close to a run a ball.

I'm not usually one to be too critical of a batsman getting out for <10 - sometimes you get a good ball or make a bit of a mistake before you are well set (especially true of an opener agaisnt the new ball). The key is though once you are set and starting to see the ball and get the scoreboard ticking over not to give it away. Root doesn't seem to, unlike Watson.

Yeah, maybe I'm being a bit hypercritical.

JDizzle wrote:Does anyone else feel a little sorry for Phil Hughes? Makes 80 odd not out at TB and maybe starts to look like he might actually be able to play this game after all and then gets shoved up to number 4. Harsh.

Yeah I do, big fan of Hughes'(Realise that puts me in the minority somewhat on this board). Seemed a strange move to me, particularly as Smith made runs at 5 but was then demoted to 6 whilst Hughes moved up two places. I can't believe that someone as good as Clarke can't bat Number 4 and it is decided he needs to move down after 1 test, especially when one of his dismissals was a world class delivery.

Perhaps if his openers could set a platform for him, he'd be able to play with a bit more freedom instead of having to come in and rescue the game for his team, having to do everything. Surely if any batsman needs dropping it is Watson who is the only Aussie out of their top 6 who hasn't made a decent contribution with the bat(by that I mean a 50, we know none of them have made 100's )

Might be surprising, but Shane Watson is the top scorer for Australia in this series so far. Phillip hughes had one innings of substance, that too an 81 not out, yet scored only 2 runs in the next 3 innings. He was awful through the business end of the test series in India, then slogged a few runs in the last couple of games, and got selected for this tour even over above Steven Smith who looked far more convincing in India. What we have seen in this series so far is the continuation of a similar pattern. Hughes has too many problems in his technique, isn't quite comfortable against seam or spin, and is not quite good enough for a test place at the moment.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman has announced the baby is out. The Aussies are reviewing it.

hodge wrote:A Buckingham Palace spokesman has announced the baby is out. The Aussies are reviewing it.

Theres nothing on hotspot

Hussain is sure he heard a nick

James Pattinson has a stress fracture in his back and will miss the rest of the series.

If Aus wanted to play 2 spinners, theres the opportunity.

Apologies for the belated post but I don't think it's already been covered. Just wondered who you would choose from this Test as Man of the Match.

Three outsanding candidates to my mind. Root, Bell and Swann.

I would go for Swann for his consistency and match winning effect in the Australian first innings but fully accept that mighty strong cases can be made for the other two.

Guildford

Of the two batsmen, I'd say that Bell's performance was more important in the match context -had he not made the first innings runs we would not have been in the position of dominance by the end of day 2 that then allowed Root (with Bell's assistance again) to make the runs on day 3. OK, so Root contributed a couple of important wickets with the ball in the second innings, but in a game that was already won.

Swann's contribution to the game though probably pushes his cause ahead of either - 5-44 and 4-78 with the ball (the second innings figures poorer only because the ball was doing so much the batsmen couln't get near it) and a handy contribution with the bat at the end of the first innings..

Probably Bell, for me. His was the defining innings...28-3 we were in serious trouble, and his excellence again rescued the cause.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

kingraf wrote:About six me think... Bradman, Ponting, Waugh, Greg Chappel and Hayden above him?

 Surely Alan Border would be rated above Clarke?

No space for Gilchrist?

Fists rightly imo places Bell above Root for his (Bell's) defining first innings. Splendid though Root was, most of his best work was done when we already had a cosiderably upper hand.

However, and again it's only an opinion, Swann still trumped Bell as eloquently and effectively set out by Dummy.

I'm not so sure, Guildford. Swann's wicket of Rogers was with one of the all-round worst pieces of cricket in history. His last two were tailenders, and the other two included Phil Hughes. I didn't actually think he bowled that well for his Michelle, it was certainly one of the more fortuitous of his career.

Bell should have been MOM but Root is the new golden boy. Swann bowled well but got lucky/easy wickets I thought.

Yeah Id have made Bell MotM. Stood up both innings when it counted. Root has weight of runs but a lot of those were freebies towards the end

Bell probably should have won the prize...the first innings (perhaps his best for England ? Certainly on the short list ) was perhaps a match saver , daft though that idea seems after what followed...and his second innings was a nice little extra to really bury the Australians. But I expected Root to win it for both the sheer size of his second innings and the two important wickets which ultimately ensured the game didn't go on to day five. Being the New Star on the scene didn't hurt...don't think the England boys care as long as they keep winning as a team.
It is always a very subjective choice anyway...and often unduly influenced by the match result and the later stages of the game. If Australia had made fifteen more runs at Trent Bridge what odds Agar would have collected it - though Anderson would still have been rather more deserving...

All the 3 players had strong claims. I think's the eventual choice of Root is a fair enough one, particularly considering the couple of wickets he managed besides playing a confidence boosting mighty fine innings 2nd time round. Bell's contribution was equally important, particularly the first innings. Swann bowled well to pick up those many wickets, and played a nice hand at the end of England's first innings to firmly place the side in command. But there could be other days when he would a great deal better and end up with less to show for all that. End of the day, I am happy with Root.

Msp - in line with my opening comments about the Man of the Match contenders, I totally agree with you that all three players had strong claims.

My issue with Root (and this probably makes me appear disrepectful towards him which is anything but the case - I actually suggested he should be opening on the India tour) is that I'm reminded of the wise words of the late Tony "Champagne" Lema: "Drive for show, putt for dough."

I normally have enough trouble trying to bluff my way through cricket threads without bringing golf into the mix (where is Kwini when I need him?). However, why I'm reminded of Lema's words is that I feel the dough had largely been earned through the efforts of Bell and Swann by the time Root put on his spectacular and wonderfully entertaining show.

I agree that Root also merits praise for his wickets. Interesting that often the expression "a couple of wickets" (as Root took) somehow sounds more impressive than three.

Really doing no more here than debate the material for a part of England's victory ticker tape whilst it appears Australia are left to shuffle the deckchairs on their Titanic.

Splitting hairs. What would the run chase have been if Root got a duck, and would they have made the lower run chase if Root never got those two wickets. Add in his inexperience and excellent fielding, and you got the winner right there.....is there some anti Tykes stuff going on here that I don't know about?

I'm always anti something apparently. Slight difference between rebuilding from 30-3 on day 1 than day 2 with a 200 run lead already in the bag for me.

Douglas - no anti Tykes (or anyone else) stuff here. Merely trying to assess which of three giants stood tallest in this Test. Even those not opting for Root have been highly supportive of him.

Have to say a very effective case made by several for Bell who was not my initial pick.

Root's innings was the best performance, but probably the least influential in terms of the result.

I would have gone for Swann, because England's first innings was par at best, and it was Australia's first innings which put them in charge.

I can't say I'm too fussed though.

Yep I agree with that.

Swann and the bolwers won the game. Roots was the best cricket but not as important as Bells or Swannys!

Mike Selig wrote:Root's innings was the best performance, but probably the least influential in terms of the result.

I would have gone for Swann, because England's first innings was par at best, and it was Australia's first innings which put them in charge.

I can't say I'm too fussed though.

Disagree (respectfully). It's all semantics though. If Root had scored low, and not taken Clarke and that other guy's wicket, they could have run us down.

As a Yorkshire member I am of course in the belief that MotM should have gone to.
.
.
.
.
.

Ian Bell.

I understand why root got it, but the state of the game when Bell walked out on day one was not good for us. The openers had failed to see off the new ball, and Pietersen had thrown his wicket away with some brainless cricket. England needed - and Bell delivered.

Swann got wickets, but I did not feel he actually bowled all that well.

BBC Sport ‏@BBCSport
Confirmed: Notts batsman James Taylor to play for Sussex against Australia - clear indication he's in line for a Test call-up #bbccricket

He'll play if KP can't recover

sweet- I really hope kp isnt fit.. KP hasnt got long left. Great player and all when fit and still a main part of the team  but we need to blood in taylor..

Everyone is having a go about compo- even though he had 9 odd innings and had a shocking average in that time- without showing us any 'x' factor..

Taylor has this in droves!

Maybe not a Root- but certainly a very good player

Olly wrote:BBC Sport ‏@BBCSport
Confirmed: Notts batsman James Taylor to play for Sussex against Australia - clear indication he's in line for a Test call-up #bbccricket

An even clearer indication of the shameful downgrading of county cricket.

Any updates on KP's injury? How much are the chances of him sitting out of the 3rd test?

I wonder who Warny is going to blame for aussie losing this test.. Are we a one man team with Swann?, Bell? or Root?

mystiroakey wrote:sweet- I really hope kp isnt fit.. KP hasnt got long left. Great player and all when fit and still a main part of the team  but we need to blood in taylor..

Everyone is having a go about compo- even though he had 9 odd innings and had a shocking average in that time- without showing us any 'x' factor..

Taylor has this in droves!

Maybe not a Root- but certainly a very good player

Mysti, no need to wish for KP's lack of wellbeing, the way the Australians are playing, England should be able to rest him, Anderson and Swann come the 5th test. And Taylor can be given further opportunities with the ODI side before he's back in the test side, provided Jonny Bairstow maintains good form and would not make an earlier Taylor return necessary.

I'll miss KP each time he doesn't play. But if Pietersen isn't fully fit, no need to rush him back and aggravate his injury.