3rd Ashes test Old Trafford

First topic message reminder :

Can't help but feel that the old australian teams of waugh and ponying would have declared by now and backed their bowlers to win the game for them. Admittedly the bowlers were better, but I think we can really see the aussie mentality in delaying the declaration decision. It's ok to say you can't base the decision on the forecast but at 2-0 down it is all or nothing, and they should have gambled earlier.

Warne thinks Clarkes declarations were spot on.  I respectfully disagree.  They were in turn too early and too late.

Difficult thing to get right though.

Let's not forget at 129-3 with perfect batting conditions they were so, so close to being 129-4. And Smith could have been out about 5 times in the match defining partnership. A dominant performance in the end, but such fine margins on that first day gives me hope for the next two.

trebellbobaggins wrote:Warne thinks Clarkes declarations were spot on.  I respectfully disagree.  They were in turn too early and too late.

Difficult thing to get right though.

it is but you have to max your resources in innings 1..

There is no reason to declare. I understand why he did- but that is because the batters wernt just swinging.. You hit out 20/20 style rather than declaring !!

Bat once Roakey.

Clarke first declaration was a bit trying to have it both ways and getting neither.

Didn't get enough to be able to bat once and didn't declare early enough to make use of reduced overs

Personally, I think this was England's "off" test. Annoying as it is, they always have at least one during a series, and Australia nearly capitalised. Back with a vengeance on Friday, praying for better weather, and a chance to finish off Australia. I'd only make one change: Taylor in for Bairstow.

Our first was pretty off as well duty.

I think we can just say this was OZ upping the level .

However I do think a lot of it was about the toss. I doubt they would have been as up as they were had we batted first!

I'd like to see Onions in at home.

 The toss has been a massive factor. This pitch was perfect early in those conditions but got tougher.  It was a match winning toss that one.  You had to back it up though and they did.

Ha. Woke up and decided to check the score...just as they called it off...

Rain ruined draw is a bit of an anti- climactic way to retain the Ashes , but I'll take it  

Want to win the series anyway - and prove this match a bit of an aberration . So on to The Riverside...

( Not fair to blame Clarke , I think : whenever he declared , in either innings , they were unlikely to get a result on this pitch with the equivalent of one whole day washed out...and without his innings they would probably have been bowled out for a modest total and who knows what would have happened ? )

At least it appears likely the remaining matches will be much more closely contested than appeared probable after the Lord's Test. Still fancy England 3-0 or 4-0

Clarke will regret his declaration timings methinks. Got away with that one, must be more imaginative with the ball and assertive with the bat next time out

And I would not drop Bairstow. He hasn't cemented his place yet by any means , but he did well at Lord's , and only had one innings here...to be honest it is the top three who have been getting England into trouble , with no decent opening stand and very little form number three who is having a very bad trot...

Sorry  

But the only change I see is - unlikely but possible - Onions into the attack on his home turf.

GSC wrote:I've yet to buy into Root as an opener tbh. Aus have a very good seam attack but he doesn't look all that confident yet. Not sure hes cut out as a test opener, might be better at 4/5 long term.

 
 
Let me get this right;-
 
Root scores a swashbuckling big century, as an opener when England needed it most
 
Root does his best Boycott impression - when we needed it the most

But he still doesnt convince?
 
 
He actually grows into the role more with every ball face

my opinion is that they declared too early in the first innings and could of and probably would of won by an innings.

however, england have been the better team over 3 tests and we have retained the ashes. it feels hollow, but if we were looking at a winning position today every one of us would be in celebration now and its only because we feel we lost today that we arent when in reality we he hold an unbeatable lead

Duty281 wrote:Personally, I think this was England's "off" test. Annoying as it is, they always have at least one during a series, and Australia nearly capitalised. Back with a vengeance on Friday, praying for better weather, and a chance to finish off Australia. I'd only make one change: Taylor in for Bairstow.

I don't think they did much wrong. If you can't score 400 with the least pressure on you, in the first innings on that pitch - then you've got problems

Then as soon as a team gets 400, their opponents, generally speaking, are under pressure

I agree with both your posts banbatrum.

Root couldnt have done much more!!

And yes Aus winning the toss was probally the key reason why we have been outplayed rather than our lads playing bad. I think aus have improved though!

Fantastic to retain the ashes, but it shouldn't be retained like that ... BORRRRRRRRRRING!

Compared to 2005 and 2009 the ashes has been boring this year.

I dunno.. that first test was on a knife edge, far from boring surely?

and the second saw some great play , as did this.

It will be boring if we play anything above average. Simply because, out of all our batsmen, only Clarke would get into our team

Certainly a lot of England players have yet to really arrive at the party.   Hopefully they will soon.

On talent, I'd rather have Smith than Bairstow

bairstow is 7th on runs scored. root is 3rd(both teams)

both are fine where they are . taylor will be in the team soonish but will replace a higher order batsman.. He is a better player than bairstow- but we need to get this no.6 place to stick. We have had so many issues with it in the past. Bairstow is doing fine.

Roots also failed to pass double figures in half his innings. The 180 is great for padding his stats in the above regard, even if it most of the latter half came against Clarke sticking on his spinners and waiting for a declaration.

Todays innings wad as good as a 50. Runs were unimportant. Sticking was. He faced over half the balls.

He survived 20 overs. Lets not pretend it was the 2nd coming of Atherton in Johannesburg

I hope Root succeeds, but right now he doesn't look to me like hes adapted to the opener role particularly well. Might be unpopular, but so be it.

Anyway, for Durham, I think I've made my position on Bairstow vs Taylor clear.

Think I'd also play Onions in place of Bresnan, with a view to Tremlett possibly playing at the Oval. With the pitches we're going to see down under, important we evaluate all the seam options.

I would like to see that team GSC. I think Tremlett is being reintegrated into the squad with an eye on the away series. We can expect fast bouncy tracks over there. Don't think he will be risked this series now, but you never know.

Probably more than a slight tinge of green to them VTR. Probably not likely to be big turners either.

Ha ha, too right. Unless Warnie is coming out of retirement again!

GSC wrote:He survived 20 overs. Lets not pretend it was the 2nd coming of Atherton in Johannesburg

As I said it was as good as a 50- no more- no less

Squad for the next Test: Cook, Root, Trott, KP, Bell, Bairstow, Prior, Swann, Broad, Bresnan, Anderson, Onions, Tremlett.

Pretty much same as. Taylor and Finn miss out. Hopefully Onions gets a gig over Bresnan for the next Test.

To me this match stood out for a couple of things:

1) Timidity of the English team

--playing for a draw, the-draw whihc would retain the ashes...as if the world ends after the retention of this ashes in this game

--so they prepared a dead-pitch played defensive, timid and choked...rain gods spared the defeat

--a lot of people will not forget that the first test match was a wafer thin affair and toss played a huge role.

--the series doesn't end today...two more tests and then 5 more tests in Aus......
if Engh don't pick themselves up immediately the next 7 tests are at stake.
unless Doomsday strikes....and all is wiped out...then the ashes goes to the heavens  


2) DRS

--went from bad to worse to horrible to comic

--ICC mentally disintegrated to the extent on this issue that they offered India a number of changes to make DRS acceptable.

A few random thoughts.

* Not convinced by Bairstow but feel the selectors should stay with him, at least for now. A lot of our success has been built on the selectors showing consistency and avoiding hasty decisions. If he was good enough to be picked for this Test (and they thought he was), did he really muck up so much in his one innings here to be discarded for the next? If he were to be dropped, that to my mind would more be making him a scapegoat for team failings than just his own.

* Believe Clarke is copping some unfair criticism about his first innings declaration. As well as runs on the board, I think the (clock) time of a declaration is very relevant and that Clarke got that about right; lateish on Friday when we'd been in the field for the best part of two hot days. His decision worked pretty well with the wicket of an opener and the nightwatchman that evening. Where it just didn't work out was yesterday morning when his bowers couldn't get those final 3 wickets for 30.

* Thought Haddin kept extremely well - didn't see all the Test by any means, so await to be shot down here.

* Ultimately it made no difference but I thought the umpires' attempted justification on SKY for the ''bad light'' stoppage was weak. Citing ''safety'' cut little ice. I'm sure Lancs would have played a t20 match at Old Trafford in the same or slightly worse conditions. Sure, facilities should generally be at higher level for Test cricket but if you're taling about a player's safety then what's good enough for a county pro should be good enough for a Test star.

* See more speculation about Tremlett playing. I maintain he's not ready for a 5 day match. 0-18 off his 4 overs yesterday against Scotland in the CB40. He's a fine bowler but still has some way to go.

KP_fan wrote:To me this match stood out for a couple of things:

1) Timidity of the English team

--playing for a draw, the-draw whihc would retain the ashes...as if the world ends after the retention of this ashes in this game

--so they prepared a dead-pitch played defensive, timid and choked...rain gods spared the defeat

--a lot of people will not forget that the first test match was a wafer thin affair and toss played a huge role.

--the series doesn't end today...two more tests and then 5 more tests in Aus......
if Engh don't pick themselves up immediately the next 7 tests are at stake.
unless Doomsday strikes....and all is wiped out...then the ashes goes to the heavens  


2) DRS

--went from bad to worse to horrible to comic

--ICC mentally disintegrated to the extent on this issue that they offered India a number of changes to make DRS acceptable.

   

100% comedy as ever KP_fan. I've put the most hilarious bits in bold.

2-0, to the Champions!

well done to the lads on retaining the ashes, very happy to see Onions in the squad for the durham test!!

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:To me this match stood out for a couple of things:

1) Timidity of the English team

--playing for a draw, the-draw whihc would retain the ashes...as if the world ends after the retention of this ashes in this game

--so they prepared a dead-pitch played defensive, timid and choked...rain gods spared the defeat

--a lot of people will not forget that the first test match was a wafer thin affair and toss played a huge role.

--the series doesn't end today...two more tests and then 5 more tests in Aus......
if Engh don't pick themselves up immediately the next 7 tests are at stake.
unless Doomsday strikes....and all is wiped out...then the ashes goes to the heavens  


2) DRS

--went from bad to worse to horrible to comic

--ICC mentally disintegrated to the extent on this issue that they offered India a number of changes to make DRS acceptable.

   

100% comedy as ever KP_fan. I've put the most hilarious bits in bold.

2-0, to the Champions!

Duty..my friend ...unusually weak response .

I fully expected you to say...Rain Saved Australia the 5-0 whitewash  

The gap between Australia and England is large. You keep telling us not to forget the first test, well what about the second test? 350-odd run defeat. That's the difference between the two sides.

Duty281 wrote:The gap between Australia and England is large. You keep telling us not to forget the first test, well what about the second test? 350-odd run defeat. That's the difference between the two sides.

I have two comments:

1)you of all people don't sound as upbeat as you did earlier.

2) yes I agree we must from hence forth always asses the diffrence between the two sides based on T2, Lords, 2013

I think Lancs prepared a pitch to last 5 days to make some money, rather than a grand England fiendish plan.  Whoever batted first were going to get the best of it.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The gap between Australia and England is large. You keep telling us not to forget the first test, well what about the second test? 350-odd run defeat. That's the difference between the two sides.

I have two comments:

1)you of all people don't sound as upbeat as you did earlier.

2) yes I agree we must from hence forth always asses the diffrence between the two sides based on T2, Lords, 2013

As upbeat as when?

Would agree with the thoughts of bringing in Onions for the next test on his home track. Don't think Timmy the Trundler has done a bad job, but time to look at all the options and see how Onions is shaping up for a possible Tour in the winter.

Trott/Cook need to get their asses in gear with the bat

I agree with possibly bringing Onions back in. Nothing against Bresnan, I like the guy as a player, it's more rotation than an outright dropping.

My other change would be to bat Bell at 3 and Trott at 5. I think it would be better to have the form guy coming in earlier and it may give Trott a slightly easier run and/or a kick up the backside to get on and get runs. If Trott fails in the fourth test BUT England don't lose, I'd then look at bringing Taylor in for Trott at 5 for the 5th test - with the series already sown up. Again, I like Trott, but there's a degree of rotation and a degree of underperformance in this series. He'd most likely be back in the team for the first test down under, possibly back in at 3 as well, but it would all depend on how Bell and Taylor were going.

I think they should have played Monty and maybe the run total for Oz on the 1st day might not have been so big. Certainly would have put pressure on them in their 2nd innings.

But the DRS system was an absolute horror, isnt it there to make sure Umpires have a bit of leeway when trying to make a decision and for the players too. With so many angles and closeups to choose from its bewildering that anyone can get it wrong so many times.

Deleted - boring post

Deleted - boring post

Morning all,

I am back in a sensible part of the world, although my body clock has not as yet adapted to a sensible time zone, hence why I am fairly wide awake at 4 AM.

Australia played closer to their potential. Their star batsman made a big hundred, and I thought their much-vaunted seam attack bowled really well on a fairly unresponsive pitch - certainly they outbowled their England counterparts. Their spinner though failed to make an impact (I did comment that I wasn't sure he would turn out to be a saviour) but to be fair he looked infinitely more threatening than Agar had so far.

As a few of us had said before the start of the series, there is enough quality in this Aussie line-up, and enough weaknesses in this England one that if Australia play well and England poorly, Australia can win. When both sides play at the same standard, then England should win, although not by as much as they did at Lords obviously.

A lot of people talking about the toss, whilst ignoring the fact that England won an equally crucial toss at Lords. You can't expect to win all the tosses...

Having said that, congratulations must go to England on deservedly retaining the ashes; although the 2-0 scoreline flatters them somewhat, there is no doubt that so far they have been comfortably the better team, with Swann, Anderson and Bell the top 3 performers in the series to date.

I suspect England were a bit more nervous than they let on in this test. Whilst in the media they have been making all the right noises about taking it a game at a time etc. there is no doubt that in the back of their minds they will have been thinking about a possible whitewash, and obviously that they could retain the ashes as early as this also will have brought the nerves on. They played rather like a team who weren't quite convinced they were good enough, and weren't quite convinced they could pull it off. There was hesitancy in their game.

Now they've got that out of their system I expect a much improved performance in the next test; hopefully Australia can maintain or even improve their standards (Watson has yet to do anything of note) and we will get some quality cricket in.

The DRS debate has been done to death. There is too much controversy to simply ignore it, so it should be looked into. For what it's worth I thought Trott was out LBW (that ball was crashing into leg-stump, although like the Smith one before, not by enough) and Pietersen not out caught behind (despite Snicko which people should remember only picks up sound, it doesn't tell you what the sound is), like alfie I thought he missed it by about half a centimetre). However as DRS currently stands the 3rd umpire IMO ruled correctly in both cases (I'm not sure there was enough evidence that KP missed the ball on this occasion).

I should respond to some good thoughts of guildford.

guildfordbat wrote:
* Not convinced by Bairstow but feel the selectors should stay with him, at least for now. A lot of our success has been built on the selectors showing consistency and avoiding hasty decisions. If he was good enough to be picked for this Test (and they thought he was), did he really muck up so much in his one innings here to be discarded for the next? If he were to be dropped, that to my mind would more be making him a scapegoat for team failings than just his own.

* Believe Clarke is copping some unfair criticism about his first innings declaration. As well as runs on the board, I think the (clock) time of a declaration is very relevant and that Clarke got that about right; lateish on Friday when we'd been in the field for the best part of two hot days. His decision worked pretty well with the wicket of an opener and the nightwatchman that evening. Where it just didn't work out was yesterday morning when his bowers couldn't get those final 3 wickets for 30.

* Thought Haddin kept extremely well - didn't see all the Test by any means, so await to be shot down here.

* Ultimately it made no difference but I thought the umpires' attempted justification on SKY for the ''bad light'' stoppage was weak. Citing ''safety'' cut little ice. I'm sure Lancs would have played a t20 match at Old Trafford in the same or slightly worse conditions. Sure, facilities should generally be at higher level for Test cricket but if you're taling about a player's safety then what's good enough for a county pro should be good enough for a Test star.

* See more speculation about Tremlett playing. I maintain he's not ready for a 5 day match. 0-18 off his 4 overs yesterday against Scotland in the CB40. He's a fine bowler but still has some way to go.

1) I would stick with Bairstow for now, particularly with the series won I'd probably give him the last couple of tests. My issue is though that he looked nervous, he looked like someone who knew he wasn't doing as well as he could/should and let that affect the way he played. His footwork was very indecisive, and the poke he played to get out was ugly (although Starc deserves more credit than he has got for a fine fine piece of bowling). Test cricket is a bad place to try and rediscover your confidence in. For now he has to be told that the management believe in him, to back himself and play positively.

2) My issue is that it fell between two shoes. He could have declared an hour later on 600odd and still given himself more than an hour at England, or declared an hour earlier and made less of a target of the follow-on. However some of the flak he has copped is unfair I agree - in the end, Australia did get those two late wickets, and we simply can't tell what would have happened with a different declaration: England may have scored 600 and this discussion would be accademic. As you say, had Australia picked up 3 quick wickets on day 4, or even a couple more on day 3 (let's not forget that both Prior and Broad were VERY lucky to survive the day) then we would all be hailing a masterstroke.

3) From what I saw he kept quite magnificently: not only the Cook catch of course, but several really good leg-side takes late on day 3 which kept Australia in the hunt for the follow-on. His footwork was impeccable.

4) I agree. I think the umpires were influenced by how good conditions have so far been this summer. Had this been a typical cloudy may's day of cricket I doubt anyone would have considered going off when they did.

5) I think he was in the squad to keep him in the loop, because he almost certainly will tour down under in the winter. I don't think him playing was ever a serious option.

KP was out LBW when hot spot suggested a nick. KP was out caught, when hot spot suggested no nick. That's the problem....

"1) I would stick with Bairstow for now, particularly with the series won I'd probably give him the last couple of tests. My issue is though that he looked nervous, he looked like someone who knew he wasn't doing as well as he could/should and let that affect the way he played. His footwork was very indecisive, and the poke he played to get out was ugly (although Starc deserves more credit than he has got for a fine fine piece of bowling). Test cricket is a bad place to try and rediscover your confidence in. For now he has to be told that the management believe in him, to back himself and play positively."

He looks undercooked to me. You can see once he gets in he's trying to play his natural game but he's chasing too many balls and he's just not timing his shots well enough. I said this would happen before the series began and England management have to take some of the blame as they have kept him carrying the drinks for the best part of a year now when he should have been playing cricket. If they knew he was to replace Compton for the Ashes, and I assume they did they he shoudn't have been warming the bench for the CT. He has some faults yes, but they won't be ironed out not playing cricket. As you say England have to stick with him now as they have made their bed so to speak.

Its good that everyone realises that we need to stick with bairstow.

The argument for Taylor is a good one, however for me this is about getting the no.6 right, bairstow is going about his business in an ok mannor- not a great one- but he has performed better than Cook and Trott.

Taylor will get his chance lower down the order in a year or so..

However I wouldnt mind it if we had a bit of a rotation system in the batting and include Taylor every other game.. We do this in bowlng and it would be great to blood these other lads in abit quicker

trebellbobaggins wrote:I think Lancs prepared a pitch to last 5 days to make some money, rather than a grand England fiendish plan.  Whoever batted first were going to get the best of it.

Spot on. I was speaking to some Lancs members and they desperately needed the 5 days, and of course at the premium price they can charge for Ashes tickets. £30m has been spent on the redevelopment (not all by Lancs but a fair chunk of it), and some costly legal disputes over land almost sent Lancs out of existence.

One thing I would say is they need to sort out the infrastructure (not sure whose responsibility this would be) - the Metro to the ground which most people would use was woefully inadequate in terms of waiting times to get on it. It was probably ok before but they have added a good 7-8,000 to the capacity now.