4th Ashes Test Durham

They're all at it again on Friday. Just as England are likely to chuck in a bad performance when everyone expects them to win (Leeds 09, Perth 2010/11, Manchester 2013) they usually bounce back next Test (Lord's and Oval 09, Melbourne 2010/11).
I'm taking England to win one of the last two Tests to ensure a series victory. Onions, it seems, will come in and that could be a good move. Still think this is not a very strong Australia team. It's just that they were an average team playing poorly in the first two Test while at Manchester they were an average team playing well.
Before Manchester, we were asking if Australia could improve/get back into the series. Well they certainly achieved the former if not the latter. Now we could ask - Can England start firing on all cylinders ?

My view of Eng:

--they need to play more positive cricket...to win. World doesn't end with retaining ashes.....there is a series to be won and 7 more tests to be played in succession with Australia.

--If Eng continue to demonstrate this "mission achived" satisfaction / complacency.....Aus will be all over them in the next 7 tests.

--if not for the timidity Englnad are a much better side than they showed in T3

--Only two bowlers have been of internatonal class...the few cheap wickets of Bresnan an Broad notwithstanding.

Only two batsmen equivalent have fired ( 1 bell + 1/2KP+1/2 Root)

the remaining 7 need to deliver more in their respective sepcializations.

--Bairstow is technically flawed and Cook / Trott England's two best and world class batters have to fire.
Root expressed himself much better in the middle order.......and but for that 180odd his stone-walling has looked pathetic as an opener.

It would be so easy to send Root to middle order and bring a proper opener...for so far Eng got away but as the competition gets tighter they need all of their players to fire.

My view of Aus:

--But for lost toss Aus could have won T1 which came down to frentic luck in the end...so they were competitive.
T2 showed how bad they could get....but T3 redeemed them...moral win that counts for a lot given there are 7 more tests.

--Watson has to be moved down somewhere in No. 5 or 6 area...and given a role to blast the spinner and other old ball bowlers. Clearly his comfort as opener and desire to be there isn't enough to justify him opening any more.....Rogers and Warner it should be.

--Agar should be back...Lyon actually proved worse than Agar, in much friendlier condtions.

--I am not convinced with Starc inspite  of his wickets..he is down on pace , lacking rythm from his near 90mph stock to about 83 to 85mph and that takes the potency out of his bowling.

--seam bowling is least of Austalia's concern...they have Faulkner and Bird as very good reserves to replace Starc and cushion for Harris-the-fragile

England may have won this game if they had won the toss. Fact is we are 2 up, with 2 to play.

[quote="Stella"]England may have won this game if they had won the toss. [7quote]

Aus would have won the first game if they won the toss. The team that overcomes the toss to win will over the next 7 tests prevail better and so far Aus came closer than Eng in winning when they lost the toss.

Fact is we are 2 up, with 2 to play.

that is a fact but the tone suggests a complacency and Eng should guard against that

England haven't lost a game when losing the toss, the Aussies have. Not sure where you're coming from, apart from ABE land.

Stella wrote:England haven't lost a game when losing the toss,

rain saved them and they did not save the game going the full distance of addtional 110 overs.

anyway if you want disagree or be in denial......you are entitled to

This series is exhausting to follow so I feel for the players. 3 days off then back to it. Would rather see a longer break than nackered fast bowlers hobbling in as is likely here - both teams bowled 140 overs in that first innings!

Just pointing out the facts. They may have saved the game, who know's. The Aussies were the better team in this test, but failed to win.

Stella - The captain who loses the toss at Durham on Friday morning is not going to be too popular with his bowlers. Or will conditions be such as to lead to a field-first decision ?

Not sure the toss will be as important as OT, unless of course there is grey cloud above.

Always swings at Durham. If you are going to win the toss and bowl first anywhere in this series, it will be at Durham. Tough to predict without seeing the pitch and knowing the weather, but I'd imagine both sides will be giving serious consideration to fielding first.

It's nice to bat on as well though. Could be a good toss to lose?

England are the better team, no doubt about that. With the main goal achieved, retaining the Ashes, the pressure will probably be lifted. I'd quite fancy an innings win for England in this test, but for the weather, which looks very patchy for the duration of the Test.

Taylor in for Bairstow, and possibly Onions in for Bresnan, depending on the conditions.

Duty281 wrote:England are the better team, no doubt about that. With the main goal achieved, retaining the Ashes, the pressure will probably be lifted. I'd quite fancy an innings win for England in this test, but for the weather, which looks very patchy for the duration of the Test.

Taylor in for Bairstow, and possibly Onions in for Bresnan, depending on the conditions.

I read somwehere today Broad has a niggle in his ankle and Onions is being brouhgt in for him

Taylor wont be playing as he isn't in the squad. Tremlett and Onions are the possible replacements to the 3rd Test team.

Think if anything goes amiss with Broad it would be Tremlett brought in. They will want one tall bowler in the side.
Onions might come in for Bresnan , which would be hard on him as he has been a solid performer. It is all about the best team for the conditions though.

Australia will want to retain Harris , but I am not sure how he will come up with just three days rest. It may be the rain did him a favour at that : imagine if it had stayed dry and England had actually hung on all day anyway - poor Harris and Siddle would have been battering away in the later stages and almost certainly ruled the former out of the next match.
Bird would be a reasonable replacement for control but probably wouldn't have the same attacking threat.
Can't see them changing the batting ; and neither will England who have released Taylor. Rightly , in my view. Bairstow still has work to do but has done enough to earn these remaining Tests surely - else why pick him in the first place ?

For those with access to SKY, it might be interesting to see how Tremlett gets on in this afternoon's t20 quarter-final for Surrey against Somerset. I'm thinking far more of his mobility in the field than his actual bowling.

Due to the ever increasing demands of SKY (this time the broadcaster is insisting upon showing two t20 games on the same day, one after the other), Tremlett's match starts at the highly inconvenient time for a normal working day of 4.15.

I'd doubt Tremlett will come in, unless Broad is injured.

I expect Onions for Bresnan, and I would be surprised if they didn't make that move to have a look at Onions.

Would give serious consideration to bowling first

Onions in for England. Bresnan/Broad out.

Bird and Hughes in for Australia. Lyon and Khawaja out.

Andy Flower picks bolwers for their batting abilities and hence he will never leave Broad and Bresnan out at the same time.
If Broad is unwell...Bresnan will defnitely play

guildfordbat wrote:For those with access to SKY, it might be interesting to see how Tremlett gets on in this afternoon's t20 quarter-final for Surrey against Somerset. I'm thinking far more of his mobility in the field than his actual bowling.

Hardly saw Tremlett in the field - perhaps well hidden. He only bowled 2 overs today and 4 in the CB40 on Sunday. No great problem with that but I think it shows that Surrey are still easing him back to fitness rather than currently looking to rely on him in any big way.

Surrey have a ridiculous 6 CC matches in the last 5 weeks of the season. It'll be interesting to see how many of those he plays and how he copes.

If Broad has a fitness concern going into the test match, think they should bring Steven Finn back in. Think Graeme Onions on his home ground, should anyways come in for Tim Bresnan. Finn had match figures of 7-102 in the latest county match he played.
The way the England management treated him of late, Finn's confidence didn't look too great while he was playing the the first test of the series and under ordinary circumstances I'd say give him some more county time since the call was taken to leave him out. But as Guildford and others have hinted here, if Tremlett is not quite ready for a test match, going in with him won't make a lot of sense, particularly as England are going in with a 4 man attack.

England have really messed Stevie Finn around recently. They've changed his run-up, expected him to adapt immediately to it, then dropped him, picked him, dropped him. For someone who less than a year ago looked like he was on the cusp of becoming a world class performer, he looks out of sorts (reports from the County game suggests he was a bit scatter-gun unfortunately) and I think the management deserves more stick than it has got so far.

I think England as a team will be a lot more relaxed in Durham, so I expect them to play a lot better than at OT.

I disagree with KPF's views on Starc. Whilst his pace was down according to the speed guns, I thought he was in much better rhythm and hitting the pitch a lot harder at OT compared with the rest of the tour (CT included) when he'd been very floaty; he bowled a couple of really good spells and fully deserved his 3 wickets. Easily done enough to keep his place in Durham. The only possible change to the Aussie side should be Bird for Harris, depending on the latter's fitness; they may consider their batting line-up as well (they certainly should open with Warner). Personally my patience would be wearing thin with Watson, but there are no better options, so you stick with him for now, possibly at 6.

I hope for their sake Australia aren't too tempted by the 4 seamer route (completely unnecessary with Watson there, and Smith isn't a front line spinner, even compared to Lyon or Agar).

Reports in Australia suggest silicone tape has been used on bats to confuse HotSpot on DRS referrals


If that's true that's a big disappointment. everyone start wrapping your bats

Fernando wrote:Reports in Australia suggest silicone tape has been used on bats to confuse HotSpot on DRS referrals


If that's true that's a big disappointment. everyone start wrapping your bats

Ha Ha ha..

Mike Selig wrote:England have really messed Stevie Finn around recently. They've changed his run-up, expected him to adapt immediately to it, then dropped him, picked him, dropped him. For someone who less than a year ago looked like he was on the cusp of becoming a world class performer, he looks out of sorts (reports from the County game suggests he was a bit scatter-gun unfortunately) and I think the management deserves more stick than it has got so far.

I think England as a team will be a lot more relaxed in Durham, so I expect them to play a lot better than at OT.

I disagree with KPF's views on Starc. Whilst his pace was down according to the speed guns, I thought he was in much better rhythm and hitting the pitch a lot harder at OT compared with the rest of the tour (CT included) when he'd been very floaty; he bowled a couple of really good spells and fully deserved his 3 wickets. Easily done enough to keep his place in Durham. The only possible change to the Aussie side should be Bird for Harris, depending on the latter's fitness; they may consider their batting line-up as well (they certainly should open with Warner). Personally my patience would be wearing thin with Watson, but there are no better options, so you stick with him for now, possibly at 6.

I hope for their sake Australia aren't too tempted by the 4 seamer route (completely unnecessary with Watson there, and Smith isn't a front line spinner, even compared to Lyon or Agar).

Couldn't agree more on Finn!. The England management certenly deserve a lot more stick than what they have got so far for messing up England's best young quick who could lead their attack in a couple of years down the line.

Re Finn, the management may not have covered themselves in glory. But is the player working hard enough to fulfil his potential? - that's a genuine rahter than rhetorical question by the way, anyone on here got any insight?

ECB hates Finn....because as someone put it here ....he gets a lot of New-Delhi Lobby support

like KP was targetted because he was supported by IPL lobbies

Weather forecast improving, fingers crossed for Friday!

VTR wrote:Re Finn, the management may not have covered themselves in glory. But is the player working hard enough to fulfil his potential? - that's a genuine rahter than rhetorical question by the way, anyone on here got any insight?

Never heard any noises suggesting Finn is anything but hard working. When you change the run-up of a bowler, it is going to take him time to get used to it.

There are noises that Middlesex are a bit put out by Finn's treatment - they've always been very supportive and worked hard with the England coaches from his early England years: well before he got a central contract they were happy to rest him and work on bulking him up to avoid injury; Fraser is on record as being unconvinced about his shortened run-up, but they went with it because the England coaching staff thought it was for the best; somewhat understandably Middlesex feel they have given England a lot with regards to Finn, and received not all that much in return.

Mike Selig wrote:

VTR wrote:Re Finn, the management may not have covered themselves in glory. But is the player working hard enough to fulfil his potential? - that's a genuine rahter than rhetorical question by the way, anyone on here got any insight?

Never heard any noises suggesting Finn is anything but hard working. When you change the run-up of a bowler, it is going to take him time to get used to it.

There are noises that Middlesex are a bit put out by Finn's treatment - they've always been very supportive and worked hard with the England coaches from his early England years: well before he got a central contract they were happy to rest him and work on bulking him up to avoid injury; Fraser is on record as being unconvinced about his shortened run-up, but they went with it because the England coaching staff thought it was for the best; somewhat understandably Middlesex feel they have given England a lot with regards to Finn, and received not all that much in return.

The earlier England coaches made a right royal mess of James Anderson in his early years with the changes in action and so on didn't they? Hope Finn has the inner strength to come out of all these messing like Anderson, and take over from Jimmy the leadership of the attack when Jimmy gets done.

Mike Selig wrote:

VTR wrote:Re Finn, the management may not have covered themselves in glory. But is the player working hard enough to fulfil his potential? - that's a genuine rahter than rhetorical question by the way, anyone on here got any insight?

Never heard any noises suggesting Finn is anything but hard working. When you change the run-up of a bowler, it is going to take him time to get used to it.

There are noises that Middlesex are a bit put out by Finn's treatment - they've always been very supportive and worked hard with the England coaches from his early England years: well before he got a central contract they were happy to rest him and work on bulking him up to avoid injury; Fraser is on record as being unconvinced about his shortened run-up, but they went with it because the England coaching staff thought it was for the best; somewhat understandably Middlesex feel they have given England a lot with regards to Finn, and received not all that much in return.

Thanks - makes sense for Middlesex to be a bit peeved. Think he is in good hands with Fraser if he wants to improve his control, which seems to be the reason he is not in the England team, learning from one of the masters. Used to love watching Gus bowl, he would look absolutely spent from ball one but could run in all day and always gave it everything.

England didn't play well at all at OT, and Aus plate just about as well as they can. Clarke made a big score and the rest came off.

I think England should offer more at Durham, an if they do it should enough

I be tempted to rest Anderson for this one. He's bowled a lot of overs and I don;t care what Ian 'In My Day' Botham says, there is no way he'll be able to play at his maximum for 10 Tests if he continues at this rate. Bring in Onions on his home ground on a pitch that generally is bowler friendly.

Hi Liverbnz - there's an interesting article ('Tremlett and Onions at Crossroads') by George Dobell on ESPN Cricinfo - sorry, can't attach on this old Blackberry.

Some of the similarity Dobell tries to paint between the two is a bit contrived but still worth a read imo. On Tremlett, Dobell appears to be in my camp - rating his bowling but doubting his recovery from injury.

Hello Guildford, I had a read of that last night. There's talk of a Broad injury too which means Tremlett may well be in with a shout. It seems Tremlett has been impressing Saker in the nets too. I think Dobell is right in that they both deserve their chance (him and Onions) but whether Tremlett is ready is another thing as you rightly point out.

What is it now?

*Quick mental arithmetic*

11 consecutive Tests without defeat for England. That's a nice feeling, especially when 6 wins in those 11 have been racked up as well. Equally nice is the weather, which looks fairly decent for all 5 days. Brilliant chance for England to go 3 nil up, and underline their superiority ahead of the winter.

Playing Onions on his home ground could be a good idea. Under normal circumstances, I would say he should come in for Bresnan. But if Broad is carrying any niggles and Bresnan can cover for him and Onions can come in. I think quite highly of Tremlett, but is he really ready? Most reports indicate he's not quite there as yet.

Why isn't Finn in the squad ahead of Tremlett?? Finn took a few wickets for Middlesex when he was left out, should be one of the first call ups if there's an injury. Ridiculous.

Can't wait to see if Onions plays tomorrow. Should do. Give the Aussies nightmares last time. Big fan of his. Give SA allot of trouble and to this day cannot believe he was left out for Sidebottom in the deciding test. On another note, if he does well in this test, will England retain him for the final Test? surely you can't cast him aside if he plays well?

Liam wrote:Why isn't Finn in  the squad ahead of Tremlett?? Finn took a few wickets for Middlesex when he was left out, should be one of the first call ups if there's an injury. Ridiculous.

Better for Finn to play county games rather than water boy

Bet365 is returning 2 times the stake on an Eng win and 3.75 times on an Aus win.

Draw is being considered almost as likely as Aus win.

as usual after losing 3 times.....my little money is on Aus.....that's the only way of recovering the losses so far.

AN hour to go. Whats the weather like?

KP. not the sensible option. You are chasing from a bad decision..

The draw is fav for a reason.

1. England are at home and the better team.

2. England only need the draw for a series win

3. The weather.

4. England some times take the sensible options.

Sounds like Onions for Anderson

Vaughans changed his mind, England unchanged

England win the toss and bat first

Bird in for Starc for Australia, Watson bats 6

England unchanged

wow are Aus finally realising you need openers to open!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised England are unchanged, disappointed for Onions

England unchanged and will bat first. From all the murmurs, it seemed like Onions was cert to play, and the only question was who he would be replacing.

Bat once, bat long for England? It's certainly a dry pitch, and it may turn later in the game. England's batting hasn't really clicked in this series, I think it will click today. Cook and Trott both have a point to prove.