4th Ashes Test Durham

First topic message reminder :

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 ?

dyrewolfe wrote:

You want to be careful trebell. Your negative vibe reverse-jinxes can be useful, but don't let them take over your life.

 Good advice Wolfie-wan Kenobi.

Is this from Boycott premature

"Jimmy Anderson's not looked the force he was."

it's only a few matches ago he was doing the damage and everyone said he was all England had?

of course if he has it's not good for down under but maybe Tremmers will be as important there.

I'd rest Jimmy at the Oval if we win this

Bring in Onions at least.

Difference illustrated. Australia need Clarke to fire, England need 1 of Cook, Trott, KP and Bell

Great knock by Bell, he's been outstanding this series.

Birstow has to drop out, he's been given a fair crack and just not performed.

I'd drop Bresnan for a genuine seamer too, either Tremlett or Onions to take some of the pressure off Anderson & Broad.

England end the day at 234-5 with Bell and Bresnan at the crease and Prior, Broad and Swann to come. England's day I would say, ahead by 202 runs on a tricky track.
Another superb hand from Ian Bell, this really has been Bell's best series so far in his career. A handy contribution from Kevin Pietersen but by KP's high standards this has been a rather underwhelming series for him despite the match-saving ton in the last game and the decent hand he played in the first test and here.
Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott also continue to contribute way below their best, and as many of us had feared, the Root move up the order has created England an additional problem. The number 6 issues that Root had fixed are back, and young Joe isn't able to replicate his middle order successes at the top. The intent and positive footwork has been the hallmark of his career before this series, both are conspicuous by their absence in this series.
Hopefully Bell can add a few more runs, and Prior, Broad, Swann and Bresnan can get them over that 300+ advantage mark, but England's batting worries need to be addressed sooner rather than later. Perhaps they should swallow some pride and call back Nick Compton and put Root back in his comfort zone at 6, or continue to give Root more time at the top to get used to demands of the job and get in James Taylor at 6.

I like Bresnan, good foil for Jimmy and Broad and handy bat. He's done ok on some less than friendly seam pitches this series, after Jimmy and Broad have used the best of the new ball.

I don't know why Boycott insists Taylor is too short.   Doesn't seem to stop him at all.

If you are good enough you are tall enough!!

agreed.

He's an inch taller than Tendulkar apparently

What a load of tosh

yeah Boycott gets these bees in his bonnet.

Boycott is a total legend and the fact he speaks his mind on telly adds to my love for him. But he is seriously wrong in this case.

If he comes in and plays well he deserves his place. He could be 4 foot or 10 foot- It doesn't matter

--Bell has delivered the best series of his life.....he has scored tons of runs when otehrs around him have been lean and games low scoring.....and each of his innings has helped break his team apart from  running-neck-to-neck with opponent and putting his team one or two levels higher 3 times now.

--Eng delivered so far all the upsides that I noted they could at the start of the day.
The biggest diffrentiator has been INTENT..when batting was positive from most batters...except Root and Bairstow.
Don't think Bairstwo can go too far ahead from here.
if they bat 1.5 sessions...they will choke Australia completely out of the game.

--from australia's POV..they stand tonight where Eng stood last night.....at the threshold of folding the opponent within 50 runs tomorow or letting them build a monumental choking lead.

If they fold Eng for 50 odd more tomm in the morning session.....still doesn't mean they will win...but will give themselves a fighting chance.

and whatever their target a lot of runs gotta come from Warner and Khwaja.......these guys have to deliver their dues and show why they were given an international cap in the first  place.

Eng standing 60-40 favorites now.

Taylor too short? Is KP too tall then? Should we only have a team of Aryan 6'2 cricketers? Stupid comment. His height is his main strength.

Cracking knock from Bell. I've never been convinced by him, but this series has been tremendous. Certainly his finest hour in Test cricket these four games so far.

We need to guard against a collapse tomorrow though, we've seen it happen in both innings so far so it's important Bell goes big tomorrow!

What would potential opening options be, if Root was to be moved back down to 6?

Compton, Carberry, Chopra?

Those are the three I think. Out of those my personal choice would be Chopra. Can't see them going back to Compton and I know batsmen mature with age but Carberry is 33 in September. Surely too old for a Test Match job?

I dunno, Rogers is proving if you keep yourself well (and Carberry does!) fit and well, you can go on late.

Agree they probably won't go back to Compton, Chopra could be an option.

Australia don't really have anyone else. Chopra has scored consistent runs for the past few years, so if we do change Root (which I wouldn't yet, as I think he'll go a lot better in Australia as the pitches out there should suit him a lot better) I'd like to see Chopra given a go before Carberry.

Oh I think you gotta give Root some more time, and I think they will persevere with him at the top, but just in case they do go down a different route

Today should've been Bairstow's last chance I feel, but I think he'll get The Oval test as well

I'm blinded by my love for Jimmy T, but I suspect JB will get the Oval test too. Weirdly he actually looked a lot better today when he tried to be positive. Probably shown enough for Flower to stick with him. You're left with a tough decision if he fails a few times in Aus, big pressure on Taylor then.

root stays IMO.. bairstow is so on the edge- He keeps getting the start and then gets out!!

He is doing half his job so well. All he needs to do is get past his starts every other time and he will be a top player in that position.

taylor is good option- but at 3-5!

GSC wrote:I'd rest Jimmy at the Oval if we win this

Tremlett Watch
0-31 off 5 overs for Tremlett today in Surrey's CB40 against Derbys.

Not particularly concerned by the figures (it was an incredibly high scoring match with just under 600 runs scored) but again noticeable that Surrey didn't entrust the Big Man to bowl his full allocation.

Onions or Finn would be more likely to play immediately. Tremlett is considered more for the tour this winter I suspect

GSC - you could well be right. I just find it interesting (and possibly concerning) that England appear to have more current belief in Tremlett than Surrey.

To be honest I think the Tremlett call up is just to have a look at him in the nets more than anything, would be very surprised if he played at The Oval.

If they rest Anderson, it has to be Onions as he does get the ball to swing more than Tremlett or Finn usually manage, if they want to replace Bresnan or rest Broad, Finn has to be back in, though the management's poor handling of him might have dented his confidence a bit. The lad is someone who could be a cut above the rest, despite his temporary rough patch with the ball.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Holding: "Australia's session".

Really? Last five wickets for less than 50? Australia would have still wanted to be batting now, with a lead going well past 50. England will have been very happy to have bowled them out for a lead of just more than 30 IMO. Sure they would have been even happier had Root still been there, but overall England will be pretty pleased with the way things have gone I'd think.

Holding's anti-England bias is getting quite wearisome really, it's a shame, because he generally makes some pretty good technical points about fast bowling when he's not being an old-fashioned jerk...

I do feel a lot of you guys are unfairly harsh on Mike Holding.

I believe his take on the morning session was that whilst England had done extremely well in taking the last 5 Australian wickets in the session for not too many at all, their (England's) momentum had been stalled by that one ball from Harris which dismissed Root and changed once more the balance of the match. Arguably it was better in a low scoring match to have a lead of around 30 and have England at 20-1 at lunch than a lead of 100 with England at 90-1 at tea.

Clearly without Root's dismissal it would have been England's morning by some distance. However, that was not the case. As I said at the time, in what had effectively become a one innings match, England were at best going to be one wicket down when they reached 0 (with run scoring looking far from easy).  

I therefore feel Holding had a valid (albeit not watertight) point of view in considering that Australia ended up (narrowly - my word) having the best of the morning. The significance and impact of Root's wicket is perhaps supported by  the quick fall of Cook and Trott soon after the morning session to add to Australia's then success.  Sure, the match completely swung again with the brilliance of Bell but that was way after the period that Holding was reviewing.

given the form Maxwell has shown in SA.....after the final of the triangular they sghould get him to Eng as a reserve for the last test.

he could be a standby to replace Watson is his groin thing is not fully cured.....OR simply come in for khwaja if he fails in the 2nd inning also

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Holding: "Australia's session".

Really? Last five wickets for less than 50? Australia would have still wanted to be batting now, with a lead going well past 50. England will have been very happy to have bowled them out for a lead of just more than 30 IMO. Sure they would have been even happier had Root still been there, but overall England will be pretty pleased with the way things have gone I'd think.

Holding's anti-England bias is getting quite wearisome really, it's a shame, because he generally makes some pretty good technical points about fast bowling when he's not being an old-fashioned jerk...

I do feel a lot of you guys are unfairly harsh on Mike Holding.

I believe his take on the morning session was that whilst England had done extremely well in taking the last 5 Australian wickets in the session for not too many at all, their (England's) momentum had been stalled by that one ball from Harris which dismissed Root and changed once more the balance of the match. Arguably it was better in a low scoring match to have a lead of around 30 and have England at 20-1 at lunch than a lead of 100 with England at 90-1 at tea.

Clearly without Root's dismissal it would have been England's morning by some distance. However, that was not the case. As I said at the time, in what had effectively become a one innings match, England were at best going to be one wicket down when they reached 0 (with run scoring looking far from easy).  

I therefore feel Holding had a valid (albeit not watertight) point of view in considering that Australia ended up (narrowly - my word) having the best of the morning. The significance and impact of Root's wicket is perhaps supported by  the quick fall of Cook and Trott soon after the morning session to add to Australia's then success.  Sure, the match completely swung again with the brilliance of Bell but that was way after the period that Holding was reviewing.

I think he appears anti English to some on here simply because he actually looks at the game from a neutral perspective. Also if he is anti English (why that would be the case I've no idea) why would he have said this is the best English side he has seen ?

England need to bat the morning to make it reasonably safe.

Diggers wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Holding: "Australia's session".

Really? Last five wickets for less than 50? Australia would have still wanted to be batting now, with a lead going well past 50. England will have been very happy to have bowled them out for a lead of just more than 30 IMO. Sure they would have been even happier had Root still been there, but overall England will be pretty pleased with the way things have gone I'd think.

Holding's anti-England bias is getting quite wearisome really, it's a shame, because he generally makes some pretty good technical points about fast bowling when he's not being an old-fashioned jerk...

I do feel a lot of you guys are unfairly harsh on Mike Holding.

I believe his take on the morning session was that whilst England had done extremely well in taking the last 5 Australian wickets in the session for not too many at all, their (England's) momentum had been stalled by that one ball from Harris which dismissed Root and changed once more the balance of the match. Arguably it was better in a low scoring match to have a lead of around 30 and have England at 20-1 at lunch than a lead of 100 with England at 90-1 at tea.

Clearly without Root's dismissal it would have been England's morning by some distance. However, that was not the case. As I said at the time, in what had effectively become a one innings match, England were at best going to be one wicket down when they reached 0 (with run scoring looking far from easy).  

I therefore feel Holding had a valid (albeit not watertight) point of view in considering that Australia ended up (narrowly - my word) having the best of the morning. The significance and impact of Root's wicket is perhaps supported by  the quick fall of Cook and Trott soon after the morning session to add to Australia's then success.  Sure, the match completely swung again with the brilliance of Bell but that was way after the period that Holding was reviewing.

I think he appears anti English to some on here simply because he actually looks at the game from a neutral perspective. Also if he is anti English (why that would be the case I've no idea) why would he have said this is the best English side he has seen ?

Not sure how a team who lost their last 5 wickets for 48 runs can claim it as their session.

If Bell and Bresnan can bat the first hour, it will give Prior, Swann, and Broad the perfect platform to attack and really push Australia on to the ropes. A lead of 330+ isn't out of the question here.

Anyone else watching this interview with Bairstow? I didn't know he made 19 fifties before his first 100 for the Yorkies, obviously has a problem going on which is evidenced by the fact he keeps getting starts for England too. Although since then he has 10 fifties to 8 hundereds since then for the Yorkies, so hopefully he will come good for England too.

Duty - those 5 wickets were only part of the morning story and, as I tried to show in my earlier post, arguably the lesser part.

Holding does everything in his power to have a dig at england.. I suppose you would only know if you have religiously watched the test matches as many have on here!!

He is not exactly shouting from the roof top his hate of england and to be honest I doubt he does. But boy is it obvious he has a bee in his bonnet about the team.

He is becoming a very boring commentator- always whinging. Never expressing any knowledge.. He is just not up to the job

mystiroakey wrote:Holding does everything in his power to have a dig at england.. I suppose you would only know if you have religiously watched the test matches as many have on here!!

He is not exactly shouting from the roof top his hate of england and to be honest I doubt he does. But boy is it obvious he has a bee in his bonnet about the team.

He is becoming a very boring commentator- always whinging. Never expressing any knowledge.. He is just not up to the job

He hasn't liked England since Broad didn't walk.

are the starting the game early to make up the overs lost due to bad light on the last 2 days

Duty281 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Holding does everything in his power to have a dig at england.. I suppose you would only know if you have religiously watched the test matches as many have on here!!

He is not exactly shouting from the roof top his hate of england and to be honest I doubt he does. But boy is it obvious he has a bee in his bonnet about the team.

He is becoming a very boring commentator- always whinging. Never expressing any knowledge.. He is just not up to the job

He hasn't liked England since Broad didn't walk.

OR the english fans here are just "touchy"

guildfordbat wrote:Duty - those 5 wickets were only part of the morning story and, as I tried to show in my earlier post, arguably the lesser part.

The lesser part? Australia were on course for a 100+ lead, until England blew them away for only a deficit of 33. That first hour and a bit on Day 3 was probably one of the match-winning factors in this Test match for England, along with Ian Bell's ton.

Duty281 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Holding: "Australia's session".

Really? Last five wickets for less than 50? Australia would have still wanted to be batting now, with a lead going well past 50. England will have been very happy to have bowled them out for a lead of just more than 30 IMO. Sure they would have been even happier had Root still been there, but overall England will be pretty pleased with the way things have gone I'd think.

Holding's anti-England bias is getting quite wearisome really, it's a shame, because he generally makes some pretty good technical points about fast bowling when he's not being an old-fashioned jerk...

I do feel a lot of you guys are unfairly harsh on Mike Holding.

I believe his take on the morning session was that whilst England had done extremely well in taking the last 5 Australian wickets in the session for not too many at all, their (England's) momentum had been stalled by that one ball from Harris which dismissed Root and changed once more the balance of the match. Arguably it was better in a low scoring match to have a lead of around 30 and have England at 20-1 at lunch than a lead of 100 with England at 90-1 at tea.

Clearly without Root's dismissal it would have been England's morning by some distance. However, that was not the case. As I said at the time, in what had effectively become a one innings match, England were at best going to be one wicket down when they reached 0 (with run scoring looking far from easy).  

I therefore feel Holding had a valid (albeit not watertight) point of view in considering that Australia ended up (narrowly - my word) having the best of the morning. The significance and impact of Root's wicket is perhaps supported by  the quick fall of Cook and Trott soon after the morning session to add to Australia's then success.  Sure, the match completely swung again with the brilliance of Bell but that was way after the period that Holding was reviewing.

I think he appears anti English to some on here simply because he actually looks at the game from a neutral perspective. Also if he is anti English (why that would be the case I've no idea) why would he have said this is the best English side he has seen ?

Not sure how a team who lost their last 5 wickets for 48 runs can claim it as their session.

Not sure on how having an opinion on a session makes him anti English. Does saying this is the best English side he has seen make him pro English ? Or do we just ignore all the positive comment ?

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Duty - those 5 wickets were only part of the morning story and, as I tried to show in my earlier post, arguably the lesser part.

The lesser part? Australia were on course for a 100+ lead, until England blew them away for only a deficit of 33. That first hour and a bit on Day 3 was probably one of the match-winning factors in this Test match for England, along with Ian Bell's ton.

Hmm. They haven't actually won the match have they  . I think this will be a match where all sides make the same sort of scores in all 4 innings, England need another 100 or so to feel comfortable IMO.

Diggers wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Holding: "Australia's session".

Really? Last five wickets for less than 50? Australia would have still wanted to be batting now, with a lead going well past 50. England will have been very happy to have bowled them out for a lead of just more than 30 IMO. Sure they would have been even happier had Root still been there, but overall England will be pretty pleased with the way things have gone I'd think.

Holding's anti-England bias is getting quite wearisome really, it's a shame, because he generally makes some pretty good technical points about fast bowling when he's not being an old-fashioned jerk...

I do feel a lot of you guys are unfairly harsh on Mike Holding.

I believe his take on the morning session was that whilst England had done extremely well in taking the last 5 Australian wickets in the session for not too many at all, their (England's) momentum had been stalled by that one ball from Harris which dismissed Root and changed once more the balance of the match. Arguably it was better in a low scoring match to have a lead of around 30 and have England at 20-1 at lunch than a lead of 100 with England at 90-1 at tea.

Clearly without Root's dismissal it would have been England's morning by some distance. However, that was not the case. As I said at the time, in what had effectively become a one innings match, England were at best going to be one wicket down when they reached 0 (with run scoring looking far from easy).  

I therefore feel Holding had a valid (albeit not watertight) point of view in considering that Australia ended up (narrowly - my word) having the best of the morning. The significance and impact of Root's wicket is perhaps supported by  the quick fall of Cook and Trott soon after the morning session to add to Australia's then success.  Sure, the match completely swung again with the brilliance of Bell but that was way after the period that Holding was reviewing.

I think he appears anti English to some on here simply because he actually looks at the game from a neutral perspective. Also if he is anti English (why that would be the case I've no idea) why would he have said this is the best English side he has seen ?

Not sure how a team who lost their last 5 wickets for 48 runs can claim it as their session.

Not sure on how having an opinion on a session makes him anti English. Does saying this is the best English side he has seen make him pro English ? Or do we just ignore all the positive comment ?

That's not pro-English or anti-English, as he's comparing England today with England in the past. He isn't comparing England against another country.

Duty281 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Holding: "Australia's session".

Really? Last five wickets for less than 50? Australia would have still wanted to be batting now, with a lead going well past 50. England will have been very happy to have bowled them out for a lead of just more than 30 IMO. Sure they would have been even happier had Root still been there, but overall England will be pretty pleased with the way things have gone I'd think.

Holding's anti-England bias is getting quite wearisome really, it's a shame, because he generally makes some pretty good technical points about fast bowling when he's not being an old-fashioned jerk...

I do feel a lot of you guys are unfairly harsh on Mike Holding.

I believe his take on the morning session was that whilst England had done extremely well in taking the last 5 Australian wickets in the session for not too many at all, their (England's) momentum had been stalled by that one ball from Harris which dismissed Root and changed once more the balance of the match. Arguably it was better in a low scoring match to have a lead of around 30 and have England at 20-1 at lunch than a lead of 100 with England at 90-1 at tea.

Clearly without Root's dismissal it would have been England's morning by some distance. However, that was not the case. As I said at the time, in what had effectively become a one innings match, England were at best going to be one wicket down when they reached 0 (with run scoring looking far from easy).  

I therefore feel Holding had a valid (albeit not watertight) point of view in considering that Australia ended up (narrowly - my word) having the best of the morning. The significance and impact of Root's wicket is perhaps supported by  the quick fall of Cook and Trott soon after the morning session to add to Australia's then success.  Sure, the match completely swung again with the brilliance of Bell but that was way after the period that Holding was reviewing.

I think he appears anti English to some on here simply because he actually looks at the game from a neutral perspective. Also if he is anti English (why that would be the case I've no idea) why would he have said this is the best English side he has seen ?

Not sure how a team who lost their last 5 wickets for 48 runs can claim it as their session.

Not sure on how having an opinion on a session makes him anti English. Does saying this is the best English side he has seen make him pro English ? Or do we just ignore all the positive comment ?

That's not pro-English or anti-English, as he's comparing England today with England in the past. He isn't comparing England against another country.

Oh dear. That's hilarious.

Diggers there is a lot of respect for holding and his digs are a running joke on the forum. It was kind of funny to start with. But now its just become boring.. he doesn't add a balanced or entertaining view. Time for him to hang up his boots..but no hard feelings. He is just a cranky old man. I suppose like boycott but with zero charisma(I know you are fond of that word )

No way Mysti, Holding does have charisma for me, love those dulcet laid back tones. And he knows his stuff. I really don't think he is biased, just gives a balanced viewpoint so I'm happy for him to stay. It gets boring listening to a host of ex England captains all the time to be honest.

He needs to be funnier mate.. Its all a bit dry.(not saying that the new media signing of strauss is much better though!!!)

If we could just have boycott, warne, flinty and tuffers I would be in heaven!!

Duty - just feel that of the two captains, Clarke might just have accepted the lunchtime score yesterday if it had been offered to him at 11 o'clock (albeit with disappointment that the lead wasn't greater). Cook certainly wouldn't have accepted his partner being back in the hutch.

I'm attributing huge significance here to the Root dismissal which Holding certainly did. It'a moot point whether he was correct but I do feel it ws an understandable view which was myu starting point in saying he was too often unfairly treated on here.

Anyway, not going to die in a ditch over it. Unfortunately about to go into a meeting and will miss this morning's play. As others say, need to ideally bat the entire session.

Enjoy it, guys.