Australia vs England 1st test match thread

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

First topic message reminder :

The Ashes - 1st Test, Brisbane
21-25 November, 2013

Australia:
CJL Rogers, DA Warner, SR Watson, MJ Clarke*, SPD Smith, GJ Bailey,
BJ Haddin†, PM Siddle, MG Johnson, NM Lyon, RJ Harris.

England:
AN Cook*, MA Carberry, IJL Trott, KP Pietersen, IR Bell, JE Root,
MJ Prior†, SCJ Broad, GP Swann, JM Anderson, CT Tremlett

Umpires: Aleem Dar (Pakistan) and HDPK Dharmasena (Sri Lanka)
TV umpire: M Erasmus (South Africa)
Match referee: JJ Crowe (New Zealand)
Reserve umpire: P Wilson (Australia)

[mystiroakey]

We have to stick with this line up.

These are big time players that are out of touch, we have to somehow get them mentally ready.

we clearly should have worked on it before when the cracks were showing but saved by the other teams being worse or our bowlers.

[alfie]

The good thing for the batsmen is Adelaide is next. If you can't get runs there ...

Get the batting back on track and this series is very much alive. Lot of people are assuming Australia are unbeatable in Perth , but I suspect Brisbane is actually their real fortress. Toss in Perth can be a big advantage , but SA have won there in recent years batting both first and second.

[Hoggy_Bear]

You do all realize, of course, that this is just a massive confidence trick on the part of England, designed to shatter any self-belief the Aussies may possess?
Tomorrow, double tons from Cook and KP, followed up by a scintillating ton from Bell, will destroy Australian hopes, and guarantee a 5-0 victory to England.   

[alfie]

Well , Hoggy : if your fanciful scenario came to pass , I think we could just about guarantee a five-nil victory !

With two days left , at least they have the time...

Think they might be a couple of hundred short though

[mystiroakey]

If they are only 200 short I will be happy.

[Mike Selig]

I vanish for a couple of hours to get some sleep, and find 606 a hive of activity. Good to see. I shall take this opportunity to give a shameless plug to our HoF thread for all you keen cricket fans.

I think KP_Fan operates on the mantra that if you say the same thing over and over again it eventually becomes true.

This made me giggle.

Beyond that, I agree with a lot of what's been said.

As GSC said, the issues with England's batting particularly at the start of series away from home (and even at home) are not entirely new. Lack of practice is always an easy excuse, but there is obviously a difference between the bowlers England faced in the warm-ups (attacks where the main spinner was Glenn Maxwell, and 3rd seamer Moises Henriques, with all the greatest respect, were pedestrian in the extreme) and the attack they have come against here. Moreover this pitch has pace and bounce, and from reports I gather the pitches were fairly placid in the warm-ups.

I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be quite a deliberate strategy. This is a continuing trend of the home team using warm-up matches as an excuse to do everything but what they are surely supposed to, which is to acclimatise the touring team. Last time, England negotiated and got hard warm-up matches, which everyone credits as part of the reason of their success, and whilst I don't particularly blame CA for not wishing to repeat this, it strikes me as a shame. England can scarcely complain given that the counties who play the touring sides in England invariably pick their 2nd XIs.

Moving on, I do think KPF's insistence that England's bowling was the problem is a tad deluded, but he has half a good point in that undoubtedly Australia's recovery from 6-134 has proved to be more crucial than the saving face we thought it would be originally. I am not sure however that he attributes the right reasons to it: as alfie has rightly pointed out, Haddin and Johnson are better players than your standard 7 and 8, the pitch was flat and the ball soft, and no reverse on offer. England in the past have relied on Swann to chip in with the odd wicket in these circumstances. Let's not forget also that Broad, England's no 8 who is undoubtedly less able than Johnson with the bat, also score 30odd before he was out slogging, and had he had Prior for company rather than the tail, England might have made a decent recovery also, which would have put Australia's into perspective.

I go with the sensible consensus that England's bowlers did a good job overall on a flat wicket first time around. Their batsmen then let them down very badly. I am not so fussed about Australia's 2nd innings given the game situation and the obviously deflating effect England's innings will have had on their bowlers. It is a scenario that we have seen enough times before to recognise: bowlers restrict opposition, batsmen then let them down totally, bowlers have to come out to bowl again and don't run in quite so hard due to mental and physical weariness (and aware of a long series, so don't want to bowl themselves into the ground either), opposition batsmen freed up by the situation make hay. It is IMO significant only in the confidence it may give the Aussie batters, but even then when they next find themselves under pressure I doubt they will be able to play with the same freedom.

Beyond that, Australia's batting is still fragile, and England's bowling good enough that we should be careful not to give this game too much significance. Trott would be the obvious main concern, and I believe has to go back to the drawing board and recall what made him such a successful test batsman in the first place. Above everything, he must back himself and whatever plan he eventually comes up with to counter Johnson 100%. Prior is just going through a massive form slump, I am not sure there is anything technical there.

Anderson remains a class operator and showed last time what he can do in Australian conditions, Broad bowled beautifully in this match. The 3rd seamer remains a concern, but I am going to cut Tremlett a bit of slack and suggest that he might have been bowling a bit within himself, which is understandable given the match situation and his history of breaking down. However England may be very tempted by Finn's extra pace, or Rankin's steep bounce for the next game. Finn's pace may be key on the flatter Adelaide wicket; on the other hand, England really can't afford their 3rd seamer to go around the park.

Apart from that I can't see England making any changes to their line-up yet. Australia barring injuries will surely also be unchanged. I take mysti's point on Swann's ineffectiveness, but I think there is a fair amount of hindsight there, and I can't see anybody would have left Swann out before the test started. Even with hindsight, I would be worried about the increased workload on the seamers (Swann did get through more than 50 overs during the match); I am not keen on teams going into matches without a specialist spinner, as apart from at Perth this rarely seems to work.

Alfie has compared the mood in Aus to the mood after the Perth match last time. There is though for me a bit of a difference: Australia's win last time was essentially built on an extraordinary spell from Mitch Johnson - Harris bowled beautifully also, but it was Mitch getting Cook, Trott, KP and Collingwood with fast swing bowling which won Australia the match; this time they have collectively come up on top thanks to well fashioned and executed plans - whilst Johnson has IMO with his working over of Trott against proved to be the catalyst, Cook, KP, possibly Root were all out to planned dismissals, and the working over of the tail was a collective work also. The difference is subtle perhaps, but real IMO. That is not to say that Australia will win the ashes back, but that last time Johnson's performance hid the gulf in class between the two sides; this time there is a difference, but the gap has certainly narrowed.

[Pal Joey]

.... and from reports I gather the pitches were fairly placid in the warm-ups.

I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be quite a deliberate strategy. This is a continuing trend of the home team using warm-up matches as an excuse to do everything but what they are surely supposed to, which is to acclimatise the touring team.

True, I have always thought that the Hobart match is a deliberate ploy to make England play in the closest thing to 'English conditions' - thereby disguising the extreme opposite conditions they will have to face in Brisbane. After the WA match, they would be better off playing a match in Townsville or Cairns... better to acclimatise for Brisbane that way.

Also, the Alice Springs match is rather cruel. It can be very harsh out there in the centre of the continent this time of year. Red dust and blazing sun... an energy sapping kind of atmosphere to play cricket! They'll be very glad to get to Adelaide I bet.

Beyond that, Australia's batting is still fragile, and England's bowling good enough that we should be careful not to give this game too much significance.

The Australian batting was less fragile today so that is a positive at least. They are in a good position to rebuild. Players have made significant progress in addressing areas of concern (always good to see that plans have been instigated and that they are working) but there is still so much more work to do.

I'm not too worried about Rogers either. He is the sort of player who has shown that he is prepared to stay at the crease for very long periods of time. Bailey has that type of countenance about him too and seems to be thriving (generally) but just hasn't performed so well in this Test. I like him though - there's a very tough character underneath all the simple charm and smiles.

The mood is quite different up here, alfie. It's quite laid back - a few other events going on as well - there was some bloke screaming calling the football tonight. That's the sort of person that gets carried away with all the big talk. Had to flick it onto FM (it was on ABC radio after the cricket) just to get this over-excited buffoon out of earshot!

I certainly haven't heard anyone bragging or comparing the situation with Perth in 2010. Only a fool would draw such a silly conclusion from that past event in totally different circumstances.

It's a very different situation now in 2013. England were on the rise back then; Australia in decline. Perhaps now - England are slightly on the wane and Australia is a few good steps along the road to recovery. If they can win this Test then that will be a significant achievement. However I already feel as though our pace trio and spinner know something of great value; namely, exactly where to bowl for particular batsmen... where they feel most uncomfortable playing the ball.

So far, the plan has worked. Time will tell if Day 2 of the 1st Test was indeed a turning point in Australia's cricketing fortunes.

[mystiroakey]

Lb you are right we are on the wane and you are on the up, the results won't change that.

[Pal Joey]

It's all swings and roundabouts and rollercoasters, oakey.

[mystiroakey]

Aye, it's a shame our cycles are so short

[KP_fan]

KP it is clear - England are set to lose this first test due to terrible batting. After day one it was definitely advantage England when bowling. Day two was the match changer when too many England batsmen gifted wickets ridicukously cheaply and Australia had a healthy first innings lead to build on. From that point momentum was with Australia and the pitch (a batsman's dream) plus confidence to play their shots that a healthy lead gives you just made batting so much easier for them.

inspite of the terrible batting the match wouldn't be so hopelessly one sides at the end of D2 if england had the bowling to get aus rolled over for 180 from 130-6
and all the visual evidence is there.....pitch doesn't assist swann from d1 and anderson is not the same bowler when there is no reverse on offer in the mid of the inning.
 
those 140-150 + operating bowlers on a pich with no spin or reverse but good bounce is what limited eng.
whole world has seen it.....and this is what aus will keep doimg rest of the seris....lot of pace and bounce....little seam or swing or spin assisting pitches.
 
and the script is likely to be repeated ever match....where aussie 150kph operators will find somethimg to edge themselves ahead from other wise even situations ( like anderson and swann produced the game changimg spells all through english summer).

the batsmen ending on the losing side will look obviously bad.....but they are not the diffrentiating factor.
 
just wait and watch.

[Hoggy_Bear]

KP_Fan
Even if you're right, and Finn would have enabled England to roll Australia over for 180 (which is far, far from a given), England were not selecting their bowling unit with the benefit of hindsight were they. Easy to say, "Oh well, England made a mistake not selecting Finn because he'd have made all the difference at 132/6", when you know that Australia were 132/6, isn't it?

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Would Australia have been 132/6 if Finn was bowling at 5 an over?

[Hoggy_Bear]

Would Australia have been 132/6 if Finn was bowling at 5 an over?

Well, exactly.

[CaledonianCraig]

I think the given par for the first innings at the Gabba is around 400 or 450 so England bowling them out for less than 300 was certainly advantage to England. The massive failing was England's spectacular batting collapse in their first innings. Day one belonged to England when bowling but since then initiative has been surrendered and the batting CANNOT be defended whereas the bowling soldiered on admirably on a pitch that is batsman friendly.

[guildfordbat]

A few more random thoughts.

1. First off -  to Mike for seeing out the first session and then returning for the third. Great effort. Very well done to anyone else in this time zone who saw the majority of the play.

2. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we bowled (and caught) well first time out. The main blame for us now being in such a mess lies squarely with the batsmen.

3. As others have suggested, Trott is a major worry. So often, like a life jacket for us in deep waters. Currently he's more like a heavy stone dragging us down, with apparent flaws at the crease and in his head. As I said the other night, I appreciate no Test batsman tries to get out but the timing of both his dismissals in this match has been particularly concerning and near disastrous. I just hope that class will out - he's certainly well steeped in that. He has earned the right to stay in the side for now but that may need to be reconsidered before the end of the series if things don't improve. That said, there seems no obvious replacement.

4. Carberry had no luck today, granted. However, I would have expected him - deliberately, if not almost instinctively - to have shuffled his pads together to stop the ball going back onto the stumps (Mike?). Carberry impressed first time out with a calm temperament but I'm still not convinced about him at this level. Even with all his experience at county level, he won't often have come up against the pace of someone like Johnson. He deserves this opportunity but doubts persist in my mind.

5. The England bowlers were severely hampered by Australia walking out second time round at effectively 159/0. However, they still could have bowled better and more savvy. Swann is undoubtedly an outstanding bowler (he became the first ever yesterday / today to take 250 Test wickets in less than 5 years) but seemed overly attacking in his pursuit of wickets rather than initially trying to keep things tight.

6. I'm not totally against part-time bowling but feel it should be used only occasionally - mainly as a change ''to try something different and surprise the batsmen''. By all means, keep him on if it works. However, feel we're in danger of overdoing it with Root. His part-time bowling seems to be becoming more and more of a feature. 15 wicketless overs in Australia's second innings - too many in my book. Appreciate this links to not putting too much worload on the 3 seamers but am still uncomfortable.

After my pre-series comments about Tremlett, only right that I comment specifically - and honestly! -on him. I'll do that separately a bit later.

[KP_fan]

KP_Fan
Even if you're right, and Finn would have enabled England to roll Australia over for 180 (which is far, far from a given), England were not selecting their bowling unit with the benefit of hindsight were they. Easy to say, "Oh well, England made a mistake not selecting Finn because he'd have made all the difference at 132/6", when you know that Australia were 132/6, isn't it?

i dunno if Finn would have made a difference.
my observation that england's problems are deeper.
they have gone down a path where they need pitch to give something to swann and anderson from D2 if not D1 outright else they are quite ordinary.
in the circumstances eng could play their fastest hit the deck hard bowlers....which in theory was meant to tremlett except that his 122kph pace would make bopara proud as a bowler

[CaledonianCraig]

Sorry KP that is baloney. England's major and chief worry is batting. England's bowlers proved their worth on the most benign of pitches last winter in India and they dug their batsmen out of difficult spots in the summer. Anderson, Broad and Swann - give me that attack over Johnson, Harris and Lyon any day.

[KP_fan]

England's bowlers proved their worth on the most benign of pitches last winter in India and they dug their batsmen out of difficult spots in the summer. .

benign  
those are the pitches dry,scruffed up and spinning that Eng thrive on...swann and anderson are masters.....and broad to some extent. and theyhad monty also to exploit indian conditions.
no wonder they made every pitch in eng last series like bangalore

[CaledonianCraig]

Sorry I watched the whole of last wintwr's series and for 80% of the Tests there was more life on Mars than in those pitches yet England's bowlers prevailed whereas India's didn't.

[Duty281]

If England lose, what will be the period that England lost it?

Answer: When they went from 82/2 to 91/8.

That's how any rational person would percieve it. Sure, the Australian partnership between Haddin and Johnson hurt England, but it didn't do any lasting damage.

[KP_fan]

Sorry I watched the whole of last wintwr's series and for 80% of the Tests there was more life on Mars than in those pitches yet England's bowlers prevailed whereas India's didn't.

english bowling was better than india's in 2 tests.....and worse in first.
and that's why a 2-1 scoreline.....monty and swann were getting zip n bounce.....and anderson reverse.

[Mike Selig]

An excellent collection of thoughts as per usual guildford. To answer a couple of them specifically:

4. Carberry had no luck today, granted. However, I would have expected him - deliberately, if not almost instinctively - to have shuffled his pads together to stop the ball going back onto the stumps (Mike?). Carberry impressed first time out with a calm temperament but I'm still not convinced about him at this level. Even with all his experience at county level, he won't often have come up against the pace of someone like Johnson. He deserves this opportunity but doubts persist in my mind.

I share similar concerns over Carberry, but I feel this is a bit harsh. I watched the dismissal a couple more times since reading your post, and he simply didn't have time to react; his front foot is a little in front of his back leg, and this creates a small gap, the ball then goes off almost the full face of the bat (there is a hint of an inside edge) bounces between his legs and spins back onto the stumps. I can't recall another similar dismissal against a pace bowler (it happens at times against a spinner when you get the bat angle wrong and the ball spins back).

6. I'm not totally against part-time bowling but feel it should be used only occasionally - mainly as a change ''to try something different and surprise the batsmen''. By all means, keep him on if it works. However, feel we're in danger of overdoing it with Root. His part-time bowling seems to be becoming more and more of a feature. 15 wicketless overs in Australia's second innings - too many in my book. Appreciate this links to not putting too much worload on the 3 seamers but am still uncomfortable.

I agree. I think England will say that they were bowling him so much to preserve their main bowlers, but to persevere with him quite so long IMO gave quite a mental boost to Australia:
- he first bowled from 150odd for 2, so that by keeping him on so long, England were sending the message "this game's gone, we're thinking about the next one already"; whilst such analysis could be termed realistic, given how Australia need to believe they can beat England, the boost knowing that England no longer believed they could turn the match around with the ball will have given them shouldn't be understated;
- Bailey played him quite a bit during his 30odd. Whilst it wasn't the biggest score, it will have done his confidence quite a bit of good; he now knows he can score runs at test level. England really should have looked to attack Bailey from the outset, to try to salvage at least some moral wins out of this.
- Allowing Australia to score 400 is not a good idea, because it will give them a lot of confidence (even if deep down they know England's heart wasn't in it).
- both Clarke and Warner got to their tons off Root's bowling. Whilst it makes little difference to the complex of this series whether Clarke scored 113 or 99, psychologically it is big for Warner who scored his first ashes century, and first ton since all his issues last year.

Overall the point I am trying to make is understandable though it was, the overbowling of Root was symptomatic of a fairly defeatist England attitude, which will have given the Aussies quite a boost. Whilst there is nothing wrong with being realistic, England should have aimed for some minor moral wins, like getting Bailey cheaply again (get some doubt in his mind), get Clarke out to a short ball if possible, not allow Warner to score 100, get Johnson out quickly and really get into his ear, etc. As it is they let Australia dominate and have a free ride really.

[CaledonianCraig]

Yes on woefully benign A-typical sub-continent pitches. Down Under the Gabba is renowned as a supreb batting wicket yet England's bowlers bowled Australia out about 150 runs short of a par score whereas England's batsmen scored around 300 runs short of par. Go figure what department in the England side is to blame. It isn't rocket science.

[msp83]

I know there is no love loss between KPF and majority of England supporters. But I would say there is a need to listen to each other.
I would agree that England's bowling, despite bowling Australia out for under 300, do have a few questionmarks about them. Johnson is a pretty decent number 8, and Haddin, despite not being in the Prior/Dhoni league is a decent wicketkeeper batsman. But letting the last 4 wickets more than double the total, latting the last 5 almost triple the score, I think there is a problem. The pitch had not much for Swqann. I don't agree with Mysti's argument that Root should have been England's chief spin option, just look how Lyon contained England and bowled so well with Johnson during that mad spell of play. The Australians batted very well against Swann, and Swanny didn't bowl all that well.
I see people have mentioned Finn's economy rate. But I would suggest you have a look at Tremlett's economy in the 2nd innings. Add to that Swann's poor test match, have look at what the speedguns said about Tremlett's pace. Analyze Anderson's swing patterns, he didn't reverse it, didn't get the kind of swing he otherwise manages.
Tremlett came into the squad on the back of a long injury layoff, rather unconvincing performances for his county where his workload had to be managed on a spell basis rather than even a match basis. He didn't do anything special in the warm-ups, didn't even play the last game before the test. Many of us had expressed concerns over his selection. Many here think that if the team management takes a call, they have to know everything and they can't ever be wrong. But I believe the team management can get things wrong now and then, and when that happens, it is only fair that they are questioned.
On this pitch, pace has mattered. It was pretty much likely that that would have been the case. As such, not picking Finn, who took 8 wickets in the last warm-up game including a 5for is something that can lead to questions.

[CaledonianCraig]

It is a given that batting for Australia in the second innings was going to be mentally far easier whilst bowlers had it far tougher. The Aussie batsmen realised they had a rare luxury of a 159 lead before a ball was bowled - a great pressure releaser that. On top of that the pitch is not misbehaving in any way so I can't see how blame can be laid at the bowlers door especially considering they had a four hour rest between innings.

[msp83]

Now on to the other side. I think England's batting has some obvious problems. KP hasn't been at his best since the summer, Cook too has lost his consistency. Jonathan Trott has been battling a rather prolonged rough patch. Having found an answer to the number 6 crisis, England messed it up royally by moving Root up to open and dropping Compton rather unfairly. And after thaqt wonderful match-saving innings in New Zealand, Matt Prior too has hit a rough patch.
All these reminds me of India's struggles in England and Australia. The Indian batting unit too had a collective batting failure that was prolonged. Like Bell in the last Ashes, Dravid stood up all alone in England. But ones he too lost form, then it became a massive crisis. As Guildford and LB were discussing in the earlier pages, 400 may not be a magic number, but its fairly obvious that England's batting has been struggling rather badly for quite some time. And a collapse of 6-9 can lose a test match for most sides in a majority of situations.

[Duty281]

It's laughable to suggest England's bowlers are at fault.

Australia batting first, at the Gabba, beautiful conditions, a beautiful pitch. All out for under 300 - would you take that England? Of course you would.

Not the bowlers fault that the batsmen ended up about 250 short of par, and 91/8, is it?

[msp83]

From 130-6, 295 is a bit too much, duty?

[KP_fan]

there is a bunch of guys....pretty much the same lobby that was fighting tooth and nail to defend the inclusion of bresnan  over panesr IN T1  in india...while only one or two odd here were from day1 said leaving panesar out was a blunder.
 
and boy when panesar was included.....the rest is history...not metaphorically but literally.
wasn't all panesar but he doubled the potency of bowlers and cook and KP's efforts.
 
the problem i see is trying to blame the headache as the malaise when the bug is in the stomach...
and feeling obligated to defend eng selectors regardless of what they do.

[Duty281]

From 130-6, 295 is a bit too much, duty?

You could argue that. But even from 295, England should have still racked up enough for a 100 run lead.

The stage where England lost six wickets for nine runs lost* them this game, not Australia (temporarily) getting out of jail.

*England haven't lost yet.

[Duty281]

there is a bunch of guys....pretty much the same lobby that was fighting tooth and nail to defend the inclusion of bresnan  over panesr IN T1  in india...while only one or two odd here were from day1 said leaving panesar out was a blunder.
 
and boy when panesar was included.....the rest is history...not metaphorically but literally.
wasn't all panesar but he doubled the potency of bowlers and cook and KP's efforts.
 
the problem i see is trying to blame the headache as the malaise when the bug is in the stomach...
and feeling obligated to defend eng selectors regardless of what they do.

Who were they then? I seemed to remember most of this forum wanting Panesar selected.  

[guildfordbat]

Mike - thanks for your response together with detailed comments on Carberry's dismissal and Root's bowling.

I did actually wonder if I was being too harsh on Carberry but was keen to raise the possible concern. Haven't had the chance to play it back. Accept your point about the lack of time to react.

You've splendidly developed my concerns about Root.

[Hoggy_Bear]

there is a bunch of guys....pretty much the same lobby that was fighting tooth and nail to defend the inclusion of bresnan  over panesr IN T1  in india...while only one or two odd here were from day1 said leaving panesar out was a blunder.
 
and boy when panesar was included.....the rest is history...not metaphorically but literally.
wasn't all panesar but he doubled the potency of bowlers and cook and KP's efforts.
 
the problem i see is trying to blame the headache as the malaise when the bug is in the stomach...
and feeling obligated to defend eng selectors regardless of what they do.

Really don't get the point that you're trying to make here KP.
Because it may have been a mistake not picking Panesar for the first test in India, that means that England have a problem with their bowling?
Truth is that, over the last 18 months- 2 years, England's batting has been mediocre. Virtually all of our success over that period has been built our bowling so, really, it's pretty obvious where the problem is and, as in the current match, it's not with the bowlers.

[JDizzle]

To be fair, I don't remember many people advocating picking Panesar for Test 1 as it was though the Indians play spin too well. Obviously that changed after about an hour of us bowling in T1.

As for this game, whilst letting Australia off the hook in regards to the Haddin/Johnson partnership it was not the biggest failing. Reducing Aus to 130-6 was a brilliant effort in itself, and it must be remembered that this pitch is pretty good for batting and Swann struggles here (did in 2010 as well) so to see a comeback of sorts was not a surprise. Obviously it would have been preferable to kill them off and skittle them for 180, but the partnership never got out of hand and England would have bitten your hand off to bowl Aus out for less than 300 pre game.

The batting is without doubt the biggest concern. Our bowling has always looked threatening, bar the odd innings or Test here and there but our batting has looked suspect for a while. Ever since the UAE there have been some question marks really. Hopefully, when we are not in the middle of a crushing defeat (trying to jinx it), I'll be able to look back more objectifably on this game but at the moment it is a struggle to see where we go from here. Cook has been short of form for a while and along with Trott (who is the main concern, the fact he knew how the Aussies would attack him and how he still hasn't worked out how to counter it worries me a lot) and Carberry, who whilst looking assured on Day 2 and was unlucky today, who is unproven at this level. KP hasn't had a big series in a while, still produces game changers though so here is hoping, and Root has struggled to keep up with his dymanic start to International cricket and also Matty P who is in the worst form of his life. Then when you look at the potential replacements in Bairstow and Ballance, it doesn't fill me with confidence.

Anyway, there is still two days to go, England's two best batsmen are at the crease and here's hoping that they make my super pessimistic post look very stupid.

[msp83]

By the way, anyone here think Steven Finn will get a game before the 5th test? I very much doubt it.. England management can, despite Cook, be stubborn, bordering on the stupid at times. They don't like Compton, they don't pick Finn who doesn't exactly fit their formulaic approach, so they drop him at the first given opportunity. Think Tim Bresnan will be playing from the 3rd test, perhaps even from the next one in place of Tremlett. Or to try and prove a point, Tremlett might get to dole out his military medium stuff for the next couple of games.

[Hoggy_Bear]

msp
Why pick Finn when their 'formulaic approach' to bowling has been the basis of most of the success they've enjoyed in the last 18 months or so?

[msp83]

Here is an interesting extract from an article from cricinfo's George Dobell.
"But this was not a wholly convincing performance from England with the ball. Chris Tremlett, bowling at a pace so modest it sometimes appeared he was equipped
with a shuttlecock, was unable to maintain the pressure built by Anderson and Stuart Broad in the first session. While he finished with three wickets as
Australia set-up the declaration, this has not been an encouraging return. Boyd Rankin or Steven Finn would, for example, both have been able to sustain
the short-pitched attack on Clarke far more effectively.
It was an avoidable selection error, too. Anyone who had seen Tremlett bowl in the English domestic season would have been able to see that he is simply
not capable of delivering the spells he could before his career was hit by serious injuries. On the type of pitch on which he would once have presented
a nightmare proposition, he was dispiritingly impotent. The description of him as "a whale shark; huge and majestic to look at, but ultimately floaty and
harmless" on Twitter may be harsh, but is uncomfortably accurate.
It is quite wrong to think that the role of third seamer should be primarily to offer control, too. At 132-6 in their first innings, Australian hopes were
hanging by a thread but, due to the lack of attacking support for Broad and Anderson, they were allowed to claw their way back into the game."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/story/691895.html

[msp83]

msp
Why pick Finn when their 'formulaic approach' to bowling has been the basis of most of the success they've enjoyed in the last 18 months or so?

Is that quite correct Hoggy?
Finn played the Kolkata test, then played in New Zealand, and played against New Zealand in England and in the first Ashes test. He's a wickettaker, and he's quick. He certainly is not the most likable face for the 'Control Freaks', but could have been a more valuable addition to the attack than a 77 KPH 3rd seamer who goes at 4.3. And as Dobell said in the above linked article, control is not the beginning and end of the 3rd seamer's role.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Dobell may believe that Finn would be able to maintain pressure as well or better that Tremlett or Rankin, the England management seemingly disagreed before the start of this match. I'm pretty sure that if they'd believed that Finn could fulfill that part of their bowling strategy, they'd have picked him. Of course their opinion may well now have changed but, again, saying with the benefit of hindsight, that Tremlett probably didn't offer that much doesn't mean that England have got something against Finn.

[Hoggy_Bear]

msp
Why pick Finn when their 'formulaic approach' to bowling has been the basis of most of the success they've enjoyed in the last 18 months or so?

Is that quite correct Hoggy?
Finn played the Kolkata test, then played in New Zealand, and played against New Zealand in England and in the first Ashes test. He's a wickettaker, and he's quick. He certainly is not the most likable face for the 'Control Freaks', but could have been a more valuable addition to the attack than a 77 KPH 3rd seamer who goes at 4.3. And as Dobell said in the above linked article, control is not the beginning and end of the 3rd seamer's role.

Was Finn not dropped from the Ashes team because of his inability to stop the Aussie's scoring off him?
As I say in my reply above, I'm sure that, if England had believed Finn could be trusted to give the side a modicum of control, his extra wicket-taking ability would have seen him picked. Using hindsight to say "Well, he'd probably have been better than Tremlett" does nothing to prove England have something against him.

[KP_fan]

msp
Why pick Finn when their 'formulaic approach' to bowling has been the basis of most of the success they've enjoyed in the last 18 months or so?

that is what Flower lobby throuhg their front end throws.

let's see thsy lost their number one slot and a home series to SA
and could not crush NZ in NZ
and lost their No.2 slot

and only looked at the bottomline result of 3-0 vs Aus...not how close some of those games were...luck of toss and designer pitches made the diffrence.
or maybe Flower just doesn't aspire to be an all condition dominant team...in which case...his defensive formulas and Cook's defensive approach is OK.

[Hoggy_Bear]

KP_Fan

Difficult to be an all condition dominant team when your batting is mediocre, as has been the case with England in the last 18+ months. That's been the problem. If England had regularly been putting big scores on the board, they could have afforded to be more attacking with their bowling. The idea that they'd have enjoyed more success recently if they'd have adopted a more attacking bowling policy is largely a fallacy, and could have proved disastrous due to their fallible batting.

[guildfordbat]

Regulars will be well aware I raised concerns about Tremlett - particularly his strength and fitness - before this Test (indeed, before he even boarded the plane). So, did I get it right or am I left with  on my face after his performance in the two Australian innings?

I actually find that quite tricky to answer. If I have won the argument at all, I accept it hasn't been hands down.

Tremlett certainly didn't break down which was my greatest fear. Furthermore, he was fairly tidy in the Australian first innings and was our top wicket taker in their second dig.

However, I'm not convinced that tells the whole story. He too often apeared to lack zip and menace. The SKY team definitely concurred last night with such comments as ''a little pedestrian'' (Atherton) and ''no real venom'' (Lloyd). He never seemed to give it everything, possibly fearful of what his body could withstand. Also of concern, although it didn't apply just to him, was Tremlett's failure to keep the runs down second time round.

As for his three second innings wickets, two were pretty fortunate. At outset, a rash shot from Watson betraying a lack of patience to get after him. As the declaration came nearer, Haddin's wicket resembled a routine dismissal towards the end of a first innings ODI. In between, an intelligent ball (I've never had an issue with Tremlett's intelligence) to snare Smith for the second time.

I had also voiced worries about Tremlett's fielding. This may be unfair but I do wonder if he was rather hidden in the field. I could have been watching and listening at the wrong times but I rarely noticed him when he wasn't bowling other than a put down remark by Gower: ''Tremlett has a lumbering chase''.

Let me emphasise - Tremlett hasn't been the worst England player in this match. He hasn't even been the worst England bowler. However, whilst some of my concerns were overstated, I still don't feel I was that wrong.

[Guest]

yet again i will stay up for tonight's play, but i am really worried that we could be bundled out by tea..

[mystiroakey]

I hope we can bat the day.

Cook and KP are 2 of the best batsmen in the world.

Time for the BIG boys to step up

[CaledonianCraig]

It really is a case of how far England's batting has dipped. Look at their last batting display at the Gabba a few years ago (didn't they bat out for a draw ending on 518 for 1?). Sadly, I cannot see England repeating that sort of performance this year such as there has been a dip in form.

[KP_fan]

KP_Fan

Difficult to be an all condition dominant team when your batting is mediocre, as has been the case with England in the last 18+ months. That's been the problem. If England had regularly been putting big scores on the board, they could have afforded to be more attacking with their bowling. The idea that they'd have enjoyed more success recently if they'd have adopted a more attacking bowling policy is largely a fallacy, and could have proved disastrous due to their fallible batting.

england batting is probably better than most otehr sides.
it's not batting that makes a side top lasting...but rather bowling in all conditions as SA and WI have shown
 
Eng and India are alike..........good batting and conditions-helped-bowling..and hence they do not last at the top.
 
but that does not mean we should not aspire to be all condition champions..and have a firery all condition attack

[Duty281]

Conditions helped bowling?

England's bowling has triumphed all over the world. The UAE (but the batting threw away 2 tests), India, Sri Lanka, Australia, and an innings win in South Africa - all in the last four years. What helpful conditions?

Wherever a Test is played, you can bank on England's bowling to put them in a good position. England's bowlers succeed the world over.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Regulars will be well aware I raised concerns about Tremlett - particularly his strength and fitness - before this Test (indeed, before he even boarded the plane). So, did I get it right or am I left with  on my face after his performance in the two Australian innings?

I actually find that quite tricky to answer. If I have won the argument at all, I accept it hasn't been hands down.

Tremlett certainly didn't break down which was my greatest fear. Furthermore, he was fairly tidy in the Australian first innings and was our top wicket taker in their second dig.

However, I'm not convinced that tells the whole story. He too often apeared to lack zip and menace. The SKY team definitely concurred last night with such comments as ''a little pedestrian'' (Atherton) and ''no real venom'' (Lloyd). He never seemed to give it everything, possibly fearful of what his body could withstand. Also of concern, although it didn't apply just to him, was Tremlett's failure to keep the runs down second time round.

As for his three second innings wickets, two were pretty fortunate. At outset, a rash shot from Watson betraying a lack of patience to get after him. As the declaration came nearer, Haddin's wicket resembled a routine dismissal towards the end of a first innings ODI. In between, an intelligent ball (I've never had an issue with Tremlett's intelligence) to snare Smith for the second time.

I had also voiced worries about Tremlett's fielding. This may be unfair but I do wonder if he was rather hidden in the field. I could have been watching and listening at the wrong times but I rarely noticed him when he wasn't bowling other than a put down remark by Gower: ''Tremlett has a lumbering chase''.

Let me emphasise - Tremlett hasn't been the worst England player in this match. He hasn't even been the worst England bowler. However, whilst some of my concerns were overstated, I still don't feel I was that wrong.

Its a tough one Guildford indeed. He has lacked zip especially second time round but then what bowler won't after spending pretty much two and a half days out of three in the baking Aussie heat? He does bowl with good control, and I think if the wicket was seaming he'd be a real handful. But then he has not been the Tremlett of three years ago.

Its a really tough choice between keeping him in, or going with Finn/Rankin. He's not really done anything to warrant being dropped, and the other two haven't really stated their case for being selected either.

[Sponsored content]