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)

[Mike Selig]

Think all this talk of Tremlett's economy rate in the second innings is misleading if not downright unfair. He had been perfectly economical (indeed the most of the England bowlers) until his last few overs went for plenty, as Johnson and Haddin simply teed off. Not sure it is reasonable to hold that against him. It certainly is not in the same league as (justified) concerns over Finn's tendency to leak runs.

My point about selection decisions is not that they never get things wrong, just that just because the facts appear to show that they were wrong in hindsight doesn't mean they were necessarily wrong at the time.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

One over down

[mystiroakey]

179 to go

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Barely an Aussie in the ground

[guildfordbat]

Mike - I'm possibly being too selective but I did notice yesterday that Tremlett's opening and solitary over yesterday (the one where he got Watson and was then immediately replaced by Broad) went for 6. When he next came back for a 4 over spell against Warner and Clarke, he went for (I think) 20, never seeming totally on the money or having them in trouble. Apart from when Haddin and Johnson were pushing for a declaration, I accept he was pretty tight at most other times, especially in the first innings.

I think his economy rate is being highlighted as that's what got him the nod over Finn for this match. I think it's therefore fair to highlight it. Whether Finn would have been better or worse is another matter.

I understand your point about selection decisions and realise why you make it. In my own last post, I was trying to show that my doubts about Tremlett were - just about in your words - ''not necessarily wrong at the time'' even though he did better than I believed would be the case.

[guildfordbat]

Sensible encouraging half hour for Cook and Pietersen.

Lyon coming on.

[alfie]

Still a lot of arguing on here about Tremlett , I see.

I should point out first that I would have picked Finn for this match , and said so before it. But I had - and have - no problem with the actual choice of Tremlett. Haven't seen as much of this as many of you , but it seems to me that Tremlett has not had such a terrible match : OK , he was down on pace , not the menacing figure of three years ago , but his economy in the first innings was probably what England wanted , and I would argue he played his part in the Australian collapse. One might suggest the main factor (apart from the skills of Haddin and Johnson) in the recovery from 132/6 was in fact the ineffectiveness of Swann.
None of England's bowlers seem to have done much second time around. I agree with Mike there , both in that there was probably a bit of bowling within themselves , awaiting a declaration - perhaps accepting the inevitable ? and that the bad side of that is that it will certainly help to lift the Aussie bats' confidence.
I would point out , though , that in the Brisbane test last time the England bowlers were similarly put to the sword by Hussey and Haddin , after some early success...the focus on their shortcomings was somewhat displaced that time by the Cook/Strauss/Trott 517/1 which followed ; but there was still a deal of concern around going to Adelaide...and of course we soon saw what Anderson and Swann could do on Australian pitches.
It might not be the same this time. But perhaps we should hold off on declaring the demise of the current England bowling attack as a result of one match.
Change the team for Adelaide ? Possibly. Finn bowled quite well there last time , and he might be preferred , which will presumably please the posters who seem to have something of an obsession with him  
But I am not in the business of sneering at selectors for making a marginal call on the basis of it not being seen to work out perfectly...the way in which players who are not picked for a (losing) match always become world beaters by default never ceases to amuse me.

Anyway , right now the main thing for England is to make a better fist of batting this time around. Can't see it doing anything but delaying the time of the Australian victory , but the batsmen need to get a bit of confidence back.
Then they can start to prepare for the new mission : coming from behind in a series , as in India...

[mystiroakey]

The longer we keep them in the field the better.. We will not fall on our sword

[guildfordbat]

Still a lot of arguing on here about Tremlett , I see.

Change the team for Adelaide ? Possibly. ...

I do accept it would be odd and unfair (although not unique) if a bowler, having helped get us into a strong position, carries the can for our subsequent batting failures.

[guildfordbat]

The longer we keep them in the field the better.. We will not fall on our sword

Definitely agree with that, mysti. Cook and Pietersen need to concentrate on still being there at lunch and can then think about the next milestone.

[alfie]

Reading back I see Mike and LB have both suggested I have made too much of a comparison with Perth 2010 , and I can see what they mean.
I should point out though that I never intended to imply an exact parallel. Mike is quite correct in that there is a big difference in the way England was dismantled this time : much more a planned attack; and even if Johnson has taken the headlines it may well be that Harris and Lyon were at least equal partners in the job. Also a difference in that this time Johnson took wickets mainly to poor shots , though it is probably true his aggressive bouncy attack was a major factor in inducing these errors. Last time I recall he mainly did his damage with devastating late swing , which has not been apparent in this match for any bowler.
I am reserving judgement on the "in decline , on the rise" story. While I am intrigued to see that Sydney media are less OTT than many in Melbourne (I thought people here were supposed to be the thoughtful , reserved ones , and your lot were the cowboys , LB? ) I can assure you all that the Melbourne Sun is not holding back  
In the great tradition of newspapers bearing that name in their masthead , perhaps...

[mystiroakey]

oh well. Kp gone.

[alfie]

The longer we keep them in the field the better.. We will not fall on our sword

Definitely agree with that, mysti. Cook and Pietersen need to concentrate on still being there at lunch and can then think about the next milestone.

Unfortunately KP didn't read your wise advice there , guildford.

Straight after the drinks break. Bit of a gift.

A thrill for the substitute fielder !

[guildfordbat]

OK Aussies 12th man will be Chris Sabburg who was my local clubs overseas player last season. That's cool

Olly - he'll never need to buy a drink again in Oz!

[alfie]

Still a lot of arguing on here about Tremlett , I see.

Change the team for Adelaide ? Possibly. ...

I do accept it would be odd and unfair (although not unique) if a bowler, having helped get us into a strong position, carries the can for our subsequent batting failures.

And probably one of the reasons for this is that the third seamer is really the only position in the team in immediate dispute...
While we all (most of us , anyway ) are agreed the batting frailties are the big problem ; it is not readily apparent what might be done to redress them.
Ballance with his 0.0.4 start to his international career is not going to replace Trott at three. Bairstow may eventually come back into the reckoning at six , but nobody is suggesting he should be replacing Root just yet ; nor that Root should go back to the top of the order , while Stokes hasn't played since the first match and is unlikely to be selected as a batsman in any case.
So essentially , this is the top six and they will be standing or falling together. But we have to talk about something after a heavy defeat...

[guildfordbat]

Still a lot of arguing on here about Tremlett , I see.

Change the team for Adelaide ? Possibly. ...

I do accept it would be odd and unfair (although not unique) if a bowler, having helped get us into a strong position, carries the can for our subsequent batting failures.

And probably one of the reasons for this is that the third seamer is really the only position in the team in immediate dispute...
While we all (most of us , anyway ) are agreed the batting frailties are the big problem ; it is not readily apparent what might be done to redress them.
Ballance with his 0.0.4 start to his international career is not going to replace Trott at three.  Bairstow may eventually come back into the reckoning at six , but nobody is suggesting he should be replacing Root just yet ; nor that Root should go back to the top of the order , while Stokes hasn't played since the first match and is unlikely to be selected as a batsman in any case.
So essentially , this is the top six and they will be standing or falling together.  But we have to talk about something after a heavy defeat...

Alfie - save the ''we need to play Panesar'' card for the third Test, you reckon?  

[alfie]

Still a lot of arguing on here about Tremlett , I see.

Change the team for Adelaide ? Possibly. ...

I do accept it would be odd and unfair (although not unique) if a bowler, having helped get us into a strong position, carries the can for our subsequent batting failures.

And probably one of the reasons for this is that the third seamer is really the only position in the team in immediate dispute...
While we all (most of us , anyway ) are agreed the batting frailties are the big problem ; it is not readily apparent what might be done to redress them.
Ballance with his 0.0.4 start to his international career is not going to replace Trott at three.  Bairstow may eventually come back into the reckoning at six , but nobody is suggesting he should be replacing Root just yet ; nor that Root should go back to the top of the order , while Stokes hasn't played since the first match and is unlikely to be selected as a batsman in any case.
So essentially , this is the top six and they will be standing or falling together.  But we have to talk about something after a heavy defeat...

Alfie - save the ''we need to play Panesar'' card for the third Test, you reckon?  

Perhaps Perth wouldn't be the ideal location for that one , guildford  

[CaledonianCraig]

Surely, even one-eyed KP fan must now realise where the blame lies for this England defeat?

England on the brink at 151 for 8. Trott and Prior woefully out of form, another batting collapse and seemingly skittled out for less than 200 TWICE at the Gabba. Unacceptable batting performance.

[alfie]

The horror show continues...(though not for much longer  )

Bit underdone , maybe ...but this has been very disappointing , Cook apart.

Can't help thinking the match was over at tea on day two , and England have not really offered much a fight at all from that point.

Guess we will see later whether they have the spirit and ability to come back from this crushing defeat. They have done so a few times in recent years , so I am not about to give up on the series yet. I do not think the Australian team which has lost seven of the last nine matches has suddenly morphed into Steve Waugh's champion outfit , so a comeback is hardly out of the question.

But a few things in this match have raised serious concerns , and I think the team psychologist will be busy twist now and Adelaide...

But

[CaledonianCraig]

Of course alfie it is only one match and a comeback is a possibility. I agree this Aussie side is by no means a throwback to their great sides of old - far from it. My main worry from an England perspective is that a number of key England players are struggling badly for form, have mental issues and have technical issues that need rectifying. Trott, for so long the go to batsman and talismanic figure, is in turmoil and Prior also has issues. England also DO NOT have a settled or decided upon opening partnership and Cook is not in the golden form of say a year or so ago. All issues England must resolve and fast otherwise the urn will be heading to the southern hemisphere.

[Duty281]

Fair play to Australia, they've executed their bowling plans perfectly. Trott and Prior have been found out, it would appear, and they need to seriously work on their technique.

Australia have chipped away at England today, and after Cook went, England have folded (bar Joe Root). The batting at fault twice in this test, with only minor positives to grasp.

Still I have full confidence in England's ability to bounce back. They always start a tour poorly these days - they have certainly been caught cold in this test - and always bounce back. Get Root to open next Test, he has the grit and the perseverance, as evidenced by his current last stand. Stick with Tremlett as well.

One positive though - the England fans have dominated the Australians. The Barmy Army have been singing non-stop for the past hour. Always good to find a positive, even if I'm rather tired!

I won't applaud Australia yet...it ain't over till it's over.

[alfie]

Absolutely , Craig.  I was concerned even before the series about Trott , and he has done nothing here to allay those worries !
Not so bothered about Cook , who played well today , though I think he misses the reassuring presence of Strauss at the other end. It is beginning to look as if the experiment with Root at the top of the order was a - perhaps very costly - waste of precious time in th search for a replacement.  Can only hope Carberry can build on his quite promising start in the first innings : opening partnerships tend to be very important in this country.
I would agree that if they cannot sort out the top three , their hold on the Ashes will be in peril.  Although I suppose we should note that only Warner of the Australian top three did anything in this match either...

[CaledonianCraig]

England's problems is akin to asking a sportsman to be competitive whilst hamstrung by injury. A fightback will not come about unless Trott and Prior find form and repair mental scars and other batsmen apply themselves much better. If this doesn't happen then England's self-belief/confidence will erode whilst the Aussies will get stronger in those areas and effectively the series will be gone.

[alfie]

Seriously , Duty ? Root back to open ?

I am not at all sure Carberry is the answer at the top , but he did at least bat for quite some time , and forty runs , in the first innings , and was perhaps a bit unlucky in the second.
Would you just swap him with Root , or reinstall Bairstow ?

I will be surprised if they don't stick with what they have for the time being , and back them to put up a far better show next time. As you say , England have a habit of starting a series badly (though this has been particularly ghastly ! ) , so they may well do so.

Aussies will be seriously confident after this though , and Adelaide now looms as a Very Important Challenge.

[Duty281]

Root at 2, Bairstow at 6.

Carberry is neither experienced or the future. He's the weakest link in the English batting order (remember class is permanent, form is temporary).

Now Root is the future. And he's not easily intimidated either. He. Needs. Time.

[CaledonianCraig]

I can see the merits on moving Root back to opener as he has shown mental fortitude and looked unruffled in this second innings when others around him have been losing their heads. However, Carberry can hardly be slated for making 40 on his debut either - it is a tough one. I wonder if there is any merit in slotting Root in at three ahead of Trott?

[alfie]

Root at 2, Bairstow at 6.

Carberry is neither experienced or the future. He's the weakest link in the English batting order (remember class is permanent, form is temporary).

Now Root is the future. And he's not easily intimidated either. He. Needs. Time.

Hmm. That is what I expected before the tour , before Carberry made mega-runs in the phony warmups... Though I had - and have - doubts about Root as an opener. I also like Bairstow , and was rather surprised to see Ballance apparently preferred in the early tryouts - to no effect.
I agree Root will be a big part of England's future , though am unsure where in the order that will be.

I still do not expect a change immediately though. If things don't work out in Adelaide , who knows ? Though if things go like this one it will probably be too late anyway...

[CaledonianCraig]

Done and dusted. Australua bowl England out for 179 to win by 381 runs and lead 1-0 in the series.

Serious thinking for England's batsmen to do starting now whilst Australia take momentum and a confidence boosting move forward.

Australia won far more comfortably than they could have dreamed after day one but I put it more down to England's failings than Australia's emergence as a dominating force.

[msp83]

Someone had branded KP_Fan and myself as representatives of the 'Steven Finn Fan Club New Delhi Chapter'. I have never tried to hide that I rate Finn very highly indeed. But the argument for Finn is not based on just that. It was fairly obvious to anyone who watched the game that pace was a very, very important factor on this track. A 125 KPH bowler was never going to trouble batsmen regularly on that track. All of Australia's 3 seamers, Johnson, Harris and Siddle bowled around or above the 140 KPH mark, Johnson and Harris were closer to 150 rather than 140. There was lot of carry on this track, and you need your bowlers to be rappid here. Tremlett was a massive let down in that department. He produced a good ball to get Smith 2nd time, and got him with a decent one first time round. But in general, he really didn't ask too many questions to the batsman, and they had answers most of the time when he asked a few rarely.
Of the 3 England seam bowlers, it was Stuart Broad who was comfortably the quickest, and his figures too reflect that. Michael Clarke's bad back creates some issues for him when encountering the short ball. But playing a short ball at 80 MPH is different to playing it at around 88-90 MPH.
When the track has considerable swing for the new ball and chances for spin for Swann, a third seamer can be trusted to predominantly do a containing job. But on a track where there was not much chance of conventional swing or spin, the 3rd seamer should have been a wickettaker with some pace. It was obvious that Tremlett wasn't the man who was going to do that job, and it was obvious before the first ball was bowled. There is no question of arguing from hindsight, many of us had expressed similar views before the match started, and were proved right. The England management got it wrong, there is no getting away from that.

[msp83]

Many of us were critical of moving Root up the order to open just when he had solved a long standing problem in that England batting lineup. And it has been proved that the management got that one also wrong. Like it or not, this England management can make some major mistakes as well.

[mystiroakey]

I think the only thing that was proved today is that root is the second best opener we have . And he should have remained there. The mistake was moving him back down after they pushed him up.. Yes we could have said he was moved up a bit early. But once they did it and the team wins 3/0 we might as well have kept him there.

[alfie]

Blimey ! Channel 9 seemed to have given up on the prospect of any more play so I went off to do other stuff...and now I find they got back on and finished it...

Good thing , really. I hate having games finish in front of two men and a dog because one or two wickets have to be formally removed to officially confirm the inevitable.

Well done Australia  

They managed to back up a lot of big talk leading up to the series ; and , if England were a little underdone perhaps , they will still know they have a lot of work to do to get back into this series after such a huge defeat.
Really not many positives to take from this train wreck : Broad in form , Cook signs of getting back in touch ; maybe Root standing up in the second knock. At least the bowlers have had a proper run out , without being bowled into the ground...Anderson probably will benefit from the match , having missed the final lead up and not a lot of bowling before that ; and certainly Swann seemed well short of his best , as I understand he was also in the game in Sydney.

Trott is the biggest worry. Three possibilities I think : (a) He just can't play fast bowling ...some support for this in his ordinary record against SA , though the sample is small. But he didn't have much trouble with it last time he came to Australia...
(B) He is in terminal decline...he is nearly 33 , though he came late to international scene : his runs have dried up lately , and not all the dismissals have been down to aggressive fast bowling ...some just rank bad shots and concentration lapses. He will need to start scoring soon or this will look most likely.
Or (c) He is just out of sorts ...having a poor run and seriously down on confidence... In which case one good innings will fix it. England will be praying this is the real issue. Though now the Aussies think they have his number the pressure will continue to be heaped on him whenever he comes to the crease. Perhaps he will need a bit of luck to get him going again.

Prior is in the horrors with the bat...perhaps it would have been better if he had failed the fitness test after all   I do think he will come good though. As will KP and Bell , who haven't become poor players overnight.

First morning in Adelaide will be a very tense time.

[mystiroakey]

Kp and bell will start playing better when the top 3 do better.

We need to sort them out. Carberry is short term and not sure if I see any point in him any more.

Stokes in at 6 , root in at 2. Trott to stay at 3 but see a guru before. Prior out for barstow.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Remember guys this is all the bowlers fault... 

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Bringing in bairstow would be all but handing Australia the urn

[mystiroakey]

Yeah like prior is doing any better!!

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

You seriously want prior dropped for a Yorkshireman who even Michael Vaughan doesn't think can keep very well?

#headsgone

[mystiroakey]

not sure what vaughan has got to do with anything- bairstow is a very good keeper and first in line to replace prior-

if prior cant do half his job then he might as well go, he is ageing anyway

[CaledonianCraig]

Well Prior has played his part in previous Ashes winning sides and made valuable contributions. Has Bairstow? I say now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions with regards to making sweeping changes to the team. What is needed is for key batsmen to rediscover form and repair mental scars.

If England can play to their top standard and likewise Australia do then England would prevail.

[mystiroakey]

its not knee jerk its just bringing a decision forward.

Barstow will replace prior at some point anyway!

What ever anyone says. or Vaughan or olly- He is First in line to replace Matty Prior

[mystiroakey]

Isnt matty prior struggling with an injury anyway- Wasn't it 50/50 whether bairtsow would be keeper during this match anyway!

[CaledonianCraig]

Bairstow as yet is totally unproven at Test level as wicket-keeper/batsman so to throw him in now (1-0 down in the series) would be too much of a risk in my opinion. I would probably feel better if Bairstow replaced Trott instead but still feel now is not the time.

[mystiroakey]

I cant advocate trott being replaced- he is way to good to just drop.

Somehow we need to stick with him and get his head right because that top 3 is off VITAL importance- but should we keep carrying all of them??

Bringing stokes in a 6 is a good idea for me though- because then we can have Finn for tremlett(stokes will add good bowling cover if finn becomes expensive)

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Bairstow doesn't even keep for Yorkshire when he plays does he? Ludicrous to suggest he'll replace prior, maybe carberry but never prior.

No need for total and utter panic just yet. We've played pretty much as poor as possible, and the Aussies very well. The only change I'd consider is weirdly Tremlett for Finn/Rankin

[Mike Selig]

Well well.

I won't be on here much today as am meeting up with some friends of mine, so apologise in advance for not responding to any answers to my usual jumble of thoughts.

Returning to Tremlett briefly. I accept guildford's point that he released pressure in the 2nd innings (it would be strange if I didn't, because I made the point in the first place that his bouncers had far less venom than Broad's). However I still say it is misleading to simply quote his economy as proof of failure, given that his high economy was a result of being the unlucky bowler to bowl when Johnson started having a thrash; as I say, before that he was actually the most economical of any of the England bowlers.

I am ambivalent on Tremlett: in the first innings he did most of what England would have wanted from their 3rd seamer, chipping in with a crucial wicket (Smith was looking good on 30odd) and keeping things tight; Anderson only picked up one wicket let's not forget. On the other hand his lack of pace and venom was no doubt an issue on a pitch which gave assistance to those who really bowled the ball into the surface (Anderson is a "kiss the surface" type of bowler) - because they got sharp bounce out of it. An on-fire Tremlett would have loved this surface, so in that respect the selection can be viewed as a bit of a gamble which didn't pay off - partly down to the fact that none of the other 2 really put their hand up in the warm-up matches I imagine - or it could have been a misreading of the surface. In any case once Tremlett's venom deserted him he bowled reasonably, albeit within himself.

With the benefit of hindsight England may well have picked Finn or even Rankin (his bounce would have been a tremendous asset) but they don't have, and at the time the decision to pick Tremlett was IMO reasonable. That doesn't mean this England management are faultless or have never made wrong decisions (the Panesar one in India was a big one; I am not sure that Root being pushed up has been proven to be wrong, simply that England think their balance is better as now, partially because Bairstow turned out not to be all that, although I still rate the fella), but I am still willing to cut them a bit of slack for this one.

Onto today's play. There are 2 major major issues for England's batsmen:
- technique: on pitches which offer bounce, a few of their techniques have been exposed. Trott being the obvious one, but Carberry (1st innings), Bell (2nd), Broad and Tremlett were also defeated by bounce, and trying to fend off or withdraw the bat, rather than dropping their hands when the ball gets big, which would be the more effective method. Too many England players were caught off the gloves or the splice of the bat for it to be coincidence.
- mental: Australia have laid down the gauntlet; their use of the short ball was relentless particularly to the tail. England now have to react, I suspect they will have to use the short ball a fair bit themselves particularly when they get to the tail, but also their batsmen will have to stand up and be counted.

On the mental side, I have no doubt England can and will bounce back. It is noticeable that each time they have started with a poor defeat away recently they have come back strongly in the 2nd test (India, Sri Lanka, even the UAE where they dominated T2 until that desperate collapse chasing 150). They still have the attributes to beat (and comfortably beat) this Australian side, and a couple of batsmen scoring big, or a few inroads early on and I'm sure the Aussies will start thinking "here we go again".

On the technical side it may be trickier. England really need a plan for dealing with the short balls, and fast. For me, the best way is to drop the hands and either sway out the way or wear it, but the instinct (literally self-preservation sometimes) is to stand up and play which is what causes issues. This is compounded by the fact that there are very few pitches with pace and bounce around the world currently (in England both Old Trafford and the Oval are much much slower than they used to be) so you don't have a chance to practice that technique in a game situation. England will be happy that Adelaide rather than Perth is next.

Going through the dismissals, I guess KP is due a bit of flak for having a go at a bouncer the ball after drinks. I know people will come up with "that's how he plays" but I don't like that excuse. You adapt how you play according to the situation - that doesn't mean KP suddenly bats like Cook, he has to stay positive both for his mindset and footwork (and was doing so very well in the first hour) but just be a bit more savvy. That shot with 2 men out and the way KP plays it (which is almost always down to up) on this pitch, just after a break, was not really on.

Cook's cut shot to me off spin always looked likely to get him out I have to say. He cuts quite close to the body and quite late, almost behind him, which works very well on subcontinental style wickets, but when there is more bounce, the back-cut (which is essentially what it is) is very risky, because you can't really control it that well, as a split second timing issue becomes big. He had a couple of near misses before his eventual dismissal.

Bell, Broad and Tremlett have been covered. They each got good sharp rising deliveries, which they tried to stand up and play rather than evade or wear.

Prior is a bit of an issue, because I reckon Australia think they have figured him out. Bowl straight, split field and he struggles. That was a poor shot with leg-slip in place, another well executed plan. Prior is a concern because he has been such a big part of this England success. I wouldn't consider dropping him yet at all, but he really needs some runs soon. I'm not sure Bairstow could take the gloves anyway to be honest.

For Australia, although Johnson will again have the headlines, the others deserve a lot of credit as well. Siddle I thought bowled a fantastic opening spell, his battle with Pietersen was great test cricket (and another great example of Pietersen the thinking cricketer - getting over to off-stump and out of his crease, then not going so hard at the ball once short-let came in). Lyon is improving with every match he plays and is a very good support act to his pacemen.

A word for Haddin: we always notice the keepers when they have a bad day, but too rarely give them credit when they have a good day, usually because we haven't noticed them. I thought his keeping was superb in England, and that has continued in this test. The catch off Cook was excellent, but also his footwork neat and glovework secure throughout. The keeper's slot is one where England would have thought they had a surefire advantage before both series - not so anymore.

[mystiroakey]

cook
root
trott
KP
bell
stokes
bairstow/Prior
broad
swann
Jimmy
Finn.


But to be honest I cant see us changing anyone including tremlett. Pace isn't an advantage at Adelaide.

But the above side is much more future proofed and forward thinking

[mystiroakey]

Bairstow doesn't even keep for Yorkshire when he plays does he? Ludicrous to suggest he'll replace prior, maybe carberry but never prior.

No need for total and utter panic just yet. We've played pretty much as poor as possible, and the Aussies very well. The only change I'd consider is weirdly Tremlett for Finn/Rankin

its not exactly ludicrous when he is the backup keeper, and was 50/50 to start this test,

Why would any county side have an england player in there side as the number one keeper, when they rarely play for them!! they need a keeper 90% of the time when the england players dont play for them. Bairstow is allways on england duty

[CaledonianCraig]

Bairstow's test batting average a tad over 30.00.

Prior's test batting average a tad over 41.00.

Prior also brings bucket loads of experience and know how at test level as wicket-keeper. Sure he has technical issues he needs to address with the bat but I do believe Bairstow also had issues dealing with the Aussie' s gameplans in the summer.

[trebellbobaggins]

oh dear.  where do they go from here?  the batting's a shambles.


have a feeling a new aussie era of dominance has begun.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Bairstow was pants in the summer. He's had his chance for now, he needs to wait for his opportunity to arise again, and this time he needs to take it.

It's a good thing now these aren't back to back tests. Gives us time to get over this one, and work towards Adelaide. We haven't become a bad team overnight, we'll bounce back

[Sponsored content]