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)

[trebellbobaggins]

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

we've become a bad batting team over about two years slowly in truth.

[mystiroakey]

The way he is flapping at the ball though. Oh dear.

I can see hope in every other batsman but him.

England will keep him on , i am sure and fingers crossed he will rediscover something. But all the same i would rather see a dominant top order first anyway

[CaledonianCraig]

England need to build foundations in their batting in the next test. Cook and Carberry (if they open) need a time consuming opening knock and this will help take pressure off the rest. The longer they spend at the crease the easier it becomes to bat. On top of that it wears down the opposing attack blunting it somewhat. That is the key. If they can post a competitive first innings score I believe the England bowlers will put england in the driving seat.

All ifs and buts I know but it is the blueprint for success.

[mystiroakey]

i just think root has that ability so much better than carbs!

Cook is the modern day master of it.

[mystiroakey]

obviously losing strauss was a huge blow to us

[mystiroakey]

the annoying thing is if we go back to the last test.

Root performed fine as opener first innings(69) and then the rest of the batters almost won us the game with good positive batting second innings

So TBH I think the selectors were crazy changing things up anyway

[CaledonianCraig]

i just think root has that ability so much better than carbs!

Cook is the modern day master of it.

Whover, the selectors choose to open need to deliver a solid platform to build on. A century stand would automatically take all the pressure off Trott and perhaps enable him to find form.

[mystiroakey]

The number 3 has to be able to carry on the openers job if need be.

[mystiroakey]

Trott needs to sort his game out- he is still on the opening side of batting.

Its not up to the others.

However when it comes to the middle order (4 up) they are the ones that need to be demanding better from the openers, because there job is to build from a platform

[CaledonianCraig]

My point is that Trott (for all we know) may be in terminal decline form-wise. Therefore, a strong opening partnership is even more important just now. If openers can put on 75 to 100 then it lessens the importance of contribution from Trott. Conceivably, it could make another Trott failure more managable especially if the remainder of the recognised batsmen can contribute as well.

[alfie]

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.

Oh , msp ...I suppose you couldn't resist an opportunity to say " I told you so " after the England management had disregarded your advice and lost (as opposed to a few months ago when they did exactly the same thing , and won ) ; but with all due respect your claims to being "proved right" are nonsense.

Firstly , if England could only muster 311 runs over two innings , it mattered not a whit if the third seamer was Tremlett , Finn or Harold Larwood...

Once again to mention that I would have chosen Finn myself for this match , but I would have done so in the full knowledge that it may not have been a good idea. Finn might have ripped through Australia ...but he might just as well have gone for five plus per over and they might never have even been 132/6 at any stage : we cannot know All we can know is that the last time Finn wore an England shirt he was smashed all over Trent Bridge by Haddin , Agar etc...
The other flaw in your argument is that Finn has not been bowling at 90 mph in his recent England appearances. Perhaps he has his pace back (I don't know , haven't been at the England nets recently) but to simply assume he would have done what we would all like him to is something of a leap of faith.

Don't get me wrong : if Finn is chosen for Adelaide , as he may well be , I hope he takes 7/45 : but even if he does it will not "prove" that the selection of Tremlett as third seamer for Brisbane was either wrong or a significant factor in the Australian win.

[mystiroakey]

My point is that Trott (for all we know) may be in terminal decline form-wise. Therefore, a strong opening partnership is even more important just now. If openers can put on 75 to 100 then it lessens the importance of contribution from Trott. Conceivably, it could make another Trott failure more managable especially if the remainder of the recognised batsmen can contribute as well.

Yep its all about the top 3.. dropping Root has compounded the problem

[alfie]

On the Root issue : I would have persevered with Compton in the first place. Having decided to use Root instead I would have probably kept him there for Brisbane , but I can see why they were swayed by Carberry's warm up runs. One could argue it is a pity Bairstow didn't get an early chance on this tour instead of the ill-fated Ballance experiment, surely shelved for now...
In truth the Australian ambush ( flat pitches , club bowlers , for the lead ups ...and into the killing ground ) worked a treat  

Carberry may not be a long term prospect , but I think he showed enough for England to go with him again in Adelaide. Root's first innings get out shot was pretty horrible , though he redeemed himself somewhat second time around. Since I rate Bairstow more than many on here I wouldn't actually be unhappy to see him play (though not in place of Prior - tell me that was a joke , roakey ?) but I don't expect him to , yet. Any more than Stokes...
England in recent years have tended to back the players they think are the right ones for the job. Generally it has worked. Time will tell whether it will work again , but I suspect they won't be resorting to panic changes - which practically never do any good..

[mystiroakey]

No . If we have to drop prior. Only Barstow can take the gloves. There is no way I would replace Barstow over root, trott, balance , carbary, stokes..

I am not quite sure what the confusion is to be honest. Barstow is our no, 2 keeper. It's that simple. He is the replacement.

[mystiroakey]

We already made the panic changes Alfie,(for no reason) it's just time to put them back..

The no.6 is allways shifted as is the 3rd seamer.. Stokes or ballance for me, and if we go with stokes then Finn for temlett.

But time to 100% back root. 

If prior keeps messing up eventually we have to change him, but ok let's give him the series first.

[KP_fan]

well after many near wins and misses Aus finally get the win...in style and with dominance. However a lot of cricket left in theseries and some very interesting facts and scenarios emerge:

--the good thing with a 5 test series or for that matter even in a 4 test series......is that there is plenty of time ot make amends and come back...as we saw in India.
I would look at this game as England's first practice games in real conditions...all that mickey-mousy stuf that were used to judge Carbery etal...don't count.

--Positives for England...Carberry looked OK..and Root finding his feet at No.6 finally again.....Cook getting his focus back and Broad showing what a tough cooky he is. Not a great fan of him....him but he has earned admiration and respect.

--England's problems....Prior's hit a Nadir with the bat and Broad/ Swann ain't looking like the lower order saviours against 90mph pace on bouncy pitches...that they have elsewhere....and there is no Bresnan..and althouhg I am no fan of him....atleast he could get some runs with the bat and no one can as gentle as 122kph Tremlett...with the ball.

so sudenly Eng is missing on an average 120 runs per inning that in their good days they used to from Broad/ Bresnan/ Swann and Prior.

--In the absence of those 120 runs not coming from Nos 7 thru 10...and not looking like coming....poor Trott a super performer for Eng still averaging close to 40 this year iun what is his bad patch is under the scanner....unduly and overly harsh on him.
Trott and KP are amongst worlds best and will sort themselves out....class is permanent and form temporary etc applies here.

--look at the dismissals of English batsmen...Trott and KP fell to fast and short...not controlling the pull.....and Swann/ Broad/Tremlett and Anderson......the tailender in all of them exposed by the 90mph fast and short stuff...and swann not wanting to even get in the line of the ball fearing the pace.
even Bell fell to one that kicked off a length at 135kph pace.

--what can they do?

1) ensure Prior finds some form in the side game / nets...he is a critical who as a Pivot from No.7 with his buddies Bresnan/ Broad and Swann shepherd anotehr 120 odd runs whihc have consistently saved Eng innumerable times in their peak days.

2) Find a way to dig in short and 90mph at Aussies.....I saw Finn tying the Kiwi lower order into knotts even on slower english pitch this season...so obviuosly he has to play.

I dunno who else can bowl fast?? Is Rankin a 90mph bowler.....then he should also play?
How? In whose place?....I dunno yet...maybe Swann is not the horse for these courses....OR Eng may get the luck of an Anderson injury for his stature doesn't allow him being "rested"

Anderson is looking like the Siddle equivalent 3 seamer with line length and some little boit of seam movement on offer...and not the first or second seamer digging it in at 90mph.....

[mystiroakey]

Kp we are playing at Adelaide next. There is no need to just play quicks for the sake of it.

[KP_fan]

Kp we are playing at Adelaide next. There is no need to just play quicks for the sake of it.

so you think Aus will give a pitch like the usual Adelaide pitch is ?
curators under the directives of the management can change the charcater of ptiches drastically

[mystiroakey]

They will try . But it isn't as simple as that.. 

And it's the batting that is the bigger concern

[alfie]

We already made the panic changes Alfie,(for no reason) it's just time to put them back..

The no.6 is allways shifted as is the 3rd seamer.. Stokes or ballance for me, and if we go with stokes then Finn for temlett.

But time to 100% back root. 

If prior keeps messing up eventually we have to change him, but ok let's give him the series first.

Well I am glad to see you were joking about Prior. But I cannot believe you are seriously advocating Ballance (3innings for England : 0 0 and 4 ) or Stokes as batting options ! Stokes might - in my opinion - be a chance for Perth , if it is thought that playing Swann there is a waste of time. But then he'd be batting at eight.

Root opener ...Root at six : I don't mind that much. Certainly I would stick with him. Either way might work , but they can't chop and change match to match. Having picked Carberry to open , I will be surprised if they don't stick with him for now.

[mystiroakey]

I am not joking about prior. I am just happy to give him a bit more time . However I am pretty certain he won't find form again and will be switched..

Ballance is quality and possibly our brightest batting future talent bar root.

Stokes is our best all rounder talent.

Play your best talents.. It's a simple concept.. 

I hate these short term options like Compton or carbary.. They do nothing

[CaledonianCraig]

Kp some valid points there for a change.

Can I point out though that England had a similiar attack on their last tour of Australia on the same paced pitches and won. The difference this time around is that the same England batting line-up has developed battle scars and at least 50% of the batsmen are out of form. That is the real crux of the problem.

[CaledonianCraig]

I am not joking about prior. I am just happy to give him a bit more time . However I am pretty certain he won't find form again and will be switched..

Ballance is quality and possibly our brightest batting future talent bar root.

Stokes is our best all rounder talent.

Play your best talents.. It's a simple concept.. 

I hate these short term options like Compton or carbary.. They do nothing

So Carberry and Compton are short term options but Bairstow isn't? All share an average test score way below other options open to England.

[KP_fan]

They will try . But it isn't as simple as that.. 

I agree...changing pitch character completly is not easy...there is grass and watering, and compaction and scruffing as the variable to play with to take it one way or the otehr.
they will try to make it as fast and as bouncy as above techniques might permit

And it's the batting that is the bigger concern

Batting from No.7 thru 10 is the concern because they have counted on these positons and have been delivered an average of 3o to 40 runs from these guys...who have been zilched here.

Top Order.....England's Cook, Trott, KP and Bell are amongst world's best....and can't be touched....you just have to bear with them and belive that class will show.

Eng will imrpove as they face real conditions... ..and might be a good result for them if they enforce a draw in Adelaide

[mystiroakey]

One is young . 2 are over 30.

Root is being groomed to being the opener, not Compton or carbarry.

Bairstow as a possible future wicket keeper and in the squad as replacement keeper.

[GSC]

Obviously a wake up call for England, batting has been well below par for a few years now.

That said, I'm not pressing the panic button just yet. We usually play poorly in the series opener, and our bowlers showed they can get into the Aus lineup.

On a side note, it is amusing how all the Aus media and players are bigging themselves up after 1 test win in god knows how long.

[GSC]

If Root as opener was still a realistic option, he'd be playing there. Never looked a test opener

[KP_fan]

Kp some valid points there for a change.

Can I point out though that England had a similiar attack on their last tour of Australia on the same paced pitches and won. The difference this time around is that the same England batting line-up has developed battle scars and at least 50% of the batsmen are out of form. That is the real crux of the problem.

that's one half of the problems.
the otehr half...this time aussies have seen a lot more of England's successfull formula....spin/ reverse/ classical seam and have planned conciosuly to nullify it.

you need 90mph dig the ball in and get fast bounce....and atleast two of them in the playing 11 somehow

[CaledonianCraig]

One is young . 2 are over 30.

Root is being groomed to being the opener, not Compton or carbarry.

Bairstow as a possible future wicket keeper and in the squad as replacement keeper.

Yes that much is true. For me though age should not matter (Ryan Giggs anyone? ). If Carberry can do a job (even if it just turns out to be for this series) then who cares. His performance of 40 and 0 (that was an unlucky dismissal) was better than Trott dealt up and Bell, Petersen, Root and Prior for that matter. Hardly, fair to use him as a scapegost in his debut test.

[alfie]

Roakey I can see we won't agree here...

You say it is " a simple concept" to play your best talents. Simple can mean obvious ...can also mean not well thought out.

Ballance may well be a future talent. But there is absolutely no evidence he is anywhere near ready for Tests yet ...in fact it is all to the contrary. Picking him would be purely a hunch : and just the kind of thing that has got Australia into trouble the last couple of years .
You obviously like Stokes . I thought he looked promising in the ODI a month or two back ...but that is a long way from anointing him as a Test Match player. As I say , he may get a chance on this tour ...but probably not batting at six , especially with Prior not scoring at seven and Bresnan still on the sick list...
England didn't go unbeaten for the past 13 matches by making knee jerk changes , and one defeat shouldn't start them off now. The only possible changes , in my opinion , are Finn for Tremlett , and/ or , less likely Bairstow for Carberry.

The pity is there are no other games apart from a beer match in Alice Springs to have a look at options. Because if - largely - the same team cannot turn things around then they may be forced to take a bit of a guess.

[KP_fan]

Re: Carberry--he has looked OK.....althouhg Compton was no less...fallen to whims of powers....neverthless Carberry is OK and most importantly he frees Root to play at No.6 where he looks naturally comfortable wnd will deliver significantly more from that slot

[CaledonianCraig]

Kp some valid points there for a change.

Can I point out though that England had a similiar attack on their last tour of Australia on the same paced pitches and won. The difference this time around is that the same England batting line-up has developed battle scars and at least 50% of the batsmen are out of form. That is the real crux of the problem.

that's one half of the problems.
the otehr half...this time aussies have seen a lot more of England's successfull formula....spin/ reverse/ classical seam and have planned conciosuly to nullify it.

you need 90mph dig the ball in and get fast bounce....and atleast two of them in the playing 11 somehow

No I disagree. Without a 90 mph bowler here they had Australia reeling in the first innings and still bowled them out for a cheap score on that track. The damage was done by a batting collapse in both innings. That was the major failing here.

[alfie]

Kp some valid points there for a change.

Can I point out though that England had a similiar attack on their last tour of Australia on the same paced pitches and won. The difference this time around is that the same England batting line-up has developed battle scars and at least 50% of the batsmen are out of form. That is the real crux of the problem.

that's one half of the problems.
the otehr half...this time aussies have seen a lot more of England's successfull formula....spin/ reverse/ classical seam and have planned conciosuly to nullify it.

you need 90mph dig the ball in and get fast bounce....and atleast two of them in the playing 11 somehow

I hear what you are saying KP fan ...but as to the bowling I must point out that England actually bowled Australia out much cheaper this time than when they were here last...the difference is last time they batted first and third and that second innings was a big one which secured a draw.


Thereafter , their bowling attack - fairly similar to this one - did the job nicely. Against a probably stronger Australian batting unit. I believe the Australian bowling is better this time around ; perhaps surprisingly as it is substantially the same players...So the England batsmen have work to do.

But as you yourself have said , there are some class players in the England top order. If they find some form , and the tail isn't exposed early each time , I reckon you will see some wagging.

[guildfordbat]

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.

Mike - your usual very thorough post.

On a point of perhaps characteristic pedantry, I wasn't trying to prove that Tremlett had failed in this Test (as I thought he would) but asking the question as to whether he had and coming up with a ''jury remains out'' conclusion. I thought I gave him a fair review trying to take into account all pluses and minuses but I would, wouldn't I?  

Ditching Tremlett may be a tactical change for the second Test but it certainly won't be the ''cure all'' solution. The major, major problem clearly lies with the batting, with the technical and mental flaws you highlight. The difficulty here is - do we expect to improve if better players who are not delivering are replaced by weaker players? Maybe, that gamble will need to be considered as the series progresses but I still think it's too soon. Maybe, anyway, we're wrong as to who the better and weaker players are but I would support the selectors' current judgment.

I'm less taken than some with Root continuing his ''musical chairs'' journey up and down the order and opening next time out. First off, Carberry did ok in the first innings and was very unlucky second time. If he deserved to open in this Test, he deserves at least one more opportunity. Secondly, in a strange sort of way, Root had a bit of an advantage today. The game had so obviously gone early in his innings that there wasn't the sort of pressure that others faced earlier. This isn't an anti-Root rant - he coped well and showed some of the talent that should take him far. I just don't think it sufficiently showed the case for him to now be opening.

As a bit of a mischievous aside, not many posters seem to be calling for Prior to bat at 6 these days.

You are quite right to sing support for Johnson's support cast. I remember praising Haddin during the summer series. From the highlights, the Australian fielding also seemed impressive. Although it meant little in the context of a game almost already won, it was a very fine catch at slip by Smith to dismiss Swann.

Ah well, onwards and hopefully upwards ....

[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.

Oh , msp ...I suppose you couldn't resist an opportunity to say " I told you so " after the England management had disregarded your advice and lost (as opposed to a few months ago when they did exactly the same thing , and won ) ; but with all due respect your claims to being "proved right" are nonsense.

Firstly , if England could only muster 311 runs over two innings , it mattered not a whit if the third seamer was Tremlett , Finn  or Harold Larwood...

Once again to mention that I would have chosen Finn myself for this match , but I would have done so in the full knowledge that it may not have been a good idea. Finn might have ripped through Australia ...but he might just as well have gone for five plus per over and they might never have even been 132/6 at any stage : we cannot know All we can know is that the last time Finn wore an England shirt he was smashed all over Trent Bridge  by Haddin , Agar etc...
The other flaw in your argument is that Finn has not been bowling at 90 mph in his recent England appearances. Perhaps he has his pace back (I don't know , haven't been at the England nets recently) but to simply assume he would have done what we would all like him to is something of a leap of faith.

Don't get me wrong : if Finn is chosen for Adelaide , as he may well be , I hope he takes 7/45 : but even if he does it will not "prove" that the selection of Tremlett as third seamer for Brisbane was either wrong or a significant factor in the Australian win.

Alfie, it is understandable that ifs and buts are ifs and buts at the end of the day. Even if they'd have gone for Finn and he took 5 wickets in both innings, England could have still lost the test match. I don't remember saying that England would lose all the tests they play without Finn. The point is an altogether simpler one. When they preferred Bresnan over Finn after one poor test, my argument was that it was unfair to dump a guy who took 8 wickets in the previous game, and that he is a serious wickettaking option unlike the replacement who was coming in.
Now here, if you have carefully read my posts, you could see that I was trying to make the point that pace was a very important factor on this pitch, and conditions were not in favor of England's conventional approach where Anderson and Swann are their primary strikers with Broad producing some magic from time to time. Tremlett didn't suggest he was ready for a national recall throughout the county season, and he didn't give any real reasons to pick him in the test side through performances in warm-up games either. Perhaps they could have gone for Rankin, between Rankin and Finn, I'd prefer Finn, and I admit my personal liking for the guy would play a not insignificant role in that call. Rankin had pretty decent ODI form at the end of the summer, and he's quicker than the current version of Tremlett, and he too is tall and could have generated bounce. Finn may not have been consistently bowling at 90 MPH, but he was bowling in the high 80s consistently, unlike Tremlett who was struggling to hit 80 MPH. Finn had a 5for in the last warm-up game, but if they wwere so concerned about his economy, they should have picked Rankin.

[msp83]

And alfie, I'd also add that getting a call right in the past doesn't mean they'd get everything right after that, and it works the other way as well.

[msp83]

The one major positive for the game from the test is that the DRS stayed out of the news. There were a few reviews, and the system more or less worked alright.

[ShankyCricket]

Rankin would've provided that extra pace too and with a bit more control than Finn. Finn is not Test standard.

[Guest]

The manner in which England lost to a "poor" Pakistani team in Abu Dhabi three - nil in a best of three test series less than two years ago was a cause for concern:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/16772011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/16910439

With regard Root, batting at no. 6 he got 2 in the first innings and 26 no in the second.  It is not clear how much better he would have performed batting as an opener.  There was quite a bit of criticism having him bat as opener on the more medium pace English wickets in the summer.

[TRUSSMAN66]

England were caught cold........They have two weeks till the next one and must invest the time wisely.......

The six batsmen will no doubt find their form even Trott..........Root held fast which is good..Has bottle maybe I underestimated him..

Problem is with this short stuff It looks like you won't get much out of 8-11.......300-6 is probably 330 allout

Anderson seems to be not firing on all cylinders also for some reason......and Tremlett always worries me as to whether he can complete a whole match........

It's just one test............But a wake up call for sure.......

Have to hit Adelaide running.........Sure they will.

[msp83]

As for the much discussed Jonathan Trott. He does have a problem. But is he done at test level? I very much doubt it. There are technical issues with him, but they've been there always. I think he would struggle on real quick pitches with short ball against real quick bowlers. But that could happen to anyone, but Trott does look a bit confused as to how to counter that. The short ball has got to him aat a mental level. Adelaide should be more friendly for batsmen, though the Australians would leave no stone unturned to make it as quick as possible. I feel one good innings can get Trott back on track, that would give him the much needed confidence to bounce back. But if he fails in the next couple of games, then that could do some lasting damage to his confidence. This fight is as much a test of character as is a technical one for Trott.
I like the idea of Stokes playing as the all-rounder in a 5 man attack. But I am not sure his batting has developed enough to bt 6 at tests at this stage of his career. With Matt Prior struggling, England can't afford to promote Prior up to 6 and bat Stokes at 7 either. Unless things go horribly wrong in the next couple of games, I don't see them going there.
They've given Carberry an opening, he didn't disgrace himself, should at least get the next couple of games now, and Root is best left at 6.

[Guest]

first test ratings:

England

Cook: 6
Carberry: 5
Trott: 3
KP: 5
Bell: 6
Root: 5
Prior: 1
Broad: 8
Swann: 4
Tremlett: 6
Anderson: 6

Australia:

Rogers: 5
Warner: 9
Watson: 5
Clarke: 9
Smith: 5
Bailey: 6 (2nd innings knock showed signs he is ready, but he will get the full series)
Haddin: 8
Johnson: 10 (MOM)
Siddle: 8
Harris: 8
Lyon: 7

[guildfordbat]

CF - I think you weaken your post by only giving Prior a '1'. Sure, his batting was very poor and ineffective. However, you've also got to take his keeping into account. I don't recall him putting down a chance and his link-up with Carberry for Haddin's run out was impressive. I think a '4' would be fairer and still register understandable concern.

Other than that, I'm probably with your ratings or no more than one point either side.

[Pal Joey]

Looks pretty much spot on, CF. Maybe a 3 for Prior?
I'm not used to seeing the ratings in favour of Oz these last few years, you understand?  

If:
Rogers can find some form, get through the initial phases and spend more time at the crease, then I can see him making much better scores.
Watson - so frustrating!! He looks like a lame polar bear coming in to bowl; his batting mindset is still not sensible nor helpful for the team. He really needs a swift kick (but he's a protected species)!
Bailey - he's had a quiet start in this Test but I think he will contribute well later on.

Otherwise, I'm very happy with that result and I must admit - a little surprised. The Haddin and Johnson partnership was the start of the great shift in fortunes but I was pleased to see a few other players follow suit and chip in with solid contributions.

It's like the earlier posts on here. One person fires and then others follow. The problem with Australia is that this wasn't really happening for the last 20 Tests or so. We (fans) were all willing it on but alas... it just wasn't there. There were a few empty shelves one might say.

The last few days have been such a relief. It's as though the papered over cracks have been cleaned out and a proper filler has been used. You can almost drive a nail into it now. There seems to be a sounder, more confident core of players who can smell more victory around the corner.

I still can't believe Pattinson, Cummins, Bird, Starc are all out injured but I'm so proud of the efforts of Johnson and the old war horses of Siddle and Harris. Lyon is also gaining ground slowly but surely. He'll love being back on the new turf of Adelaide.

[mystiroakey]

Alfie. England is on the slide. Get the youngsters in quicker so we will get back to the top quicker. Otherwise it will be a slow death

[KP_fan]

Looks pretty much spot on, CF. Maybe a 3 for Prior?
I'm not used to seeing the ratings in favour of Oz these last few years, you understand?  

I still can't believe Pattinson, Cummins, Bird, Starc are all out injured but I'm so proud of the efforts of Johnson and the old war horses of Siddle and Harris. Lyon is also gaining ground slowly but surely. He'll love being back on the new turf of Adelaide.

well the trio for T1 go safely into T2...and Pattinson is availble reportedly for reportedly for T3.
Faulkner was bowling well...and there is hazlewood...so plenty of depth in Aussie pace bowling

[ShahenshahG]

Only thing i'm really worried about with Aussies is that they seem to have got that swagger and momentum back. England need to wrest it back. This test just started too easily for england and they let their guards down. That said, the batting seems to be of slight concern but I think for the moment theres no need to panic. Take the lead from the Aussies and play positively with confidence and it will work out.

[Guest]

They say getting to the top is (relatively) easier than staying at the top.  England did get to the top of the international rankings for test teams, but were unable to maintain it.  I think the "warning" signs have been there for some time (especially in the one day rankings), but normally winning teams have difficulty in making the necessary changes to maintain their position (why change a winning team, why change something that seemed to work in the past) - and this is all about bringing new players in and having a pool of talent to select from.  

Of course it just might be that England don't have the fresh talent in key areas - is there anyone to replace Swan?  Does the English county system not generate any 90 mph + bowlers?  Although the main issue at the moment seems to be with the batters (technique and composure).

The other factor is the versatility of a side / players to perform on different wickets - which is one of the reasons why it is more difficult to win away from home.

[Guest]

the aussies havent really had to worry about their bowling...its been their batting thats been the issue in recent years, so if their batting clicks again then, they will be a force again.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Alfie. England is on the slide. Get the youngsters in quicker so we will get back to the top quicker. Otherwise it will be a slow death

One loss and we're on the slide. #headsgone

[Sponsored content]