2nd test Adelaide

all the reprots coming out indicate that this will be a "typical English pitch "
batting friendly, dry, offering reverse and a lot of turn in 2nd inning Alan Border thinks.
 
that wouldn't be what Aus would have liked..and would like to alter whatever bit they can in the end......althouhg I understand it is harder to alter a drop in pitch.
 
Teams:
 
I would like to make a fairly early call on what the team changes might be....not based on what I would like to see but rather..reading into the mind  of the two coaches.
 
--Eng might  bring in Stokes and Bresnan for Trott and Tremlett.
Bresnan is a favorite of Flower mentality.......a batsman and a bowler packed into one.....how much he can hold against the Aussie pace as a batter will be tested....bowling....well he picked 4-fer in some junior game yesterday...in the best of times he struggles to be consistently above 132kph and now coming back from injury...dunno how how fast he can be but certainly can't do worse than Tremlett's 122kph.
 
Stokes I know not much about other than career stats on CI....but he might be picked on the rationale that he is not much less of a batsman than Ballance and Bairstow and can bowl also...spreading the workload over 5 bowlers and cushioning the undercooked Bresnan.
 
--Aus might bring in Faulkner for Bailey.....as he can reverse the ball, was in no less a blistering form with the bat in India then Bailey.....and is a proper brisk fast medium bowler who will cushion the work-load on their genuine pacers preserving them for rocket fast WACA the next test.
This is where Watson's inability to bowl 15 overs a day is putting more pressure on him.....and should Faulkner have a good game and Watson not......he is at risk of being edged out....not immediately but sooner than later.

Seeing Englnad all throuhg their summer...and if pitch is as being reported...this is their best chance to resurge in the series.
Anderson and Swann their two match winners will be at their potent best.

Just that batting needs to stand up....and it's down to KP and Cook now to get a really big one.
For Root is out of his comfort zone against the new ball whihc he is likely to face at No.3
Law of averages might be catching up with Ian Bell in this series....I feel

and as I write I see in the 2 day game, Prior and Root are gone early.....batting higher in the order
Eng would hope Stokes gets a longish inning.

KPF, I think the 4 wickets should see Tim Bresnan getting back in the side in place of Chris Tremlett. I hope they'd give Stokes an opportunity, but I feel they'll go for Bairstow. As for Australia, I very much doubt your take on Bailey. I think Bailey will get a bit of a run in the side, deservedly so in my view. I like Faulkner, and think that a non-bowling Watson doesn't add a lot of value to the side as such. But Faulkner isn't a top order batting material, though he has shown a considerable flexibility in his domestic career regarding his batting position. So I think Watson will stay. Perhaps he'll be ready to bowl a bit in the 2nd test, there were reports that he was closer to being ready to bowl even in the first test, a longish gap would only help the process.
I think Australia will be unchanged if there are no fitness concerns, and England will bring back Bresnan and one of Stokes, Ballance and Bairstow.

msp83 wrote:KPF, I think the 4 wickets should see Tim Bresnan getting back in the side in place of Chris Tremlett. I hope they'd give Stokes an opportunity, but I feel they'll go for Bairstow. As for Australia, I very much doubt your take on Bailey. I think Bailey will get a bit of a run in the side, deservedly so in my view. I like Faulkner, and think that a non-bowling Watson doesn't add a lot of value to the side as such. But Faulkner isn't a top order batting material, though he has shown a considerable flexibility in his domestic career regarding his batting position. So I think Watson will stay. Perhaps he'll be ready to bowl a bit in the 2nd test, there were reports that he was closer to being ready to bowl even in the first test, a longish gap would only help the process.
I think Australia will be unchanged if there are no fitness concerns, and England will bring back Bresnan and one of Stokes, Ballance and Bairstow.

so we agree on the Eng compsition.

I also agree that Faulkner is not a top order rmaterial.

if he replaces Bailey here....he will bat at 7...and Haddin in so good form will move to 6.
If Watson cannot bowl....be certain Faulkner will play...they will want 5 bowler cushion to manage the workload of Harris and Johnson and keep them fresh for Waca.
It's not a mark of distrust on Bailey......but situational horses for courses.

Over a period of time If he edges out Watson.......Faulkner will be at No.6 or 7 as the seam bolwing allrounder.....someone else will fill the No.3 slot.
Watson has to average 40+ in the first 3 tests to hold on his place IMO...ge can't run on potential and talent for longer than that.

Eng at one stage 150-6 and 200-7...declare at 212-7
they would have liked more assertion from their batsmen against this considered weak invitation XI

This would be my England side for Adelaide:

1) Cook
2) Carberry
3) Bell (more experienced option at 3, I expect the selectors to go for Root there though)
4) Pietersen
5) Root
6) Bairstow (Although Stokes seems to be the media's choice, and Ballance has finally come good on the tour)
7) Prior
8) Bresnan (offers runs and is a very good 3rd seamer)
9) Broad
10) Swann
11) Anderson

Yeah Duty, I think Bell would be best at 3 too but it will probably be Root there on the day. To me, Cook looks solid whilst Carberry is starting to look a bit fragile so I'm sure the plan will be to expose whoever No.3 is as early as possible. It's vital to get an early breakthrough and start working on KP, Bell and Root when they are at the crease.  

Bresnan should enjoy the Australian conditions - think they are suited for his style of bowling - just a matter of fitness and stamina coming back from his time out through injury.

Not too familiar with the capabilities of Bairstow, Stokes and Ballance. Who is the best batsman of the 3 and who could most comfortably weather the expected bowling firestorm and stay out in the middle for the longest rime to build a decent score?

That's who I would select.

Of the 3 reserve batting options that England have, Ballance has the best record. Bairstow has international experience, and Stokes is an all-rounder. Each of them have something going for them. But Ballance couldn't score much in the very limited opportunities he got with England though he has at last a score against a 4th rate invitational side today. Bairstow's technique needs some work as he was getting bowled far too often. Many doubt Stokes' abilities to bat 6 in a test match. So they all come with some serious concerns as well. I am for Stokes, Ballance is my 2nd choice, but I think England will go in with Bairstow.
In the bowling department, I think Tremlett should be replaced. Finn's my first choice, Rankin is 2nd in line, but I feel the management would go in with Bresnan or Tremlett himself.

If I'm English I go for -
Cook
Carbs
Ballance
KP
Bell
Root (I can't see how moving a guy to his third batting position in a year -his rookie year - is even viable)
Prior
Broad
Timbo
JA
Swann

Australia - unchanged

Bresnan plays because the lower order are rabbits in the headlights..........

I imagine stokes is being built up for a reason..........SKY and other sources must have wind of his probable inclusion.....

Carberry, Root, stokes, Pryor..............Look a little thin that does.......

Stokes is the wildcard all-rounder.
Bairstow is a decent batsman with a sprinkling of Test match experience.
Ballance has a FC average of over 50, but has had a poor start to the tour (until now), and has no Test experience.

I think Ballance is the media favourite right now. It's pretty close between him and Bairstow, in truth. Personally I wouldn't mind who England picked out of those 2.

Can't see it being Stokes. Not quite good enough in both facets for Test cricket yet. Ballance could have missed his oppportunity, if he makes a ton instead of being run out then he probably gets picked but I think it will be Bell to 3 and Bairstow in at 6.

JDizzle wrote:Can't see it being Stokes. Not quite good enough in both facets for Test cricket yet. Ballance could have missed his oppportunity, if he makes a ton instead of being run out then he probably gets picked but I think it will be Bell to 3 and Bairstow in at 6.

if stokes wasn't good enought why they brought him for test series ?

they can't have Bresnan as the 4th bowler retruning from injury.....

so either it is Bresnan+ Stokes...2 bowlers who are decent batsmen ( at least theoritically)

or it is Ballance+ Finn.....1 better batsman ( theoritically) + 1 better bowler undoubtedly

The way Flower thinks...he will go for the first option

I'm no expert on Stokes and understand most people's concerns about him batting at 6. However, I would flag that he batted most of last season for Durham in the Championship at 5.

I saw him in one of those matches at the Oval where he was picked to play solely as a batsman due to a back injury preventing him bowling. He impressed a bit in the first innings but got out for 20 which didn't really prove anything to me either way. (He did carry Durham to a 5 wicket win with an unbeaten 35 second time round but I wasn't there to see that - double grrr.)

I fully accept there is a big step up between batting at county and Test level. After all, I've said similar with my doubts about Carberry in this series. Just feel it's right to make the point that Stokes' county appear to rate his batting higher than many here.

I'm not so convinced as msp and JD that Bairstow will get a call up now. He batted today at 7 in the latest (and, concerningly if I'm correct, last) warm up game. I would have expected him to be higher in the order if he's high in the selectors' thoughts.

Whoever is chosen - and I suspect Ballance is just ahead in the current pecking order - it looks like the decision will be made without total conviction. That's just how we started the first Test with Tremlett on board. Tremlett didn't do as badly as I feared but I think it's fair to say that, at best the jury is still out on him. I hope at least we have more certainty as to what our best team should be going into the third Test.

In three of the last four Ashes series, the only Australian victory has been followed by an England win (in the case of 2010/11 it was followed by two wins by an innings by England).
Often think England are at their best after a ghastly defeat. Remember, they also won the next two in India after losing the first.
Three wins in a row when all seemed lost (1954/55 and 1981) would be a little handy and probably a little optimistic as well.

Faulkner has been asked to sit out of the 4 days first class game coinciding with the Adelaide test.......and media believes that's a firms sign that he is in the scheme of things for the playing 11

South Africa had batted the Australian attack to ground in the Adelaide test last year, resulting in Peter Siddle being withdrawan from the final test to work overload. With Harris leading the attack, Australia do have reasons to keep Faulkner firmly in the fraim, particularly if Watson doesn't recover enough to bowl. Will be very tough on Bailey though.

You could very well be correct there about Ballance/Bairstow Guildford. It is interesting to note that England declared with JB 30 odd not out last night which suggests they are not to keen on him getting much batting practice! It looks like he is the back up keeper and not much else on this tour.

Ballance batted at three too. A sign of where he might play in the Test? It would be a massive ask on a debutant who doesn't even bat there for Yorkshire.

As for Stokes, it is clear that Durham rate his batting much higher than many on here and, going of where he batted in the ODIs this summer, than England do too. I think he only plays in a big roll of the dice when desperation perhaps begins to set in. I can't see England going with five bowlers yet, even if they do go with Bresnan.

Would love to see Finn play. He's a wicket taker and bowls quick with good bounce. Ok his economy rate is a bit high but would rather him come in and bowl flat out for 4 overs and just be used a wicket taker than Time 'Bowls a heavy ball and can get you 20 runs' bresnan every day of the week.

Ballance back in the fold?

Good time to step up!

My team

1. cook
2. Root
3. KP
4. Ballance
5. Bell
6 Bairstow(wk)
7. stokes
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Jimmy
11. Finn

Yes its out there- butr so what- and it will give Prior the shove he needs, root is going to be the eventual opener so just play him there and stop faffing about, carbs is limited and to old to be long term, ballance is very talented, bairstow can keep wicket and is a much better batsman at the moment over prior, even if he loses us 50 runs from his wicket taking he will gain more than that in batting

the team i think England will play

1. Cook
2. Carbs
3. Root
4. KP
5. Bell
6. Balance
7. Prior
8. Bresnan
9. Broad
10. Swann
11. Jimmy

Agree with mystiroakey, think his second team is the team that will start. Not what I would like to see, the conservative keep the runs down tactic isn't nearly as effective when the batsmen are not posting decent totals. Think I would like to see Ballance given the start if Stokes isn't good enough with the bat to go in ast 6 as people are saying. Not seen enough from Bairstow in his previous games to suggest he currently has the ability to post big scores in tests. At least Ballance is a proven batsmen who based on his county records probably deserves a chance compared to who else is available.

I would go with

1. Cook
2. Carberry (not convinced but no real alternative at the moment).
3. Bell
4. Pieterson
5. Root (5th chuck a few overs down with the ultra soft ball option)
6. Ballance
7. Prior
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Anderson
11. Finn

I would love it if Bresnan played but c'mon, i cant see him playing, he's had hardly any game time in past 6 months or so, he isnt quite fit for a test match yet.

Either Bresnan plays, or they retain Tremlett. Outside chance of Rankin making it based on his better economy.

I'm genuinely surprised no one hear has suggested England play two spinners at Adelaide. It's not quite the SCG, but if Adelaide does anything, it kinda turns. Id be very tempted to play a second spinner not named Root.
So I could go one of two ways
Cook
Carbs
Ballance
KP
Bell
Root
Prior
Swann
Broad
JA
Monty....

Alternatively, Stokes could be added as a Bowler-batsman. Thus keeping three seamers, while getting two spinners
Cook
Carbs
KP
Bell
Root
Stokes
Prior
Swann
Broad
JA
Monty...

Adelaide tends to be one of those pitches where nothing happens for three days, and then things happen very quickly once it cracks up... I'm still expecting a boring as sin draw. If England can't score a decent total here, this could be a long, humiliating summer, against an obviously inferior team.

Can't see two spinners. Seamers did the damage early doors last time at Adelaide and I think England will go the same way. The key to winning at Adelaide is restricting your opponents to a managable first innings score. Even conceding 350-400 is no disaster as long as you pile on 550+. If you let them get 550+ first up it is a tough ask to win the game (unless you have Shane Warne in your side).

And England are aren't a maverick team. Can't see them suddenly changing the plan. Wonder if they might go four seamers at Perth though. Could be worth a punt on Finn over Swann there if you think you can rely on Jimmy, Broad and Bresser/Tremlett/Rankin to keep it tight.

kingraf wrote:I'm genuinely surprised no one hear has suggested England play two spinners at Adelaide. It's not quite the SCG, but if Adelaide does anything, it kinda turns. Id be very tempted to play a second spinner not named Root.
So I could go one of two ways
Cook
Carbs
Ballance
KP
Bell
Root
Prior
Swann
Broad
JA
Monty....

Alternatively, Stokes could be added as a Bowler-batsman. Thus keeping three seamers, while getting two spinners
Cook
Carbs
KP
Bell
Root
Stokes
Prior
Swann
Broad
JA
Monty...

Adelaide tends to be one of those pitches where nothing happens for three days, and then things happen very quickly once it cracks up... I'm still expecting a boring as sin draw. If England can't score a decent total here, this could be a long, humiliating summer, against an obviously inferior team.

The drop in pitches at the Adelaide Oval have shown very little spin so far in the Sheffield Shield.

Australia would be stupid to have a pitch that encourages England playing two spinners anyway.

England's dilemma is whether to pick Bresnan or Finn IMO.

If Bresnan plays, with him coming off a 6 month lay off, England would need Stokes to carry the burden of bowling.

If they pick Finn, then Ballance comes in to strengthen the batting, which is looking very ordinary at present.

Don't know Gerry, Johan Botha got a fiver there not too long ago. A lad called Cam Bryce took a seven-for in the same match... and he averages 42!!! Doherty also got a fiver there,

Hughes also scored a double ton there... Which means I'm probably right about the draw being a good call. Hasn't been a result there all season, and all games have had at least two 300 innings'.

A draw is putting too much faith in the England batting line up mate- well in fact both batting line ups . Neither are great at present

kingraf wrote:Don't know Gerry, Johan Botha got a fiver there not too long ago. A lad called Cam Bryce took a seven-for in the same match... and he averages 42!!! Doherty also got a fiver there,

Hughes also scored a double ton there... Which means I'm probably right about the draw being a good call. Hasn't been a result there all season, and all games have had at least two 300 innings'.

Of the 3 five wicket hauls you mention KR,

Botha bowled 51 overs(out of 174) to get his 5 wickets.

Doherty got mainly tailenders in his 5 wicket hauls.

And Boyce's effort was outstanding, but it was when the match was basically dead. So it remains to be seen if some of these spinner hauls are donation wickets.

I don't see the Adelaide groundsman wanting to give England a sniff

yep if they set it up for spinning . england have clear advantage with swann

mystiroakey wrote:yep if they set it up for spinning . england have clear advantage with swann

I doubt that.
Panesar will be the advantage.

Turning it away from Australia's 5 right handers batting 3-7.

Botha may have bowled 51 out of 174 overs, but you'd expect that from a spinner. Doherty cleaning up the tail isnt a negative. I've already said Adelaide isn't a raging turner, but if it does anything, it usually helps the spinners. I'd pick two spinners (assuming the pitch doesn't change too much) as the pacemen have been on the main ineffective here.

Oakey - I really cant see England not making hay in Adelaide... It's a dead wicket, and if it does anything, it's gonna turn. England should at the very least put out a very dominating draw.

The groundsman obviously wants to create a pitch suited to the Aussie cause, but sometimes the deck can't be helped. Don't know how he turns a deck where spinners have taken the most wickets, and most fivers into anything else. in six days. Advantage England.

Gerry SA wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:yep if they set it up for spinning . england have clear advantage with swann

I doubt that.
Panesar will be the advantage.

Turning it away from Australia's 5 right handers batting 3-7.

Gerry -England will not play panasar, but they will play swann

If the track gets good for spinners- england have the advantage with swann

"Oakey - I really cant see England not making hay in Adelaide... It's a dead wicket, "

ermm. the problem is England have high quality batsman that just look brain dead(that is not a dig at trott or anything by the way.

I am not expecting much, and i am expecting the aussies to try as hard as they can to get this wicket as fast as they can

Swann and Panesar are running threouhg the invitational XI.........atleast some good news for Eng that Swann is finding rythm and Panesar is bowling well in tandem.

Maybe i was wrong then KP.

!! good to know

Just been looking at the scorecard and report on Cricinfo of the final day of the warm up game.

Unimpressive displays apparently from Finn and Rankin. Seems their failed efforts rather than his own successful ones will win Tremlett another Test cap unless the selectors make a big call and go with Bresnan which I think is unlikely. I suspect the selectors will feel it's just a bit too soon for Bresnan and will be influenced by all the bowlers - including Tremlett - getting us into a good position in the early stages of the opening Test.

That approach would be understandable (I certainly don't want them to be reckless in selecting Bresnan) although, of course, there remains a risk of Tremlett breaking down. I'm still not convinced he's got sufficient strength to be an equal quarter of a four man attack, particularly if the weather's hot and the batting track a good one.

I can see Root again having to take the ball quite a bit. As I posted last time, I felt he bowled too many fill-in overs in the first Test which gave the onus to the batsmen. With Trott now back home, the option of him bowling a few overs is also gone - not majorly significant but worth noting. That might have helped Stokes' cause if he had played a blinder in this warm up game - but he didn't.

Undefeated runs at least for Carberry today and a ''not out'' as well for Ballance. Looks to me like Ballance will get the nod. Encouraging as well to see Swann and Panesar collecting some wickets. I wouldn't have expected Monty to be in consideration for this Test although am aware that Kingraf thinks different.

Interesting.

I am still not keen on playing two spinners .

if we only play 4 bowlers , we are putting way to much faith on spin.

If we play 5 then we are worse off from a batting perspective(playing Bresnan or stokes would surely be the only viable options as they can bat rather than tremlett or finn)

I would really rather see ballance in the side..

It is the batting we need to fix, not the bowling.

I think graf makes a good point, but i just dont think we have the 'in form' resources to play a second spinner at present

mystiroakey wrote:I am still not keen on playing two spinners .

if we only play 4 bowlers , we are putting way to much faith on spin.

If we play 5 then we are worse off from a batting perspective(playing Bresnan  or stokes would surely be the only viable options as they can bat rather than tremlett or finn)

I would really rather see ballance in the side..

It is the batting we need to fix, not the bowling.

I think graf makes a good point, but i just dont think we have the  'in form' resources to play a second spinner at present

Mysti - I pretty much go along with that although I would do something of an about-turn if the surface looked spin friendly.

If cricket was a 12 man game, I believe Panesar would have played a lot more Tests. So often we just can't squeeze him into the 11.

You are spot on about the batting needing fixing. Another option here would be to replace Prior with Bairstow. I can't see the selectors doing that now as it would probably be viewed by them as overly disruptive, particularly coming on the heels of Trott's departure. Personally, I wouldn't rule it out later in the series if Trott continues to stagnate although there would still be an issue in that Bairstow's keeping isn't really Test standard.

The last three Tests here have seen runs haemorrhaged. Clarke & Ponting scoring double tons vs India (Interesting to note, Lyon took four second innings wickets there). England scoring 620 in the last Ashes (again interesting to note that Swann took a fourth innings fiver). To Australia scoring nearly 500 runs in a day vs S.A.

The basic story line for Adelaide is
day 1 - runs
day 2 - runs
day 3 - runs
day 4 - runs
day 5 - chaos

Thanks, Raf. I make no claims to a perfect solution but it's that sort of recent history which makes me so nervous about Tremlett (or Bresnan) being one of a four man attack.

Decided at least on the first three things to do: 1. win the toss; 2. bat; 3. bat long.

Cricinfo reports that the Australian management are actively considering Faulkner for the 2nd test. If Faulkner plays, George Bailey might have to sit out. The call might also depend on how Shane Watson's bowling fitness evolves.

msp83 wrote:Cricinfo reports that the Australian management are actively considering Faulkner for the 2nd test. If Faulkner plays, George Bailey might have to sit out. The call might also depend on how Shane Watson's bowling fitness evolves.

isn't that what I said when starting the thread  

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:Cricinfo reports that the Australian management are actively considering Faulkner for the 2nd test. If Faulkner plays, George Bailey might have to sit out. The call might also depend on how Shane Watson's bowling fitness evolves.

isn't that what I said when starting the thread  

Looks like you've got it right. Watson's bowling fitness can change things though.

lehmann doesn't mess around with words....talks straight....you don't need an interprter to translate to English like many time you might to decode Flowrer

Lehmann says rotation dead, Harris to play second Test

Date December 1, 2013
Read later

All set for Adelaide: Ryan Harris, with Peter Siddle, during the Gabba Test. Photo: Getty Images

Declaring the rotation policy dead and buried, Australian coach Darren Lehmann says pace spearhead Ryan Harris will not be rested for the second Ashes Test.

Lehmann also said Australian players would not sledge England about batsman Jonathan Trott, who has returned home with a stress-related illness.

The coach has counselled outspoken Australian opener David Warner, who labelled Trott ''weak'' during the home side's first Test triumph in Brisbane.

''He [Warner] understands where the line is. I think he said himself he crossed the line so that is a better understanding of the game,'' Lehmann said in Adelaide on Saturday.

Advertisement

''Obviously we didn't know what was going on with Jonathan Trott. And that certainly won't be talked about in this Test match at all.

''We wish him all the best in his recovery. So from our point of view, Jonathan Trott, we're not talking about this Test match.''

Lehmann scotched speculation that Harris would be rested for the Adelaide Test starting on Thursday, with only a three-day turnaround before the third Test in Perth.

''If he's fully fit, he'll play,'' Lehmann said.

''I have said that all along - we're not changing our stance on that. If he is fit to play, he will play.

''We don't rotate, mate. If you're fit, you play. The best 11 will play for Australia each and every game.''

Lehmann's comments came after Fairfax Media reported on Saturday that Cricket Australia high-performance manager Pat Howard had indicated Harris was set to play in Adelaide.

''We're well aware there is a three-day turnaround [between the Adelaide and Perth Tests],'' Howard said.

''We'll make sure we go as hard as we can in Adelaide.''

Lehmann said after thumping the tourists in the series opener by 381 runs, Australia's next challenge was to maintain consistency in its performance.

''It's just one Test match,'' he said.

''We have got to play well, back that up, and show we're the side we want to become - not just one-hit wonders, if you like.

''Play a brand of cricket that is strong, competitive each and every day, each and every session.

''And if we do that, we know we will get the results. But we can't just rest on our laurels after one Test.''

The Adelaide pitch is tipped to be a batsman-friendly strip, in contrast to the bouncy Brisbane wicket in the first Test, and Lehmann said Australia would adjust its plans accordingly.

''We might have to come up with a few different plans,'' he said.

But he forecast that Australia's bowlers would again use short-pitched deliveries to unsettle England's batsmen.

''We will use our quota [of short balls] where possible,'' Lehmann said.

''In Brisbane, obviously, it had some pace and bounce in it. Adelaide might be a bit different, but it might reverse a bit more and spin a bit more.

''So we just have to sum that up as we go.

''The key is first innings of both sides, making sure you make some big runs or limit the opposition.''


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/lehmann-says-rotation-dead-harris-to-play-second-test-20131130-2yijj.html#ixzz2m9kNPpQU

msp83 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:Cricinfo reports that the Australian management are actively considering Faulkner for the 2nd test. If Faulkner plays, George Bailey might have to sit out. The call might also depend on how Shane Watson's bowling fitness evolves.

isn't that what I said when starting the thread  

Looks like you've got it right. Watson's bowling fitness can change things though.

that's true Watson is a genuine allrounder...if fit no les than some like bresnan who plays as a specialits bowler.

and Smith is more than a part-timer.....he sure will be practising his leg-breaks in the nets

guildfordbat wrote:
Decided at least on the first three things to do: 1. win the toss; 2. bat; 3. bat long.

Whilst I have no doubt that whoever wins the toss will bat first, the recent blueprint at Adelaide (the Aussies' dismantling of the SA attack last year not withstanding) has actually been to bowl first (by accident), control the opposition's first innings, score big and then use scoreboard pressure and a crumbling 4th and 5th day pitch to bowl out the opposition cheaply.

There is a school of thought amongst us up and coming coaches that this is possibly a good method for winning tests nowadays in general - by bowling first you can control the pace of the game more effectively; there is an old adage that says you can't win a test on day 1, but you can lose it. Even if you don't get many wickets on day 1, if you restrict the scoring (say 250-3) you are very much still in the game (a couple of wickets with the 2nd new ball, and suddenly you have a good chance of restricting the opposition to 350odd). Some of England's best wins recently (I am thinking Adelaide last time, Sydney last time to some degree, 2nd test in India, their win in Sri Lanka) have come from following precisely this blueprint. Ditto South Africa in England for the 1st test.

Again, I'm not suggesting this is what either side will do. Partly IMO for media and fans reaction reasons: for some reason we seem to hold it against a captain far more to bowl first and concede a large score - e.g. Ponting at Edgbaston or Hussain at Brisbane - then bat first and get rolled over - e.g. Flintoff at Melbourne, Dhoni in the 3rd test in India. But most importantly because I don't think either side trusts itself at the moment to "score big" (probably with good reason, I am talking 450+) so that runs on the board (even a seemingly below par 250-300) become all the more important; the blueprint as described above only works if the side bowling first, having restricted the opposition to around the 300 mark, can go on and pile on the runs on days 2 and 3; at the moment neither side seems capable of this.

The other issue is because it is a drop-in pitch, we are not entirely sure of how it will play. Australia will want to make it as pacy and bouncy as possible, and reduce the turn it offers.

Should England feel it will turn, they could do far worse than play Panesar and Swann. Whilst this could mean a lot of spin being bowled on day 1 if England lose the toss, what Panesar will do is offer control, which is important if the Aussies start getting after Swann a bit - by being that much flatter through the air, he is harder to get after. He will also be an asset against Australia's right handed middle-order.

I think though they will go for Tremlett again - Bresnan is surely too much of a gamble, whilst Finn and Rankin seem to have bowled themselves out of contention. The more this goes on and the more convinced I am that Finn actually needs some time away from this England set-up to figure out his game, work on specific areas and come back all the stronger; unfortunately because of England's disdain for ODIs it seems likely he will play those whilst Broad and/or Anderson are rested, so he won't get that time. It seems to me therefore that Tremlett will play almost by default; this isn't necessarily the worst move - his 1-50 off 19 overs on day 1 is more or less what England would have wanted from him - but it isn't the most positive either.

Root remains a concern with a couple of lowish scores opening, as it looks he will be bunted up to 3 again (a move I can't agree with; Bell as the more experienced player has to move up to 3 IMO, and Root has just moved back down, and looked like he was settling in a bit in that 2nd dig).

Ballance looks in pole position at number 6. Bairstow batting below everyone shows what the selectors are thinking at the moment IMO; Stokes is surely too much of a gamble at this stage, his batting certainly isn't up to number 6 in tests (he bats like an early day Flintoff), and Prior's poor form really should rule out that option. Talks of Bairstow replacing Prior are a bit silly at the moment; I don't think the selectors have Bairstow marked as Prior's heir apparent (I suspect that is Buttler as things stand) and he is really in the squad as last-minute cover rather than anything else; his keeping is decidedly ordinary I'm afraid.

Australia conversely may be convinced by Haddin's form to push him up to 6 and play Faulkner if Watson can't bowl. Tough on Bailey if that happens, but Lehmann does seem to favour the 5 bowler approach. I'm not sure it's that necessary particularly as Smith, Clarke, even Warner can fill in a few overs (guildford is right to underline that with Trott not playing, England have only Root as a part-timer to call upon; their next best bowling option would be Bell), but I'm not sure it's particularly wrong either. It does make their batting look a bit more vulnerable (Haddin is not really a number 6; Wade may be, but Faulkner could also improve further).

If people had told you in the middle of the previous series that after the first test of this series Australia would have comfortably the more settled side, you would have laughed quite a lot. Yet...

None of this precludes England's batsmen, Bell, Cook and KP chiefly amongst them, finally getting their act sorted, or Australia's batsmen reverting to their complete collapsing ways; things can still change very quickly. But there is an alarmingly high number of question marks over this England side: can Carberry cut it? who to bat 3? 6 (a crucial position, marshalling the tail, particularly with Prior in his slump)? what's going on with Prior? 3rd seamer/2nd spinner? what if the Aussies continue to get after Swann?