2nd test Adelaide

First topic message reminder :

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.

msp83 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CF wrote:Tremlett should never have gone out there, he's played f/c cricket all summer... and craig im sorry but australia have a long line of fast  bowler, they have a lot of them injured, but when they're fit, they have a much longer line of quicks than we do..

Harris,Siddle,Johnson,Pattinson,Starc,Hilfenhaus,Copeland,Coulter-Nile,Bollinger,Cummins....there's more as well.

Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Tremlett, Finn, Onions, Rankin, Dernbach, Shahzad, Mills

Dernbach? Seriously!??

Well a FC bowling average of 31 for England's 10th best seamer, or he may be lower than that for all I know, isn't too bad.

You know...if England got reallllyyyyyy desperate.

CF wrote:Tremlett should never have gone out there, he's played f/c cricket all summer... and craig im sorry but australia have a long line of fast  bowler, they have a lot of them injured, but when they're fit, they have a much longer line of quicks than we do..

Harris,Siddle,Johnson,Pattinson,Starc,Hilfenhaus,Copeland,Coulter-Nile,Bollinger,Cummins....there's more as well.

Actually wasn't Hilfenhaus an unmitigated disasyer in the Ashes three years ago much as was Doug Bollinger and as for the rest (Pattinson aside) they are all untried and unproven at Test level let alone Ashes level.

Double post.

Duty281 wrote:

msp83 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CF wrote:Tremlett should never have gone out there, he's played f/c cricket all summer... and craig im sorry but australia have a long line of fast  bowler, they have a lot of them injured, but when they're fit, they have a much longer line of quicks than we do..

Harris,Siddle,Johnson,Pattinson,Starc,Hilfenhaus,Copeland,Coulter-Nile,Bollinger,Cummins....there's more as well.

Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Tremlett, Finn, Onions, Rankin, Dernbach, Shahzad, Mills

Dernbach? Seriously!??

Well a FC bowling average of 31 for England's 10th best seamer, or he may be lower than that for all I know, isn't too bad.

You know...if England got reallllyyyyyy desperate.

Lets just hope such levels of desperation never strike England!. Will be a real horrer of a day if it happens!. Give me Bopara's cutters any day!.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

.... Tremlett never let anyone down ...

    

I take it you'be been nowhere near the Surrey threads over the last couple of years!

Guildfordbat I am purely talking about his bowling in the First Test.

Relax Guildford, he would have been talking about the last test, where of course his 122 KPH military medium didn't let the Australian batsmen down all that much. He did produce a couple of good ones to get Steven Smith out in both innings though.

And the control freaks would have been relatively pleased with his first innings economy as well.

Craig - apologies if it seemed a cheap shot out of context but I would have been failing in my Surrey duties not to have made the point.

PS msp - yes, I'm on record as giving Tremlett credit for Smith's dismissals. For me, Tremlett did ok in the first Test without ever looking totally convincing.

msp83 wrote:And the control freaks would have been relatively pleased with his first innings economy as well.

I trust you're not including a certain up and coming coach there!  

This might not be a bad toss to lose... and get sent in - or win the toss and send the opposition into bat.

'Wintery' conditions in Adelaide at the moment - 12.9 deg C at 9am.

Forecast for the next 5 days
Thurs 10-19 (morning showers)
Fri 12-22
Sat 13-28
Sun 20-30 (late thunderstorm)
Mon 14-23 (chance of rain)

Hi Linebreaker - you may have seen that Mike's been gently teasing me recently about my traditional approach to winning the toss.

Despite Mike's best efforts to educate me otherwise, I still tend to identify with the advice given to David 'Bumble' Lloyd when he assumed the Lancs captaincy in the mid-1970s. Lloyd was told by Cyril Washbrook, Lancs' first ever professional captain in the 1950s, ''You have two choices on winning the toss. Bat or think about it and then bat.''  

Admittedly, I don't go quite that far but do try and understand why Washbrook formed such an entrenched view.

better not be raining!!!!!! Im staying up to watch this!

CF wrote:better not be raining!!!!!! Im staying up to watch this!

CF - if it's raining at the start, you can switch over to the end of MOTD and watch highlights of last night's game between Palace and West Ham ... errr, perhaps not ... sorry.  

NZ, especially Tim Southee doing well this morning. WI 112/5. Could have been 6 down... a faint edge missed?

Yes Guildford, famous words.
I just have the feeling that this morning will be the best time for either side to make early inroads whilst there is some life in the wicket. It's imperative to restrict whoever bats first to a "below-par" score... if possible.

guildfordbat wrote:

CF wrote:better not be raining!!!!!! Im staying up to watch this!

CF - if it's raining at the start, you can switch over to the end of MOTD and watch highlights of last night's game between Palace and West Ham ... errr, perhaps not ... sorry.  

Ahh football, I remember when I used to look forward to it...

Stokes handed cap he plays....

I like the move, I rate him....

Linebreaker wrote:He's named his team, Craig.  
(courtesy of Inside Cricket tonight)

Cook
Carberry
Root
KP
Bell
Ballance
Prior
Broad
Bresnan
Swan
Anderson

Well it would seem that Michael Clarke was off the mark with his team prediction. Stokes seemingly starts andvpossibly Monty Panesar as well.

Yes rumor is Panesar for Tremlett and Stokes for Trott with Root up to 3.

A gamble...

So it is the monty /stokes combo.

Ok lets hope its a spinners paradise- I think we needed the bowling cover with Monty playing.

Stokes is our only all round hope.

Fingers crossed

Australia win the toss and will bat first.

sheez!!!

nooo

big toss to lose

Very surprised at the Panesar selection, would've gone with Big Bres myself

But I did want Stokes in the side, if you trawl back through I think I put it somewhere!!

Gonna need Anderson and Broad on form first up....

Well that leaves me very concerned...I think that is a very risky lineup to take into this vital Test. Especially now they've lost the toss...

Hope it works ...crossing fingers and toes. I will go on record as disagreeing with the decision , but we shall seee who is right.

One good thing : all those whoi are always moaning about lack of adventure and sticking to rigid plans can shut up now , as this is it today for better or worse  

Its a bit out there-

That I am happy with. Its different and kind of progressive

That or very foolish!!

Ben Stokes starts. 

I called it.

[quote="mystiroakey"]sheez!!!

nooo

big toss to lose[/]

Mysti - bowling first could be good for us if there's some early life in the wicket (as Linebreaker suggests a few posts above and as Mike speculated a couple of days ago). I still though would have preferred us try and set scoreboard pressure and, in particular, be bowling when the fourth innings comes round.

I guess Stokes had to play if Monty was selected. Brave IMO and not what I would've wanted but we'll see how it pans out. Horses for courses has worked for England before so who knows.

I think itbis a team selection that covers all scenarios. The pick of England's seamers in the last few years has been Broad and Anderson - both are there. The pitch is tipped to take spin later so they are well equipped in that area with Swann and Panesar. It all comes back to thebEngland batsmen - they must deliver here. If, after the First Innings, England are near parity I would tip them to win. A draw would not be disasterous as it would steady the rocking ship.

First over for me then bed. Back up at 5am to watch some cricket before work!

An awful lot resting on Stokes. Assume he'll be batting at 6 (I did post last week about his county, champions Durham, where he normally bats at 5, rating his batting more highly than many posters here - that obviously doesn't include the ever modest Nick  ) where he'll almost certainly need to make a contribution. Important as well for him to keep it tight with the ball and hopefully chip in with the odd wicket.

Let us hope he's more Tony Greig than ''his younger, smaller and less talented brother'' Ian Greig!

That cover looks like an 80 year old woman's curtain

Nothing wrong with picking Panesar if England feel the pitch will turn (I am not sure drop-in pitches do turn to that extent). Even with England losing the toss, you would expect him to do as well as Tremlett in the 1st innings, so I'm not sure they lose out that much.

I am however astounded at the selection of Stokes, which smacks of a bit of desperation to me. It may well work out, but it is undoubtedly a "punt" and a significant move away from England's preferred formula. Is the situation so dire? I guess it could be a masterstroke and we'll find out soon enough.

Panesar's selection has meant that any thoughts from either team of bowling first (and with the frailty of the batting I doubt there was much) had obviously gone out the window.

First thoughts on the pitch. Looks very very flat. Less pace and bounce than Brisbane (obviously). Whilst I fully expect these words to appear silly soon enough, this looks like a high scoring pitch every day of the week.

Surely winning the toss and batting first would have helped our two spinner selection.

This pitch is flat as a pancake

The bowlers have to produce some magic some how. Or it's going to be a long night

Spin please Cook. Give Warner a tempter.

That'll do pig.

Mike Selig wrote:

I am however astounded at the selection of Stokes, which smacks of a bit of desperation to me. It may well work out, but it is undoubtedly a "punt" and a significant move away from England's preferred formula. Is the situation so dire? I guess it could be a masterstroke and we'll find out soon enough.

Mike - understand your reaction. Too often in the 1990s England tried to duplicate the greatness of Botham (and immediately before him, Greig) with a county allrounder who just wasn't Test class. From being close to being a 12 man team (Botham counting as nearly 2 players), we went to effectively a 10 man team with the replacement allrounder making negligible impact with bat or ball. The fear now is that we're repeating that mistake of twenty years ago.

I would though reiterate that Durham rate Stokes highly. Even with them being county champions, that doesn't mean he's got what it takes here but we perhaps might be surprised.

An idle thought. Very much ifs and buts - but if Trott was not unwell and still with the England team, would we have gone into this Test with a bowling attack of (just) Anderson, Broad, Swann and Panesar?

It's a good point.

I doubt panasar would have been picked tbh

Yeah I am backtracking already : like Mike , it was the Stokes pick that floored me...but on thinking it over :

1/ Not much for seamers anyway it appears , so selecting Monty at least gives a control option. Might be a better idea than exhausting pace bowlers with Perth only a few days later.
2/ I am twitchy about Stokes at 6 - but he can't make much less than most of them did last match   And if the alternative was Ballance , is he too much more of a punt ? At least this should be a batting pitch , and if he gets "in" he might score quickly.

I didn't like the feel of fiddling around with non-first-choice players to fit the second spinner in - didn't work too well at the Oval ! But it might be the best of some far from ideal alternatives ...hoping so.

Third interruption of the morning for a rain shower.

Mysti, in particular - that should at least have the advantage of disrupting the batsmen's concentration and rhythm more than the bowlers.

Time for bed. Night, folks.

At tea England can be pleased with their work so far. Australia were in firm control at 155 for 1 but late wickets (two for spinners) reduced the Aussies to 174 for 4. On such a flat wicket England would certainly havebtaken that at the start of the day. Will the Aussies now regret having gone with just one spinner?

Australia 190-4, and we are into the final session. Rogers and Watson made half-centuries but couldn't go on. David Warner got a start but couldn't build on it. Stevan Smith failed to produce the goods. But Michael Clarke is still there, and England would want him to be back in the hut before the end of play today. George Bayley is giving the captain company.
Anderson, Broad, Swann and Panesar with a wicket each.

An interesting and brave selection from England. The moment they decided to play Monty, playing Stokes at 6 became the realistic option. And playing Panesar is not such a bad move either. The pitch doesn't have much life for seam bowlers and England's quicks do not usually bowl at 145-150 kph range to trouble the batsmen despite the pitch. On a flat track like this, the likes of Finn, with his confidence down, or Tremlett with military medium pace, or Bresnan with his long injury layoff and lack of match practice might have struggled. Panesar offers control and England love that, and he has taken out Smith already.
But if they were to lose the toss that they eventually did, Swann and Panesar couldn't have carried much of the bowling on day 1 and 2, and with the 3rd test coming up soon, there was no point in bowling Anderson and Broad down to the ground. So playing Stokes was the logic, recent England number 6s, other than Joe Root, haven't been making consistent contributions with the bat, and Stokes can't be any worse.
I was expecting Bresnan to come back and Ballance to bat at 6, but I have no complaints with the call of the management.

Cook doesn't seem to have used Stokes all that cleverly. Just 5 overs from him out of the 69 bowled so far. He wasn't getting the ball to dart around or bounc head high from a good length, but nobody can do it on this first day flat track. But he kept the runs down though his last over went for a couple of boundaries. James Anderson has already bowled 18 overs, and he should be on with a spell with the new ball before the end of the day. Monty Panesar has so far bowled 20 overs.

If England can squeeze out another couple of wickets in this final session it will have been their day. One more and its even stevens but no more wickets and it will have been Australia's day. Australia currently on 205 for 4.

Half chances for England not taken but their bowlers are keeping it tight as a unit limiting the Aussies to under three runs per over. Australia 221 for 4 with the new ball due in four overs time.

Monty dropping Bailey off his own bowling looking costly now as Australia look to attack the new ball and up the run rate. They stand on 256 for 4 and England need a wicket from somewhere.

What a catch swanny!!!!