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.

A super fine catch from Graeme Swann, Broad gets Bailey with a bouncer!. Big wicket that, coming towards the end of the day for England. Australia 257-5. Bailey goes for 53. No nightwatchman for Australia, Brad Haddin in at 7, 86 overs of the day bowled already.

A much-needed wicket that for England and keeps them in the hunt.

Cook has taken Anderson off and brought back Monty. Thought he should have given Jimmy an over more and try knock Haddin over early in his innings. Otherwise throw the new ball to Stokes. Is he trying too hard to justify Panesar's selection?

Nearly another one for Broad, Haddin's pull just managing to clear the fielder.

And England then lost one of their reviews as Haddin gets away with an LBW shout that was turned down by the onfield umpire and proved right as it was going high.

Ouch Carberry drops a dolly. Big moment?

Now Haddin's been dropped by Carberry of Panesar. Bad miss for England in the penultimate over of the day.

You cant stop that simply can't, what a boost for England that would've been. Awful fielding

That ends the day, Australia 268-5. On a flat track, the England bowlers kept them just under 3 an over and taken out 5 wickets. Just about an even day? Could have been England's day if Carberry could have held on. Aggressive spell from Broad with the 2nd new ball, he was making things happen with his pace and length on a rather lifeless track. This is what real aggression is all about, not the barbaric filth they spout in the name of mental disintegration.......

Australia close on 273 for 5. A hard day to judge as Australia will feel it could have been a lot better having been 155 for 1 and England will feel the same with dropped catches. However, winning the toss was key and so England can just take a little more from the day for me.

Oh, they just managed an extra over. Australia added 5 more to the total, and no last over wickets for England.

I'd say that is a pretty even day, England got to be gutted that chance didn't stick, certainly would've tipped the balance in our favour. But from 155/1 we've dragged ourselves back into it

Can anyone tell me where I can watch highlights this evening? I don't have Sky Sports and I thought Channel 5 might be showing them, but they didn't for the first Test.

Pretty sure it isn't on any terrestrial channels - even in highlights format I am afraid.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Pretty sure it isn't on any terrestrial channels - even in highlights format I am afraid.

I think it's on Pick TV, which is on Freeview, at about 10pm. Certainly, they had highlights of the first test.

Excellent, I've got Pick. Pretty poor that it's tucked away on a channel like that though. But at least it's somewhere other than Sky.

Intriguing day. Were it not for the first test, I would suggest England were ahead. Controlling the run-rate (the dismissal of Warner was particularly important here) well on a flat pitch, and chipping in with wickets.

A day of missed opportunities as well: Australia will be kicking themselves that 4 of their top 6 got good starts, but failed to go on and score a big innings (including Watson... again); England will be kicking themselves over a few dropsies, without which their day would have looked even better.

The Panesar pick has proved a reasonable success, although let's remember Tremlett returned similar figures on day 1 at Brisbane, so it's not exactly as if his return has been remarkable. However he's provided good control, and will do so for longer and more sustained periods than Tremlett could. As the game progresses he should come into his own more as well.

The Stokes pick remains strange. Today illustrated for me the issue with picking 5 bowlers when you have 2 spinners - more often than not one of them usually ends up not bowling all that much, and when one is clearly the inferior bowler of the 5, you wonder why pick him. If Stokes ends up bowling a lot, it is either because he has gotten on a hot streak, or more likely because Australia have scored so many that it will scarcely make a difference anyway. There are arguments for Stokes's selection - he is the quickest bowler in the squad after Finn for instance, or England thought that he wouldn't score fewer runs than Ballance/Bairstow, in which case... - but I must say I remain surprised.

At the risk of stating the entirely completely obvious, tomorrow's morning session is crucial. England would like to restrict Australia to 350 or even fewer, whilst Australia will still have their eyes set on 400+ given the form Johnson and Haddin are in. Should England succeed they have a chance of really settling in on what seems like a featherbed (mind you, didn't we say that about the first test?) and adhering to my famous formula; if Aus do get past 400, well it's tough to win matches from there.

Mike I would go as far as to say that tomorrow's play could go a long way to telling us where the urn is heading.

Australia will want to bat long (perhaps until tea) posting a score of 450+ and if they can force another English batting collapse - say 60 for 3 at close then I see no way back for England.

However, if England can restrict Australia to less than 400 and bat solidly to close on 130 for 1 or 2 they are right back in the hunt to retain the Ashes.

seriously good effort to have a chance of bowling them out for close to 300...on that wicket..500 should be par on that pitch, its an aboslute belter, but its been 18 tests since we made 400 in 1st or 2nd innings, and we have to bat well!

Has the pitch been quick? If not, hopefully that means Mitchell Johnson won't cause our batsmen as much trouble as he did at the Gabba.

No not that quick at all and not as much bounce off the pitch. Quickie's bouncers have tennis ball bounce here unlike at the Gabba.

Scoring restricted, England chipping away, Panesar as the support spinner - reminds me of Mumbai. I certainly hope the outcome is the same anyway!

Good start by Aus.

Runs on the board again

A lot rests on Michael Clarke ahead of day 2.

His record at the Adelaide Oval is incredible. Averages 100+ with 5 hundreds. The last two Tests here he's pummelled double hundreds.

Haddin also has a good record at this venue.

England need Broad to come up with the goods in the morning session.

Broad looking like the leader of the English attack IMO.

It rests on England being able to bat tbh.

In a perfect work we bowl then out for 350. Then get 550. Then bowl them out on a spun friendly wicket.

Seems to have been a good , disciplined effort from all the England bowlers to claw back some of the advantage Australia gained by winning the toss.
If Carberry hadn't put down a bit of a sitter at the end they would have been in a pretty good position with a still new ball and the bowlers coming in...as it is they will be praying for a quick breakthrough early tomorrow , because if these two get going the score could still head towards 500...

Whether in fact they can bowl Australia out reasonably cheaply and target a significant lead ; or find themselves chasing a big total to settle for a draw , one thing is certain: the batting will have to improve massively on the Brisbane efforts or the Ashes are gone... On the face of it , they won't find a better pitch to seek that improvement. Judging by the way nearly all the Australian batsmen got set - although none really went on , so far - there are big runs in this pitch for someone.

mystiroakey wrote:It rests on England being able to bat tbh.

In a perfect work we bowl then out for 350. Then get 550. Then bowl them out on a spun friendly wicket.

Yeah but this pitch lacks the spiteful bounce of Brisbane.

Mind you I think reverse swing will still make it tough to bat freely on this pitch.

mystiroakey wrote:It rests on England being able to bat tbh.

In a perfect work we bowl then out for 350. Then get 550. Then bowl them out on a spun friendly wicket.

Yes , I like that recipe , roakey  

It's been about 18 innings since England scored over 350 or so..

alfie wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It rests on England being able to bat tbh.

In a perfect work we bowl then out for 350. Then get 550. Then bowl them out on a spun friendly wicket.

Yes , I like that recipe , roakey  

Yep as nice as apple pie

Gerry SA wrote:

England need Broad to come up with the goods in the morning session.

Broad looking like the leader of the English attack IMO.  

How so? He was probably the most inconsistent of the 4 main bowlers and his wickets were from 2 wide balls.

Mike Selig wrote:Intriguing day. Were it not for the first test, I would suggest England were ahead. Controlling the run-rate (the dismissal of Warner was particularly important here) well on a flat pitch, and chipping in with wickets.

A day of missed opportunities as well: Australia will be kicking themselves that 4 of their top 6 got good starts, but failed to go on and score a big innings (including Watson... again); England will be kicking themselves over a few dropsies, without which their day would have looked even better.

The Panesar pick has proved a reasonable success, although let's remember Tremlett returned similar figures on day 1 at Brisbane, so it's not exactly as if his return has been remarkable. However he's provided good control, and will do so for longer and more sustained periods than Tremlett could. As the game progresses he should come into his own more as well.

The Stokes pick remains strange. Today illustrated for me the issue with picking 5 bowlers when you have 2 spinners - more often than not one of them usually ends up not bowling all that much, and when one is clearly the inferior bowler of the 5, you wonder why pick him. If Stokes ends up bowling a lot, it is either because he has gotten on a hot streak, or more likely because Australia have scored so many that it will scarcely make a difference anyway. There are arguments for Stokes's selection - he is the quickest bowler in the squad after Finn for instance, or England thought that he wouldn't score fewer runs than Ballance/Bairstow, in which case... - but I must say I remain surprised.

At the risk of stating the entirely completely obvious, tomorrow's morning session is crucial. England would like to restrict Australia to 350 or even fewer, whilst Australia will still have their eyes set on 400+ given the form Johnson and Haddin are in. Should England succeed they have a chance of really settling in on what seems like a featherbed (mind you, didn't we say that about the first test?) and adhering to my famous formula; if Aus do get past 400, well it's tough to win matches from there.

Hi Mike - I wondered if you would consider England to be ahead and thought you might (to be fair, I do note your qualification about the first Test). My concern with that type of view is that there's possibly an over expectation that wickets will tumble in the morning session of the second day. If Clarke, Haddin (dreadful miss at the end) and then Johnson make hay tomorrow, we're going to be facing a total north of 400 and already be thinking of not winning but saving the match.

Completely agree about the importance of Warner's wicket. The SKY circus said surprisingly little by their standards about that.

You are of course correct to say that Panesar's returns (wicket and economy) for this day one are similar to Tremlett's last time out. However, unlike Tremlett, I would expect Panesar to become more effective as this Test goes on so don't feel any comparison is appropriate yet.

On Stokes, I didn't know he was so quick. Warne commented on him being measured as the third fastest bowler in English domestic cricket last season (I would guess behind Finn and the wayward Mills with Meaker being absent injured). I liked Warne's aside, ''He's got wheels''.  Based on what I saw on highlights and from Stokes' stats today, I thought Hussain and Lloyd did though overegg in their review how effective his bowling had been, talking about him ''tieing up one end'' and ''giving Anderson and Broad a rest''. It sounded like he had bowled 15 for 35 rather than 8 for 20 odd.

Your closing comment about the second morning may be ''entirely completely obvious'' but it is spot on.

Just to mention - amongst a day of disappointing missed chances, Swann's leaping catch understandably stole the show.

However, it was a very good and probably under rated catch by Anderson off his own bowling to dismiss Watson. Did well to check his follow through and get the ball so low down.

We really could've done with Carberyy clinging onto that dolly at the end. I can accept root's and panesar's drops because theyre pretty hard chances but club cricketers would catch that Carberry one in their sleep just an unacceptable drop and quite realistically could cost us a chance of a first innings lead

liverbnz wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

England need Broad to come up with the goods in the morning session.

Broad looking like the leader of the English attack IMO.  

How so? He was probably the most inconsistent of the 4 main bowlers and his wickets were from 2 wide balls.

He's easily been the best bowler of this tour for us so far, and certainly has looked the most threatening of them all.

Yep. But reverse and spin may become more of a factor putting the reigns on the others

CF wrote:From what Cook was saying in his press conference about the pitch and the balance etc, i wouldnt be suprised if this side was named:

1.Cook (c)
2.Carbs
3.Root
4.KP
5.Bell
6.Stokes
7.Prior (wk)
8.Broad
9.Swann
10.Anderson
11.Monty

spot on

Broad certainly has been the bowler of the tour for England so far. Even with the 2nd new ball, he was making things happen. I mentioned it earlier, think Cook underbowled Stokes and overbowled Panesar. Stokes is a proper all-rounder, just 8 overs from him is not making good use of the resources you have. Perhaps Cook was trying to see whether Monty would get the new, hard ball to bounce a bit for Panesar by giving him a spell at the end of the day, but perhaps he could have given it to Stokes to see what he could do with a newish ball, remember he was brought on only in the 32nd over of the Australian innings for his first bowl in test cricket.

Unless Australia perform a these days typical self-destructing 'collapso', I think it will be very hard for England to restrict them to a score of under 400. I think under 450 is a more realistic target. If England manage to do that, then they have to bat really really well, and do so with intent and positivity.

if Aus get 450- its draw at best,

We have to just get under there skin and batter them first session

msp83 wrote:Unless Australia perform a these days typical self-destructing 'collapso', I think it will be very hard for England to restrict them to a score of under 400. I think under 450 is a more realistic target. If England manage to do that, then they have to bat really really well, and do so with intent and positivity.

Well lets remember they have already has one mini-collapse in this innings falling from 155 for 1 to 273 for 5 (four wickets for 118 runs and those were wickets of batsmen not of all-rounders that are to come). Sure it will be tough for England to force a win if Australia score 450+ but even if it ends up a draw with England's batting performing better it steadies the rocking ship and tells the Aussies that their mentality is not as flakey as they think. In short it puts England in better shape for the remaining tests than they were coming into this test.

I called England's XI correct, called bat first correct, and I called the two spinners ploy correct... if any of you had listened to me, you would have made dosh at the bookie.

I like

kingraf wrote:I called England's XI correct, called bat first correct, and I called the two spinners ploy correct... if any of you had listened to me, you would have made dosh at the bookie.

I like

The question is did you back your instincts

good call though

The answer to that Oakey, is no... Been incredibly hot recently, and I was afraid it was coming to an end...
South Africa vs Spain - £10 @ 25/1
Mitchell Johnson's! man of the match £15 @ 8/1
Quinton de Kock top score in Pakistan £10 @ 11/1

had a few minor losses as well, but I know when to quit when I'm miles ahead.

Betting is fun.

But lets not kid ourself s we could make a living out of it

I did just stick a score on England to win this test though-at almost 5/1

Very true.... Thought about sticking a bit on Clarke scoring a ton, given his recent record at Adelaide, but I don't like betting on hot players as streaks come to an end...

guildfordbat wrote:
Hi Mike - I wondered if you would consider England to be ahead and thought you might (to be fair, I do note your qualification about the first Test). My concern with that type of view is that there's possibly an over expectation that wickets will tumble in the morning session of the second day. If Clarke, Haddin (dreadful miss at the end) and then Johnson make hay tomorrow, we're going to be facing a total north of 400 and already be thinking of not winning but saving the match.

Hi guildford,

Just to make clear, my belief that England are - marginally - ahead is based purely on where the game is now. I accept that it is very evenly poised, and in the scheme of a 5 day test, England's IMO narrow advantage at the end of day 1 means absolutely nothing. But for me, 270-5 on an apparently flat pitch is a narrow win for the bowling side. Had Australia lost 1 wicket fewer they would have held the upper hand, had England gotten another wicket (Carberry...) they would have been much more on top (although obviously still no irremediably so). To illustrate how narrow I think England's advantage is, had Australia finished say 300-5, I would have given them the advantage, because from 300-5, scoring less than 370 seems unlikely, and 400+ is probable. From 270-5, and with a relatively new ball, 400 is still a way off (although of course not inconceivable if Clarke and Haddin get through the 1st half hour particularly). This suggests that a completely even day may have been 285-5.

Of course these calculations are all meaningless - you don't win matches for being slightly (or even considerably) ahead after day 1. From that perspective I agree with Craig, in that tonight's opening session may have a great bearing on the overall ashes result. Anything around the 350 mark (which will take a very very good effort from the England bowlers) and England will be thinking "one good innings here, and we're right back in this contest"; anything around 400 and they'll be thinking "one poor innings and the ashes are almost gone"...

Hi again Mike - good post as ever. I certainly understand and follow your reasoning , particularly as regards the actual score and hypothetical ones. I also note and agree your comment that such calculations become meaningless - cricket refusing to follow any set pattern of logic and reason as we well know.

I can't though shake off the traditional view of 'runs on the board' being so valuable. Due to that, I slightly disagree with you about who is marginally ahead and also Craig's wider comments although I understand where he is coming from and why. A good first session for Australia on the opening session of the second day will certainly tip the match out of England's reach and push the likely direction of this Test and the Ashes in the hosts' direction - agreed. However, even if England considerably get the better of that first session, Australia should still exceed 300 - that may actually be enough for them. I would want us to outscore Australia in our first innings so as to provide a safeguard when we have to bat last on day five. I have some doubts we'll be able to do that.

PS Raf and Mysti - re your chat on betting. Very sensible for the gambler to treat it as fun and not a means for a living. In all my many years, I have still to meet a poor bookmaker.  

The way I look at it is that Australia were 155 for 1 on a pitch deemed excellent for batting hence each skipper was praying they won the toss so they could bat. All the pre-match talk was that this was a 400+ wicket first up so australia would have definitely expected much when they were 155 for 1. For them to close on 273 for 5 must be seen as disappointing from their view point. If England can reach parity after the first innings then I make them favourites. The pitch has been tipped to start spinning on the fourth and fifth day and England are far better equipped in that departmwnt than Australia. Both Swann and Panesar are widely regarded as superior spinners to Nathan Lyons so advantage would be with England.