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.

No time for that.

Time to get that draw.

The key is playing positively, but leaving the dangerous balls.

Root can do this, however he has shown to get bogged down when he hasnt need to score but to stay in.

This isnt a time to just stay in, its a time to just play good quality old school test cricket.

Pick of the bad, leave and defend the good.

Very impressed by Stokes's bowling, let's see how his batting goes but certainly a bright start to his test career.

Think we'll see Bresnan for Monty at Perth, I'd have gone with that here but can understand the Monty selection.

Also the Carberry drop of Haddin is looking more and more like the turning point of this match. The drops of Clarke (not a drop really, one in a hundred of them are caught) and Bailey I'm not sure were drops per set, tough chances

Well Monty has actually been more threatening here than Anderson. One wicket and could and should have been three as he had two dropped catches off his bowling. Also if this match gets to that stage of Australia's second innings then the pitch is expected to be susceptible to spin.

Craig looking at the two bowlers that have threatened more(Stokes and Broad) I think its safe to say in HINDSIGHT(wonderful thing that is!!)

that Finn may have caused more issues than Monty.

Monty was gambling on winning the toss. Not sure I agree with that line of thinking

I think for the Monty selection to have truly worked we would have had to have won the toss and batted - 2 spinners could have been really effective on days 3-5. I think it was the right choice as forcing a win after losing the toss was always going to be an outside chance whatever the team, as everything suggested a 500 par score first up.

mystiroakey wrote:Craig looking at the two bowlers that have threatened more(Stokes and Broad) I think its safe to say in HINDSIGHT(wonderful thing that is!!)

that Finn may have caused more issues than Monty.

Monty was gambling on winning the toss. Not sure I agree with that line of thinking

Perhaps. However, by those in the know on day four and five the putch will be more susceptible to spin than seam so Monty is a better inclusion than Finn. Besides I believe Finn will be being saved for the pace and bounce of Pwrth where he will be as fresh as a daisy. Of course England will be hoping they are still (at worst) only 1-0 down in the series.

in hindsight .

Aus have 590 on the board.

199 time in 200 the other team(England) will not win.

Having an extra spinner is no use to us anymore..

mystiroakey wrote:in hindsight .

Aus have 590 on the board.

199 time in 200 the other team(England) will not win.

Having an extra spinner is no use to us anymore..

It will be if we can bat till tea on day three. The game is only 40% in.

Day Four Stella hopefully not day three!!!

Although that's probably the more likely outcome

Olly wrote:Day Four Stella hopefully not day three!!!

Although that's probably the more likely outcome

Yep, day four  

I like the positivity!!

Shall I believe!

Can I get myself up for it and have a another sleepless night!

Bat out today, and the draw's in the bag.
Bat out today AND into tomorrow AND total 530+ on the board...and victory could be on the cards.

Believe.

Lets just wait and see what the pitch does late on before lambasting selections. Those in the know suggest it will spin so I can understand why Monty was included.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Lets just wait and see what the pitch does late on before lambasting selections. Those in the know suggest it will spin so I can understand why Monty was included.

Well I am not really having a go at the gamble. But I am suggesting it was a gamble.

Definitely a gamble, but one worth doing, imo. Monty has bowled ok, bar some drag downs, and Stokes has two wickets.

Duty281 wrote:Bat out today, and the draw's in the bag.
Bat out today AND into tomorrow AND total 530+ on the board...and victory could be on the cards.

Believe.

Not that simple. If England bat out the day and are say 250 for 7 or 8 then the draw is far from in the bag. If they close with say 5 wickets down then things would look slightly rosier. Remember that England need to score 371 to avoid the follow-on so conceivably they (if they bat that long) will probably not reach that total until around lunch or halfway through day four.

mystiroakey wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Lets just wait and see what the pitch does late on before lambasting selections. Those in the know suggest it will spin so I can understand why Monty was included.

Well I am not really having a go at the gamble. But I am suggesting it was a gamble.

Yes I understand that. Remember though Anderson has been far less effective than Panesar but no one is questioning his inclusion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Bat out today, and the draw's in the bag.
Bat out today AND into tomorrow AND total 530+ on the board...and victory could be on the cards.

Believe.

Not that simple. If England bat out the day and are say 250 for 7 or 8 then the draw is far from in the bag. If they close with say 5 wickets down then things would look slightly rosier. Remember that England need to score 371 to avoid the follow-on so conceivably they (if they bat that long) will probably not reach that total until around lunch or halfway through day four.

There will be a serious worry if we can only concoct 220 runs on Day 3.

Whilst it's the perfect day for a good old-fashioned block, to the delight of Nasser Hussain and the chagrin of Ian Botham, England should be able to notch 270+ with these short boundaries square of the wicket.

That wouldn't be absolute safety, but it would be bloody close to it.

Think we'll be on around 500 if we do get to tea on day four.

we need a slowish but steady scoring rate to start with. If the Dream team of Carbs and Root can secure us a 100 partnership, that will give KP a bit more freedom. If any batsman is suited to this ground its him..

He wont even need to middle his shots perfectly to reach the boundaries..

As for the Monty selection, it certainly was a bit of a gamble, but one worth taking. I wanted Stokes and Finn, expected Ballance and Bresnan, but have no complaints on Stokes and Monty. There has been just that little bit of something for the spinner even on the first couple of days and there should be more as the game goes on. Had England fielded well and held their chances, the Australian score could have been contained to more manageable limits. So rather than poor selection, its the poor execution that let them down.

I don't see Monty as a gamble, on the basis that losing the toss was always going to mean a very low chance of victory. But if we had won the toss I think 2 spinners greatly increases the chances of victory (with the draw probably still favourite).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6199480.stm

It's a quite similar position isn't it, only roles reversed?

I wondered what the outcome of this game was

Actually Flower's formulas have outlived their life-span.

--The defensive, cautious, designer pitch based approach relying too much on few bowlers and few batsmen to fire...have had a double negative impact:

1) It has prevented Eng from being an all condition "real" number 1 team
2) Stunted the growth and depth of new talent carried past expiry date unidimensional palyers

--the decline was steady......just the luck and designer / defensive approach hid the ever widening cracks for long

--Loss in UAE, inability to dominate NZ, loss to SA, personalities and ego becoming bigger than team interests ( and I mean Flowers in the KPgate)

the wins in India on the back of unexpected deadly bowling of Monty and the "luck-based" results in the home ashes in 2013.......dealyed the exposition of the widening cracks.

--Flower has outlived his utility....... and the fraility of his startegy and flaws in his approach will be evident by the "Thudding Crash"  with which his side will come down........very reminscent of India's crash.

there are no 2nd and 3rd lines of safety net preventing a complete crash........only SA and Pak seem to be sides that have all round depth in their cricket to avoid such complete crashes.

Aus's decline wasn't as abd as India or Eng.

Who after Flower ?

Well Warne might be availbale and he is demonstrated his undertsanding of English cricket welll recently

yet again Johnson's pace was un-real!Didnt drop below 91 mph and seems to have his radar sorted!

Duty281 wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6199480.stm

It's a quite similar position isn't it, only roles reversed?

I wondered what the outcome of this game was

Yes sure but... that was something only a great team can do. England simply don't have the equivalent players to that team and are certainly not a great team.

Linebreaker wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6199480.stm

It's a quite similar position isn't it, only roles reversed?

I wondered what the outcome of this game was

Yes sure but... that was something only a great team can do. England simply don't have the equivalent players to that team and are certainly not a great team.

Bugger. I'll have to settle for a draw then!

ha ha. But then again... anything is possible in this game.  

Ah, just take the stupid little urn. We've had it for 4 years, it's taking up valuable space on the mantelpiece!

We know that feeling (x 3 or 4) whatever it is.  

Happy with the WC draw for England? Not too bad at all.

Group of Death for us!

Well it could have been worse I suppose.

Australia's group = eeeeek.

I think Sepp Blatter swapped our ball with Algeria's!

C'mon Kiwis... wrap this one up.
Bravo eventually out. WI lead by 62 runs.

Wouldn't put anything past Blatter!

Well the French got the p!ss easy group along with the Swiss...

msp83 wrote:As for the Monty selection, it certainly was a bit of a gamble, but one worth taking. I wanted Stokes and Finn, expected Ballance and Bresnan, but have no complaints on Stokes and Monty. There has been just that little bit of something for the spinner even on the first couple of days and there should be more as the game goes on. Had England fielded well and held their chances, the Australian score could have been contained to more manageable limits. So rather than poor selection, its the poor execution that let them down.

Yes and no ...

I can see the reasoning behind picking the second spinner ( and I am not suggesting that selection here was the main cause of Australia making 570 ) , but :

* Note that Australia didn't even consider messing around with their bowling to include a second spinner ...they virtually never do so at home.
* In the last 17 Ashes Tests (since they started winning) , England have gone for two spinners three times now. The Australians have scored 674/6 , 492/9 and 570/9 ...

Which doesn't perhaps mean the strategy should never be employed ; but suggests it is not one in which too much hope should be invested.

If England can make five hundred here then the selection may yet pay off . But I am not holding my breath.

NZ need 112 runs to win.

Yeah Alfie, wait and see how he goes in the 3rd dig. Maybe Flower & Co. felt as though they had to do something different and had some feedback from someone in the know about this new pitch behaviour - especially after Clarke had teased the press the day before the match saying "I don't think they will play Monty... but then again...?"

I think I must have had Stockholm syndrome from the Aussies,

I was actually beginning to feel sorry for them and wanted them to give us more a game.

Now - pfft.

They are winding me up to high heaven again!!!

Careful what you wish for mate!  

Believe it or not - I did the same thing about 9 years ago when the Aussies were getting bigger than their boots. Unfortunately, India took the offer up. In my view, that early-mid 00s India team is the 3rd best cricket team ever. There were some epic contests.

Play just 15 minutes away. England have to set targets and ideal scenario for them would be getting to lunch on 110 for 1 or perhaps 110 for 2 but any more than that would be a poor session for England.

LB your team is a team again. I fully believe it.

I can't see you dominating in the short term but you are getting back up to the top.

England have a huge task..

Well up for this. Come on England.

Mitch is a beast.. Jeasus..

England are scoring at .15 an over today..

England slowly upping the pace and reach 51 for 1 with the first half hour safely negotiated.

One of the problems for England at the moment - well since Strauss retired really - is that unless Cook gets off to a good start (and he has had a lean time of late ) no one has been able to get the scoreboard ticking over quickly early in an innings. Understandably , Root is still coming to grips with batting at the top in Test cricket , while neither Compton nor Carberry are natural fast scorers . So expect to see more slow starts for a while at least.
Need not be fatal : slow solid starts can set things up for stroke players like KP and Bell. But it means early loose balls can go unpunished , which helps bowlers stay confident and relaxed and rather keeps a feeling of pressure persisting longer than it ought , especially chasing big scores.

Poor dismissal that. Root out hooking Lyon. England 57 for 2.

Not good from root.

But he took the shine of the ball. 

Kp could have a field day out there, shame it's not at 150 up.. Which is should have been.

Impressed with carbs though

Was just going to post it was nice to see the runs starting to flow when young Joe rather overdid it and donated his wicket  

Didn't mind the plan of trying to get after the spinner ; but that was a bit of a slog I'm afraid. Rather have seen him have a bit more of a look at Lyon , and perhaps hit him down the ground instead of across the line like that. Bit of a waste after all that effort to blunt the new ball.

It was a needless shot right out of the blue from him. England can ill afford handing out gifts like that. Pietersen now MUST deliver one of those big centuries you feel.

Roots confidence has gone . He played the shot for the sake of playing a shot.

He still looks good to me. Just not quite mentally confident enough to pick the right balls to attack..

Sadly that was a a typical innings from him.. Lots of balls under a kind of pressure situation but little runs and out to a bad decision over technique.