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.

Flower can't be blamed for all the issues. but he has to take the blame for the mess in the opening/number 6 positions. and to some extent, for messing up with Finn.

Before the test started, there were talks that there could be some rain on day 5. Any chance? Wouldn't matter much the way England batsmen are going at the moment though.

mystiroakey wrote:Not good from root.

But he took the shine of the

This guy is a Root fanboy........15,2, 26 n.o...........to go with two decent knocks in ten innings in the summer..

Potential is a dirty word........

You obviously dont watch batters bat. he took near a 100 balls, if you dont understand what an openers job is then that's your nativity

as i said not good from root, but at least he took the shine of the ball. If you think thats fan boy talk then you are deluded

surely you meant his naivety?

yeah lol

I think its safe to say none of the England players have exactly covered themselves in glory, so far this series.

Broad did some decent bowling in the 1st Test and Bell and Carberry will hopefully have shamed our other top-middle order batsmen into scoring some meaningful runs at some point in this series.

At least they showed it is possible to score runs against this Aussie bowling attack, if you bat with patience and intelligence.

Other than that, absolutely nothing for England to be proud of.

Trussman loves a dig.

Probally not the best time to have one. 3 nights of no sleep to be tortured against the Aussies is my not my best start to the weekend

Think Aus will let Warner get to his hundred and then declare in all probability.

The key for me of this test has been the difference in mindset between the two teams.

Australia at the start of day 2 (with the game fairly evenly poised) came out, scored at 4 per over from the outset, took their chances but crucially because of their intent they took risks on their terms. England with the notable exception of Bell simply haven't done that. Root is not yet a top 3 player, because he goes into his shell too readily. The Carberry dismissal was a case in point, it came after a succession of maidens which Australia simply weren't allowing when they were batting. The Root dismissal was another: he took a chance (nothing wrong with that) but he took a chance because he felt he had to take a chance; very different from taking a chance because you want to dictate the game; in other words he took a chance not on his terms, it was Australia's relentless pressure which forced the issue.

Of course it is easier to be aggressive when you have 2 bowlers capable of topping 90 mph and one doing it with ease.

I think Clarke's dismantling of Panesar early on day 2 may prove to be the turning point (no pun intended). I'm sure Cook's plan was for Panesar to keep the batsmen quiet, and eventually get a wicket either from the other end, or out of frustration. Clarke taking Panesar at almost 6 an over meant this was no longer an option, and he did it with calculated risk taking, and brilliant batting.

Johnson's spell last night was world class. Whilst it may seem easy to blame the batsmen, Prior in particular was out to a fabulous bit of bowling: 2 good short ones followed up by the sucker ball, on a length outside off-stump.

Australia's catching was solid (one atrocious miss from Clarke notwithstanding). They got 3 sharp chances: Bailey from KP, Warner of course off Carberry, but I actually thought the best of them was Clarke's grab off Swann - that was really travelling.

Looking at England's batsmen, I have dealt with the Root dismissal (nothing against him taking a chance, but you have to do it on your terms). The issue with KP is not IMO that he played a risky shot - we cannot in one breath bemoan England's lack of intent and in the next castigate the guy who showed intent - but that he didn't play a percentage risky shot; Australia had set the field for him to get out in exactly that fashion; it's as if Clarke had continued trying to smack Panesar over mid-on with long-on now posted, it doesn't make sense. You take calculated risks, and IMO that wasn't one.

I'll forgive Carberry's dismissal but not the play that led up to it. At the risk of further antagonising jimbo, for me he still looks a bit short of class - he is too limited and easy to contain (he has the cut, the flick and erm...) and I think you'd fancy bowling at him. In the short term though, he is a good fix and has the advantage of knowing his game and limitations and playing within them. I would stick with him for a couple of years, purely because I think England will have to look at a new number 3, so having experienced (at least in first class cricket) openers is key. What jimbo failed to acknowledge was how poor Carberry's fielding has been in his international career to date (I am talking about far more than dropped catches, I am talking about failure to read the game, throws constantly way off target, etc.). He is quick, sure, but his technique is relatively poor for that level.

Stokes got a decent ball before he'd fully settled. I marked him out as a clear LBW candidate during the ODI series, so am not surprised, as he gets his front pad slightly thrusted in front and particularly against pace this makes it a very good target. I have expressed doubts over his ability to bat at 6, but I believe it is unfair to make too much of this innings. His bowling impressed me (but his action could do with a bit of work) and his fielding and attitude are great. Almost certainly a test player of the future, either as a bowler or an all-rounder depending on how his batting looks.

Prior today was out to a fantastic piece of bowling, but his form is clearly an issue, and his place should be under threat if not yet, certainly should he fail in the 2nd innings. The bowlers simply couldn't handle Johnson's pace and accuracy, and it would be unfair to blame them for it.

Where to go from here from England. First thing, don't give up. We've seen South Africa bat a stupid amount of time here this time last year to get a draw. If England get through to this evening only 3 or so wickets down, who knows? They have to believe. Beyond that, they have to play with more intent, it is no use just eating up dot balls, because we've seen that eventually leads to wickets. Even if England lose, they need to build an innings to convince themselves (and Australia) that they can actually score runs here. Their 2nd innings effort of 400odd in the first test thrashing in India turned out to be crucial, and a similar effort here would do them no end of good.

Looking beyond this test, I am not a fan of the wholesale changes people are suggesting. Whilst the argument is "they couldn't do any worse" the truth is that throwing loads of youngsters in the team together without the old heads needed to accompany them is nothing but a recipe for disaster: what happens is the youngsters aren't provided with the environment to enable them to reach their potential as test cricketers, and you end up with a bunch of talented youngsters who are mentally scarred very early and eventually discarded. See Australia's attempts at rebuilding: it is only now that they have built a team around a core of experienced players (Clarke, Haddin, I would say Rogers has brought an enormous amount, Harris, etc.) that they are beginning to look good again. This is enabling the likes of Smith, Warner, and all their young fast bowlers to learn their trade, and eventually (hopefully) become good test cricketers.

With England I think they need to put Root back where he belongs which is 6. For now, move Bell up to 3 (actually I'd like KP there TBH), but in the long run I think they'll have to blood a new number 3, so it's crucial he's surrounded by experience: if they believe Root is the eventual solution there, then stick with him, but I must say I don't see it (Root will be a very good middle-order player for sure). My best bets would be either Vince or Taylor.

Prior is still young in wicket-keeping terms (Australia replaced the much younger Wade by the 35 year old Haddin and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm), but he shouldn't be above being dropped on form. However in that case you need a stop-gap, someone like Davies maybe; Bairstow is not an international keeper.

I believe succession planning is needed for Swann and Anderson; Anderson has looked a bit tired on this tour and at times in England also, and may be nearing the end of his career. Swann similarly seems like injuries have started to take their toll, he's not getting through his action as much. Also, he seems to be obsessed with this round the wicket angle against the right-handers, which by and large isn't doing much; by all means go around the wicket as a change-up, but his best angle has always been attacking the outside off-stump line from over the wicket which brings both sides of the bat into play.

If Anderson is on the way out, then it is crucial that England play who they think could be an attack leader at 3rd seamer. That is not and will not be Bresnan (Bresnan has many qualities, but he won't replace Anderson). That is on the evidence of what I've seen either Finn or even Stokes. One or the other needs to play every game from now on until Anderson retires, so that when he does they are ready to step into his shoes. Tough on Bresnan, but he will return as a 3rd seamer once Anderson is gone possibly.

I don't know how you plan succession for spin bowlers, and I don't see anybody in the England game who would replace Swann TBH.

Finally some succession planning is needed around Bell and KP: both may retire within the next few years, and within a short distance of each other. For that reason, whoever is being earmarked as their replacement (Taylor? Ballance?) should be in and around the squad learning their trade.

This tour is not over (even if England lose here; Perth will be a result either way you feel, so if it goes England's way, then it's game back on). However it is never too early to start building for the future, and this tour has exposed a few alarming cracks in this England side (it has IMO shown just how valuable Trott has been also). Time to regroup and think, without panicking, but without shirking the tough decisions either.

Things aren't looking good for England, they have a long way to fight before they are back in this series.

Bell didn't really bat with patience- but he batted with confidence.

Carbs did bat with patience,

both batted well and both proved what they are , the problem is those were not expectational performances just acceptable to good.

in any batting line up you need 3 batters playing acceptable and 1 or 2 playing well minimum. Then you also need your bowlers to also produce something!!

Regarding KP - I said on the sledging thread that KP can be got at if you play on his ego. By setting the field Clarke did exactly that, and KP couldn't resist. That is the reason that KP can win you a match, but never a series. His high risk high reward manner of play is a luxury, and one a team that hasn't scored 400 in nearly 19 innings may not be able to afford.

Alec Srewart suggested on the SKY breakfast programme that Clarke would have Australia bat on for just another 20 minutes in the morning and then declare. Stewart's reasoning was essentially that whilst Australia didn't need any more runs, Clarke would want to have Cook and Carberry in the field at the start of play wondering when the declaration would come and, then when it did, only have ten minutes to prepare for their innings.

From some experience at Surrey, Stewart generally talks a sound, sensible game and so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss his view.

My own take though would be that Australia will bat on for about an hour.

That would allow Warner the chance to comfortably bring up his century; whilst the success of the team is clearly more important than personal milestones, the two are sometimes closely linked - another ton here for Warner will be likely to further impact confidence of Australia and England for the remainder of the series.

The extra runs scored in that hour would make the chances of Australia losing this Test as close to a total impossibility as you can get.

In line with Stewart's reasoning, it would keep England's openers wondering when their time in the middle will come and then give them little time to prepare for it.

Most of all though, it would allow Johnson a burst of 5 or 6 overs at England in the morning session and then the option to come straight back after a 40 minute rest over lunch.

Mike Selig wrote:

Prior is still young in wicket-keeping terms (Australia replaced the much younger Wade by the 35 year old Haddin and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm), but he shouldn't be above being dropped on form. However in that case you need a stop-gap, someone like Davies maybe; Bairstow is not an international keeper.

I've seen Davies quite a lot at the Oval and also met him on one occasion. He came across as thoughtful and rather quiet. Obviouslly nothing wrong with that as an individual. Nor, in my opinion, as a wicket keeper although he's clearly different from the more mouthy, aggressive keeper often sought by county and international sides. It's noticeable at the Oval that Wilson (Ireland's keeper and Davies' deputy at Surrey) can be heard all round the ground barking out comments and encouragement when he's behind the stumps whilst Davies is rarely audible. I believe this was an issue for England with Davies in the past. If so, it's unfortunate as, on song, he's a very classy batsman and highly efficient keeper.

However and that said, Davies' all round form hasn't been so good or consistent over the last season and a half since Maynard's death. He's on record as saying that it badly impacted him and, I fear, still does.

I saw Baistow keep for Yorks in Surrey's final home CC match of the season ('Sibley's match'). You are right - he's a long way short of international standard.

As regards England in this series and more generally, I will comment further but will first wait for the patient to be formally pronounced dead in this Test.

The big question isn't it...............How long do you keep faith with players who have been succesful for you in the past...............

Can't keep relying on Bell and Cook all the time.........

Another problem is the tail.........including Broad are scared of Johnson.........

The Aussie number ten.. hit five times more runs than 7-11 combined.......

Anderson isn't firing as he can.........Swann is lacking too........Only Broad is bowling well........

Hard to break the momentum.........

I don't know what england can do..The squad seems THIN.

Australia might look to build that lead up to 600, an hour of batting with intent should take them there.
South Africa batted and batted and batted for ever to save a test match. The mostly blocked their way to a hard earned draw there, with even an explosive player like AB de Villiers scoring 30 in more than 200 balls. But I don't think that approach will help England here. Unlike South Africa last year, England are not in a good mental space as a team. A wicket after a scoreless period can set some serious panic in the lineup. They have to bat with intent. Nothing reckless, but positive and smart batting is what is needed. The senior batters, Cook, KP and Bell will have to take the lead and Matt Prior should find runs pretty soon. Think England will remain loyal to Prior for the next game at least even if he fails, but his accumulated credits are almost up.......

" The Root dismissal was another: he took a chance (nothing wrong with that) but he took a chance because he felt he had to take a chance; very different from taking a chance because you want to dictate the game; in other words he took a chance not on his terms, it was Australia's relentless pressure which forced the issue."


I'm not sure that was quite the case with Root. They'd survived the pressure and were actually starting to score at a slightly better pace. My recollection is that Root had unfurled a beautiful drive off Johnson the over before and Carberry had already hit a 4 in the over when Root went for the big shot. If anything, I think it was more a case of relaxing slightly and (wrongly) concluding that he could play that shot with little risk.

While Johnson bowled well and a terrifying speed, England shot themselves in the foot with a lot of their dismissals. Vaughan's blathering about how it might well finish 5-0 Australia, similar to to his 4-0 India prediction I suppose. England, ability-wise, can save this game, but mentally they are no where.

I'm not ruling out a draw just yet, this pitch is still good to bat on and we could see a repeat of Brisbane 2010, but it's looking very likely that it will be 2-0 Australia.

If you're English and want to remain positive, I wouldn't advise watching the cricket tonight. Instead of that, you could:

1025 - BBC 1, Match of the Day (Lineker's charming smile will ease all your fears, and the football's not too bad either)

11:45 - ITV +1, the Jonathan Ross Show (the ultra-lush and absolutely delicious Olympian Tom Daley is on there)

1:05 - ITV +1, Fa Cup Highlights (cos everyone loves lower-league football!)

Don't, whatever you do, switch over to SS2 or Radio Five, there's a horror movie developing and I don't think the ending is too pretty!

That's my optimism crushed.

Only Bell and Cook seem capable of batting a longtime.........

That's the problem.........

Be a test of Cook's captaincy........Strauss was older and carried more authority.......

Will Cook be able to lift his team.........

We have crossed the line. And our issues are magnified.

It's going to take a bit of time untill we are back.at 50%.let alone 80%..

The fear is amongst us. Time to get the exocist involved.

Can anyone see Flower walking away after this series? Not sure he will want to, from the impression you get of his character you feel he'll want to right some of the wrongs of this tour and build England up again. But you do get the impression that this is start of an end of an era and it might be better for someone with some fresh ideas (not Giles which I fear is the plan) to come and start again and rebuild from there.

Of course, when we save this game and come back and win the series 3-1 then he is going nowhere!

is it really just fear though? Johnson is bowling as fast as anyone in history, and as Holding showed all those years ago - You bowl fast enough, the pitch conditions become negligible

JDizzle wrote:Can anyone see Flower walking away after this series? Not sure he will want to, from the impression you get of his character you feel he'll want to right some of the wrongs of this tour and build England up again. But you do get the impression that this is start of an end of an era and it might be better for someone with some fresh ideas (not Giles which I fear is the plan) to come and start again and rebuild from there.

Of course, when we save this game and come back and win the series 3-1 then he is going nowhere!

There were strong rumours during the home ashes series that he was considering his future, and the expectancy was that he would probably resign/retire at the end of the Aussie trip. It's well known that the job has taken somewhat of a toll on Flower, and he is keen to spend more time with his family.

On the other hand like you I'm not sure I can see Flower walking away "for personal reasons" after a thumping loss, potentially with England somewhat in disarray (beyond his ego, I think he genuinely won't want to leave England "in the lurch"). I could see him walk away if he genuinely believed he could take this side no further, but that is a different reason from the one being touted during the home leg.

As for possible replacements, it seems to be a 3 horse race between Giles, Fraser and Stewart from what I gather. According to a few people, Fraser is marginal favourite, precisely because of the reservations you express about Giles being too much in continuity with Flower. Continuity is fine, but simply regurgitating the exact same plans is rarely if ever a recipe for success.

Returning ...hoping the dust had settled a bit  

Read Mike's lengthy summary and agreed with much of it. Certainly KP played what was not a % shot : I think that is too kind ; it was brainless !
Seems hard to be critical of Carberry , but I suspect the worthy 60 he got today is about his limit ...any better than Compton ? ...and his fielding looks a bit ...variable.
Prior looks shot. Bairstow may not be a full time successor , but he is the alternative. Actually I think he should be at six anyway.
Surely this is the end of the folly of picking two finger spinners in Australia ? If they really think Monty is more value than Swann then just replace him - though it will not improve the team. But spare us the delusion that finger spinners will be a serious influence on a series in Australia. Never were , never will be .
I hope you are wrong about Anderson being near the end. Shouldn't be - no older than Johnson. Thought he looked better today in second innings , and fancy if the batsmen could put a score on the board he will still be the most likely to win a game with the ball.
Bresnan should play in Perth. They need his reliability ...and his runs. I wouldn't play a spinner at all in Perth , so you can still pick a Finn or a Stokes.
Bell has to go to three. Looks a class apart right now, batting and clear thinking. Root (what a pity they ever moved him up the order ! ) can go back and play 5/6.
Paradoxically , Perth does offer a way back. If the batsmen can muster a half- decent total (big ask on present form , but still ) I reckon England have the bowlers to knock Australia over on a pitch that offers a bit of movement. Clarke part , they haven't overnight turned into a bunch of batting superstars.
To be honest this is looking like a right carve up , 4-0 or worse : but it isn't over yet and I would hope there remains enough pride and fight in the England dressing room to keep it alive...

Don't see any reason to rush Flower out the door...that is football style management. Different if he has had enough , of course , but if he is up for the rebuilding job - and I would agree some is needed , whatever the outcome of this series - then why wouldn't you want a man who has already taken them to the top once ?

Flower said he was probally leaving after the Home ashes- So I am actually surprised he is still here.

He will be off after this one.. I think its time, he has been thinking about it and this will give him the final shove.

I dont think he will be sacked, but I think he will leave any way.

Mitchell Johnson has taken 16 wickets at 8.93 in the series.

Golly.

Duty281 wrote:Mitchell Johnson has taken 16 wickets at 8.93 in the series.

Golly.

I blame the Barmy Army ...they overdid the mockery  

I blame Johnson's moustache.

Someone needs to shave it off.

It is having a Samson effect

mystiroakey wrote:Flower said he was probally leaving after the Home ashes- So I am actually surprised he is still here.

He will be off after this one.. I think its time, he has been thinking about it and this will give him the final shove.

I dont think he will be sacked, but I think he will leave any way.

Did he actually say that ? Or was that one of those "reliable sources report" things ?

As Mike says , he may not want to walk away at a low point. It really depends on his appetite for the future work , which will be challenging whatever the final result here.

It was in the news alfie

and i remember a reporter asking him if he was leaving after the speculation, and he said "we shall see"

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Mitchell Johnson has taken 16 wickets at 8.93 in the series.

Golly.

I blame the Barmy Army ...they overdid the mockery  

He bowls to the head,
He bowls to the stummmpsss,
That Mitchell Johnson,
He ruined England's night.

mystiroakey wrote:It was in the news alfie

and i remember a reporter asking him if he was leaving after the speculation, and he said "we shall see"

"we shall see" sounds a bit short of a definite decision , don't you think ?

We shall see , I suppose  

alfie wrote:
Paradoxically , Perth does offer a way back.  If the batsmen can muster a half- decent total (big ask on present form , but still ) I reckon England have the bowlers to knock Australia over on a pitch that offers a bit of movement. Clarke part , they haven't overnight turned into a bunch of batting superstars.

I agree with this. Perth is a result pitch, and if England can bat first and get 250+ on the board I believe the England attack combined with the Aussie batting have it in them for a complete collapse to give England a crucial advantage.
Assuming England don't complete a miraculous fightback here, it will be either 3-0 or 2-1 after Perth; if 2-1 England all of a sudden "only" need a win and a draw from the final couple of tests. That's not completely beyond the realms of possibility.

On Flower, as I said there were strong rumours during the home series, but they were just that - rumours (albeit from what I believe to be reliable sources). I haven't heard anything concrete from anybody directly in the know.

Sorry Mike but many things tell me this series is over.

1. England's confidence/self belief is shot and that cannot be turned on an off like a tap.

2. England cannot make 200 on a batsman's paradise in Adelaide so how can they score 200+ at Perth - where I believe they have only won their once.

3. Australia are focussed and hungry whereas England look punch drunk and bewildered.

4. Far too many of the England side are in a poor vein of form to be able to turn two heavy test defeats into a surprise test win.

guildfordbat wrote:
I saw Baistow keep for Yorks in Surrey's final home CC match of the season ('Sibley's match'). You are right - he's a long way short of international standard.

Was a superb innings by Sibley, but one missed catch by Bairstow was about as bad as it gets for a wicketkeeper.....

At the time of the summer series, news reports indicated that Flower might leave after the Ashes doubleheader. Perhaps he will, its been 6 years almost. But I hope they don't pick Gyles as his replacement. They need a person outside the current setup, and Gyles is better at poaching rather than coaching!.

Also very much key is if you were to do a poll of who the most infuential players in the England side in recent Ashes Series the answers you'd get would be:-

Alastair Cook (Been out of touch with the bat this series)
Andrew Strauss (Now retired and not suitably replaced)
Jonathan Trott (Mentally fried and out of form and out of the side and no replacement in place)
Kevin Pietersen (Badly out of touch with the bat)
Ian Bell (One who can still hold his head high)
Matt Prior (Woeful with the bat now when used to excel)
Graeme Swann (Lost that golden touch when he had a knack of getting a wicket in his first over)
James Anderson (lost a lot of form and consistency he had in line and length)

That is key.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also very much key is if you were to do a poll of who the most infuential players in the England side in recent Ashes Series the answers you'd get would be:-

Alastair Cook (Been out of touch with the bat this series)
Andrew Strauss (Now retired and not suitably replaced)
Jonathan Trott (Mentally fried and out of form and out of the side and no replacement in place)
Kevin Pietersen (Badly out of touch with the bat)
Ian Bell (One who can still hold his head high)
Matt Prior (Woeful with the bat now when used to excel)
Graeme Swann (Lost that golden touch when he had a knack of getting a wicket in his first over)
James Anderson (lost a lot of form and consistency he had in line and length)

That is key.

Craig - as I said about another post of yours the other day, I understand where you're coming from and why although I don't subscribe to it all.

You are certainly right that too many of those we expected to be able to rely upon to put us at the top of this Ashes tree have fared badly and left us at the bottom.

I strongly agree with you highlighting Pietersen's failings. Yes, he can be a genius but the time is now overdue for him to stand up and take responsibility. In my view, too many posters indulge him too much.

Although his stats to date on this tour don't much help my opinion, I feel you're too quick to condemn Anderson and that he remains one of the finest bowlers of his kind. Similarly, unless injury prevents otherwise, Swann should go on for a good time yet and I expect the tide to turn for him. Australia were very successful in targetting Swann in the first Test but that approach won't always work. Swann's greatest attribute is that he's a thinking spin bowler - that won't change overnight.

Another we're missing is Bresnan. Rarely a star of the show but his influence as an effective supporting act with both bat and ball has still been influential and shouldn't be underestimated. Going back a little further, what I would give now for Collingwood to guts things out?!

Yes I may be being overly harsh on Anderson but he has set his standards so high in recent years that this series has been a let down. Facts remain that all of England's key players (Bell and maybe Broad aside) have been major disappointments. To have so many off-form key players it is inevitable that we are seeing England being destroyed.

Looking at today's play and see that showers are forecast for today and time could be lost. Could this forecast encourage Australia to declare earlier than they'd want?

Beat the pulp put of them and send them on a leather hunt ...extent the lead to 620....and then declare about 30 to 40 min before lunch...bowl then out for a 120 and win by 500 runs is the script Boof is working on

michael Vaughan wrote:Even when England lost 5-0 in 2006-07, I don't remember them folding like this. This is as bad as I have seen from an England side."

Vaughan, who captained England to their first Ashes triumph in 18 years in 2005, believes there were signs their standards were slipping during the 3-0 victory over Australia in July and August.

"The last three Test matches of the summer were the warning signs for this England team," added Vaughan.

"They weren't playing great. Their brand of cricket was poor - attritional and very negative. If you can't go out and express your game when you are 2-0 up in an Ashes series on home soil, when you've doctored your own decks, there's a real problem.

Vaughan says the same....warning signs..... attritional , negative cricket ( same as dead-dfenesive, dour, negative defeatists)

"Cook 'em for a little bit more" was the phrase used by Mitch Johnson at the press conference but Craig is right - they'll need to keep an eye on the weather especially this afternoon. No need to bat for much longer.

The temperature will drop to the low 20s when the cool SW change arrives...  down from a muggy 32. It's quite hot further north (there's a prevailing N-NW desert airflow into Adelaide currently) and it will be relatively uncomfortable out in the field this morning.

KP_f:
Apparently (according to stats on espncricinfo) it's the worst performance ever for positions 5-10 England batting in a series... with an ave. of something like 8.5 runs? No wonder Vaughan feels something is out of order.

Linebreaker, giving it more thought I think Australia should not concern themselves at all with the weather forecast. Yesterday England lost nine wickets in less than two sessions so time is not an issue unless a session or twonis lost to rain and that is not forecast to happen.

Warne reckons they might even declare before play starts but I reckon they'll let Warner have a quick bash for a few overs.

Michael Clarke has declared.

Probably a wise decision. For the second test in succession then this could be over inside four days.

Anyone else fancy England to knock this off and head to Perth at 1-1?

Nope?

Oh well...

I don't fancy England batting against a tennis ball on a carpet.

But I am still watching in hope