3rd Ashes Test, Perth

First topic message reminder :

Western Australia next, which means staying up even later to watch the start of the third test.

You would think Perth is one place the Aussies should win, so what do we do?

Panic, and drop Swann, but leave Monty in? Or perhaps play four or five seamers? Has Stokes done enough? He showed plenty of attitude, so yes, he probably has.

Has Prior done enough to see him promoted to six, as Stokes isn't one..............yet? Maybe not but we have to try and win, and playing him at six, would enable us to play five bowlers again, with Monty dropping out.

Who comes in? Finn, the 90mph quickie, with a strike rate around 50? Reliable Tim? Just coming back from injury but will give 100%, won't get smacked around, and can bat a bit. Or rankin? This would be the biggest gamble imo, as he has no test experience.

My team:

Cook
Carberry
Root
Pietersen
Bell
Prior
Stokes
Broad
Swann
Finn
Anderson

jimbohammers wrote:KP, can you tell me where you got those batting stats from? I've been looking everywhere for 'batsmen runs' in this current Ashes tour.

Cheers

There you go, jimbo

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=7899;team=1;type=series

Let us remember as well that both pitches so far have favoured the batsmen and has not offered a lot for bowlers hence both pitches have been a win toss bat first scenario.

England's batting has offered up three totally unacceptable scores and one that may just about have made par.

England's bowling has offered up a good stab in the first innings at Brisbane though could have been even better. A poor showing in Brisbane's second innings it can be said. The first innings in Adelaide would have been a decent effort to restrict Australia to about a par score if key catches had been held. The second innings is not worth judging really considering England's batting by that time left them up **** creek without a paddle.

Englands cause certainly hasnt been helped by the tosses, and they certainly arent down to the bowlers or even really selection of specific batsmen.

Do we live on a planet where Bairstow (poor test record) Ballance and Barry Chuckle would suddenly be getting double centuries in the top 3?

They team has cracked mentally, and been cracked by classic Aussie hard play on top of a problem that has been building for a long time.
These are not bad players, but when was the last time they had a good first innings in a test series? That grew into a lack of big scores in any innings and now into a complete flump.

Something stinks in that dressing room and its not just KPs dry roast nuts.

Something more than a couple of middle order batsmen and an all rounder needs to change in this team to deal with that. Aus have shown how things can be turned around with what on paper is a weaker side than the one that got humped last time, and it didnt take England that long (just a few hard choices and long term projects) to turn around their previous disaster tour here.

Turning it round mid series isnt going to happen purely by chopping and changing the bowlers every game. A little bit of luck, winning a toss, and someone just standing up could. Maybe Mitch will crack again, hes shown exactly the kind of mental fragility Englands batsmen currently are in the past game to game. The Aussie batting line up still isnt frightening or invincible.
(Straws clutching)

Anyway my point is they could pick a cup a soup for the next test but thats not going to change Englands chances. Sorting out the mental game and maybe getting a bit of luck could.

I suspect the change will be Bresnan for Panesar.

Cricinfo says Lyon is a likely starter. This will hopefully persuade England to play either Swann or Paneser.

I am just wondering how England will play this if they win the toss?

Do they bat and put their brittle batting under further scrutiny and pressure or do they bowl and run the risk of the Aussies posting another big total?

Considering there were encouraging signs in the batting in their second innings at Adelaide then I feel they should bat.

Batting first seems the more logical. If we can post 400, even 350, this may out some pressure on the Aussie batting line up, which is, imo, still brittle, barring Clarke. We have showed we can get through their top/middle order, but we just need to finish them off.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I suspect the change will be Bresnan for Panesar.

I think that is how they will go, although I won't be surprised if Stokes is dropped for the extra batsman, with Ballance coming in.

Reading between the lines of Flower he said he is not afraid to make tough decisions. He conceded Swann had been a big player for England but would presume that was to soften the blow of him getting the chop and would be his 'tough decision'. Stokes, I feel will play, as Flowers praised his performance plus his pace I think is needed in Perth. Bresnan seems like the favoured choice to replace Swann and I think that will be the only change.

Chances of Finn playing .... Zero

Flower wrote: Finn is working through a few aspects of his bowling. I wouldn't say Finn is at his best at the moment. He's not at his best but I think he's actually just starting to turn things around. But it is good to have Bresnan back as an option and obviously we have got Tremlett and Rankin as options as well and their height and bounce could be assets that we could use in Perth. But let's have a look at the pitch first.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Reading between the lines of Flower he said he is not afraid to make tough decisions. He conceded Swann had been a big player for England but would presume that was to soften the blow of him getting the chop and would be his 'tough decision'. Stokes, I feel will play, as Flowers praised his performance plus his pace I think is needed in Perth. Bresnan seems like the favoured choice to replace Swann and I think that will ne the only change.

Ive just been reading that same interview and he does leave open the option of playing no spinner.

To me that leaves England with a very samey attack regardless of who the 4 seamers are. Whilst each has their own attributes the chances are the fastest ones ( Finn and Woakes) wont be playing, and only Anderson isnt a "tall fast medium". All right armers.
It really doesnt seem a smart plan. Although it would play to their strength to some extent Australia wont be looking to prepare a lethally quick wicket with ridiculous bounce and risk turning the game into a lottery.

Thanks LB

To me it makes no sense to play without a spinner. Didn't Panesar once take five wickets at Perth a few years ago? Sure it is renowned for its pace but also bounce which spinners can use to their advantage as well as the 'Fremantle Doctor'. For me bringing in two quickies ie Brenan and Tremlett offers no real variety in attack as they are a much of a muchness.

I think Panesar took a five wicket-haul of this ground in 2006, and he does benefit from the extra bounce, so the choice of spinner will come right down to the wire. We have to play one spinner, that is sure.

The batting needs shoring up, so while it may appear harsh on Stokes, a specialist batsman has to come in at 6. I would plump for Ballance, but Bairstow's experience may give him a slight edge.

No I would stick with Stokes as he offers an extra bowler and has more pace than Anderson and Broad. He looks tenacious too with good spirit which the team needs at the moment.

Stokes's pace will be nice, as we don't have too much. We have to take a risk, and play five bowlers really, and let the batsmen score the runs.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am just wondering how England will play this if they win the toss?

Do they bat and put their brittle batting under further scrutiny and pressure or do they bowl and run the risk of the Aussies posting another big total?

Considering there were encouraging signs in the batting in their second innings at Adelaide then I feel they should bat.

For me and as mentioned on the second Test thread, it's back to the advice that Cyril Washbrook, Lancashire's first ever professional captain in the 1950s, gave to David Lloyd when he (Bumble) took on the same captaincy in the mid-1970s: ''Upon winning the toss, you have two choices. Bat or think about it and then bat.''

I appreciate certain up and coming coaches might disagree.  

[url=http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/cricket/20241343/harvey-clay-puts-fear-into-english-batsmen/ ]http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/cricket/20241343/harvey-clay-puts-fear-into-english-batsmen/ [/url]

seanmichaels wrote:http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/cricket/20241343/harvey-clay-puts-fear-into-english-batsmen/

Craig McDermott's piled on a few pounds.

guildfordbat wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am just wondering how England will play this if they win the toss?

Do they bat and put their brittle batting under further scrutiny and pressure or do they bowl and run the risk of the Aussies posting another big total?

Considering there were encouraging signs in the batting in their second innings at Adelaide then I feel they should bat.

For me and as mentioned on the second Test thread, it's back to the advice that Cyril Washbrook, Lancashire's first ever professional captain in the 1950s, gave to David Lloyd when he (Bumble) took on the same captaincy in the mid-1970s: ''Upon winning the toss, you have two choices. Bat or think about it and then bat.''

I appreciate certain up and coming coaches might disagree.  

At Perth I would bat first, almost always. With either of these two teams I would bat first without even thinking about it.
I think it was alfie who said the best time to bat in Perth is usually the 3rd innings. I would agree. The first couple of days are very lively, so neither side is IMO likely to take much of a lead after their first innings. The 3rd innings is then good for batting, the 4th is ok but with uneven bounce coming into it, and scoreboard pressure.

As for England's team, I think Flower is strongly suggesting:
- Swann will be dropped
- England will strengthen their batting by picking 6 specialists

I would say Bresnan for Swann, and Ballance/Bairstow for either Stokes or Panesar seem likely.
Finn won't play (I think this is wrong at this stage) going by Flower's words, but it seems possible given the praise given to Stokes that England go in with 4 seamers (including Stokes) which wouldn't be the end of the world (at Perth).

Australia I think we are fairly certain will remain unchanged.

Time to start building for the future - drop Pietersen! His first innings dismissal was gormless, as moronic as I've ever seen. Time to make an example of someone.

One thing is pretty clear, Steven Finn won't play. Ballance hasn't done great in the limited opportunities that he got for England, and Bairstow is a batsman with a few technical problems that might get particularly exposed on this track. Don't think dropping Stokes would be a very smart move in that context. He batted out of character in the 2nd innings, hung on very well though he couldn't convert that into a substantive innings. He bowled with pace and that is something England would need. Playing the injury returning Tim Bresnan as one of only 4 bowlers would be a very risky move. Keep Stokes in, bring Bresnan in at 8 as they have taken a call on Finn already. If Bresnan isn't quite ready, then get Rankin in. As for taking a call between Swann and Monty, I am getting closer to retaining Monty for this track......

Mike Selig wrote:

... As for England's team, I think Flower is strongly suggesting:
- Swann will be dropped
- England will strengthen their batting by picking 6 specialists

I would say Bresnan for Swann, and Ballance/Bairstow for either Stokes or Panesar seem likely.
Finn won't play (I think this is wrong at this stage) going by Flower's words, but it seems possible given the praise given to Stokes that England go in with 4 seamers (including Stokes) which wouldn't be the end of the world (at Perth).

...

Mike - I agree with you as to where Flower's suggestions appear to be going.

I'll be sorry if, as looks likely, Swann misses out. His craft and guile together with his resilience push him towards being the best England slow bowler for all surfaces that I've seen since the 1960s. I fully accept that to date on this tour he has been incredibly disappointing but he still has enough credit in the Bat Bank (Guildford branch) to play at Perth.

I understand the weather forecast is for it to be very hot which also increases the need for a slow bowler to take some of the workload off the seamers. Yes, we have Root and even Pietersen; as said before, I don't mind either of them bowling the odd over to try and break a batsman's concentration but we shouldn't be looking to use either of them more than that. You need Test class bowlers (and neither is even a regular county bowler) to bowl at Test class batsmen.

Pansar instead of Swann, then? Nah, not for me. He failed to make anything like a convincing case in the last Test and is a clear weakness in the field.

I think Flower's praise for Stokes can be taken two ways. 1), confirmation that he'll play or 2), kind and deserved words to comfort a tough and tactical decision to leave him out.

It does look like we're putting a lot of eggs in the Bresnan basket, especially so if the main bowling attack is him and three other seamers. I'll credit the selectors are comfortable with his strength and fitness but do wonder how effective he'll be after such a long lay off.

Whatever the eleven, it seems increasingly unlikely that any of Finn, Tremlett and Rankin will be turning their arm at Perth. Don't think many a few weeks ago saw that coming, including the selectors.

PS Pleased the Washbrook / Lloyd comment got the intended nibble!   

PPS Stella - just seen film of McDermott now. Makes me feel I don't have to go quite so easy on the second helpings over Christmas!   

Cook
Carberry
Root
Pietersen
Bell
Ballance
Stokes
Prior
Bresnan
Broad
Anderson

Sean - that's the team and batting order Alec Stewart suggested the other night.

That team looks a little one dimensional to me. I know Root can spin it, but he ain't no Swann. That said, that may be the team they go with.

guildfordbat wrote:Sean - that's the team and batting order Alec Stewart suggested the other night.

I hadn't seen that. I would personally be torn between Finn and Bresnan but I'm fairly sure they'll go with Bresnan.

seanmichaels wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Sean - that's the team and batting order Alec Stewart suggested the other night.

I hadn't seen that. I would personally be torn between Finn and Bresnan but I'm fairly sure they'll go with Bresnan.

Sean - Stewart was convinced that Bresnan would come in and referred to it as ''just a given''. Made me wonder if he had some inside information.

Bresnan is underrated. England's win to loss ratio with him in the side is huge. I guess Cook can chuck him the ball and get 8/9 over spells out of him whatever the conditions.

Bresnan is just a solid 3rd seamer who can bat a bit. That's about it. Yes his record of being in winning england sides is a good one, but I'd prefer to see Rankin/Finn given a go just to try something different. Especially at the WACA where the pitch will suit them more than Bresnan. For me, Stokes can do Bresnan's role as he showed on debut, bowl quicker than him and for long spells whilst keeping it tight. Also better with the bat. I'd like to see a bit of risk taking and go with Finn but its clear they don't fancy him one bit which is frustrating for me as a big finn fan.

End of the day though, bowlers can only do so well when they keep having to bowl after 30/40 overs rest between innings and then bowling with a deficit of 400+ runs. Time for the batsmen to turn up and show some fight. There were some positive signs from Root/Carberry/Bell/KP/Prior and even Stokes that they were getting to grips better and digging in. Cook needs a big knock also. Time to show some guts, play sensibly, see off Johnson and put on 1st innings runs. Oh and stop hooking when there are two men out on the rope for god sake! common sense.

Cook(C)
Carberry
Root
KP
Bell
Stokes
Prior
Bresnan
Broad
Anderson
Panesar

Is the side I'd go with, based on the noises that are coming out from the camp about Finn not playing and it sounding like Swann will be dropped. However, wouldn't be surprised to see Panesar drop out for Ballance who comes in at 6 and the rest dropping down the order.

Ballance perhaps staking a claim for a spot in the side sharing a sizeable partnership with Sam Robson for the EPP in a match in Perth against a Western Australia XI.

A couple more good knocks from Root at 3 could cement his place there..he looked right at home in that knock of 87 and is really the only batsman who looks comfortable against Mitch and the short pitched bowling.

The Waca is the one place I'd bowl first without any hesitation. Bowl first, drop missiles, and then bat for nearly 200 overs, and try set up an innings win... Problem is, I'm not sure England can bat long at all.

i dont think any of us do lol..

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ballance perhaps staking a claim for a spot in the side sharing a sizeable partnership with Sam Robson for the EPP in a match in Perth against a Western Australia XI.

If they bring a batsman in, I reckon it will be Ballance. Bairstow appears to be there as the backup 'Keeper. If Bairstow was really in the mix for a batting spot, I think they would have batted him higher than #7 in the Chairmans X1 match and also allowed him a bat in the ongoing game against WA.

kingraf wrote:The Waca is the one place I'd bowl first without any hesitation. Bowl first, drop missiles, and then bat for nearly 200 overs, and try set up an innings win... Problem is, I'm not sure England can bat long at all.

England haven't reached 400 in 20 test innings now.

Therefore, they must be nearly guaranteed to do it at the 21st attempt.   

#stat

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:The Waca is the one place I'd bowl first without any hesitation. Bowl first, drop missiles, and then bat for nearly 200 overs, and try set up an innings win... Problem is, I'm not sure England can bat long at all.

England haven't reached 400 in 20 test innings now.

Therefore, they must be nearly guaranteed to do it at the 21st attempt.   

#stat

it is rare...Duty281's words lack conviction   

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:The Waca is the one place I'd bowl first without any hesitation. Bowl first, drop missiles, and then bat for nearly 200 overs, and try set up an innings win... Problem is, I'm not sure England can bat long at all.

England haven't reached 400 in 20 test innings now.

Therefore, they must be nearly guaranteed to do it at the 21st attempt.   

#stat

it is rare...Duty281's words lack conviction   

I'm actually coming round to the idea that England will win it 3-2.

Little signs of the batting improving, Australia are a touch complacent, and you just feel the English bowlers are going to spring right into life in the next Test.

2-1, then brittle Australia lose their nerve under a capacity crowd in the MCG. 2-2.

Momentum with England going into the SCG, 3-2. #keepthefaith

Genuinely annoyed Finn isn't being considered for the 3rd Test. Bresnan is just a safe option and when we have Stokes who bats better than him and bowls quicker and just as economical, Bresnan shouldn't even be considered. We need an out and out wicket taker and that's Finn. 4/5 over bursts, flat out pace, might go for 50 in one spell but then take 3 the next. But he's not being considered so i'd go left field and play Rankin

Think that as runs are at short supply - a few bursts from finn could push the aussies out of sight. Defensive thinking and a lack of faith in their talents which might lose them the test anyway.

Bresnan is perfect as a 3rd seamer. Tight, economical, chips in with a few wickets, and can bat.

You don't want a wayward Finn or an inexperienced Rankin as your 3rd seamer. Stokes isn't that economical either.

Finn would be just too much of a risk that England cannot afford to take at the moment. Everything points to him still having problems with his game preferring the long run up even though it makes him far less accurate. He has played on this tour and failed to impress at all so on what grounds should that make him a shoo in to the side? Finn on form get him in but he is nowhere near that stage evidently as his tour performances show and listening to Flowers talk about his problems.

Then he's an idiot for not sticking to that shortened run up. Don't care if he felt uncomfortable, he was bowling 90mph + and was accurate. Why change for crying out loud?!

That is very true Liam. It takes some figuring out. Perhaps he is too stubborn and proud to admit his style (long run up) doesn't work or perhaps he is not keen on admitting the coaching staff know best.

I think that it would be a mistake to change the team too much myself. This is the team I would have in.

Cook(C)
Carberry
Root
KP
Bell
Stokes
Prior
Tremlett/Bresnan
Broad
Anderson
Panesar

I just don't think that its worth the gamble on Finn if he is not right on form. If the bowlers are on top and Finn has one of his wayward bowling spells then the Aussies could get some confidence.

England need a result at the WACA (I would consider a draw a result at this moment in time) so a more defensive approach would probably be the better option. As weird as this may sound, I would not be unhappy to bowl second at the WACA considering the temps and that the Fremantle Doctor may not appear until day 4 so Monty would be a very big handful bowling with the doctor in the 4th innings.

Tim Bresnan may have a few things going for him, but the whole campaign based on his economy is far-fetched.
Among bowlers involved in this series, Both Monty Panesar (2.78) and Graeme Swann (2.97) have a better economy rate than the 3.00 of Bresnan.
Peter Siddle goes at 2.95, Ryon Harris at 2.83 and Shane Watson at 2.74.
Vernon Philander goes at 2.76, Jacques Kallis at 2.83 and Ravindra Jadeja at 2.03.
McGrath had an economy rate of 2.49, Shaun Pollock 2.39, Ambrose at 2.30 and Walsh 2.53.

msp83 wrote:Tim Bresnan may have a few things going for him, but the whole campaign based on his economy is far-fetched.
Among bowlers involved in this series, Both Monty Panesar (2.78) and Graeme Swann (2.97) have a better economy rate than the 3.00 of Bresnan.
Peter Siddle goes at 2.95, Ryon Harris at 2.83 and Shane Watson at 2.74.
Vernon Philander goes at 2.76, Jacques Kallis at 2.83 and Ravindra Jadeja at 2.03.
McGrath had an economy rate of 2.49, Shaun Pollock 2.39, Ambrose at 2.30 and Walsh 2.53.

However, in this series Swann's economy is over 4. 4.05 to be precise and Monty 3.66. It's pretty irrelevant anyway.

I'd suggest strike rate is more important and Broad has carried the burden for England. His current 41.4 S/R obviously includes his lesser performance in Adelaide - so he is doing the lion's share of the bowling work for England. Tremlett is next on 54, Stokes 75... Swann 147 and Monty 162.

For Australia - Johnson 28, Harris 50.7, Siddle 51.1 and Lyon 75. Our seamers are sharing the workload pretty effectively.

Name change on the thread?

I agree with Linbreaker, the strike rate is the more important aspect. Broad has been the only really effective bowler for England this series and he needs a little support. I do like Broad/Panesar tandem bowling thing. It has been very effective in the past.
Jimmy looks somewhat out of sorts so I hope that he will find a little form come Friday.

Linebreaker wrote:

msp83 wrote:Tim Bresnan may have a few things going for him, but the whole campaign based on his economy is far-fetched.
Among bowlers involved in this series, Both Monty Panesar (2.78) and Graeme Swann (2.97) have a better economy rate than the 3.00 of Bresnan.
Peter Siddle goes at 2.95, Ryon Harris at 2.83 and Shane Watson at 2.74.
Vernon Philander goes at 2.76, Jacques Kallis at 2.83 and Ravindra Jadeja at 2.03.
McGrath had an economy rate of 2.49, Shaun Pollock 2.39, Ambrose at 2.30 and Walsh 2.53.

However, in this series Swann's economy is over 4. 4.05 to be precise and Monty 3.66. It's pretty irrelevant anyway.

I'd suggest strike rate is more important and Broad has carried the burden for England. His current 41.4 S/R obviously includes his lesser performance in Adelaide - so he is doing the lion's share of the bowling work for England. Tremlett is next on 54, Stokes 75... Swann 147 and Monty 162.

For Australia - Johnson 28, Harris 50.7, Siddle 51.1 and Lyon 75. Our seamers are sharing the workload pretty effectively.

Bresnan hasn't played in the series as yet, so can't really compare. And LB, the point isn't exactly that as you'd know, people have been hyping up Bresnan's economy rate, just wanted to put things in perspective.
England are unlikely to go the strike rate rway, the control freaks are likely to look at economy rate and perceptions around it rather than strike rate. Finn has an impressive strike rate if you remember.......

Hey what is this title change all about? Doesn't seem to be making a lot of sense.......