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

good to see Swann getting a couple of wickets, but still looks well below his best..

Steve Smith was so humble in his press conference saying the honours on the first day were "about even". However, I'm sure the he, along with the majority of people who witnessed the events of the day unfold realise that 326/6 is a fine platform from which to turn the screws further in the next couple of days.

England were again unable to capitalise after a decent start.

Rogers was tempting fate and was always going to come off 2nd best with a direct hit. Hesitation + slower legs added up to poor judgement from him.

Watson - fell into the trap yet again unable to resist having a flail at a wider delivery. Very poor and undisciplined batting from him for the umpteenth time.

Clarke would be kicking himself too. It was rather an innocuous delivery from Swann - it just needed to be played with more respect (i.e. straight bat defensive) and not the off-balance swipe across the line he did. It was the wrong shot to attack and he paid the price.

Warner was probably hoping he'd get more bat on his cut shot but he was surprised by the bounce and thus unable to control it properly. Bullied the bowlers around for his 60 runs though and he will be looking to make amends in his 2nd dig.

Bailey - the less said about his dismissal the better. Awful execution of the hook shot to a rising delivery from Broad which got what it deserved.  

The Smith-Haddin partnership was again symptomatic of the pattern of the Australian batting recovery in this series when they seemed to be well and truly on the ropes. The 6 from Smith to open his account signified his batting intentions and was an ominous sign from an England point of view. Haddin batted with conviction too.

The very few chances that were offered by these two batsmen coupled with the oppressive heat, tiring bowling, poor field placements (they played in front mostly for their 124 run partnership and did not fall for the trap which claimed Warner & Bailey) gave Australia the upper hand yet again from early in that 2nd session onwards.

Although Haddin eventually fell to a tired pull shot after the bowling had slowed the scoring in the preceding few overs I still believe Cook got it wrong with his negative tactics - it was if he was trying to stem the flow of scoring rather than remind his seamers to keep banging away on a fuller length and hope more mistakes would come - which they again failed to do. What is the England "think tank" doing?

The most successful teams playing at the WACA always have a laden slips cordon and it's all about getting the ball to land in the corridor of uncertainty. The 7-2 field was never going to produce a bundle of wickets and it was great to see Johnson destroy the bowling late in the day. It was negative captaincy which got what it deserved.

Whilst still on negativity: this unsportsman-like tactic of having "mother's meetings" (as Warne described them) after almost every ball - also backfired. It showed the batsmen that they (Smith & Johnson) had the upper hand. Surely the fielders know the plan (they've had plenty of time to put plans in place as to how to set the field in any given scenario) so why the painfully slow stoppages every few minutes?

To see the two batsmen settled at the crease 2 minutes before the England players finished their drinks (and the umpires... who lacked any control of the situation and showed absolutely no urgency at all and need to be reminded it seems!) was another huge positive for Australia. They owned the day by a clear margin. I'm glad they were not 7 or 8 down at C.o.P. - England didn't deserve any more wickets late on the day with their usual behaviour bordering on "against the spirit of the game" and which only served to prolong their uncomfortable stay out in the blazing hot WA sun.

Finally, Johnson's late surge is another ominous sign for England one would feel. He will be unstoppable with ball in hand. Watch him hit the right spot and Ryan Harris keeping the England batsmen's hands full from the other end. The extra 5-10 km/h will prove decisive yet again you'd have to say. If some of the Australian batsmen came unstuck with lesser bowling on this WACA pitch - imagine how the England batsmen will fare.

England still have to get these two out and on form I can see Australia reaching a total which will be far beyond anything England can produce. I may be horribly wrong of course but this match and Series is as good as gone. It will take some magic from England to win at a ground where they have never beaten a (proper) Australian side before.

msp83 wrote:[...]the Bresnan myth is so entrenched that it has to be brought along one way or the other.

Not with me it isn't. I personally wouldn't have picked Bresnan for this game (given how Anderson is currently bowling I would have had him fulfill the holding role, and replaced Bresnan either with Finn or even a specialist batsman), and haven't always been a fan, but I feel he did well today (with the caveat I didn't see his first spell live). Kept things tight, and created a few chances which didn't go to hand.

Stokes also did well. I don't see why in praising him you feel the need to denigrate Bresnan though. I think Bresnan allowed Stokes to be used effectively (in short bursts) and covered for Broad's aggressive style. Of course ifs and buts always exist, and it's possible had England picked Finn they would have rolled Australia over, but I personally think Bresnan did his job.

Agree pretty much with the rest of your post. Am too a big fan of Smith; I actually think Australia may have helped him (somewhat unwillingly I suspect) by picking him (for the 2nd time) relatively late (compared to the likes of Hughes) - he seems to have built up a good awareness of his game, his limitations and his strengths. And at the risk of jinxing him, the guy has one of the 2 best pair of hands in world cricket at the moment.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results-Albert Einstein

--pitch same as Brisbane....pacy and bouncy

--Aus bats first...same as brisbane

--Aus in a heap of trouble at 140-5.....similar to Brisbane's 132-6. Althouhg here bad shots were more the cause of Auss downfall and bettter bowling at Brisbane.

--Aus recovred to post 300 instead of being bundled for 180 in Brisbane...and here they have recoved and looking like getting to 370+ instead of being bundled for 225
because ion both cased Eng's bowling lacked firepower to blas out the lower order


--If we extrapolate the script......Johnson, Harris etal will demolish Eng for paltry tomm.
Because by Einstien's theory of insanity.....if you do the same thing over and over again...you don't get diffrent results.

--so like brisbane on the pacy bouncy pitch..eng does not have a real pace bowler or two...
they could have had Finn and Boyd Rankin both in the XI..instead of trundler Bresnan who brings notional comfort of scoring some runs.
...and Swann who inspite of his two wickets....looked duly ordinary on this pitch that far from his custom designed stuff.....was in only because Flower could not break the emotional knott of dumping his "buddy" from good times...in these bad times.

--and those who will blame the batsmen in the aftermath... please note match is gone from England's grasp even before their batsmen could face the first delivery.

Aye KP,

your right.

Its a recurring nightmare

Lot of analysis on the bowling , some of it seemingly based on personal preferences of individual bowlers...

Anderson getting too much criticism in my book. Yes he is not getting wickets at present , primarily because he is not getting the movement which is his main cutting edge. Partly conditions - not much lateral movement for anyone - and probably partly down to that hard to define thing which sometimes afflicts swing bowlers in which you are just a little bit "off" . He remains however the one England bowler to maintain a bit of control ; going at just 2.5 per over yesterday while the wicket takers are going at 4 or more. A bit more middle ground would help all round : Broad has been dangerous , but often has given away too many free runs which has released a bit of pressure ; has in fact done this throughout the series , one reason why England have been reluctant to select Finn who offers an even more dramatic double edged sword of wicket taking potential and profligacy in the run rate.  Add in Swann's inability to hold down the runs and we see the real problem is the overall combination isn't quite working - at least not for a full day.  Oddly enough the closest they have come to doing so is when the much-maligned Tremlett ( well down on his best , I agree) played in Brisbane. I also give the Australian batsmen , particularly Haddin , Clarke of course , and Warner credit for playing their roles ...and Smith in this game.

I actually think the combined attack did pretty well for most of the day ; though as Saker acknowledged they probably bowled a bit too short.  The heat effect sapped everyone by the evening and it was no surprise they couldn't finish the Australians off in the overtime period.

To sum up I agree the bowling as a whole hasn't quite clicked. Would have liked to see how they'd do if Australia were ever forced to chase the game ; but if Clarke keeps winning tosses we may never know. And after this week it may be too late anyway.

But I accept that the longer this tour goes the better Finn , Rankin (and Onions) are getting by sitting on deck chairs  

Mike Selig wrote:

... To answer Liam's question, it is not so much a dichotomy as a question of intent. You can show positive intent without being reckless - too often England have gone from the extreme of no intent to playing daft shots, in part because of the pressure created (I have expanded in the past about the need to take a risk "on your terms" and not "because you feel you have to take a risk").

In particular I would like to see intent shown against Lyon (down the ground at Perth please - bounce makes the sweep a risky option) and Watson, who is a key part of this Aussie attack - Clarke regularly gives Watson a bowl when his seamers are tired and he wants to reign the run-rate in, so England should look to counter that.

Intent includes knocking the ball into gaps and running hard, or even just using your feet to put off the bowler without necessarily going through with the shot. It includes the odd risk being taken on your terms, and playing the percentages: by all means hook if you play the shot well, the ball is there, and there's only one guy out; if however the ball gets big on you, pull out of the shot - wear it is necessary. Too often England have played shots which weren't on - KP's 1st innings dismissal at Adelaide being a particularly relevant example.

I almost commented on this yesterday but held back as I thought it was pretty obvious and didn't wish to appear patronising to Mike who clearly has a tremendous knowledge of our game. My comment now is not really made at Mike but Clarke and several members of his side who could so easily have ended up with egg on their team face had it not been for the efforts of Smith and Haddin.

Whilst I completely agree about showing positive intent, the difference between that and recklessness can be wafer thin (and dangerously so for the batsman) if there is a rush by the batting side to try and impose themselves. First and foremost, batsmen need to ensure they are properly acclimatised to the bowling. That should be a given in any match which is allowed to last as long as five days. Yes, we should be looking to get after, in particular, the likes of Watson and Lyon and put them off their game. However, I'm not too concerned if Watson starts with a couple of maidens. What matters for England are his figures at the end of the day - a sensible ideal would be along the lines of 10-2-50-0. Him having a return of 0/15 off 2 overs is of no benefit to us if that becomes 1/16 off 3.

I flag this as I feel some of the Australian batsmen played poorly and contributed to their own downfall in a misguided dash to put runs on the board. That once again put us in a good position during part of day one (echoes of Groundhog Day as mysti touched on).

Yet again though we were unable to take advantage. I'll largely duck comments about our bowling as I only saw bits and pieces of the final session 'live' and a recording of the day's edited highlights from the SKY breakfast programme. I note Mike's and msp's comments about the bowling pressure exerted by Bresnan and Stokes - can't comment on that either way as highlights don't give you the opportunity to assess the build up of pressure.

However, I saw enough to tell it was certainly a wonderfully composed and controlled innings from Smith who combined defensive respect at times with aggressive power at others. If his innings had begun and ended with the same approach adopted by Bailey, things might now be very different.

Haddin's innings was also so valuable albeit not so fluent. Haddin is having a brilliant series as a keeper (Prior has actually done pretty well behind the stumps but is still some way second to Haddin) and batsman. In the latter regard, he reminds me a little of Knott; a gutsy and determined performer at his best when others have failed and the chips are down.

Despite my grumbling above about Australia too easily losing wickets in this Test, we probably haven't given them enough credit for how well they are playing as a team in this series. If someone fails, someone else steps up - an attritional fighting element which is so key for a successful side. You can't expect to win every session but you should be doubly determined to win the next session immediately after having lost one.

By contrast, England's players appear below par or, at best, there or thereabouts. No one is excelling.

Anderson continues to disappoint and, whilst I'm pleased he made the cut and just about justified his place, Swann remains someway short of being at his best. At least some more encouraging stuff from Stokes but he really must watch his front foot - every umpire in the county game will be looking out for it in 2014.

A little early yet to be performing a post mortem but I do suspect questions will need to be asked about the make up of the England squad for this series. I am particularly referring to the absence from this Test of all 'three big fast bowlers'. I fully accept that players can have problems of form and injury on tour. However, it is a different matter when players who already have such problems are selected in the first place.

One question guildford : if you are saying the three talls might have been a questionable tour selection in the first place ; who do you suggest should be there who might conceivably have made a difference yesterday ?

I agree most of England's players are a bit down (some a lot down !) on their best : not quite sure why. Australia made a good start to the series and are front running very well , and being behind seems to have had a bad effect on England's morale. No tour games and little time for adjustment don't help.
May not be a solution in the short term.

Unless someone gets a double hundred for England at the weekend and renders much of this sackcloth and ashes stuff redundant...

On attacking intent : briefly : I want to see England batsmen - especially openers/top order - look for more singles. Boundaries will come later.

I don't like carbs and singles mate.. Worrying times..

mystiroakey wrote:I don't like carbs and singles mate.. Worrying times..

But at least Carbs has made more contributions with the bat than Cook.

About to start play and by close today Australua could have a firm grip on the Ashes.
England, you feel, must bowl Australia out for less than 400 (even that is too much I think), then get to close of pkay on 150 for 2 or 3 or thereabouts.

Perfect start, more of the same please!

Just what England needed. Broad finds thevedge of Johnson's bat and Prior takes the catch without a run added today - Australia 326 for 7.

Some streaky shots being played through vacant slips areas and Australia move on to 336 for 7. Better lines from the bowlers this morning though.

At last Smith falls to a review decision and Anderson has a wicket at last. The faintest of inside edges showing up only on snickometer and Australia are 338 for 8. Australia not happy with the decision.

Not sure what smith was complaining about, faint mark on the bat and real time snicko showing a noise also. On yer bike son, well done England now let's finish them off!

alfie wrote:One question guildford : if you are saying the three talls might have been a questionable tour selection in the first place ; who do you suggest should be there who might conceivably have made a difference yesterday ?

...

Alfie - typed a full answer setting out background to my concerns and reasoning - and then bl**dy system crashed!

I definitely wouldn't have taken Tremlett - hardly any Surrey follower would have done. Unfit for purpose. I wouldn't have replaced Tremlett. The tour party was too big imo at outset. More is not always better etc. That's particularly the case with so few warm up games nowadays and players' appearances having to be tightly rationed. Plus, Bresnan now being back as intended.

Essentially, I feel taking all 3 talls reeked of indecision and uncertainty. If the relatively experienced Tremlett and Finn were judged suitable for selection, I would suggest there was no need for the selectors to have included the more raw Rankin in their party.

Having not included Tremlett in my squad, I would have retained Rankin (he bowled well in this summer's ODIs). I wonder (I can't do any more than that from this distance) if Finn has issues with his form and mindset and whether he should be in the current party. I can only ask the question from my perception. I raised the possibility the other day that Tremlett and Finn had been chosen for what they once were and what we wished them to be again rather than what they actually are now - that concern still persists.

If Finn shouldn't be there, I would replace him with the oh so predictable Onions. Not an overly inspiring choice perhaps but a safe one. I would though also give serious consideration to someone who hardly ever gets a mention - Warks' left arm swing bowler Keith Barker. A better prospect in my view than his county colleague Woakes.

Another review - this time for Harris but he survives an appeal for caught in slips.

Yet more streaky runs through vacant slip area and Australia move up to 350 for 8.

Cook really getting panned by Botham and others on Sky for fielding positions refusing to pack the slips even though many a streaky shot has been played through there.

Much better bowling from England this morning. Harris gone now. 354/9

Anderson strikes again and Harris goes. Australia 354 for 9.

Morning all,

Have gone the other way today by staying up to watch the start rather than the end of play.

Excellent post above guildford. I agree the line between "positive" and "reckless" is a fine one however too often England have gotten out to reckless shots played partly because they haven't been positive enough - the worst of both worlds if you like. Australia have mostly gotten it right, but I agree yesterday was less than ideal - as I commented at the time individually you could make excuses for each dismissal (except possibly Haddin's), but collectively they betrayed a (slight) error of mindset.

It is of course not coincidental that the player with the lowest strike rate made the most runs. It is good to see that others have recognised the strength of Smith's defensive game - I think the Sky commentators in stressing that England bowled too straight rather missed the point: by leaving so well outside off, Smith essentially forced a battle of patience on the bowlers and won (much like Cook and Trott used to do) as they came into his zones; whilst the bowlers could and possibly should have stuck to their plans longer, Smith IMO deserved a bit more credit.

England have so far had an excellent morning by removing the 2 overnight batsmen and now Harris. I'm not 100% sold on the Smith dismissal (I personally didn't see any edge either live or on replays but if Liam says there is a mark on hotspot obviously his eyesight is better than mine, or he is more awake) - I fear we may have moved from placing too much emphasis on hotspot to now too much emphasis on snicko, which only picks up sounds without really telling you what they are. I'm not saying it's a bad decision, but it may set a fairly questionable precedent.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Cook really getting panned by Botham and others on Sky for fielding positions refusing to pack the slips even though many a streaky shot has been played through there.

Beefy's right. Chapelli and Warne are going on about the same thing. All the Australians could have been back in the pavilion by now.

Morning Mike.

I normally ignore Botham when he asks for more slips (if you listen to him set fields you quickly realise he's got about 16 players in his side, which makes things easier) but it's hard to argue on this occasion. 3 slips and 2 gullies doesn't seem unreasonable, and having 3 men in the covers to Harris (and now Siddle) was/is a bit embarrassing. I appreciate why Cook has a square leg (doesn't want his bowlers to be too wide), but still...

There's been a hint of swing today, possibly with the assistance of the breeze. Still think Harris could be a real handful making good use of the extra carry and pace.

At drinks Australia are 366 for 9. I don't think England could have hoped for a better start to the day. They now have to complete the job as soon as possible.

Again streaky through third slip area. Beefy and co will be imploding.

Statistical quirk time: every partnership in this Australia innings has reached double figures. Also, every batsman bar Bailey. Usually this suggests a few things:
- the pitch is pretty good for batting: it's not too hard to get set;
- the pitch also has something in it for the bowlers (in this case edges carry) so you can get wickets at any time;
- the batsmen have at times contributed to their own downfall;
- the bowlers haven't always bowled their best, particularly to the new batsmen.

Once again England failing to polish off the Australian tsil - 384 for 9. Costly runs these.

kwinigolfer wrote:You guys see the Test Cricket in colour, I follow it in the black and white of BBC Live Text, but:

Whether England's bowling has exhibited strength in depth or mediocrity in depth (on Australian pitches at any rate), surely it's still within the job description of wickie and bowlers to at least contribute something with the bat?
Of Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson and the Tremlett/Panesar hybrid, so far they've registered:
SEVEN ducks.
EIGHT single digit "efforts" (excl one not out), and only:
FOUR double digit scores.

With the exception of the 2nd innings at Adelaide when the match was long gone, it would hardly have been unreasonable to have expected this crew to have scored at least 100 more runs-per-innings between them.

Once four or five wickets are down Australia know it's only a matter of time.

The batting might have been appalling, but it's an eleven-man disease, not just the top five or six.

Re: kwini's post above and Mike statistical quirk.

Heard it said the other day that when David Lloyd was England's coach, he was always in the ears of numbers 8, 9, 10 and Jack to respectively ''score 40, 30, 20 and 10 - then we'll have another 100 on the board.''

Aussie 8, 9, 10, 11 have as many double-digit scores in this innings as England's 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 do in total in four innings.

guildford: SNAP!

Finally, Bresnan takes the last wicket and Australia bowled out for 385.

Now the equation is simple. Either the English batsmen stand up now and be countedvor the Ashes are heading back to Australia. No excuses as if the Aussie tail can look comfortable then the pitch should hold no demons.

At last.
But now Cook and Carbs have to play themselves in twice in just over an hour. Johnson must be loving it.

Siddle finally nicks off to give the much maligned Bresnan a wicket, but that was a useful stand from the Aussie last pair. Not least because it gives them a couple of spells with the new ball either side of lunch. 60 or so from the last 3 wickets is a reasonable effort, and much better than anything England have managed so far (in line with guildford's point above).

385 is a good score. Not an unbeatable score, but psychologically it is a big difference from 330 say (which "feels" close to 300; 380 feels more like "a shade under 400").

England's batting has to improve at some stage in this series, doesn't it?

I think it is key that England can occupy the crease early doors without early wicket losses to take the shine and hardness off of the new ball. Do that and start building. Twenty five minutes to lunch. Here goes.....

Cook dropped on 3 in the slips - first alarm for Endland 9 for 0.

Mike Selig wrote:

Am too a big fan of Smith; ... And at the risk of jinxing him, the guy has one of the 2 best pair of hands in world cricket at the moment.

Jinx achieved. Mind you, it would have been a heck of a catch.   

England off to a decent atart. Four overs gone and are 19 for 0.

England survive through to lunch with no wickets lost. Job done - England 24 for 0. Now they have to start all over again after lunch.

That's the first challenge negotiated. Lunch - 23/0.

Decent morning session for England but still much to do.

See you later chaps.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Am too a big fan of Smith; ... And at the risk of jinxing him, the guy has one of the 2 best pair of hands in world cricket at the moment.

Jinx achieved. Mind you, it would have been a heck of a catch.   

He only got one hand to it. The key in the above was obviously the word "pair" (which should have been "pairs", but anyway...) - I said nothing about his hands as individuals.   

Decent session for England that. Key hour coming up after lunch, but it will have to be without me, time to get some sleep I reckon.

A decent morning for England. Can they build on it? If they can reach tea for 120 for 1 or 2 (at most) they will feel that they are right in this match.

Another chance goes begging (off Carberry) in the slips to Johnson's bowling. Is this an omen as they were sticking in Adelaide? England 33 for 0.

Carberry top edges and a scurrying Haddin just cannot snare the catch. Has the tide changed? England 39 for 0.

England get their first 50 opening partnership of the series. England 51 for 0.

Cook beginning to look more settled and reaches 35 with back-to-back boundaries. England 62 for 0 and Nathan Lyon enters the attack for the first time. Can he have the same effect as Swann?

England need another 118 runs to avoid the follow-on (first target). England 68 for 0.

Midway through the afternoon session and England are progressing well here on 72 for 0. Both Cook and Carberry on 35.

Cook and Carberry looking very settled now. Just what England needed.
The Australian bowlers still looking for that initial breakthrough.

I think the key is what happens when this wicket eventually falls? If England can build another similar partnership then they can really build on that. On the other hand if there is another collapse England will have as good as conceded the Ashes. England 80 for 0. Runs dried up in last few overs.