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

Panesar did show more control with the ball than Swann did and the WACA does bounce very high which would suit Panesar more so it would be understandable if Panesar retained his spot and Swann was replaced with Tremlett or Finn.

Yes Nachos. You could make a case for either spinners inclusion but I do feel they need to have one specialist spinner be it Swann or Panesar. Reading between the lines of what Flower is saying it will be Swann who is dropped. It seems as well that Bresnan seems to be favourite to replace Swann.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Is Flower dropping a hint that Swann will be dropped today? He is quoted as saying there will be changes and he's not afraid to make tough decisions. That sounds like he is thinking of dropping one of the mainstays of the team and the obvious one that springs to mind is Graeme Swann.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/10/the-ashes-2013-14-coach-andy-flower-denies-england-have-lacked-bottle-for-the-fight-4224508/

Flower refused to rule out dropping spinner Graeme Swann, who is unlikely to make much of an impact on the pacy, bouncy Waca surface.

‘The conditions in Perth will be very different,’ he said. ‘We will assess those conditions and we pick the side to give us the best chance of winning. Graeme Swann has been an outstanding spin bowler for us and been very much a part of England’s success but we’ll assess those conditions and see who will best able to help us 20 wickets.’

that above is more than hinting...it's a confirmation...Swann is out ( and so no spinner in the 11)
from a master of wordsmithy and convoluted talks...that is as straight a confirmation as you will see on a touchy subject   

That’s the crux there. Our batting failed three times in a row and we played a little better in the fourth innings but we need to up those skills and improve on that batting in Perth if we are to have any chance whatsoever.’

However here he is barking up the wrong tree......batting wasn't the crux of the problem......giving away 700 runs on a bouncy pace friendly pitch for 17 odd wickets

and anotehr 700 runs for about 12 wickets in Adelaide was as big a problem as a batting...and one that made the task of their batsmen many folds tougher

Panesar will be the spinner though KP. I would be amazed if they go without a spinner.

And sorry but if you are suggesting batting isn't the main reason England are in such a perilous position then you are way off the mark. Four innings and three of those they failed to make 200 runs - that is woeful. Such displays hands initiative and confidence to the opponents who can then bat with much less pressure and more freedom. Sure the bowling from England has been sub-par as well but nowhere near the depths of despair the batting has plunged to.

Yes, more bounce on the hard WACA pitch would probably be more suited to Monty than Swann. Lyon enjoys the bounce there too.

Apparently during this heat wave - the Fremantle Doctor may not even arrive on the first 4 days at least - due to a slow moving (almost stationary) trough hanging around that part of S-W WA for longer than expected.

Typical doctors, always running late............

CaledonianCraig wrote:Panesar will be the spinner though KP. I would be amazed if they go without a spinner..

I'd be amazed if given what I hear of the pitch..... and deciphering Flower's convoluted mumbo-jumbo......if there is any spinner.
also if there is room for only one spinner......Swann his favourite baby is a given.
therefore when he is telling us " No Swann"....implies that " we are not playing a single spinner"

.

And sorry but if you are suggesting batting isn't the main reason England are in such a perilous position then you are way off the mark. Four innings and three of those they failed to make 200 runs - that is woeful. Such displays hands initiative and confidence to the opponents who can then bat with much less pressure and more freedom. Sure the bowling from England has been sub-par as well but nowhere near the depths of despair the batting has plunged to.

I am not using any suggestive worlds....but clearly stating bowling is AS MUCH the problem as batting.

giving away 1400 runs for about 29 wickets is about 400 runs too many on those pitches

Adelaide was a 500 run pitch, first innings anyway.

Batting is the MAIN problem, and no amount of wummery will convince me otherwise.

Stella wrote:Adelaide was a 500 run pitch, first innings anyway.

Batting is the MAIN problem, and no amount of wummery will convince me otherwise.

this is how England side and their die-hard fans kept deluding itself all throuhg their summer.

It happens though when you love your team too much you refuse to see early and even late warnings....until it explodes in your face.
Indians deluded themselves with a plethora of aged stars ...until 8-0 overseas score exploded in their face

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Is Flower dropping a hint that Swann will be dropped today? He is quoted as saying there will be changes and he's not afraid to make tough decisions. That sounds like he is thinking of dropping one of the mainstays of the team and the obvious one that springs to mind is Graeme Swann.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/10/the-ashes-2013-14-coach-andy-flower-denies-england-have-lacked-bottle-for-the-fight-4224508/

Flower refused to rule out dropping spinner Graeme Swann, who is unlikely to make much of an impact on the pacy, bouncy Waca surface.

‘The conditions in Perth will be very different,’ he said. ‘We will assess those conditions and we pick the side to give us the best chance of winning. Graeme Swann has been an outstanding spin bowler for us and been very much a part of England’s success but we’ll assess those conditions and see who will best able to help us 20 wickets.’

that above is more than hinting...it's a confirmation...Swann is out ( and so no spinner in the 11)
from a master of wordsmithy and convoluted talks...that is as straight a confirmation as you will see on a touchy subject   

That’s the crux there. Our batting failed three times in a row and we played a little better in the fourth innings but we need to up those skills and improve on that batting in Perth if we are to have any chance whatsoever.’

However here he is barking up the wrong tree......batting wasn't the crux of the problem......giving away 700 runs on a bouncy pace friendly pitch for 17 odd wickets

and anotehr 700 runs for about 12 wickets in Adelaide was as big a problem as a batting...and one that made the task of their batsmen many folds tougher

Don't neccessarily agree with you here LB.
At Brisbane in the first innings, England bowled out Australia for a score that virtually everybody thought was under par for the pitch.
At Adelaide, but for some really sloppy missed chances, it's possible that the same would have happened again.
In both tests Australia were able to bat in the second innings against tired, demoralised bowlers with the freedom of large first innings leads. Now you can argue as to whether England's problems are the result of poor batting, great Australian bowling or a combination of the two but, really don't think you can blame the bowlers.

Where is the suggestion he will drop Panesar? I don't read that anywhere so for now you are supposing for the sake of it that there will be no spinners.

And sorry but at least the bowling gave England their brightest moment of this series to have the better of Day One of the First Test. The bowling cannot be blamed in Adelaide as a massive score of around 400+ was expected. Australia made 570 but remember that all the Aussie top scorers were given a second lufe as catches were dropped at key moments. If they had been held Australia would have got to around the par score. The Second Test was lost due to the batting. Being bowled out for 172 on a dream of a batting wicket was even too bad to qualify as being pathetic and it alone cost England the test match. Had they batted in the First Innings as they did in the Second I am sure the test would have been drawn.

KP_fan wrote:

Stella wrote:Adelaide was a 500 run pitch, first innings anyway.

Batting is the MAIN problem, and no amount of wummery will convince me otherwise.

this is how England side and their die-hard fans kept deluding itself all throuhg their summer.

It happens though when you love your team too much you refuse to see early and even late warnings....until it explodes in your face.
Indians deluded themselves with a plethora of aged stars ...until 8-0 overseas score exploded in their face

I take it you didn't watch the game?

CaledonianCraig wrote:
And sorry but at least the bowling gave England their brightest moment of this series to have the better of Day One of the First Test. .

Correction...better of first 2 sessions on D1.
from 130-6...on  a pitch full of pace, bounce they allowed the Aus lower order to get to 300ish.
Had they rolled the tail over and finished them for 180ish...then there was an even game.

Bowlers let Aus off the hook....and Eng could never catch them

LB or KP_f, Hoggy?

I can see what Flower is concerned about.
Lack of the Doctor will make things harder for the spin bowlers for sure.
Slow bowlers like bowling into the teeth of it - or nowadays it's slightly oblique to the pitch orientation. The Doctor comes in from behind fine leg direction towards cover for a RH batsman and the spinners usually operate from the Prindiville Stand (northern end).

However, local WA state players still see value in having a spin option more often than not - even when the Doctor fails to arrive.

Linebreaker wrote:LB or KP_f, Hoggy?

I can see what Flower is concerned about.
Lack of the Doctor will make things harder for the spin bowlers for sure.
Slow bowlers like bowling into the teeth of it - or nowadays it's slightly oblique to the pitch orientation. The Doctor comes in from behind fine leg direction towards cover for a RH batsman and the spinners usually operate from the Prindiville Stand (northern end).

However, local WA state players still see value in having a spin option more often than not - even when the Doctor fails to arrive.

Sorry LB. Meant KP of course.

A picture from Adelaide.....worth a thousand words
source dailymail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2521149/Time-deliver-England-coach-Andy-Flower-backs-star-players-mount-Ashes-fightback.html

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:
And sorry but at least the bowling gave England their brightest moment of this series to have the better of Day One of the First Test. .

Correction...better of first 2 sessions on D1.
from 130-6...on  a pitch full of pace, bounce they allowed the Aus lower order to get to 300ish.
Had they rolled the tail over and finished them for 180ish...then there was an even game.

Bowlers let Aus off the hook....and Eng could never catch them

Top five run scorers in the Series - Australian

Top five wicket takers in the Series - 4 Australian 1 English (think Broad is 3rd)

That says it all.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:
And sorry but at least the bowling gave England their brightest moment of this series to have the better of Day One of the First Test. .

Correction...better of first 2 sessions on D1.
from 130-6...on  a pitch full of pace, bounce they allowed the Aus lower order to get to 300ish.
Had they rolled the tail over and finished them for 180ish...then there was an even game.

Bowlers let Aus off the hook....and Eng could never catch them

Top five run scorers in the Series - Australian

Top five wicket takers in the Series - 4 Australian 1 English (think Broad is 3rd)

That says it all.

The top 5 may not always tell you the full story. How many English batsmen were in the list of top 5 with bat or ball in 2009?

Cook/KP/Bell/Trott were streets ahead at this stage last series in Oz... and the England bowlers were too.
This time it's almost a reverse carbon copy of 2010/11.

I can sort of see what KP_fan is saying in regards to the bowling attack from England. It has not been as potent as it has been for some time and in allowing the Aussies to make some big scores it has put pressure on the batsmen (pressure they should be able to handle) and possible change in tactics. They change in tactics seemed to stem more towards survival rather than attacking play and this fell right into the hands of the Aussie bowlers.

Having said that, the main issue is the batsmen as they should be able to rise to these occasions and still perform. That has clearly not happened so I still firmly believe that the batting is the major problem with England.

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Seems strange doesn't it that after 3 and a half terrible batting performances most of the talk on here and in the press seems to revolve around which bowling changes should be made for the next test. Is that an indica

tion that, as far as batting is concerned, England don't really have any real depth?

Hoggy - just caught up with a recording of the Breakfast highlights on SKY. Alec Stewart highlighted the batting woes and, whilst suggesting that the top five remain ''as is'',  he speculated on bringing in Ballance at 6 to lengthen the batting and have Stokes and Prior both dropping down a place to 7 and 8 respectively. His final three at 9, 10 and Jack in this scenario were Bresnan, Broad and Anderson.

Stewart was clearly uncomfortable about leaving out Swann - ''unthinkable'' until recently he said - but thought it might have to be the way forward for the selectors. However, Stewart was certain about Bresnan's inclusion - ''Bresnan will definitely come in. That's just a given.''

Surprised by a lot of that and don't agree with it much but food for thought.

Well now isn't that what I've been saying all along  ?  Except I would rather Bairstow than Ballance , but same principle...

If we can't bowl them out with four bowlers in Perth we're dead anyway , and we need all the batting we can get.

Alfie - you and Stewart are probably even closer in your thinking. Stewart was more keen on one of Ballance and Bairstow coming in at 6, rather than who it actually was. He said he would ''just prefer'' Ballance but didn't elaborate.

I also heard Jason Gillespie taking a leaf out of your book last night. He felt it was important England ''play their six best batsmen in the top 6'' and accordingly would leave out Stokes and bring in Ballance. There was also no room for any spinners in Dizzy's England team at Perth. He suggested a four man seam attack of Bresnan, Broad, Anderson and Finn (subject to caveats about Finn mentioned on this thread).

Bresnan does seem to be getting more of a shout from those you might expect to know what they're talking about.

I haven't denied England's bowling has been sub-par and been way below its best but the batting has been abysmal and much more the cause of England's problwms than any other aspect of their game.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I haven't denied England's bowling has been sub-par and been way below its best but the batting has been abysmal and much more the cause of England's problwms than any other aspect of their game.

I know you weren't CC, I just thought that KP_fan had a very valid point

Not saying KP did post some sense but feel he is a bit skew-whiff with the level of criticism. He seems to be saying that bowling is equally to blame for the results as the batting and I just can't agree with that.

Batting shortfalls include failing to post a score of 200+ in three out of four innings on batting friendly pitches, having no top scorwrs in top five, having failed to post one century, having only one partnership over 100 and I have lost count of the amount of collapses there has been in the series.

The bowling has been below par due to poor showings by Anderson and Swann who England rely on heavily. They failed to bundle out Australia cheaply in the First Innings in Brisbane but apart from being below par their shortcomings are far less apparent than the batting.

I think England's bowling has been aliright, not A+, but quite alright. They haven't taken 20 wickets yet, I don't think they could really have done much more...

I don't think that England's bowling has been that good to be honest kingraf. Broad in Brisbane was effective but since then England have not bowled very well.

The batting worries are indeed a big issue but the bowlers have also underperformed to their high standards.

look at the averages and strike rates.....and to some extent Run Rates.....and other than Broad.....no one is even close to acceptable international standards of average less than 30 and SR less than 60 wkts / ball.

and Anderson averaging  50 and Swann at 100 ...the top two strikers otherwise have made England toothless.
and Swann has gone at 4+ RPO..

these are by no means OK numbers...

England bowling averages Player Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 Ct St
SCJ Broad 2 4 76.0 10 253 11 6/81 8/136 23.00 3.32 41.4 1 0 2 0
CT Tremlett 1 2 36.0 5 120 4 3/69 4/120 30.00 3.33 54.0 0 0 0 0
BA Stokes 1 2 25.0 5 90 2 2/70 2/90 45.00 3.60 75.0 0 0 0 0
JM Anderson 2 4 81.1 18 244 5 2/19 3/104 48.80 3.00 97.4 0 0 3 0
MS Panesar 1 2 54.0 7 198 2 1/41 2/198 99.00 3.66 162.0 0 0 0 0
GP Swann 2 4 98.0 13 397 4 2/135 2/182 99.25 4.05 147.0 0 0 2 0

and look at Aussies bowling figures........on the same pitches......that Lyon is 3 times better than Swann.......not just numerically.....it has shown on field also....and is the big reason why England is languishing so badly:


Player Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 Ct St
SR Watson 2 3 11.0 8 6 1 1/0 1/6 6.00 0.54 66.0 0 0 1 0
MG Johnson 2 4 79.3 25 216 17 7/40 9/103 12.70 2.71 28.0 2 0 2 0
PM Siddle 2 4 59.4 14 140 7 4/57 5/91 20.00 2.34 51.1 0 0 0 0
RJ Harris 2 4 67.4 20 162 8 3/28 5/77 20.25 2.39 50.7 0 0 2 0
NM Lyon 2 4 75.0 22 205 6 2/17 4/63 34.16 2.73 75.0 0 0 4 0

KP_fan wrote:and look at Aussies bowling figures........on the same pitches......that Lyon is 3 times better than Swann.......not just numerically.....it has shown on field also....and is the big reason why England is languishing so badly:


Player Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 Ct St
SR Watson 2 3 11.0 8 6 1 1/0 1/6 6.00 0.54 66.0 0 0 1 0
MG Johnson 2 4 79.3 25 216 17 7/40 9/103 12.70 2.71 28.0 2 0 2 0
PM Siddle 2 4 59.4 14 140 7 4/57 5/91 20.00 2.34 51.1 0 0 0 0
RJ Harris 2 4 67.4 20 162 8 3/28 5/77 20.25 2.39 50.7 0 0 2 0
NM Lyon 2 4 75.0 22 205 6 2/17 4/63 34.16 2.73 75.0 0 0 4 0

So you're saying that it's all down to the England bowlers bowling badly and the Australian bowlers bowling well.
Nothing to do with England's batsmen playing badly then?
Sorry, but that's rubbish.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

KP_fan wrote:and look at Aussies bowling figures........on the same pitches......that Lyon is 3 times better than Swann.......not just numerically.....it has shown on field also....and is the big reason why England is languishing so badly:


Player Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 Ct St
SR Watson 2 3 11.0 8 6 1 1/0 1/6 6.00 0.54 66.0 0 0 1 0
MG Johnson 2 4 79.3 25 216 17 7/40 9/103 12.70 2.71 28.0 2 0 2 0
PM Siddle 2 4 59.4 14 140 7 4/57 5/91 20.00 2.34 51.1 0 0 0 0
RJ Harris 2 4 67.4 20 162 8 3/28 5/77 20.25 2.39 50.7 0 0 2 0
NM Lyon 2 4 75.0 22 205 6 2/17 4/63 34.16 2.73 75.0 0 0 4 0

So you're saying that it's all down to the England bowlers bowling badly and the Australian bowlers bowling well.
Nothing to do with England's batsmen playing badly then?
Sorry, but that's rubbish.

where did I say it's all down to bowling ???
I remarked it is AS MUCH ( and had capitalized the font in that post also) due to bowling as much batting...
in response to Flower's comment " Crux of the problem is batting "

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

KP_fan wrote:and look at Aussies bowling figures........on the same pitches......that Lyon is 3 times better than Swann.......not just numerically.....it has shown on field also....and is the big reason why England is languishing so badly:


Player Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 Ct St
SR Watson 2 3 11.0 8 6 1 1/0 1/6 6.00 0.54 66.0 0 0 1 0
MG Johnson 2 4 79.3 25 216 17 7/40 9/103 12.70 2.71 28.0 2 0 2 0
PM Siddle 2 4 59.4 14 140 7 4/57 5/91 20.00 2.34 51.1 0 0 0 0
RJ Harris 2 4 67.4 20 162 8 3/28 5/77 20.25 2.39 50.7 0 0 2 0
NM Lyon 2 4 75.0 22 205 6 2/17 4/63 34.16 2.73 75.0 0 0 4 0

So you're saying that it's all down to the England bowlers bowling badly and the Australian bowlers bowling well.
Nothing to do with England's batsmen playing badly then?
Sorry, but that's rubbish.

where did I say it's all down to bowling ???
I remarked it is AS MUCH ( and had capitalized the font in that post also) due to bowling as much batting...
in response to Flower's comment " Crux of the problem is batting "

It isn't AS MUCH down to bowling.
When a team gets bowled out for under 200 three innings in a row, and collapse from 82/2 to 136 all out 3/130 to 179 all out and 3/111 to 172 all out it's pretty obvious where the problem lies.
If England had batted anywhere near decently in the first innings at Brisbane they'd have been in with a chance after their bowlers had performed so well in getting the Aussies out for under 300.
Also, if numerous catches had been held at Adelaide, the bowling performance in the first innings would have seemed a whole lot better.
Even then, if England had batted half decently in their first innings, they might have stood a chance.
England's batting is their main problem and has been for a while. In fact, over the last couple of years, England have been largely carried by their bowlers.

So Broad is a bowler and you feel he has passable figures. So that is one bowler with acceptable figures.

Now can you find me one English batsman that has passable figures.

PS And totally agree Hoggy Bear.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So Broad is a bowler and you feel he has passable figures. So that is one bowler with acceptable figures.

Now can you find me one English batsman that has passable figures.

PS And totally agree Hoggy Bear.

England batting averages Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
JE Root 2 4 1 130 87 43.33 367 35.42 0 1 0 14 0
IR Bell 2 4 1 115 72* 38.33 211 54.50 0 1 0 13 4
MA Carberry 2 4 0 114 60 28.50 310 36.77 0 1 1 16 0
KP Pietersen 2 4 0 101 53 25.25 205 49.26 0 1 0 5 3
AN Cook 2 4 0 82 65 20.50 243 33.74 0 1 0 5 0
MJ Prior 2 4 0 73 69 18.25 115 63.47 0 1 2 13 0
SCJ Broad 2 4 0 65 32 16.25 75 86.66 0 0 1 7 1
BA Stokes 1 2 0 29 28 14.50 102 28.43 0 0 0 5 0


Root is averaging 43+ and bell nearly 40....those are passable numbers.

and actually when I look more closely...I think bolwing takes more blame because the lead bowlers are off by 3 to 4 times compared to acceptable numbers....while in addtion to the above two batters...Carberry is touching 30.....KP and Cook are half of their acceptable average

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So Broad is a bowler and you feel he has passable figures. So that is one bowler with acceptable figures.

Now can you find me one English batsman that has passable figures.

PS And totally agree Hoggy Bear.

England batting averages Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
JE Root 2 4 1 130 87 43.33 367 35.42 0 1 0 14 0
IR Bell 2 4 1 115 72* 38.33 211 54.50 0 1 0 13 4
MA Carberry 2 4 0 114 60 28.50 310 36.77 0 1 1 16 0
KP Pietersen 2 4 0 101 53 25.25 205 49.26 0 1 0 5 3
AN Cook 2 4 0 82 65 20.50 243 33.74 0 1 0 5 0
MJ Prior 2 4 0 73 69 18.25 115 63.47 0 1 2 13 0
SCJ Broad 2 4 0 65 32 16.25 75 86.66 0 0 1 7 1
BA Stokes 1 2 0 29 28 14.50 102 28.43 0 0 0 5 0


Root is averaging 43+ and bell nearly 40....those are passable numbers.

and actually when I look more closely...I think bolwing takes  more blame because the lead bowlers are off by 3 to 4 times compared to acceptable numbers....while in addtion to the above two batters...Carberry is touching  30.....KP and Cook are half of their acceptable average

So what you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter how few runs the batsmen have scored, it's the bowlers fault for not getting the Aussies out for even less?

Ask any cricket expert and they identify England's batting as the chief problem. Unless you are Ray Charles we have all seen England fail to pass 200 in three out of four innings on pitches renowned as being excellent batting strips - that spells massive failure.

The bowlers have given England their best moments of the Series (Day one of first test). If England had fielded better holding catches from chances created by the bowlers England would not have been in such a perilous position in the second test. Even so it was expected England should have been able to avoid the follow on especially considering it was a featherbed of a pitch yet they were unacceptably skittled out for less than 200. In the second innings they posted a better score but still too many handed their wickets away with poor shot execution or poor shot choice.

You should also take into account that they have played two tests which were more suited to batsmen, KP.

The pitch for the first test was one that had some life for bowlers faster through the air and capable of hitting the deck hard. England didn't get their selection right with Chris Tremlett, who was a shadow of his former self. Nathan Lyon was getting the ball to do a trick or 2, but Graeme Swann couldn't. The batting has been pathetic in this series, but the bowling too has been way below standards. Even when England were underperforming with the bat for the best part of a year, the bowlers were stepping up more often than not. Not only have they failed to do that in this series, but also important it is to note that they too are having a forgettable and generally pretty poor series. The numbers from James Anderson and Graeme Swann are pathetic for the classy operators they otherwise are.

Well I did say the bowling has been sub-par but the batting has been the pits whereas KP Fan reckons the bowling is just as much to blame as the batting which I think is off the mark.

msp83 wrote:The pitch for the first test was one that had some life for bowlers faster through the air and capable of hitting the deck hard. England didn't get their selection right with Chris Tremlett, who was a shadow of his former self. Nathan Lyon was getting the ball to do a trick or 2, but Graeme Swann couldn't. The batting has been pathetic in this series, but the bowling too has been way below standards. Even when England were underperforming with the bat for the best part of a year, the bowlers were stepping up more often than not. Not only have they failed to do that in this series, but also important it is to note that they  too are having a forgettable and generally pretty poor series. The numbers from James Anderson and Graeme Swann are pathetic for the classy operators they otherwise are.

But again, in that first test England bowled Australia out for under 300 after losing the toss on a pitch that everyone thought was a very good batting pitch. From that position England SHOULD have been in with a good chance. Because of their abysmal batting they threw it away.
Even in the 2nd test, England's bowlers created enough chances to have, possibly, bowled Australia out for 350 or less, which would have been another good performance after losing the toss on a good batting pitch. Poor catching was then compounded by more very poor batting and the rest is history.
So, despite having lost the toss in both matches, England's bowlers have actually performed pretty well in the first innings of both matches. In the second innings of both these games the bowlers came out after seeing the batting routed, having (probably) not enough time to fully recuperate and facing batsmen under virtually no pressure.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

msp83 wrote:The pitch for the first test was one that had some life for bowlers faster through the air and capable of hitting the deck hard. England didn't get their selection right with Chris Tremlett, who was a shadow of his former self. Nathan Lyon was getting the ball to do a trick or 2, but Graeme Swann couldn't. The batting has been pathetic in this series, but the bowling too has been way below standards. Even when England were underperforming with the bat for the best part of a year, the bowlers were stepping up more often than not. Not only have they failed to do that in this series, but also important it is to note that they  too are having a forgettable and generally pretty poor series. The numbers from James Anderson and Graeme Swann are pathetic for the classy operators they otherwise are.

But again, in that first test England bowled Australia out for under 300 after losing the toss on a pitch that everyone thought was a very good batting pitch. From that position England SHOULD have been in with a good chance. Because of their abysmal batting they threw it away.
Even in the 2nd test, England's bowlers created enough chances to have, possibly, bowled Australia out for 350 or less, which would have been another good performance after losing the toss on a good batting pitch. Poor catching was then compounded by more very poor batting and the rest is history.
So, despite having lost the toss in both matches, England's bowlers have actually performed pretty well in the first innings of both matches. In the second innings of both these games the bowlers came out after seeing the batting routed, having (probably) not enough time to fully recuperate and facing batsmen under virtually no pressure.

In that first innings, England bowlers let Australia's last 4 wickets more than double the score and thus let slip a real opportunity to assert their authority over the series. Swann was poor in that first test, Tremlett wasn't a real threat and Anderson was below his best. A first innings score of 300 isn't a bad one for a proper test wicket. That first test pitch wasn't a flat monster by any means, there could have been more runs, but a first innings score of 300 was pretty decent. Of course England batting made it look like 600, but that is not exactly the point.

Msp
If you'd have asked either team, before the start of the match whether, if they lost the toss, they'd settle for bowling out the opposition for under 300, they'd have snapped your hand off.
While England might have done better having had the Aussies at 130/6, they'd done brilliantly to get to that point and, overall, their bowling performance was very good.

The point is though that the bowling got a foothold in the first innings in Brisbane but let it slip. Also in first innings at Adelaide they would have pinned Australia to about a par score for that pitch if key catches had been held. The second innings the bowling can't be judged as the batsmen had a massive platform to build on and could bat without pressure or fear.

On the other hand England's batting has never got them a foothold in any of the tests so far. They have flopped dismally in three out of four innings and in the other innings made an average score and no more than that.

By my estimations the bowling has been almost able to keep Australia down to a par score twice so would put their efficiency at around 40%. Meanwhile, the batting has been abysmal and would put them generously at 25% efficiency for one par score out of four.

Stella wrote:You should also take into account that they have played two tests which were more suited to batsmen, KP.

both teams batted and bowled on the same pitch

England's batting has been atrocious for three innings, pretty poor for the other.

One stat to sum it all up: All of England's second innings dismissals in Adelaide came from deliveries that wouldn't have hit the stumps.

Duty281 wrote:England's batting has been atrocious for three innings, pretty poor for the other.

One stat to sum it all up: All of England's second innings dismissals in Adelaide came from deliveries that wouldn't have hit the stumps.

Does that matter so much? Often batsmen are outthought by bowlers and are drawn into shots that a well positioned field will catch. Not all balls have to be hitting the stumps to be deemed good balls.

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.

But kwin that works both ways wherein batsmen are expected to contribute in the field and look how many catches they have dropped - way too many and many key batsmen as well who have went on to score centuries or big scores.

All agreed Craig, but there's just about equal opportunity as far as missed catches are concerned, Panesar doing his bit to balance things up of course.

Just feel there's a belief and resilience 1-11 in the Aussie order whereas there's uncertainty and loss of confidence 1-11 in the other dressing room. Doing all the little things well goes a long way to getting some big things right.

KP_fan wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Not a chance of Mills playing. He's as wild as a bull in a china shop that only sells red china.

that kinda sums up the English approach.......they would never throw a wild card with high potential into the cauldron of a test match....I remeber they brouhgt Meaker to India and I heard similar comments.

Akram, Waqar, Amir were all plucked out even more raw

I must have imagined Ben Stokes playing the last match then.

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