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

msp83 wrote:Guildford, what is needed with DRS is a reasonable amount of consistency, and benefit of doubt to umpire is not bringing that, all that it is doing is to bring in lots and lots of confusion.
And by the way, what has really made you think that Root had edged that one?

Mysti - I don't actually find the current system confusing but I accept that many people do which cannot be good for the game.

I tried to deal with the question about Root edging it in my last answer to msp. Once more, I'll emphasise - incredibly difficult!

Edit: post should have been addressed to msp rather than mysti. Whoops!

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Ok, I've got my tin hat on!   

Having seen countless replays of the Root incident, I think he feathered it. Incredibly difficult to tell (and I understand mysti effectively saying - give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman) but can understand the onfield umpire giving it out on one viewing (and hearing) in real time. Despite the general and often justified loathing on here of Tony Hill, I don't believe he was wrong to uphold the original decision. There are many things to slate Hill about - just don't believe this is one of them.

I suspect reaction would have been less if the batsman given out had been or resembled an Australian bar room brawler instead of an English choir boy.

Guildford, I am quite curious as to how you arrived at the call that Root did edge that one? From whatever I've seen of it, it just didn't seem like it, and Bumble on commentary said that he thought Root missed it.
My gripe is not so much with Hill, the poor fellow just isn't up to it, reading that he got appointed to the elite panel had given me an almighty shock, its the ICC that has to take responsibility for this downright disaster, Hill's appointment just confirmed that the lot at the ICC are a set of good for nothing jokers!.

Msp - contrary to what Lloyd said, Strauss (still trying too hard to please too many people too much of the time) said he thought Root ''just feathered it''. Strauss' view doesn't mean Bumble was wrong (and I know I've quoted Bumble in support of a few things recently) but it probably justifies my stance at outset in stating ''it was incredibly difficult to tell''.

You ask - how did I arrive at my call? Here goes. I never saw the ball pass and miss the bat. Furthermore, from all the recordings I did watch, I couldn't foresee how it reasonably would have done - that was the real crux for me. I'm sorry that's a rather legalistic answer but it's an honest response and the best one I can give to your difficult probing question.

The weakness of my reasoning - and I accept it's far from insignificant - is that I didn't see (or am not convinced I saw) the ball actually touch the bat. I am though as reasonably convinced as I can be that it did. A matter of opinion. Mine may not be right but it is considered. I accept your's is considered too even though a different conclusion has been reached.

A point I did try to make earlier - which maybe hasn't been picked up - is that I think we should be wary of reading too much either way into how the batsman / bowler /fielder react to an appeal. On the SKY breakfast highlights programme, Stewart sought a camera focus on Haddin's facial reaction as he claimed the catch but conceded it was inconclusive. Understood where Stewart (and I like the guy and normally his reasoning having met him a few times) was trying to go but feel it's a potentially error strewn path.

Guildford I knew your opinion would be a considered one and that's why I wanted to know how you reached that call. We have to agree to disagree on that one, but I am completely in agreement with the last part of your post, expressions and reactions might give some general ideas, but there is no value beyond that in determining the direction of a key call.

I think it was probably the right decision by the 3rd umpire. Whilst the snick didn't seem totally in sync will bat, it is very hard to see what else could have caused it. Taken with the fact the umpire though it was out I don't think he could overturn the decision.

In relation to Haddin's reaction, I'd agree with Stewart that I don't think he thought Root had hit it. His reaction was relatively unenthused.

whats the point in using technology that creates more controversy than without any technology?

Guildford mate that wasn't my comment

think its obvious how massive the first hour will be tonight. England just can't afford to lose a wicket and if they do, then a second is out of the question. Hopefully Bell and Stokes can put on a big partnership with Bell hopefully making a big hundred. I say Bell because I don't feel Stokes is capable of making a big score just yet but definitely in time.

If can put on a good partnership then the pressure is lifted off Prior and the tail and they can throw the bat a bit. In an ideal world, we're all out for around 450 and then have Oz 3 down before the close of play.

Nightmare scenario and possibly the most likely one, we're all out for 250/70 and Oz are 1/2 down at the close of play with a good size lead and the Ashes are well and truly gone.

msp83 wrote:

Guildford I knew your opinion would be a considered one and that's why I wanted to know how you reached that call. We have to agree to disagree on that one, but I am completely in agreement with the last part of your post, expressions and reactions might give some general ideas, but there is no value beyond that in determining the direction of a key call.

Thanks, msp.

mystiroakey wrote:Guildford mate that wasn't my comment

mysti - sorry if I've misquoted you. Not quite sure where. Feel free to spell it out and I'll comment more. Cheers.

Top of this page, Guildford. You accidently quote Mysti instead of msp. (unless you were referring to a previous comment from mysti?)

I can fix it if you like?

Play minutes away from starting. Massive morning and in two hours time we may have a clear idea where the Ashes are heading. England cannot afford to lose more than a couple of wickets you feel.

Ouch Bell out on review for 15. Harris gets a ball to nip back and traps Bell on his crease. Given not out but reviewed and overturned. Bell out for 15 - England 190 for 5. Prior now simply has to weigh in with a big score.

My word oz are bowling well here. Harris has been superb. He really is a top bowler, controlled, swings it, fast and most importantly is smart. Big partnership needed here from prior and stokes

Worst possible start.

Bell's innings puzzled me. Ultra defensive , almost timid ? Not the way he plays when he is in form ...and he had looked very good in Adelaide so what happened in between ?

Both he and KP essentially occupied the crease to no effect for several hours. And they are the main stroke players...

Of course it could be said such grinding play can set up tired bowlers for the later batsmen to plunder. But there aren't many "later batsmen" left ...

...and one less now as Stokes goes.

Sinking fast.

Loose shot from Stokes and Johnson gets his first wicket in about 40 overs. England teetering now on 198 for 6. Two wickets down before the new ball - not what England wanted at all.

The 200 up for England - 202 for 6.

The England lower order don't have much of a chance against Johnson, so they better bat with intent and push the score as far as possible. Horrible start on what should be the best day to bat on this track. England would do well to last till lunch.

New ball available in 3 overs.

Prior out caught behind - another England collapse in progress. Siddle strikes and England floundering now on 207 for 7. At this stage England will do well to post a score of 250 and to make matters worse there is still the new ball to come in two overs time.

Who would have thought that with just about half the way through the series and Australia would all but have the Ashes wrapped up? England 216 for 7.

Couple of poor shots there. Think Stokes was a bit unsettled by that one that exploded out of the cracks a few balls before. Really didn't need to chase a wide one.

Prior was a ugly heave. Just not a % shot , let alone in this situation.
Comes from some good bowling , not having much to score off. Even so , has enough experience to wait for the right one to hit. Not good
cricket.

A real pity this has gone south so fast this morning , after a pretty good bit of scrapping yesterday. Aussies have bowled well , no question ; but England are not exactly making things hard for them.

Broad plumb lbw to Johnson and England 229 for 8.

Mitch strikes again. Broad plumb lbw for 5. That one kept low.
England sinking fast this morning. 229/8

CaledonianCraig wrote:Who would have thought that with just about half the way through the series and Australia would all but have the Ashes wrapped up? England 216 for 7.

Before the series I don't think anyone would have considered it remotely likely. But I guess after Adelaide day three it was a strong possibility.

Turnaround has been astonishing. Certainly Australia improved over the series in England , and at home they were always in with a fair chance. But this sort of dominance is extraordinary.

I guess one of the problems for visiting teams these days is that tours are so compact there is no time to regroup after a defeat , and no proper practice games in between Tests ; so it is difficult to make the right adjustments ...selections become rather guesswork. And a bad game can quickly lead to a rout...

Johnson cleaning up the tail again. Broad gone.

It goes back to what I was saying a few days ago likening it to World War Two. England won the Ashes in the summer and felt all was rosy and so felt there were no issues with their game and sat back. A bit like Britain winning the war - they felt victory meant everything in their industrial aet up was fine. Australia lost the Ashes and realised they had work to do and went away and did that work and tweaked their team and have come back stronger and hungrier for it. Akin to beaten Germany who revisited their industries realising they had to start from scratch and they benefited revamping production lines etc and they reaped the rewards.

Oh dear what a weak dismissal as Bresnan is caught behind trying to leave the ball - 233 for 9. England out for the count.

Not sure England thought everything was rosy , Craig. They did change the batting order a couple of times - perhaps wrongly , dumping Compton , Root to the top ...then Root back to six. And tried out a couple of players in the dead match at the Oval.
Trouble is , nothing actually worked.
And they've been switching players around on tour ; without helping much.
Bit similar to Australia the last year or so. But now Australia have happened on a settled lineup : not entirely through good planning ; as Johnson almost certainly wouldn't be playing if Pattinson and Starc had stayed fit !
England will need to tweak their team when they get home. At least Stokes looks like one for the future , and Root continues to impress , so all is not lost.
But the Ashes are   

Craig, that is probably the most stupid and ignorant analogy I've ever read.

Linebreaker wrote:Craig, that is probably the most stupid and ignorant analogy I've ever read.

Okay so your opinion is? There were one or two signs England were not great in areas such as batting and posting big scores but this wasn't addressed. The 3-0 scoreline masked things whereas Australia had to revisit a few things and work to rectify things.

Well at least England limp up to 250 as lunch approaches.

England bowled out for 251 and lunch will be taken early. England trail by 137 runs and the writing is on the wall.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:Craig, that is probably the most stupid and ignorant analogy I've ever read.

Okay so your opinion is? There were one or two signs England were not great in areas such as batting and posting big scores but this wasn't addressed. The 3-0 scoreline masked things whereas Australia had to revisit a few things and work to rectify things.

It's a very poor and insensitive analogy to make. How can you equate the deaths of millions with a bloody cricket match?

If you want to go down that track however - here's an important history lesson for you.

If anything - the Australia cricket team (historically speaking) would be analogous to the USA or Russia - who were the major 20th C Superpowers. They won WWII. Do you think the million or so Americans, Canadians camped in southern England in 1944 were there on holiday? Get real mate.

And ironically - the England cricket team would be more akin to Germany... who were defeated in two World Wars but had a couple of years where they took on the world and made some serious inroads. Eventually they were crushed (in the military sense) by the might of Russia and a combined Allied force... spearheaded by the US 3rd Army and Russia. Didn't you know that?

I think it's dangerous and very unfortunate that people like you feel as though they can rewrite history.

England lose their last 6 for 61 as they are bowled out for251. Graeme Swann made 19 not out at the end to stretch the innings just a little bit. But in the process he got badly knocked on the spinning finger. It was painful to watch, and could have an adverse effect when he has to bowl.
Australia now have the best conditions to bat, and they have a very handy lead of 134.
England managed to stay alive in the game for 2 days, a novelty for them in this series, but looks like that's all they can manage this time round.

Nice lead for Australia.

They should be looking to have a lead of around 300-330 runs by the close of play today with maybe a few wickets down.

I'd be happy with that.   

Linebreaker wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:Craig, that is probably the most stupid and ignorant analogy I've ever read.

Okay so your opinion is? There were one or two signs England were not great in areas such as batting and posting big scores but this wasn't addressed. The 3-0 scoreline masked things whereas Australia had to revisit a few things and work to rectify things.

It's a very poor and insensitive analogy to make. How can you equate the deaths of millions with a bloody cricket match?

If you want to go down that track however - here's an important history lesson for you.

If anything - the Australia cricket team (historically speaking) would be analogous to the USA or Russia - who were the major 20th C Superpowers. They won WWII. Do you think the million or so Americans, Canadians camped in southern England in 1944 were there on holiday? Get real mate.

And ironically - the England cricket team would be more akin to Germany... who were defeated in two World Wars but had a couple of years where they took on the world and made some serious inroads. Eventually they were crushed (in the military sense) by the might of Russia and a combined Allied force... spearheaded by the US 3rd Army and Russia. Didn't you know that?

I think it's dangerous and very unfortunate that people like you feel as though they can rewrite history.

Chill out. I am not making light out of millions that died in that terrible war. Apologies to you if you think I was as I had relatives that died in that war.

Do you feel England have went forward or improved since the summer victory or have they deteriorated and regressed? Sure Australia have improved whereas England have gone in the other direction. Earmark key players for England before this series begun and how many of them have delivered? Quite possibly none. Australia on the other hand have looked hungrier and have bowled better as a unit. They went away from their summer loss and worked on things and rebuilt confidence and belief and are reaping the rewards. Johnson has gone from joke figure to fearsome strike bowler ably aided by Harris and Siddle chiefly.

Hey lb , I do think you have slightly over reacted to Craig's admittedly peculiar - analogy.

I didn't read him as comparing a cricket series to the World War : more in that sometimes a cricket team fails to act to fix problems in their setup , because of some success ; while a team that has been comprehensively beaten is forced to re-examine everything about their game and as a result comes out the better for it.

Clumsy , yes ; but I don't think he intended to offend anyone. I didn't agree with him anyway , but I think you were a bit harsh in response.

Thank you alfie.

Broad off the field injured so if things can get worse for England I'd be surprised. Their in-form bowler not available to bowl (for now) in stifling heat so England a bowler light. Australia 4 for 0 or effectively 138 for 0.

Broad doesn't look good. Never rings but it pours ...

Steve Finn better get his action grooved for Melbourne.

Agreed he looks to be limping badly. Michael Clarke now has both hands on the Ashes urn - all he has to do is raise it above his head surely.

They will be glad Stokes is playing at least. Won't be fun in this no-win third innings anyway , but we don't want everyone bowled into the ground in the heat.
Still need to get into some shape for Melbourne - for pride , and to stop Warne crowing about a whitewash !

Broad has gone for an x-ray on his foot hit there by Johnson's ball that bowled him out lbw.

I am not sure it would be Finn they bring in. I reckon they'd opt for Tremlett. Personally, I think they should take a look at Boyd Rankin.

Let's hope we remember this series of England fiascos when we're debating Hall Of Fame Memberships in ten years' time.

In fairness kwin past Hall of Fame members have also had nightmare series. They happen.

Australia now 24 for 0 (effectively 158 for 0).

kwinigolfer wrote:Let's hope we remember this series of England fiascos when we're debating Hall Of Fame Memberships in ten years' time.

I think you call that taking a long range view , Kwini   

Anyone in particular you want to blackball in advance ?

Seriously , though : surely you don't vote No to Ponting because he lost three Ashes series as captain , including a dreadful 1-3 at home ? So why should an otherwise deserving player be marked down for taking part in a Tour from Hell ? I am sure in ten years time if any of these chaps are up for election this will be just a blip in their careers - and even the best players have their bad tours.
Unfortunate that a few are having bad tours at the same time !

Prior missed a stumping he would generally make in his sleep there.

Swann has started well.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:Craig, that is probably the most stupid and ignorant analogy I've ever read.

Okay so your opinion is? There were one or two signs England were not great in areas such as batting and posting big scores but this wasn't addressed. The 3-0 scoreline masked things whereas Australia had to revisit a few things and work to rectify things.

It's a very poor and insensitive analogy to make. How can you equate the deaths of millions with a bloody cricket match?

If you want to go down that track however - here's an important history lesson for you.

If anything - the Australia cricket team (historically speaking) would be analogous to the USA or Russia - who were the major 20th C Superpowers. They won WWII. Do you think the million or so Americans, Canadians camped in southern England in 1944 were there on holiday? Get real mate.

And ironically - the England cricket team would be more akin to Germany... who were defeated in two World Wars but had a couple of years where they took on the world and made some serious inroads. Eventually they were crushed (in the military sense) by the might of Russia and a combined Allied force... spearheaded by the US 3rd Army and Russia. Didn't you know that?

I think it's dangerous and very unfortunate that people like you feel as though they can rewrite history.

Chill out. I am not making light out of millions that died in that terrible war. Apologies to you if you think I was as I had relatives that died in that war.

Do you feel England have went forward or improved since the summer victory or have they deteriorated and regressed? Sure Australia have improved whereas England have gone in the other direction. Earmark key players for England before this series begun and how many of them have delivered? Quite possibly none. Australia on the other hand have looked hungrier and have bowled better as a unit. They went away from their summer loss and worked on things and rebuilt confidence and belief and are reaping the rewards. Johnson has gone from joke figure to fearsome strike bowler ably aided by Harris and Siddle chiefly.

Sorry for the delayed response Craig - I had to answer a phone call.

OK then, but when I saw your post the other day I was about to make an objection but decided not to bring history into it. I had relatives too in both wars... on both sides, so maybe I have a different understanding of reality. I don't mean to be insensitive either. A fair few of my ancestors were important figures in English history - who did some good and bad things.

So deep down I do have a soft spot for England too!  Just not on the sporting fields.  

My view of the summer series was that Australia were on the rise but still obviously fell short for a couple of reasons. One being that they were not quite as settled as they are now (but I did sense they had more belief in themselves as the players kept on saying) and the other factor was obviously England just had enough the 'snatch' the series on home turf. Winners usually always find that little bit extra and it is fair to say this applied to England cricket. However, the signs were there that the return series in Oz might favour Australia.

Also, as you and others have said - England's pre-Ashes preparation was probably not so good. Compare that to 2009/10 when they really did their homework and were on an upward trend in terms of performance and confidence. This time round; Australia's preparation has been better managed since the last series. It's in our nature to make sure we can bounce back from low points... but we just needed the right players in the right positions, harness some growing confidence, minimise past mistakes and of course a bit of luck. There are still some areas/players under question I feel but others have stepped up and performed well.

I can't emphasise how desperate our blokes must have been to 'have another go' (you really notice it in the air here... but to be fair there was naturally some degree of caution and less "we'll smash 'em when they get here" type of behaviour from everyone - players, media and fans. I suppose it's a classic sporting scenario when a team is on top - everyone wants their scalp - however we all know that to improve performance a team must have the best players representing, the right plan of action and execute that plan with a minimum of hiccups. Australia can improve from here (SA will be a huge challenge but we tend to do well there) but I get the feeling that the belief they had in England is finally starting to bear rewards at home here.

As for England - it's very hard to stop a slide in performance. Australia went through the same troubles. All top teams do eventually. There's no denying your players have done very well in the last 3 series but once a chink in the armour appears it's hard to make changes to a winning combination when so much is at stake - even if the whole world can see where the problems may lie (or attribute blame to different players as we read on these threads). There's always that thought "maybe things will revert back to previous form" and it may feel safer to stick with the core of players who have tasted success.

However, without spreading too much panic - I feel some significant changes do need to be made once this Test is over. Whether that happens is another thing though. Australia is a difficult place to blood new players but along with Root (1st time here) and Stokes doing OK (or showing some potential) maybe England should risk a debutant for Melbourne (Ballance and/or Rankin?) just to see if they can offer something else.

Yes Swann bowling well and getting some spin. The pressure is right off Australia though and Warner opening his shoukders and hitting back-to-back boundaries off Stokes. 32 for 0.

kwinigolfer wrote:Let's hope we remember this series of England fiascos when we're debating Hall Of Fame Memberships in ten years' time.

Kwini, the HoF debates this season has been like England's performance this series , got real bbadly grounded unfortunately.

Good post lb.

Not my players though as am a Scotsman but point taken.

I think Australia have made a good appointment getting Darren Lehmann in. Much respected player in his day and knows his stuff. He backed his players and talked a good game even when results went against them in England. He has got Johnson back now performing at the top of his game and with Harris and Siddle supporting the attack it has made England's attack look toothless by comparison. I would say the batting still needs re-inforcing in one or two areas. Also noticeable is there is a good spirit amongst the team now.

As for England well you can sense a transitional period coming up as a numberbof players in the team are now in their 30's. Perhaps it is time to change the management and get in some new faces with fresh ideas. They need to settle on a new opening partnership, a No.3 as in who gets that slot and also consider new bowling options for the future.