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

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:That's about right. I still can't believe how Pietersen got out. He knew the deal, he knew the stakes.

But in his head he was right!

Personally that is the only way KP should play.

He doesn't play well when he plays to an in match situation.

He only plays well when he plays at his pace. That is something fans need to understand. We benefit long term with KP playing his natural game.

People bash him for not caring- I think he cares as much as any other. He was the first out of the hotel, the first in the nets, played some nice shots, but will get judged poorly for getting caught deep. Look at the aus batters. First couple of tests ,, they risked shots, they got lucky which paid off and that is a risk they took which allows them to manipulate the field

I cant fault KP this test.

there was more chance us winning this test than drawing it. And that is still the case helped by KP.

mystiroakey wrote:Look i am being a bit harsh on root. In truth I trust him.

The first dismissal we can all understand, and even if he did hit it, you may not feel that sort of edge. The second one he did hit the ground at the same time as hitting the ball. Therefore its hard to pick up two impacts.

But if he is on the con, I will call him the baby faced assassin.

A bit of a coincidence ? Actually pretty sure he was dudded in the first innings , so wouldn't altogether blame him for trying to get one back   

But the more likely explanation is he wasn't sure whether he had clean edged or squeezed the ball into the ground - it is often hard to be sure - so asked the question. With only two down I doubt he'd have squandered a review on a con job..

Sorry Mysti, but I disagree. There's only so many times you can just say, 'that's the way he plays'. It some situations, that can't be the way he plays. That shot was either six or out. In the circumstances (or in any circumstances, in my view) he shouldn't have played the shot. Michael Vaughan's right:

"It was a good option to be putting Nathan Lyon into the stands when the field was up. But when the field was put out, he should not have been trying to take on the man at long-on."

Keep it on the deck, hit it for four. Are those two extra runs really worth risking your wicket for?

some batsmen just cant turn it on and off.

Then he has a serious problem. I say he's not trying to turn it off. He thinks he's such a good batsman that he doesn't need to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6186211.stm

Pretty similar position to seven years ago.

Only England are stronger, and Australia are weaker.

Believe. I never stop.

England can still win this.

no he doesn't have a serious problem at all.

it works more than it doesn't with kp and that is why he has such an exceptional record.

He has a trait as many other batsmen do.

Most batsmen work on those traits. I don't see much evidence that Pietersen does. Every time Michael Clarke sets a trap for him, he falls into it. He can't help himself. He's an opposition coach's dream.

no he is an opposite coaches nightmare-

that is proven by his play, average and match winning performances.

not sure how you can get a player so wrong

How's his average this series?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:How's his average this series?

27.5

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/engine/match/592399.html

Certainly the real Pietersen turned up today. And yes , he perished playing a slightly over ambitious shot , with the long on out.  But if he nails it again , he gets closer to getting rid of Lyon for a while...percentages...if it is the last day and a serious draw chance is on , I'd be more critical : as it was , it makes no difference ; and most fans are pleased to see some intent from England's batsmen , even if too late to save the Ashes. At least it might set a marker for Melbourne.
KP won't be proud of this tour : he will want to play an innings or two before the end , but will still know it hasn't come when it was needed. But perhaps today has got him back in the groove for the remaining matches.  We don't want a damn whitewash !

Yes we bloody do!    

alfie, so what team line up would you like to see for Melbourne? (apologies if you've already told us)
Are you going on Boxing Day or are your tickets for another day?

Would like to see Stokes go on and get a hundred tomorrow. This effort is certainly a step up from the promise he showed in the earlier cameos ...

Unlike some , I still won't be anointing him as a savior just yet (like to see a few swallows before declaring an end to winter ) ; but I am impressed by his temperament and I would really like to see him develop into a proper Test allrounder. If this seems over cautious , I remember Chris Lewis making a hundred in a lost cause once and that didn't lead anywhere   
I like this lad's chances better. Just nobody go calling him the new Botham /Flintoff , OK ?

If Stokes isn't the second coming of Ian Botham than I don't know who will be...

Seriously though he's got potential to be Flintoff-esque. Bowls quick, bats aggressively, not the frame of Freddie though. Good signs

Can he handle a pedalo?

"Just nobody go calling him the new Botham /Flintoff , OK ?"

Why are cricket fans so flipping superstitious?


But all the same I am surprised no one has mentioned the real reason we are losing this series!!


Trebbel has gone missing !!!

Duty281 wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6186211.stm

Pretty similar position to seven years ago.

Only England are stronger, and Australia are weaker.

Believe. I never stop.

England can still win this.

18/1. Get some cash on them!!

Linebreaker wrote:Yes we bloody do!    

alfie, so what team line up would you like to see for Melbourne? (apologies if you've already told us)
Are you going on Boxing Day or are your tickets for another day?

Boxing day is too much after an evening with my large family , all of whom like a drink    I don't bounce up after a party like I used to... Going day two.

Team eh ? Flower hasn't rung me yet , so I am still considering...will want to see how Broad comes up anyway ...
Hmm. Cook Carberry Root Bell KP (note the order change) . Prior worries me at the moment . I rate him , but he is in the horrors : tomorrow might be significant. If he gets runs , and has his head back together , I would keep him , so it then the decision becomes do you keep the same team or bring in an extra batsman ? ... All series I have wanted Bairstow at six and settle for four bowlers but now Stokes has confused me . He is batting better than I expected , but his bowling might be a bit risky as one of four ...
So that sounds like the same team , which seems an odd reaction to a heavy loss. I know some will say change the bowlers ! But if the three talls were not thought a good choice for Perth I don't see why you'd be confident any of them will make a difference in Melbourne...
Yeah , same team I reckon, if all fit. Cook to win a toss at last and maybe think about holding our catches for a change   

Isn't it amazing how much rides on the toss of a coin?

the great thing about KP is that even if he scores a ton in the next test, he would only be provingy point about him...

"So that sounds like the same team , which seems an odd reaction to a heavy loss"

it isn't a heavy loss YET

and its our best batting performance(from the batsmen)

so no its a perfectly acceptable reaction

alfie, I'm also going on Day 2, Saturday Jan 4th for the 5th Test.

I've just been trawling through the cricinfo threads. Lots of calls for KP, Jimmy, Prior and Anderson to be dropped or rested. That would be too much change. Probably risk playing Rankin for Broad if he is unavailable. Bresnan played well at the G last time.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Isn't it amazing how much rides on the toss of a coin?

Yes it is , sometimes . When a team is clearly superior , or on a real roll , it often doesn't seem to make much difference ; but when a team is struggling to get into a series the wrong call on a hot day can just about suck the last life out of them...

In the northern summer , Australia were in danger of getting totally cleaned up after Lord's : but when Clarke won the toss at Old Trafford and they made the most of it - probably a bit unlucky not to grab a win - it sort of got them back into things ; mentally at least - I mean they lost the next one anyway , but they had got back a bit of belief , which they have been able to carry into this series : with spectacular results !

Of course it might be too late for England this time...

Linebreaker wrote:alfie, I'm also going on Day 2, Saturday Jan 4th for the 5th Test.

I've just been trawling through the cricinfo threads. Lots of calls for KP, Jimmy, Prior and Anderson to be dropped or rested. That would be too much change. Probably risk playing Rankin for Broad if he is unavailable. Bresnan played well at the G last time.

Hope you get some good cricket then , lb. I think I'll be back at work by then ...would have taken a few extra days if the series had been live , but...

Agree with you re the team. Australia throwing players all over the place in India did them no good. You have to put a bit of faith in those you rate - a tweak here and there , nail scissors not battle axes   

mystiroakey wrote:"So that sounds like the same tea

m , which seems an odd reaction to a heavy loss"

it isn't a heavy loss YET

and its our best batting performance(from the batsmen)

so no its a perfectly acceptable reaction

Good to see you are joining Duty on the ramparts , roakey   

I think I'll keep trying for the trebell effect...


And I said "Seems . So I am quite happy to continue more with faith - and a little charity - than embracing the wild hope of mass changes. Just didn't expect anyone to agree with me   

alfie wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Isn't it amazing how much rides on the toss of a coin?

Yes it is , sometimes  . When a team is clearly superior , or on a real roll , it often doesn't seem to make much difference ; but when a team is struggling to get into a series the wrong call on a hot day can just about suck the last life out of them...

In the northern summer , Australia were in danger of getting totally cleaned up after Lord's : but when Clarke won the toss at Old Trafford and they made the most of it - probably a bit unlucky not to grab a win - it sort of got them back into things ; mentally at least - I mean they lost the next one anyway , but they had got back a bit of belief , which they have been able to carry into this series : with spectacular results !

Of course it might be too late for England this time...

Australia have been the better side throughout the series, no question; but who knows what would have happened if we'd got to bat first in one of these Tests. Okay, we might not have made a big first-innings total, but at least our bowlers would have had something to bowl at - and the Aussies would have had to chase. Having runs on the board can make such a difference.

alfie wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"So that sounds like the same tea

m , which seems an odd reaction to a heavy loss"

it isn't a heavy loss YET

and its our best batting performance(from the batsmen)

so no its a perfectly acceptable reaction

Good to see you are joining Duty on the ramparts , roakey   

I think I'll keep trying for the trebell effect...


And I said "Seems . So I am quite happy to continue more with faith - and a little charity - than embracing the  wild hope of mass changes.  Just didn't expect anyone to agree with me   

You know me- up one day, down the next.. Partially mental, But I blame the cricket team for sending me that way

Some really stupid comments about Pietersen on here.

He has been so successful playing in that very manner. You cannot appreciate a six then chastise him when he gets out falling yards short of another. It showed intent, it's a style that has brought him more success than any other batsman in the history of the English game, and it's not like we can draw the bloody thing anyway with (at the time) the best part of two days left on a cracked pitch.

Certain people need to grow up and leave personal issues they might have (perhaps due to being half South African, perhaps due to simply being rubbed up the wrong way by someone that actually has the audacity to believe in themselves and display confidence openly) aside and just accept that, on occasion, an attacking batsman will get out to an attacking shot.

Fists of Fury wrote:Some really stupid comments about Pietersen on here.

He has been so successful playing in that very manner. You cannot appreciate a six then chastise him when he gets out falling yards short of another. It showed intent, it's a style that has brought him more success than any other batsman in the history of the English game, and it's not like we can draw the bloody thing anyway with (at the time) the best part of two days left on a cracked pitch.

Certain people need to grow up and leave personal issues they might have (perhaps due to being half South African, perhaps due to simply being rubbed up the wrong way by someone that actually has the audacity to believe in themselves and display confidence openly) aside and just accept that, on occasion, an attacking batsman will get out to an attacking shot.

If that's aimed at me, thanks for assuming I have 'personal issues' with Pietersen. Of course sometimes players will get out to an attacking shot. But my point still stands that every time Michael Clarke has set a trap for Pietersen this series, he hasn't been able to help himself from falling into it. A four is an attacking shot and it's much less likely to cost you your wicket.

You have to take the match situation into account and play accordingly. An entertaining quick-fire innings is useless when you're chasing 504.

I have no problem with the way KP played today. I said it last night, England were never going to save this match batting for time. Look at the more cavalier shot players today and they were rewarded with quick runs and I would say the Aussies dealt with it less as well as if they had played more conservatively. Besides KP only knows one way to bat and if people do not like that way then I hope they weren't singing his praises when his cavalier innings in previous years turned tests from a position of peril into one of hope. Remember he made 45 today playing his shots and did curb his aggression early and played himself in. If he had tried batting for time I say he would have been out for less than 20 runs. An innings like his anyway just showed his teammates that you can score quick runs on this pitch. Rant over.

"You have to take the match situation into account and play accordingly. An entertaining quick-fire innings is useless when you're chasing 504."

that's where you fail.

when you are chasing 504 in 5.5 sessions and have only managed a max of 280 in the previous 5 innings and have only lasted at max 3 and a half sessions before- there is one slim chance - that chance is to win- not draw.

The only way to survive is to play natural, and if you do that and survive you win the game

I'm not saying he should have suddenly started playing like Geoff Boycott, just that it's insane to bat the same way regardless of the match situation and how the innings is going.

Kp didn't play anything other than his natural game lucky..and I am happy at this clear improvement from him this test. 2 50's playing well is a good improvement. It also seemed to kick start us. I doubt bell or stokes would have played so freely if kp didn't before them

Every batter gets out. I think many people give batsmen more of a break when they get out playing a defensive shot.. that isn't logical.

Maybe I'm just disappointed that he got out. But how many times has been out caught this series? You can get to the rope without going aerial.

Good to see a bit of sense posted in the aftermath of my above rant.

If anything, Pietersen led the way in showing that you CAN take on Mitchell Johnson, you CAN have this Aussie attack on the run. The WACA gives fairly good value for aggressive strokeplay and he played the right innings...he just didn't quite get hold of one in to the breeze as he'd have liked. It happens.

Let's be realistic, England were never going to simply bat out for a draw on a ludicrously cracked pitch. They had to spread the fielders with some attacking play and the win was actually more of an option, however unlikely.

Can we just say that Harris' catch was outstanding to get rid of KP. That went a LONG way up and he was right on the rope. If there's no fielder there it probably either just bounces before the rop or just clears it. Shame there was a man there and shame when he took the catch he didn't touch the rope like Bresnan!

Fair play to Stokes, thought he'd make a spirited 20 and get out but credit where credits due. Would love him to go on and get a 100 but have the feeling he'll be out in the opening half hour. The close always seems to come when England least want it and haults their momentum. In an ideal world tomorrow for England:

-Stokes completes his century, out for 110
-Prior pitches in with a 70
-Bresnan a 30
-Swann quick fire 20
-Anderson 10
-Broad on one leg 16
-Johnson goes all over the shop, 40 extras and England win

Was KP's the percentage shot with the man back? All about calculated risks. Not sure hitting into the wind with the man back there was the correct shot. Maybe look somewhere else for your runs until they move that man and then go back there. If it goes for six everyone says it is a great shot though, swings and roundabouts.

guildfordbat wrote:

... However, I do feel that posters have generally been overly sympathetic to the England bowling second time round throughout this series. Whilst it hasn't been the major cause of our problems (and, as I say above, there have been understandable difficulties attached to it), it has never properly challenged the Australian batsmen and looked like wrestling things back or even stemming the tide.

Only seen brief highlights of the fourth day's play but once more disappointed by the bowling second time round. Yes, it is very much the England batsmen's fault but I would still expect more demanding bowling from a largely experienced and proven Test attack.

Good batting at least by Stokes to make our hold on the Ashes last another day. Some glorious drives, adored the straight one to bring up his fifty - such precision and power. A bit like Alfie, I'm not convinced though that he's a long term number 6; he comes across to me as a number 7 or 8 playing out of his skin rather than a regular number 6 who would be comfortable batting all day. I desperately hope I'm wrong - I may well be as 1) I often am; and 2), as I pointed out a few weeks ago, County Champions Durham clearly rate his batting - he normally plays for them at 5.

As mysti has posted, Stokes would be incredibly valuable to the England team if he can continue to justify the number 6 spot beyond just this series. That would be the one major bonus to come out of this wretched tour.

Generally, more fight from England with the bat second time round but realistically all too late. Feel sorry in particular for Carberry - once more, an awful situation worsened further as he saw his skipper and fellow opener head back to the hutch early doors. It is always so much harder to step up to a higher form of cricket when your team is struggling - that's another reason to be so impressed by Stokes' impact.

Anyway, back to Carberry. He seems well capable of getting the vehicle started but unable to take it very far. In 8 Test innings (2 were against Bangladesh a little time back), he's reached double figures 7 times but a fifty only once. I suspect on this tour that Carberry would have done better if Cook had done the same. Carberry is currenly our second highest run scorer in the series, a mere couple of runs behind Bell. That's to Carberry's credit but, for all his determination, I still feel he's out of his depth and that it shows the failings of the other batsmen more than anything else.

Maybe Pietersen should have seen the writing on the wall for his dismissal but smart captaincy again from Clarke to ensure that Lyon was bowling into the wind. The ball seemed to hold just above the boundary rope before dropping for a fine catch by Harris.

As for the team for Melbourne, two possible and very different options. Firstly, the Alfie approach; keep it as is. Can understand that - broadly, the right players have been chosen. They just haven't performed. Secondly, freshen things up a lot and rest / discard the more jaded players. Some elsewhere suggest bringing in Ballance, Bairstow and Rankin; I think that would be going too far and set up a raw team (currently Ballance 0 caps, Rankin 0, Stokes 2, Carberry 4) for an even bigger fall. I would probably leave out only the most jaded player (selectors' call as to who that is) - I think we have to do something - and fudge it from there. That's before we learn how crocked Broad is. However, largely rearranging deckchairs for the rest of this tour, I fear!

JDizzle wrote:Was KP's the percentage shot with the man back? All about calculated risks. Not sure hitting into the wind with the man back there was the correct shot. Maybe look somewhere else for your runs until they move that man and then go back there.

This is what I'm getting at. He's not blind, he knew what field was set, but he still took it on when he didn't need to.

But Luckless that is his style. Lives by the sword dies by the sword. I'd hazard a guess he has played that shot dozens of times and the ball cleared the ropes and fans lauded him for it. He is one of a kind - capable of turning a match on its head with a rapid fire innings but he is not the play to block, block, block. Why do you think Siddle has got him out ten times? Because he ties him up with restrictive bowling and KP cannot block it is not is his make up.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Was KP's the percentage shot with the man back? All about calculated risks. Not sure hitting into the wind with the man back there was the correct shot. Maybe look somewhere else for your runs until they move that man and then go back there.

This is what I'm getting at. He's not blind, he knew what field was set, but he still took it on when he didn't need to.

Luckless and JD - appreciate your reasoning although tactically it wasn't daft to try and hit Lyon out of the attack. I agree there was a risk - sorry, that's rather obvious as Pietersen got out!  - but tend to feel it was a calculated one which didn't come off rather than a totally reckless one. As per my earlier post, credit to Clarke for having Lyon on at the right end although perhaps that should have set off an alarm bell for Pietersen.

Would also make the serious point that it's sometimes easier for Pietersen (and I've seen him in full flow), to clear the ropes with a six than hit a four with men back on the boundary line.

As flagged by Liam, great credit as well to Harris for a very fine catch. Throughout this series, the Australian fielding has been stunning, something we have tended to overlook as we (pretty understandably) moan about England's failings.

KP is special, but he certainly isn't he one of a kind. Hes problem isn't ability it's ego. You can almost see him looking at Siddle thinking, "I'm not going to be tied down by someone as limited as him, how dare Clarke put a man on the boundary? Just for that, I'm going to Clear that man, and I'm going to do that off that one-pace wonder Siddle"... The graft concept is foreign to KP, he didn't graft when he couldn't make the Natal 2XI, he just moaned and went to England. He didn't even graft his way back into the team, he just "re-integrated".

He's a 33-year old married father now, if he hasn't started showing a greater sense of the occasion, he certainly isn't going to start now. You either drop him or take him as is. Asking him to change now is a exercise which is 10 years too late.

In his last 7 Test matches Kevin Pietersen has scored five 50s and a hundred. Drop him? Really?

Damned lies and statistics...

He's also averaging 33 for the year... Drop him? Really.

guildfordbat wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Was KP's the percentage shot with the man back? All about calculated risks. Not sure hitting into the wind with the man back there was the correct shot. Maybe look somewhere else for your runs until they move that man and then go back there.

This is what I'm getting at. He's not blind, he knew what field was set, but he still took it on when he didn't need to.

Luckless and JD - appreciate your reasoning although tactically it wasn't daft to try and hit Lyon out of the attack. I agree there was a risk - sorry, that's rather obvious as Pietersen got out!  - but tend to feel it was a calculated one which didn't come off rather than a totally reckless one. As per my earlier post, credit to Clarke for having Lyon on at the right end although perhaps that should have set off an alarm bell for Pietersen.

Would also make the serious point that it's sometimes easier for Pietersen (and I've seen him in full flow), to clear the ropes with a six than hit a four with men back on the boundary line.

As flagged by Liam, great credit as well to Harris for a very fine catch. Throughout this series, the Australian fielding has been stunning, something we have tended to overlook as we (pretty understandably) moan about England's failings.

It's tough to get a feel for the situation of the game when you've only seen the limited highlights of KP's dismissal and what came before, so it is hard to know whether it was worth the risk. He was in and going well so perhaps he can be excused for this particular shot, but the frustration of him getting out like that is compounded by some of his other dismissals in this series.

You're not dropping KP anytime soon though. Not when realistically Root and Stokes are still finding their feet in the top 6, Cook is out of form and you are potentially looking to replace Carberry with someone younger.

The Aussis fielding has been brilliant. Haddin has set the tone with sensational keeping and it has spread throughout the field. Compare that with England's Keystone Cops fielding, especially this morning, at it sums up the series.

The Aussies have been excellent in all areas. The frustration is that we haven't put them under sufficient pressure to change that. We haven't asked them questions, as the old cliche goes.