England v Australia - Test 1, Cardiff 8th - 12th July

First topic message reminder :

England

Lyth
Cook
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Broad
Wood
Anderson


Australia

Warner
Rogers
Smith
Clarke
Voges
Watson
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Lyon
Hazlewood



Officials

Umpires - HDPK Dharmasena and M Erasmus
TV umpire - CB Gaffaney
Match referee - RS Madugalle
Reserve umpire - NGB Cook



Toss

Won by England who choose to bat.

They're not a bad bunch, and they know their cricket. that said, I wouldn't want to be sat near the trumpet man for too long. The said trumpet might end up in his bottom.

The cricket is going ok. If the Aussies can get the three wicket pretty quickly, and get a good start, then they'll have a sunny couple of days to bat.

Stella wrote:

The cricket is going ok. If the Aussies can get the three wicket pretty quickly, and get a good start, then they'll have a sunny couple of days to bat.

Oh yeah, there's a cricket match on I think we will fold pretty quickly, some short stuff will see off Broad, Wood and Anderson in no time. Then I fear we actually have nowhere near enough runs for our medium pace bowling attack to defend on this pitch. The Aussies bat deep, I think they will be eyeing a lead of around 175 runs which would be match-winning

England got over 400 first up here in 2009? Similar sort of pitch if I remember. Ended up having to rely on Jimmy A and Panesar batting out to save the day.

England only took 6 wickets in that match also, and that bowling attack was much better, although Wood remains an unknown quantity in Ashes encounters.

I think England will scurry their way to 420...somehow! That should be the foundation for a hundred-run lead.

It will all work out in the end.

Duty I admire you're optimism as always. Where are England getting these 10 wickets from though?

liverbnz wrote:Duty I admire you're optimism as always. Where are England getting these 10 wickets from though?

You beat me to it! How is the bowling attack that couldn't restrain such batting greats as BJ Watling and Luke Ronchi going to get the Aussies out for 300?!

liverbnz wrote:England got over 400 first up here in 2009? Similar sort of pitch if I remember. Ended up having to rely on Jimmy A and Panesar batting out to save the day.

England only took 6 wickets in that match also, and that bowling attack was much better, although Wood remains an unknown quantity in Ashes encounters.

The wicket yesterday though had variable bounce with some balls keeping low. Was that the case in 2009? I genuinely can't remember.

Australia didn't bowl well yesterday - or at least not well enough for long enough. In all the circumstances, I don't think our score is too bad although we probably won't be able to properly judge it until tonight.

Watch and thou shall see.

It's difficult to judge how good or bad England's day yesterday was - one dropped catch was the difference between being scuttled for 200 and the current position of looking for 400 this morning. Really need to see how the Aussies bat on a slow and low wicket with some variable bounce. It's going to be a wicket where Rogers, Clark and Smith will need to get the runs - doesn't suit the big hitters so much because of the absence of pace.

I think England will definitely have left the field the happier yesterday evening, as they were in a position where they could have lost the match after an hour, but pulled it round to being at least reasonably competitive.

guildfordbat wrote:

liverbnz wrote:England got over 400 first up here in 2009? Similar sort of pitch if I remember. Ended up having to rely on Jimmy A and Panesar batting out to save the day.

England only took 6 wickets in that match also, and that bowling attack was much better, although Wood remains an unknown quantity in Ashes encounters.

The wicket yesterday though had variable bounce with some balls keeping low. Was that the case in 2009? I genuinely can't remember.

Australia didn't bowl well yesterday - or at least not well enough for long enough. In all the circumstances, I don't think our score is too bad although we probably won't be able to properly judge it until tonight.

Not sure if there were many that kept alarmingly low like yesterday although the first day report from 2009 reads eerily similar to yesterday's.

Cheers, Liver.

Yeah, I don't recall ''alarmingly low'' balls from six years ago although that may just be my memory. Given there were some around yesterday, England could have certainly ended the day worse off.

How Australia cope when batting of course remains to be seen. If cricket followed strict rules of logic, I would expect Rogers to do well on a slow and variable pitch set to test but not conquer his patient and watchful approach.

For today if England can break through the 400 barrier then they will be pretty competitively placed. They'd perhaps hope to reduce Australia to around 200 for 5 at the end of the day. Australia will want to bowl England out quickly for less than 400 and be around 250 for no more than 3 or 4 wickets down at close of play. If they achieve that they will feel they are on top.

The ball does seem to be swinging still this morning, and swung for most of the day yesterday, so that should help the bowlers. There'll be a bit of spin too. It is slowwwwwwwwwww though. As guildford says, it doesn't feel as flat as the 09 pitch to me, and I agree with him that by and large Aus didn't bowl particularly well yesterday, with the exception of a good spell by Starc late on.

15 minutes in and Broad has already been smacked on the head. When he plays his shots he looks good, no idea why he tried to duck a length ball though

Broad's lucky with that one I think, hell of an effort from Vogues though.

Looks like England will be setting enough of a traget to test the out just how rubbish the aussie batting line up really is.
I still find it a big surprise they chose Watson over Marsh given how freely Marsh has scored recently and how little they chose to bowl Watson in the warm ups. I guess its his expereince they wanted, and ability to bowl a few tight overs ...Clarke has never really trusted Starc, Johnson and I guess after Essex Lyon to do that.

Wrong kind of century for Johnson. On top of that hes raging away and still only bowling in the mid 80s.....wdoes make you wonder what "pace" Broad will be able to extract mind.

This is so eerily similar to 2009, now with a lower order partnership adding quite a few runs. Really hope the Aussie innings doesn't follow the 2009 script!

guildfordbat wrote:

liverbnz wrote:England got over 400 first up here in 2009? Similar sort of pitch if I remember. Ended up having to rely on Jimmy A and Panesar batting out to save the day.

England only took 6 wickets in that match also, and that bowling attack was much better, although Wood remains an unknown quantity in Ashes encounters.

The wicket yesterday though had variable bounce with some balls keeping low. Was that the case in 2009? I genuinely can't remember.

Australia didn't bowl well yesterday - or at least not well enough for long enough. In all the circumstances, I don't think our score is too bad although we probably won't be able to properly judge it until tonight.

It was intersting listening to Swann yesterday on TMS...he was quite open that Australias total was down to him and other bowling absolute tripe as much as the pitch.

The rate England are scoring at currently ... if they get another 10 overs like this then pressure really is on Aus to bat long rather than their naturally aggressive game

Broad out. I hope Wood and Anderson don't try to be new attacking England here: just hang around with Moeen, don't leave him stranded on a not out

Lyon gets Broad first ball.
Have a look Stuart!!!

You definitely do get the feeling that you could control the scoring rate of the batting team on this wicket if you bowled tight. Aus just aren't doing that.

As I say that wicket for Lyon. Bit impatient of Broad that.

400 up.
All runs are now a bonus.

Not sure I like the Broad decision. Sets a precedent which isn't quite right.

Ali is looking great here, timing the ball superbly.

kingraf wrote:Not sure I like the Broad decision. Sets a precedent which isn't quite right.

What did you think was wrong with it?

On the plus side that Lyon got the wicket first ball (without even trying) will probably just wind Johnson up even more. hes not had much luck even if hes contributed to his poor figures by bowling the wrong lengths.
The more energy he expends now blustering and flustering the less he has for when it matters later in the game and series.

67/1 in the first third of the morning. Thats the sort of session Boycott used to be proud of.

Lively start this morning ...Broad perhaps got a bit carried away there going at Lyon immediately ; but he's done a good job backing up Moeen - who has played very well.
Over 400 : and I confess I wasn't certain before the start that they'd reach that mark at all. And at better than four per over - nice !

Mind you , it does point up the batsman-friendly nature of this strip : they might need a big score to put some scoreboard pressure on Australia.

Modem still going - and going after Lyon...

Not sure johnson will see as many puddings as this one.....

Congratulations to Glamorgan they should get the five days takings they were looking for...

Ryan Harris looks like a big blow to Australia..

Mooen's batting is giving the selectors a bit of a headache here, in a nice way I suppose. Let's hope he bowls well so he can justify being the lead spinner. If he bowls like a drain though, how on earth could he be dropped after this?

drinks and an excellent hour for England, scored quickly and lost just the one wicket. Moeen has played very nicely indeed, good to see and bodes well for the rest of the series. Now just have to hope his bowling stacks up.

VTR wrote:Mooen's batting is giving the selectors a bit of a headache here, in a nice way I suppose. Let's hope he bowls well so he can justify being the lead spinner. If he bowls like a drain though, how on earth could he be dropped after this?

If he does bowl crap, you could possibly bring Rashid in for Bell. Won't happen, but Rashid will probably score more runs than Bell would.

Is Lyon allowed to claim his bowling broke Alis bat?

To be clear, I was talking about the Voges catch. Here's my issue: If an umpire has any doubts, he should refer it immediately. To give it out, and then call Broad back (Without a review from Broad miraculously enough) based, I'm assuming, off the big screen is not how it should be done. Or, if it is, there should be consistency. What happens in a few weeks when a player gets given LBW, and the producer skips to hot spot and there's an edge? Or more pertinently, what happens if a team appeals for caught behind, it's given not out and the producer skips to hot spot showing an edge before the next delivery is bowled?

PaulHv2 wrote:

VTR wrote:Mooen's batting is giving the selectors a bit of a headache here, in a nice way I suppose. Let's hope he bowls well so he can justify being the lead spinner. If he bowls like a drain though, how on earth could he be dropped after this?

If he does bowl crap, you could possibly bring Rashid in for Bell. Won't happen, but Rashid will probably score more runs than Bell would.

Yes that would be a fair change, and would you certainly would not lose anything without Bell's contribution of less than 5 runs and a couple of dropped catches per match

kingraf wrote:To be clear, I was talking about the Voges catch. Here's my issue: If an umpire has any doubts, he should refer it immediately. To give it out, and then call Broad back (Without a review from Broad miraculously enough) based, I'm assuming, off the big screen is not how it should be done. Or, if it is, there should be consistency. What happens in a few weeks when a player gets given LBW, and the producer skips to hot spot and there's an edge? Or more pertinently, what happens if a team appeals for caught behind, it's given not out and the producer skips to hot spot showing an edge before the next delivery is bowled?

Sorry Raf, I thought you the decision in the end was the wrong one. I agree, you can't be showing stuff like that on the big screen.

Fantastic knock from Moeen Ali. England are reinventing the 6,7,8 slot. Or rather reinterpreting it to how South Africa played it in the 90s.

PaulHv2 wrote:

VTR wrote:Mooen's batting is giving the selectors a bit of a headache here, in a nice way I suppose. Let's hope he bowls well so he can justify being the lead spinner. If he bowls like a drain though, how on earth could he be dropped after this?

If he does bowl crap, you could possibly bring Rashid in for Bell. Won't happen, but Rashid will probably score more runs than Bell would.

Its a similar dilema with Stokes who was originaly given a chance as a seamer who can bat ...but whos returns with the ball have largely been absolute dog poo. It will become a headache if they both justify a place as lower middle order agressive batsmen but neither is really doing enough to keep a place as a frontline bowler.
More so Ali really as he is the sole spinner.

On the flip side its one of the obvious strengths of this england team that they have a 7 and 8 who arguably could be top 6 bats in some test teams and 6 who is making up more than a fill in as a bowler. Comapring the batting of Englands 6-9 is far superior to that of Australaius, espeically with Haddin and Watson both seemingly in terminal decline.

Ah well all good things must come to an end ...Moeen got out for a fine 77 and not much left now...

But 419 isn't bad at all ; reading a lot of pessimism above re England's bowling prospects on this , but I reckon if they bowl well and hold their catches they might do the job - assuming the swing that has been on offer so far continues.

That review took way too long , by the way : if he wanted "conclusive" evidence of a touch , it was clear enough he wasn't going to find any quite soon. Minor point , but I sometimes think they are seeking a certainty that the equipment just doesn't afford.

Gooseberry wrote:

PaulHv2 wrote:

VTR wrote:Mooen's batting is giving the selectors a bit of a headache here, in a nice way I suppose. Let's hope he bowls well so he can justify being the lead spinner. If he bowls like a drain though, how on earth could he be dropped after this?

If he does bowl crap, you could possibly bring Rashid in for Bell. Won't happen, but Rashid will probably score more runs than Bell would.

Its a similar dilema with Stokes who was originaly given a chance as a seamer who can bat ...but whos returns with the ball have largely been absolute dog poo. It will become a headache if they both justify a place as lower middle order agressive batsmen but neither is really doing enough to keep a place as a  frontline bowler.
More so Ali really as he is the sole spinner.

On the flip side its one of the obvious strengths of this england team that they have a 7 and 8 who arguably could be top 6 bats in some test teams and 6 who is making up more than a fill in as a bowler. Comapring the batting of Englands 6-9 is far superior to that of Australaius, espeically with Haddin and Watson both seemingly in terminal decline.

I agree Goose, looking at it from a captains perspective. If I was picking the team Bell would have to go, his run of form has been dreadful. I'd keep Stokes in the side as I personally feel his runs are vital, and think he may develop in to a good fourth seamer who will contribute with the bat more often than not.

5 wides. Slow hand clap
England might as well drop Bell and not replace him if starcs going to give away as many runs as he can average.

Slow hand clap for Haddin as well for missing a stumping by being took quick to take the bails off.

When it rains it pours.

Excellent effort from England, particularly given the pleasant rate of scoring.

Root was the King, but the contributions of support from Ballance, Moeen and Stokes were also especially vital.

England will extract more from this pitch than the Australians did - it's a given. The slow pitch will also frustrate the natural aggressive tendencies of the majority of the visiting batsmen - Rogers excluded!

I wouldn't be surprised if England are batting at the end of the day, you know...

430. I'll take that.

Starc ends up with five , though he was rather expensive , and will probably concede his figures have flattered him a bit.

Now we shall see whether the England bowlers can get anything out of this.

England all done for 430. 5 runs less than they got here in 2009. Starc gets a barely deserved 5fer.

Starc takes wickets, but he isn't half expensive.

Duty281 wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if England are batting at the end of the day, you know...

If it's up there, I'll give you the money myself!

430 it is. Think England wouldve setteled for that at any point from the first ball bowled really.
Theres a bit of swing, bit of spin and uneven bounce. Australias batting line up looks brittle and England have the resources to rotate their seamers a lot more than Aus could. The pitch should get better for the bowlers as the game goes on so Im fairly confident its a competitive total if far from putting Aus into playing for the draw mode already.
Bearing in mind England couldnt buy a score of 400 against any attack not that long agao and the ridiculous state their top order got them, plus the rate at which theyve plundered runs the initiative has to be with them.

I bet Johnson cant look Starc in the eye comparing figures right now. If anything Johnosn was the better of the two.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:drinks and an excellent hour for England, scored quickly and lost just the one wicket. Moeen has played very nicely indeed, good to see and bodes well for the rest of the series. Now just have to hope his bowling stacks up.

Just an idea that selectors should contemplate - drop Bell and move Moeen up the order and bring Rashid in - everyone's a winner and you get an extra bowler.