England v Australia, 2nd Test: Lords, 16th-20th July

England

Lyth
Cook
Ballance
Bell
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Broad
Wood
Anderson


Australia

Prob Team:

Warner
Rogers
Smith
Clarke
Voges
Marsh
Nevill
Johnson
Starc
Lyon
Hazlewood



Officials

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

Umpires unchanged, and we can expect England to be so too. Australia already forced into one change as Haddin drops out for personal reasons, CA to release a statement later. Star winning his battle with fitness, or so says Clarke. Meanwhile has Watson's borrowed time run out?

Cricinfo says Haddin "may" miss the Second Test. Is it still a maybe or been confirmed elsewhere?

VTR wrote:Cricinfo says Haddin "may" miss the Second Test. Is it still a maybe or been confirmed elsewhere?

Australia, it is being reported, will confirm later today that Brad Haddin will miss the Second Test for 'personal reasons'.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

VTR wrote:Cricinfo says Haddin "may" miss the Second Test. Is it still a maybe or been confirmed elsewhere?

Australia, it is being reported, will confirm later today that Brad Haddin will miss the Second Test for 'personal reasons'.

They usually wait till it is morning in Aus to make press releases.

LondonTiger wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

VTR wrote:Cricinfo says Haddin "may" miss the Second Test. Is it still a maybe or been confirmed elsewhere?

Australia, it is being reported, will confirm later today that Brad Haddin will miss the Second Test for 'personal reasons'.

They usually wait till it is morning in Aus to make press releases.

Yes so that will be around 11pm this evening (UK Time).

Hope it's nothing too serious?

Neville can bat, but can he catch?

Neville sounds a good bat. An average of 45 over 55 First Class matches suggests a good enough bat. A few questions though

- At 29, 55 FC matches seems a little light. Why so few? Late bloomer?

- No English experience. Maybe not the best for a team 1-0 down, with a lower order batting line up which made Fragile China seem impenetrable.

Reasons for Nevill's lack of first team matches:

1) Short 1st class season in Aus with just 6 teams
2) Plays for NSW, same team as Haddin - at times has played as a batsman only
3) Only made his F/C debut 6 years ago having moved from victoria where he was behind Matthew Wade.

Stella wrote:Hope it's nothing too serious?

Neville can bat, but can he catch?

Well Haddin lost the ability to do both so its win draw at worst for Aus

Watson dropped for marsh according to reports in Australia

This is a dangerous Test for England. Australia underperformed in Cardiff and are unlikely to play so badly again. England, on the other hand, have of late tended to chuck in a poor performance after a good win. They've done that twice already in Tests this year.
In '97 Eng came to Lord's having won at Birmingham and promptly got themselves bowled out for 77. Even in 85 when Eng were generally on top they managed to lose the Lord's Test. Going further back Eng were 1-0 up in 72 only to get rolled over at Lord's by Bob Massie.
If Australia bat first tomorrow and make anything like a reasonable score, then England could be in trouble. Or am I being over-pessimistic?

sirfredperry wrote:This is a dangerous Test for England. Australia underperformed in Cardiff and are unlikely to play so badly again. England, on the other hand, have of late tended to chuck in a poor performance after a good win. They've done that twice already in Tests this year.
    In '97 Eng came to Lord's having won at Birmingham and promptly got themselves bowled out for 77. Even in 85 when Eng were generally on top they managed to lose the Lord's Test. Going further back Eng were 1-0 up in 72 only to get rolled over at Lord's by Bob Massie.
   If Australia bat first tomorrow and make anything like a reasonable score, then England could be in trouble. Or am I being over-pessimistic?

Over pessimistic I would say - in 97 Aussies were a significantly stronger team and were always going to win over 6 matches. Winning that First Test was beyond unexpected at the time. This time I would say they came into the series slightly though not significantly stronger given England are at home, it wasn't a huge shock England were able to win at Cardiff. Last 2 Ashes series England have had big wins at Lords, so those results are of the most relevance I would say

VTR. Certainly was good to break the 75-year Lord's hoodoo in 09 and then win again there in 13. As I had suffered almost continuous heartbreak in Eng v Aus matches at Lord's for around 30 years, it was great being at the Saturday of each of those last two England wins and watch England batting hundreds of runs ahead and with victory almost certain.

sirfredperry wrote:VTR. Certainly was good to break the 75-year Lord's hoodoo in 09 and then win again there in 13. As I had suffered almost continuous heartbreak in Eng v Aus matches at Lord's for around 30 years, it was great being at the Saturday of each of those last two England wins and watch England batting hundreds of runs ahead and with victory almost certain.

Very nice I would imagine! I too find it hard to break the cycle of Ashes pessimism, having followed all series from 93 until we finally won in 2005. That was a lot of disappointment to take and even in 2005 we only just beat them!

VTR- The heartache started at Brisbane in 1958 for me. I still bear the scars from the last day of the '61 Manchester Test (when Benaud bowled Eng out), not to mention some of the 90s drubbings such as Lord's 1993 when Australia, having won the toss, were still batting on the Saturday morning.

Lord's 93 was pretty chastening stuff! Mark Waugh was out for 99, which meant the top 4 didn't quite all make hundreds (don't think that has still ever happened?). Then I well remember Athers falling over and being run out for 99!

Anyway, back to the current Test, I think Australia will be stronger for the 2 changes being talked about so we could see a close match that could easily be decided on winning the toss and batting first.

At 34, you'd imagine it's a rather long way back for Shane Watson now. 59 Tests is a lot more than his actual performances merited, but maybe not quite what his talent merits (I suppose; it's strange to estimate exactly what output a player deserves when they obviously have a wide array of strokes and such, but have a weakness as fundamentally damaging as Watson and his front pad).

As for traumatic defeats by Australia, well, I saw all four days of this

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63978.html

Losing a test in three days to a side that scored 600 is an achievement which I don't think we'll ever match. I caught the Gilchrist double century live though. Started a love for the man that continues to this day.

I think it’s pretty speculative to assume Australia will be stronger for the 2 changes they are expected to make. Granted, Haddin and Watson didn’t pull up trees in Cardiff, but it will be an Ashes debut for Marsh (5th test in total, I think) and an international debut for Nevill at a difficult place to get your first cap. All this whilst facing an attack that knows the ground (slope) and conditions well and has it’s tails up.

The Aussie middle/lower order will be Voges (4th test), Marsh (5th test) and Nevill (debut). That’s a pretty vulnerable 5, 6 & 7 to put out in an Ashes game at Lords. It puts huge pressure on Warner and Clarke in particular to make scores.

If I was the England attack, I would be relishing this Aussie line up. Get through the top 4 (easier said than done, I get that) and they should all be fighting each other to have a go at 5, 6 & 7.

They may well all turn up and smash centuries, but saying the Aussie team will be stronger is relying an awful lot on guess work.

If I was Lehman, I would be playing Watson with Haddin unavailable, simply for some experience in between a raw 5 & 7.

I think this test match will be won by whichever team fields first.

If that's England, they will tear apart a demoralised, inexperienced Australian batting order, and then utilise best use of the wicket for batting on days 2 and 3.

If it's Australia, they will intimidate a England side that struggles for consistency, wrap it up cheaply, and then utilise best use of the wicket for batting on days 2 and 3.

This is, to all intents and purposes, Australia's only realistic chance of getting back in this series: Lord's is a quicker track, thus aiding their pacers, and they have a very imposing record on this ground.

Day 1 will settle the match.

Looks like the weather is ok, so could be a bat first, score big, and have the runs on the board match?

Watsons been slightly unfairly scapegoated for the last match. Sure he didn't play well, but he still outscored 2 of the other specialist batsmen. Haddins probably more at fault, its an entirely different game if he holds onto Root on 0. Or a bowling attack that largely underperformed

Moeen is an injury doubt for the Second Test - big blow I would say as he had an excellent match in the First Test

Rashid for Moen then. Will it make a big difference to our team?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I think it’s pretty speculative to assume Australia will be stronger for the 2 changes they are expected to make.  Granted, Haddin and Watson didn’t pull up trees in Cardiff, but it will be an Ashes debut for Marsh (5th test in total, I think) and an international debut for Nevill at a difficult place to get your first cap.  All this whilst facing an attack that knows the ground (slope) and conditions well and has it’s tails up.

The Aussie middle/lower order will be Voges (4th test), Marsh (5th test) and Nevill (debut).  That’s a pretty vulnerable 5, 6 & 7 to put out in an Ashes game at Lords.  It puts huge pressure on Warner and Clarke in particular to make scores.  

If I was the England attack, I would be relishing this Aussie line up.  Get through the top 4 (easier said than done, I get that) and they should all be fighting each other to have a go at 5, 6 & 7.

They may well all turn up and smash centuries, but saying the Aussie team will be stronger is relying an awful lot on guess work.  

If I was Lehman, I would be playing Watson with Haddin unavailable, simply for some experience in between a raw 5 & 7.

The 5,6,7 is no weaker than what was there previously even with form aside. Marsh was pretty unofrtunate not to get in ahead of Watson in the first place having out batted and out bowled him in the warm ups. Both he and Haddin have been clinging on to places through grit for some time.
The only thing Australia lose by not having them is experience, and that experience has pretty much all been of losing in England.
Watson only averages in the mid 30's, hes not what youd consider a proper batsman in terms of what hes delivered. Englands number 8 is in the same bracket of what Aus have been picking at 6, whilst looking slightly more convincing as a front 4 bowler to boot. With his obvious weakness having been exploited twice in the first test its obvious England have Watsons number and his short and long term returns show he doenst have the form to break that. Hes had umpteen chances, been bumped down the order, but continued to decline. Picking a player on experience is exactly the kind of thing England get hammered for.
Haddins batting too has been a bit overatted over the years; certainly in what we come to expect from a keeper in the top teams now hes no more than average and has to be justifying a place on what he delivers with the gloves rather than his bat and mouth. He clearly was out of sorts whether metally or injury/age wise in the last test ...remisicent of Prior who had to put his hand up and say he just wasnt up to it. The personal issues may or may not be the reason for Haddins slump, or like certain england players before it might be part of a self feeding cycle. Whatever the case Australia cant carry a keeper who isnt contributing with the bat or gloves. Stepping out has made a tough choice easier there, one that maybe they wouldnt have made because of the "experience" issue.
Voges...well he is raw in test terms but hes an old dog whos played a lot of cricket (including in England and ODIs), certainly no raw kid. Like Rogers really who can into the last tour and was far from over awed. The Aus side in overall caps will still be roughly on a par with Englands.

Whatever side they picked there was always going to be huge presuure on Smith and Warner to score a large number of runs in this series ... or really a reliance on one or more of the bowlers to rip England apart as they did in Aus.
Retaining Watson and Haddin wasnt adding backbone to the side. That could only have been done by having another proper batsman in, and that would leave the bowling short. England are enourmosuly blessed right now to have Stokes and Ali as well as a keeper who could in theory bat at 6. It may be guesswork to see how the new boys will go but its known fact that Watson and Haddin look shot as test players.
Aus may have the trump card in temrs of potential match winning bowlers anmd (going into the series) the "greatest ever former legspinner batsman" but their squads pretty ragged.

I see this as a dangerous game for England, if its a proper cricket pitch Aus could muster enough to strike back.
But as the series goes on the injuries, form issues and pressure is likely to see Australia struggle more. No Faulkner to fly in, and the replacement bowler for Harris hasnt played much proper cricket in years, (other) Marsh and Ahmed are just making up the numbers. Siddle is the only reserve of note left.

VTR wrote:Moeen is an injury doubt for the Second Test - big blow I would say as he had an excellent match in the First Test

Is that new news?

The earlier reports had said he didnt train through soreness but that he wasnt a doubt for selection

Gooseberry wrote:

VTR wrote:Moeen is an injury doubt for the Second Test - big blow I would say as he had an excellent match in the First Test

Is that new news?

The earlier reports had said he didnt train through soreness but that he wasnt a doubt for selection

Its on the BBC that he is a doubt, so it is a bit of an advancement on the not training thing. Personally I hope he will be ok and take his place tomorrow

Stella wrote:Rashid for Moen then. Will it make a big difference to our team?

Well, you would not normally want a spinner making their debut at Lords.

Is injury striking Moeen at a pretty and inopportune moment? There were rightly a lot of questions about his place in the side before the first test, while his performance in the first test didn't end a lot of concerns about him, he did justify his place and earned for himself a few more chances. The HQ won't be the best of places for a spinner, particularly a legspinner to debut, but the opportunity actually comes his way, it will nevertheless be a big chance for Rashid.
Think Ali will be ready to play come the match day.

Praying Moeen is ok - started off the series in fine fettle

Sounds like he came through tests today and is expected to play

Can't see past England...Said before it started England 3-1....Wish I'd gone 4-0...

In my experience...Aussies don't like it up them whether it's cricket or anything else...

Come on England get stuck in...

Rashid for Moeen wouldn't worry me unduly. The former should be full of confidence following the one day series against NZ where he overcame the constant threats of being targetted and hit out of the attack from the word go, as one can assume Oz batsmen would try to do.

Few Oz teams (with the exception of their risible 1986/7 Ashes sides) are ever weak, nor do their newcomers often disappoint on debut. But Nevill would not be the first keeper to find his first Lords Test tricky, especially as the Oz quicks - for all their undoubted talent - can spray it around a bit. No surprise therefore if England's 12th batsman, Byes, contributes significantly in at least one innings.

Olly wrote:Praying Moeen is ok - started off the series in fine fettle

Olly (and Simon) - as Surrey supporters and given the state of play in the current game against Kent, you should be pushing for Tredwell to be called up over night!

Really hoping England win the toss and bat today. Time for the top 3 to set a solid foundation for a big score, as we can't always rely on root to rescue the innings. I would like an unchanged side, but also i wouldn't be too upset if moeen had to miss out coz i am really interested to find out how rashid would fare against the attack-minded aussies.

If ever a note of caution were needed, a combined XI based on First Test performances arguably would include the Aussie top 4. If Australia win the toss and bat well today, ie their possibly inexperienced middle order has yet to be exposed, the whole dynamic not just of this match but of the series would feel different. Our quicks need to continue to make early inroads in their top order.

And if England bat second facing a decent Aussie First Innings total, our top order will need to start performing, fast, to justify their positions and relieve the pressure on our hugely talented but recently overstretched middle order. Australia soon will remember how to take important catches and even Joe Root might not make at least 50 one day.

The only thing against batting first is that its an overcast morning with a bit of damp in the air. Their top order got blown away by NZ in similar conditions when batting first and conceded a hefty first innings margin
That said England won that game anyway and havent lost batting first at Lords since 2003 and its hardly Old Trafford so really it should be a no brainer.
Of course if they lose the toss then Aus have the same choice, it might be an agressive step to bowl first with the cloud over but it woudl really smack of desperation.
Cant see past the winner of the toss batting first. Little chance of rain over the game so it should be a result. This is Australias big chance in the series, I only see it getting tougher for them after this.

It will be interesting to see how quick this pitch is. Can't comment on the overhead conditions so don't know of they might influence the decision at the toss, although an old yorkshire saying does say you should look down not up when deciding at the toss. Incidentally here it is a definite batting day 32° already and it's only 9.30.

Its a relativley warm morning here too. Fair bit of humidity about, overcast in the morning expected to get sunnier as the day goes on. Light breeze to make bowling bearable. So really the pressure will be on new ball bowlers to make inroads.

LivinginItaly wrote:It will be interesting to see how quick this pitch is.  Can't comment on the overhead conditions so don't know of they might influence the decision at the toss, although an old yorkshire saying does say you should look down not up when deciding at the toss. Incidentally here it is a definite batting day 32° already and it's  only 9.30.

I think Lord's is always a bat first venue, its usually a flat pitch so even if there is a bit of cloud cover you need first use of it and hope to be trying to be bowling a side out on day 4/5, you certainly wouldn't want to be left chasing 450 in 5 sessions, that will be a pretty much certain defeat

I have read a report today stating that Rashid was going to play, but has injured his finger and so England will take a risk with Moeen's side injury and play him. Thoughts? Is it just some mind games to keep the aussies guessing?

I hadn't heard that re Rashid. I am not convinced its mind games as the Aussies will not really fear Rashid, and might actually rather have faced him as its not unusual for debutant wrist spinners to get smashed around the park

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/15/moeen-ali-doubt-second-ashes-test-england-australia

The story about an unfit Ali playing as Rashid unfit.

Interesting, it doesn't really make much sense does it? The first choice wasn't going to play as he is unfit, so the second choice is told he is going to play, but when it turns out he can't, the first choice is suddenly fine! If that is really the case why would you tell someone else they are playing?!

This is quite worrying, it sounds like we are going in with a half-fit spinner, though that could counter the Aussies supposedly injured bowler who is still able to get them down at 90mph

If a player isnt fit you shouldn't be playing them. If Ali and Rashid are injured then they ahould both miss out and play Finn instead. Root can fill in as the spin option.

I dont know about half fit, mnore a concern that the strain could develope into an injury if he is required to bowl a lot of overs. England are lucky to have Root in the side who can cover a fair number fo reasonably effective overs if required and lighten the load, as well as having 4 front line seamers.

Tough on Rashid if the story is true.

Hence my theory of mind games. Try and convince the aussies that moeen is only half fit in the hope they will be even more attacking against him. Otherwise the story makes no sense.

By all accounts it is a bat first wicket so winning the toss may be important.

Australia batting first.

Chalk it up - 2-0 to the En-ger-land!

Englsnd unchanged. Marsh and Nevill in for Australia.