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

First topic message reminder :

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

guildfordbat wrote:Smith on now. I was thinking the same as Olly last night - would have given him the final over then.

Anyway, nothing to lose now by giving him 2 or 3 overs .... just hope Stokes doesn't do a ''Warner''!

In fact Smith was warming up last night , as I recall. Clarke was presumably considering him. With 566 behind him , always worth a try.

By the way , I was pleased to see Cook letting Lyth have a brief appearance in this match ( nearly as brief as his batting , alas !). Not that anything came of it ; but England are generally reluctant to try anything that doesn't seem "logical" , it seems to me. When occasionally one of these daft moves works : shows Cook is developing a bit more flexibility.

Stroke of luck for Stokes as an edge flies through a gap in the slips ...

...but no luck there as he drags Marsh onto his stumps

Fun while it lasted ; but I was hoping for a Stokes onslaught after lunch.
87 : and Buttler has a tricky quarter hour to lunch to negotiate.

Nasty little knock on the arm now for the skipper. Bit of treatment and he's back batting ; hopefully he's OK.

Well done the Chef in so far surviving the heat in the kitchen! Such a shame though that Stokes couldn't quite do the same.

England's morning - taking the session in isolation - but Australia will be the more satisfied as to how it ended.

A lot now resting on these two plus Moeen - too much, I fear.

96/1 ; so technically England's session. In fact if it hadn't been for the late loss of Stokes it would have been overwhelmingly so.

But when you are starting the day so far behind optimism must be tempered by perspective : they actually need two more similar sessions today - just to avoid the follow on .

Encouraging , nonetheless.

96/1 in that session - a fine effort. I don't think Australia will enforce the follow-on if given the opportunity, so the aim has to be for Cook and the English lower order to bat the day...is that possible?!

Buttler will have to display some proper test match defensive nous, and hang around with this skipper whilst he is still there.

Still 8 sessions to go! Another hour and a bit till the next new ball.

guildfordbat wrote:Well done the Chef in so far surviving the heat in the kitchen! Such a shame though that Stokes couldn't quite do the same.

England's morning - taking the session in isolation - but Australia will be the more satisfied as to how it ended.

A lot now resting on these two plus Moeen - too much, I fear.

Depends what you are hoping to achieve today , I suppose. Sailing on towards 500 looks improbable , to say the least. But batting out much of the day might be feasible , if they play really well...and that would at least give Australia something to think about. Either whether to enforce the follow on , with the bowlers already a day into their labours - or , if England could nudge over 366 , then how to pace their second innings and time a declaration....
And I guess some possibility exists that some play may be lost to the weather over the last couple of days ?

To be honest I reckon England's chances of escaping from this game are pretty miniscule - and I've suspected that from stumps on day one. No reason the team batting second cannot reply in kind to a big first innings ; but I've seen too many games like this ; and , at least outside the sub-continent , the odds say it doesn't happen too often. And losing three of the top five bats for 0 , 1 and 1 nearly seals the deal...

Still I hope they keep fighting it out ; for morale going forward , in any case.

Fair comment. Alfie. I was really thinking of firstly removing Australia's option of enforcing the follow on and then using up more time and scoring more runs so we can escape with a draw on Monday evening. ''Pretty miniscule'' likelihood as you say but with no aim, we'll crumble and crumble quickly.

I know Test captains are less keen to enforce the follow on these days but it's still a valuable option.

Aussies tetchy? Bless.

Clear not out.

A life for Cook. Smith failing to catch it, rather like the Sky cameraman!

Excellent umpiring with that " catch" : Dharmasena thought it was a fair catch , but took the option to check upstairs - and justice was done . Good use of technology.
Aussies aggrieved : and I have to admit it looked OK live ; but when they see the replay they'll realize the umpires had the right of it.

And then Smith drops Cook so perhaps the gods of cricket are giving England a bit of a leg up today...must want five days action too

Aah ...rats !

Buttler edges Lyon , and walks.

Me and my big mouth...

I'm sorry to say it but Buttler is showing himself not to be up for test cricket, he's good in the slogathons but his technique for me isn't anywhere near the level required.

Nevill hasn't done much wrong in his debut Test. Useful , if rather pressure- free runs ; and he's caught everything offered ; OK technically I suppose the one that he scrubbed on the grass is a missed chance - but that is harsh.
Don't think we will see Haddin back again.

If Buttler hadn't walked , it seems the umpire wouldn't have given it. I wonder if Clarke would have used his remaining review for the very faint nick ?

50 overs to bat out today. Moeen and the rest just need to hang around with their skipper for as long as Cook's innings will last.

Been a pretty fair recovery from 30/4 , actually.

Context is everything , though. Batting first , 234/6 is a decent score. Chasing 566 ...

alfie wrote:Nevill hasn't done much wrong in his debut Test.  Useful , if rather pressure- free runs ; and he's caught everything offered ; OK technically I suppose the one that he scrubbed on the grass is a missed chance - but that is harsh.
Don't think we will see Haddin back again.

If Buttler hadn't walked , it seems the umpire wouldn't have given it. I wonder if Clarke would have used his remaining review for the very faint nick ?

Alfie -as the commentators said here, the close to the wicket fielders - particularly Smith - were certain, possibly more than Nevill. Agree with you he's having a good debut game.

Anyway, another one for Lyon. Very under estimated bowler.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm sorry to say it but Buttler is showing himself not to be up for test cricket, he's good in the slogathons but his technique for me isn't anywhere near the level required.

Hmm. Just fifteen innings so far ; averages 43. Bit early to write him off , I think.

I'd like to see more from him too. And I fancy he is happier going on the attack than trying to play "responsibly". But I reckon you are wide of the mark in suggesting he isn't up to Test Cricket ; he's still on his learner plates and not doing too badly - expecting him to become Gilchrist or Sangakkara overnight might be a bit much !

Hope this isn't a jinx, but...

Cook's batting like he'll make 200+. Assured, professional, and grinding down the opposition. Just like that 294 v India.

He just needs the lower-order to stick with him. And to see out the new ball.

I'm expecting him to be able to dig in when the team is in trouble like Prior use to from the start of his test career, from what i've seen of him so far he's a fair weather player who will score when the team is in the ascendency.

Hey guildford - I looked over that t20 report , and your chirpy match thread

Have to admit to slightly mixed feelings , Somerset being my "second" team , owing to family connections and many happy youthful memories... But that must have been some innings by Roy !
Or "le Roi " , is it ? Hard to follow all these stage names...

No wonder the bar was open

Ah it was a jinx!

And it was heavy misfortune.

Warne going ballistic on Aussie TV about the lbw being turned down on umpires call... what rank hypocrisy

He never complains when Australian batsmen get the same latitude.

Unfortunately , just when I was almost enjoying hearing the annoying Healy and Warne whining , Cook goes and plays on...

Sad to see him miss the deserved hundred. And a little clip for Duty for the jinx ...

Long way back for Shane Watson now.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm expecting him to be able to dig in when the team is in trouble like Prior use to from the start of his test career, from what i've seen of him so far he's a fair weather player who will score when the team is in the ascendency.

Yeah I get what you mean. I don't think "digging in" comes naturally to him. And to be honest , Prior too often used to hit them out of trouble rather than graft... Perhaps Buttler would be better advised to adopt the Stokes approach virtually regardless of the situation ?
We will have to disagree until one or other of us is proved right , eh ? Reckon he is in for the reasonable future in any case...

alfie wrote:Hey guildford - I looked over that t20 report , and your chirpy match thread

Have to admit to slightly mixed feelings , Somerset being my "second" team , owing to family connections and many happy youthful memories... But that must have been some innings by Roy !
Or "le Roi " , is it ?  Hard to follow all these stage names...

No wonder the bar was open  

Cheers, Alfie. Know you like to see what's happening at the counties but didn't realise you had any Somerset connections. I wasn't there but by all accounts it was a tremendous knock by Roy. Interestingly enough, until last night his best form this season has been against the red ball.

kingraf wrote:Long way back for Shane Watson now.

Yeah. Marsh has been " golden arm " today. Not sure that means he is going to be the new Keith Miller ...a little lucky , I fancy. He'll take it though...

Now Taylor and Healy going on about the lbw call ! Blimey , you'd think no umpire ever turned down a marginal lbw before...

Almost glad the TV coverage is off to the HD channel tomorrow and I'm back streaming...

Duty281 wrote:Ah it was a jinx!

And it was heavy misfortune.

Can't blame you too much , Duty. I'd been thinking along similar lines. Maybe wasn't expecting 294 ; but he did look set to take them past the follow on. And maybe into tomorrow.

Batting today , despite the weight of scoreboard pressure , has been generally good. Unfortunately that 30/4 is too big a handicap to have given up at the start.

Back to cricket after a brief excursion to see the end of the Davis Cup doubles (Craig will be happy !)

New ball bowlers going hard at Broad now ; wonder how close England can get to the follow on target ? Not that I really expect Clarke to enforce it anyway...

Not too close now I think as Moeen looks out here ...yes gone .

Think we are down to praying for rain

Incidentally : the forecast for Sunday seems to have jumped around a bit ? First it was a few showers - then rather a lot of water - and now back to just a morning sprinkle...Any chance of a torrential downpour after all ?
Because to be honest (as Wood goes) it seems clear Australia will already be three hundred and fifty in front at worst by the close tonight. So if they have a full two days England are surely going to be set 500 or 150 overs...
If they lost a few hours though , it might get a little interesting.

Hoping Clarke enforces the follow-on! Might set Australia a tricky little 150 in the final innings (remember Trent Bridge 2005?!).

Or we might just have to settle for a replay of Cardiff 2009!

Duty281 wrote:Hoping Clarke enforces the follow-on! Might set Australia a tricky little 150 in the final innings (remember Trent Bridge 2005?!).

Or we might just have to settle for a replay of Cardiff 2009!

Never going to happen. Australia go on about risk taking a lot. , but actually play to a (very sensible) plan which ideally involves getting a first innings lead , batting the opponents out of the game , and throttling the life out of them from there.
Generally it works.

Not much England can do about it really except try and bag some early wickets and hope they can actually keep the final target within reason ...bowl them out for 150 ? Good luck on this strip...

But that's really all they can do. That and pray for rain.

Right then! England will need to skittle the Aussies out for 200 or less.

450's achievable on this track, even batting last.

No idea how the English bowlers are going to achieve this, but I'll be putting a tenner on at 25/1 in the utmost faith!

Nope, as is his style apparently, Clarke elects to bat again. Tin hats on, everyone.

A third of Jimmy Anderson's knocks end up not out. Brilliant.

I do admire Duty's steadfast optimism .

Suspect the bookie doesn't mind either

Though I seem to recall you cleaned up against NZ here a month or two back , eh Duty ?

Upon further inspection, Jimmy needs three more not outs to have nabbed 100 not outs in international cricket.

No luck for Jimmy as Lyth drops Warner on 0

Got his hands all wrong ...

Anderson was all over Warner in that over. But no result.

Meanwhile , they still have to find a way of getting Rogers out ...

alfie wrote:I do admire Duty's steadfast optimism .

Suspect the bookie doesn't mind either

Though I seem to recall you cleaned up against NZ here a month or two back , eh Duty ?

Yes, 14/1 that time!

After Lyth's drop, I don't think I'll be landing a return on this occasion!

To be honest, I think in batting on, Michael Clarke has taken a bit of a risk. Weather doesn't look good for Monday, and some rain about tomorrow. For me, when there's rain about, the accent will always be on getting 20 wickets first. I think You'd rather be rushing to 100 than fighting for the last four wickets because you've lost 60 overs over two days.

Poor Lyth, all he's got left to do now is to to run out Cook in the first over of England's second innings and his nightmare match will be complete.

Meanwhile Rogers apparently continues to be the most Australian Like Australian on the field. His batted like a real the spirit of Lara has possessed him this Ashes

Frustrating for Jimmy - still wicketless in the match - as he keeps beating the edge but to no avail...just not happening for England in this match , is it ?

There is an inevitability about this that is probably going to lead me to turn in for the night shortly. But - even assuming this match proceeds to its logical conclusion - I am not too disheartened.
There will be more results ; and England need two of them. And in truth only two Australian batsmen could be described as looking in great form at the moment ...
Of course Clarke/Warner etc may well fire as the series goes on ; and in any case England has problems too , especially at the top of the order. But I don't think this Australian team are unassailable , at all ; despite their dominance in this match.

Reckon Cook is just relying on Warner to be a little thick here.

kingraf wrote:To be honest, I think in batting on, Michael Clarke has taken a bit of a risk. Weather doesn't look good for Monday, and some rain about tomorrow. For me, when there's rain about, the accent will always be on getting 20 wickets first. I think You'd rather be rushing to 100 than fighting for the last four wickets because you've lost 60 overs over two days.

More about not knackering his bowlers , isn't it though , raf ? True if sixty overs are lost he could regret it - especially if they are lost after he's batted with the assumption that he had the full book to work with ; but I doubt we're expecting anything like that volume of rain. Just the odd shower I think. Though weather forecasts have been known to be inaccurate ...

oh dear. bit of a gulf between these two after all.

kingraf wrote:Reckon Cook is just relying on Warner to be a little thick here.

Hoping for lightning to strike twice , as it were ?

Knowing Warner , now he's survived that drop , he's nailed on for a hundred here. He does seem to fancy these second innings hundreds.

trebellbobaggins wrote:oh dear. bit of a gulf between these two after all.

In this match , yes. But fear not : England will bounce back at Edgbaston. Confidence !

Can your reverse jinxes conjure up bad weather , Trebell ? Just a thought...

trebellbobaggins wrote:oh dear. bit of a gulf between these two after all.

The first test would suggest otherwise.