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

Indeed Craig - and although the pitch didn't help, I don't think enough is being made of the fact we only took 10 Aussie wickets (and arguably Smith/Warner threw them away 2nd time round) for well over 800 runs...Anderson was just a complete non entity. I do wonder if he will still be playing this time next summer.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I was at Lords today. An utterly dominant performance by the Aussies, and England had pretty much nothing to offer.  Sustained hostility by the Aussie bowlers.  Among the England dismissals Stokes' one stands out as being daft, but Cook and Buttler both offered vague wafts at the ball.  Bells' innings was tortured. He was dropped as well as playing and missing on numerous occasions.

Bell just looks totally out of touch. It was pointed out today on how he is/has been a player most effective playing shots coming forward but at the moment he is totally pinned back in the crease trying to play shots.

Embarrassing. 

I wouldn't ring the changes though. When Jordan is fit though he should replace wood.

Seems like Ballance will make way for somebody in the next test according to the Telegraph.

A mistake in my eyes, but we shall see. Hopefully when he comes back into the side it'll be in the middle order position he plays so well for Yorkshire.

NickisBHAFC wrote:Embarrassing. 

I wouldn't ring the changes though. When Jordan is fit though he should replace wood.

Eh?

Sorry but that is a statement I struggle to understand. Wood has been a very good addition to the side and shows good control and consistent with his line and length and do believe he has more wickets in this series so far than Jimmy Anderson.

Olly wrote:Seems like Ballance will make way for somebody in the next test according to the Telegraph.

A mistake in my eyes, but we shall see. Hopefully when he comes back into the side it'll be in the middle order position he plays so well for Yorkshire.

That would not surprise me at all. Lyth or Ballance getting axed but Bell has flopped far more consistently though is safe. Like I have said at times you feel like it is an old members club. If you have been in the side for years longer misdemeanors are allowed. The same thing happened with Trott and its happening now with Bell - it is like they are untouchables.

To be fair... Even Root has more wickets than Anderson.

kingraf wrote:To be fair... Even Root has more wickets than Anderson.

As you will see on "The Ashes Thread" - I wouldn't disagree with Anderson being rested/dropped (although it'd never ever happen).

--well it was a disappointment to see Eng crumble like powder after the gut and gumption Eng had shown in T1.
Hope they come back in T3 to fight harder and compete. Hope it's not an irreversible loss of confidence  resulting in one sided games from here.

--Eng have a good middle order Nos 5 thru 8 and bowling resources not too inferior compared to Aus...the limitations are only 2:

1) The rot is at the top.....Bell, Ballance and Lyth...it's hard to carry 3 dead-loads at the top...because law of averages will catch up  with the performing middle order some times...and they cannot subsidize the top order all the time.

2) the pitches......CI and English media sugar-coatedly calls them "true"
It's what is called flat "pattas" more honestly.....  
these are not english pitches.....this is not what England...the land of seam and swing.... is known for.

making such pitches shows

---defensive mindset...team hoping to play out a draw
--blunts the English seamers...like anderson who is the best in the trade of seam and swing
--and makes toss so much more relevant and almost a gamble..because by D4 and D5 there is scruffing / unevenness


Make sporting / lively pithces and bring in young stroke players at the top whom we saw in plenty in the ODis...Morgan, Roy, Bairstow, Hales etc.....

play fearless cricket....

may not guarantee a win......but will surely produce competitive and exciting cricket....instead of dull-dated-defensive-lets make dead pitch-and-sit on a lead

--Aus's depth of cricketing resources , clarity of thinking and promptness of cutting out dead-load is remarkable.
They dumped Mick Arthur after  during homeworkgate, left out Siddle even after consistent showing because his speed had dropped, didn't let Ryan harris mess around, sat out Watson and , haddin was give a convenient leave.....they are an epitome of " I mean business" and how not to dwindle in dilemma

Australia lost ten wickets for 800. England lost 20 wickets for 400. So Australia lost a wicket every 80 runs, and England lost a wicket even 20 runs. A 60 run difference. In the first test England lost a wicket every 35 runs, Australia lost a wicket every 27 runs. An eight run difference. Seems to indicate England are capable of low lows, but unfortunately it's Australia who are able to show the high highs.

As an aside, an eighty run difference per stick is pretty bad. Worst I recall, since the 2012 test against you lot at the oval where we scored 318 runs per wicket and England scored like 33 or something. Statistically the biggest ever difference.

Andrew Strauss had a great quote after the 2009 Ashes where we were annihilated statistically, but won the series. 'When we were bad, we were very bad. When we were good, we were just good enough'. Hoping for a similar result to that series, but I think the Aussies are a bit too good this time. Plenty ahead of England who are still near the bottom of their curve. 2-2 possible, only takes one more good Test for England but think 3-1 more likely. Assuming at least one test it wrecked by rain.

Still digesting the magnitude of this defeat...will have more to say later.

For now : astonished to find I actually agree with a lot of what KP_f had to say above (!) . Except that I think the pitches are more cockup than conspiracy .

And as to the prospects : despite this overwhelming victory I'm not convinced Australia are that special. Their bowling is strong , certainly , though they have neither a McGrath nor a Warne. But the batting , while it realized 800/10 this time around , was still almost totally reliant on the first three batsmen ; each of whom profited at some point from English fielding errors. Not dissimilar to the load sharing at Cardiff.
Nothing guaranteed ; but if England manage early wickets I fancy this Australian batting might prove as fragile as England's .

Back to my contemplation for a while...

If Bell remains and there is a re-jig then it should be Root to move to 3 not Bell in my opinion.

I don't like moving a player who is flourishing as Root is at 5 but along with Cook he looks the best equipped player in our side to deal with the new ball. If someone needs to move to 3 it should be Root.

As a big fan of Bell, watching him bat yesterday was painful. I said before the series that this could be a career defining Ashes for him. Excel and he could finish the series with his average back up around 46/47 and cement a place in this middle order for another couple of seasons as the experienced pro racking up the runs in his later years. Struggle and he could finish the series with his average down around 42/43 and his test career finished having never achieved quite what he could.

At the moment it is looking like that latter. Which is something that pains me to watch in motion given how much I enjoy his batting when in full flow.

The one bit of sympathy I have for him however is the poor position of around 30/2 that he has found himself coming into bat at with such frequency. Your number 4 and 5 at test level should be players who more often than not coming in to build on a solid platform with new ball nullified. This has rarely been the case in the last 3 series with uncertainty over the second opener and Ballance struggling.

1.Cook
2.Lyth
3.Root
4.Bell
5.Bairstow
6.Stokes
7.Buttler (wk)
8.Ali
9.Broad
10.Wood - 10 days should be long enough to recover
11.Anderson

Good points re Bell , king_carlos

He is frustrating to watch. After Cardiff second innings I hoped he was back in confidence and runs. But this match was a big worry. I could just about forgive the first innings - in too early after two days in the field , got a good ball early on , poor shot though it was. That second innings though was painful. All hope was gone , true. But pride wasn't , surely ? Just bat , for heavens sake - not poke around like that...
I think I lean to giving him one more Test : but that may be my personal prejudice at work . Totally understand why many want him cut ; and it may happen. Which will be sad , I think. Even if it turns out to be right.

Stay cool Bell is member of the old boys club as Trott and others in the past were. Long-term squad members are given an extended period of naffness before the chop is contemplated and even then it can take the player to quit rather than be axed. Scapegoats will be made of players who are not yet members of that club ie Lyth or Balkance or both.

Oh dear, that was shocking, the ECB should refund any England supporters who paid to watch that pile of cr@p yesterday!

As said even after winning the First Test, the top order aka "the 30-3 club" is a massive problem, and eventually it will lead to 100ao because young Joe and Co can't bat like gods every game.

Hard to know what the changes should be, but Lyth will never be a Test opener, Ballance is having an horrendous time and Bell continues to make his debut after 100 Tests. I would personally drop two out of the three, Bairstow has to come in and maybe Morgan? Struggling to be honest but I don't see how more than one of those three can play the next test.

The bowlers looked tired, so hoping they get a bit more rest and do better next time. We don't have that many options, perhaps Finn comes in.

Haven't we already seen how the Root in the top order experiment ends? He had the same problem balance does when batting up there....

Olly wrote:Haven't we already seen how the Root in the top order experiment ends? He had the same problem balance does when batting up there....

He is a much better player than 2 years ago I would say. Not ideal, but given lack of options we may be forced into it

England won't make squad changes because they won the first Test.

I do think they will move Root to three, because they simply have to try something to improve the top order. Lyth will be persevered with because there is precious little alternative. Ballance should be "rested" for Rashid (and for his own good), and Bell will be given one last chance at his home ground or his Test career could be over. Is notable how much higher his averages are batting 5/6 than 3/4 and with England having no solidity in the openers his weakness against the new ball has been exposed too much of late.

The batting has rightly been criticised, but the bowling should come under scrutiny as well. Hazlewood delivered match figures of 5-88 so he obviously out-bowled his English counterparts of similar pace. Anderson has now almost completely adopted the mantle of Hoggard - if it isn't swinging he's toothless. Is he really leading the attack?

Duckett is 137* opening for Northants. He might be OK against short pitched bowling!

I don't want the selectors to make knee-jerk decisions, but something needs to be done with the top order. I have seen a stat saying that out of the last 14 innings 8 times we have been reduced to 50-3 or worse. That shows a serious problem jot just a little blip.

I would choose a top six of

Hales
Cook
Taylor
Root
Bell/ballance/bairstow
Stokes

Hales may not be in the best of form at this moment but i really think we need to try an attacking option at the top of the order to try and put the bowlers under pressure. Also our current top three allows the bowlers to get into a rhythm with the line, as they are all lefthanders. We need to mix it up a bit. Plus Taylor should be in the side and number 3 is his position unlike ballance who plays lower down for yorkshire. Root should come in one place higher at 4 to enable him to have the best opportunity to drive the game. Stokes is nailed in at 6. This leaves bell, ballance and probably bairstow battling for the number 5 position. i would go for bell as the experience. it will never happen though as it would mean making to many changes. The problem is though that the selectors should have created this top six last year when the proposed players were all mooted as possible test players. Hence in reality i am saying we are in the current situation of having a poor top order as a direct result of poor decisions made by the selectors (some avoidable such as ballance at 3 when he has looked so venerable even when scoring runs, others less avoidable such as the punt on Lyth who seems to have found the step up in class too big).

LivinginItaly wrote:I don't want the selectors to make knee-jerk decisions, but something needs to be done with the top order. I have seen a stat saying that out of the last 14 innings 8 times we have been reduced to 50-3 or worse. That shows a serious problem jot just a little blip.

I would choose a top six of

Hales
Cook
Taylor
Root
Bell/ballance/bairstow
Stokes

Hales may not be in the best of form at this moment but i really think we need to try an attacking option at the top of the order to try and put the bowlers under pressure. Also our current top three allows the bowlers to get into a rhythm with the line, as they are all lefthanders. We need to mix it up a bit. Plus Taylor should be in the side and number 3 is his position unlike ballance who plays lower down for yorkshire.  Root should come in one place higher at 4 to enable him to have the best opportunity to drive the game. Stokes is nailed in at 6. This leaves bell, ballance and probably bairstow battling for the number 5 position. i would go for bell as the experience.  it will never happen though as it would mean making to many changes.  The problem is though that the selectors should have created this top six last year when the proposed players were all mooted as possible test players.  Hence in reality i am saying we are in the current situation of having a poor top order as a direct result of poor decisions made by the selectors (some avoidable such as ballance at 3 when he has looked so venerable even when scoring runs, others less avoidable such as the punt on Lyth who seems to have found the step up in class too big).

Hi Living in Italy - as usual, a sound and considered post. Allow me to to query one thing. Why is Stokes nailed in at 6? I appreciate you are far from alone in that view but I'm not so convinced. Whilst I'm not in favour of knee jerk decisions, I do believe everything needs to be probed and feel Stokes is generally getting off lightly.

My own main concern with Stokes (and to be fair, I suggested this when we were walloping the Aussies in Cardiff) is the lack of balance resulting from having both him and Moeen - two attacking bowlers whose specialism is batting - in the same eleven. There may be no way round this and I accept it's not our biggest headache today but still think it needs considering.

LivinginItaly wrote:I don't want the selectors to make knee-jerk decisions, but something needs to be done with the top order. I have seen a stat saying that out of the last 14 innings 8 times we have been reduced to 50-3 or worse. That shows a serious problem jot just a little blip.

I would choose a top six of

Hales
Cook
Taylor
Root
Bell/ballance/bairstow
Stokes

Hales may not be in the best of form at this moment but i really think we need to try an attacking option at the top of the order to try and put the bowlers under pressure. Also our current top three allows the bowlers to get into a rhythm with the line, as they are all lefthanders. We need to mix it up a bit. Plus Taylor should be in the side and number 3 is his position unlike ballance who plays lower down for yorkshire.  Root should come in one place higher at 4 to enable him to have the best opportunity to drive the game. Stokes is nailed in at 6. This leaves bell, ballance and probably bairstow battling for the number 5 position. i would go for bell as the experience.  it will never happen though as it would mean making to many changes.  The problem is though that the selectors should have created this top six last year when the proposed players were all mooted as possible test players.  Hence in reality i am saying we are in the current situation of having a poor top order as a direct result of poor decisions made by the selectors (some avoidable such as ballance at 3 when he has looked so venerable even when scoring runs, others less avoidable such as the punt on Lyth who seems to have found the step up in class too big).

You can't make wholesale changes and expect the guys to hit the ground running...

England's problem is that the Aussies hold the Ashes..........Which means should Australia win next week it's 2-1 with two to play and a desperate position..as England will need to win the last two...

With three or more newbies you're rolling the dice...Just get rid of Ballance for now !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:I don't want the selectors to make knee-jerk decisions, but something needs to be done with the top order. I have seen a stat saying that out of the last 14 innings 8 times we have been reduced to 50-3 or worse. That shows a serious problem jot just a little blip.

I would choose a top six of

Hales
Cook
Taylor
Root
Bell/ballance/bairstow
Stokes

Hales may not be in the best of form at this moment but i really think we need to try an attacking option at the top of the order to try and put the bowlers under pressure. Also our current top three allows the bowlers to get into a rhythm with the line, as they are all lefthanders. We need to mix it up a bit. Plus Taylor should be in the side and number 3 is his position unlike ballance who plays lower down for yorkshire.  Root should come in one place higher at 4 to enable him to have the best opportunity to drive the game. Stokes is nailed in at 6. This leaves bell, ballance and probably bairstow battling for the number 5 position. i would go for bell as the experience.  it will never happen though as it would mean making to many changes.  The problem is though that the selectors should have created this top six last year when the proposed players were all mooted as possible test players.  Hence in reality i am saying we are in the current situation of having a poor top order as a direct result of poor decisions made by the selectors (some avoidable such as ballance at 3 when he has looked so venerable even when scoring runs, others less avoidable such as the punt on Lyth who seems to have found the step up in class too big).

You can't make wholesale changes and expect the guys to hit the ground running...

England's problem is that the Aussies hold the Ashes..........Which means should Australia win next week it's 2-1 with two to play and a desperate position..as England will need to win the last two...

With three or more newbies you're rolling the dice...Just get rid of Ballance for now !!

Or better still just Bell. Scored fewer runs than Ballance in the Ashes so far this series and fewer runs than Ballance this year in Test cricket.

O think an average of 45 for the year has bought Stokes a lot of credit. I must be honest, I've grown to him as a batsman. He's certainly showed more promise than Steve Smith at a similar junction in his career. I don't think he'll end up as good as Smith, but there is maybe a predecessor in starting out as a reasonable bowler who can bat, and dropping the bowling. Where he has fallen short is that he's not particularly good at that bowling thing. And he's rather expensive while not being particularly good at it. Hell, Joe Root has a better average and economy rate!

I completely agree with the sentiment of resisting knee jerk reactions.however, the stats aren't lying and being 40-3 all the time is ridiculous. We've got 10 days whereby lyth ballance and bell have the chance to be in the nets constantly working on what they need to. However, their problems are extremely worrying as I don't believe they have the time required to get over what are significant problems:

Lyth - an opener who doesn't know where his off stump is. The no.1 attribute every good opener requires
Ballance - a number 3 who struggles with the short and full bull.
Bell - looks beaten for pace and just seems like a man who is at the end of his career.

I'd argue at dropping all 3, but realistically I'd only want to bring in one man and that's bairstow as he's consistently scoring big runs. I'd stick with lyth as we can't keep dropping openers every time they hit a rough patch. He's been the best opener in county cricket for 2 years and no one is really scoring big to truly warrant a call up. Ballance for me has to be dropped. Root up to 3, bairstow in at 6 and stokes up to 5.

Word on the bowling. Anderson was awful and we really need some green on the pitches to get the best out of him. He's a match winner, so we need pitches to suit him otherwise he's incredibly ineffective. Wood and broad bowled well with wood looking slightly tired, so the rest will do him good.

Truss completely agree that making wholesale changes would be very dangerous at this moment in time. I guess what i am questioning more is why the selectors have allowed a situation to develop whereby we have big question marks hanging over our top 4 which haven't just materialised over night, but have been quite evident for sometime. Whilst at the sametime the alternatives have been available and at varying times in the last year have all had a good period of form but for different reasons have been ignored by the selectors

Guildford my notion of Stokes being a certainty at 6 was more my judgement of his current position within the England managements thinking rather than my own opinion.

I agree we do seem somewhat unbalanced with Stokes and Ali in the team. In my view both are not quite good enough to justify a top six place based solely on batting. But at the sametime both don't justify a position based solely on bowlig. It must be said though that Stokes is doing a good job of trying to convince people he is a number six (apart from his dismissal in the second innings).

Cheers, LiT. Understand and go along with all that. Before this Ashes series began, I had the notion of bringing in a more containing bowler - perhaps, Tredwell or a fit Woakes - for purposes of balance.

That seemed unnecessary and so got knocked on the head after the first Test when we were masquerading as all time world beaters!

Now, having been skittled for just a ton, I'm reluctant to do anything to further weaken the batting!

Anyway, not to worry as Alfie should be emerging from his cave soon with all the answers ....

I'd actually advocate Stokes moving up the order to 5. He's batting very well (apart from his run out, many have done the same) and plays well when with root or cook. He's also a counter attacking batsmen, so him coming in 3 down has the potential to sway the momentum, like he did vs NZ. Sure, it won't come off all the time but whilst he's in form, I'd say its worth a shot.

I'd stick with Ali for now. He's the only real option and has potential to get better with the ball and bat. Does need to work on the short ball however. I'd go for the 3rd test: 1. lyth 2. cook 3. root 4. stokes 5. bell 6. bairstow

Liam wrote:I'd actually advocate Stokes moving up the order to 5. He's batting very well (apart from his run out, many have done the same) and plays well when with root or cook. He's also a counter attacking batsmen, so him coming in 3 down has the potential to sway the momentum, like he did vs NZ. Sure, it won't come off all the time but whilst he's in form, I'd say its worth a shot.

I'd stick with Ali for now. He's the only real option and has potential to get better with the ball and bat. Does need to work on the short ball however. I'd go for the 3rd test: 1. lyth 2. cook 3. root 4. stokes 5. bell 6. bairstow

Bold, talk about lifting him to 5, then go one further and raise it to 4.

The England skipper himself suggested that the selectors will have to look at the top order situation. However, will he be opened to the idea of dropping his most experienced, most inconsistent batsman? Rather than Ballance it is Bell who has to go. Keep Root at 5 where he's playing outstanding cricket for more than a year now, or at best, if they are picking Bairstow who had a massive problems with straight balls the last time he played test cricket, move Root up to 4 and Bairstow to bat 5.
If they are thinking about the opening position, then recall Nick Compton....... England's best batsman of the generation hasn't yet retired from test cricket, so there is a solution for the number 4 position problem as well, if they want one that is.......

LondonTiger wrote:

Liam wrote:I'd actually advocate Stokes moving up the order to 5. He's batting very well (apart from his run out, many have done the same) and plays well when with root or cook. He's also a counter attacking batsmen, so him coming in 3 down has the potential to sway the momentum, like he did vs NZ. Sure, it won't come off all the time but whilst he's in form, I'd say its worth a shot.

I'd stick with Ali for now. He's the only real option and has potential to get better with the ball and bat. Does need to work on the short ball however. I'd go for the 3rd test: 1. lyth 2. cook 3. root 4. stokes 5. bell 6. bairstow

Bold, talk about lifting him to 5, then go one further and raise it to 4.

Mainly because when I thought about keeping Bell, i didn't have the confidence of him coming in at 2 down. I'd rather Stokes, who's in better form, bat with root/cook and put on some fast runs which takes the pressure somewhat off Bell. Just my opinion, its last chance saloon time for bell this next test anyway.

Ah well time to come back into the sunlight and give an opinion or two
(thanks for the nudge , guildford ) Not sure I have all the answers...

First the pitches .  I do wish Agnew for one would stop this rubbish about England designing pitches to order. Cook made it pretty clear that all he and the team want is normal English conditions (which they didn't get at Lord's !)  In truth , of recent years it is hard to think of too many home pitches which have really played to the the main strengths of the team - ie , a bit there for the swing/ seam bowler , but with regional variations.  These days everything seems geared to trying to make games go five days ; ironically enough this just isn't happening anyway  
I think most people ( perhaps not some Australians , who seem to feel
cheated if they are not provided with a surface closely resembling the WACA   - even in Chennai ) would be happy to see a variety of pitch conditions ; making Tests more interesting and less predictable. Trouble with the Lord's version is it places far too much emphasis on the toss of the coin - not to excuse England's lamentable failure in this match ; but to be honest the best they could really have aspired to from the close on day one was a draw ; and I suspect the reverse might have been true had the coin fallen the other way.
But I digress.  What is now at issue is the selection - and since the team is to be picked today and Bayliss hasn't called me yet this feels a bit superfluous - but here goes anyway...

If there is to be just one change (an alternative to the possibly unacceptable "no change" , but still essentially not too radical ) then I think it must be Bairstow in at five and Root up to three. Not ideal , as I'd still prefer to keep Root where he has done so well : but he looks up for it , is a better player than last time he batted there  , and has basically been coming in to face a new ball anyway lately...Bairstow has just been batting too well to ignore. As I think I said previously : if you don't pick him now , then when ?

I actually have a leaning to option two : Taylor in - at three.  Root to four and Bairstow at five.  Means exit for both Bell (sadly , probably permanent ) and Ballance.  Might be too radical ? But it could hardly be argued against on the basis of form ; and arguably is both a decent chance of improving things in the short term and establishing a line up for the future .  If it works , that is...

Of course they could go nuts and replace Lyth with Hales as well - which would have the merit of injecting some aggression at the top ; and some righthandedness. But three changes might be a bit much.

I'd leave the bowling. Awful results this time . But they were excellent at Cardiff ; and in fairness I think the first innings failure owed more to the excellence of Rogers and Smith , allied to some fielding errors on a very placid pitch , than to any lack of skill or effort. They actually fought hard , if ultimately ineffectively , on day two - but the horse had bolted. Second innings was poor ; but understandable in the circumstances. Frankly the batting effort that saw them back in the field after barely a days rest deserves part of the blame too.
Some have expressed concern about Anderson . Wicketless at Lord's ; and , like Fraser before him , he can look pretty knackered at times when things aren't going for him. But if you look at his recent record (mostly on pitches that really haven't given him much assistance , it should be noted ) it should be apparent that this is more likely a glitch than evidence of sudden decline. I also note he probably should have had an Australian opener for nought in each innings...
If there is to be a surprise in this department Wood (who I'd retain : was only a week or so ago everyone was praising as a real find !) may have fitness issues which might make the think of spelling him ; and there just might be a thought to vary things with a punt on Footit as a left arm , as well as left field , selection. He was part of the boot camp after all. But it would be a surprise.

My money is on one change . But who really knows ? TB and his colleagues ; so I'll leave it to them.

And echo Duty's advice : stay calm.

alfie wrote:
I actually have a leaning to option two : Taylor in - at three.  Root to four and Bairstow at five.  Means exit for both Bell (sadly , probably permanent ) and Ballance.  Might be too radical ? But it could hardly be argued against on the basis of form ; and arguably is both a decent chance of improving things in the short term and establishing a line up for the future .  If it works , that is...

Of course they could go nuts and replace Lyth with Hales as well - which would have the merit of injecting some aggression at the top ; and some righthandedness. But three changes might be a bit much.

I'd also go for your option 2, alfie. 3 Taylor 4 Root 5 Bairstow. Better to have a fresh approach and roll the dice with those 2 changes. Like the idea of Hales too but that's probably stretching things too far. That side would be more balanced.

As for Australia:
It's imperative we keep the same side with both Nevill and Marsh again and hope Rogers will recover well enough and get the go ahead to play.
There should be absolutely no tinkering with that side. That would be a backwards step and would almost certainly spell trouble for us - again.

Seems so clear to me that that group from Lord's has the right energy about it. That match was one of the most comprehensive performances I've ever seen - almost perfect. I'd rank it in a top 5 all time performance - on another level. No other side can really play like that. It's going to be difficult to repeat that effort again at Edgbaston but it would be great if they can somehow manage to come close to repeating that performance. It's how I always want to see them play.

Hales would be a good option if his FC form wasn't so horrendous. Taylor was in bad form but has just hit a very timely near triple century. Compton's form has been ok so is probably the best option to replace Lyth but I don't think they will and his bridges might be burnt anyway.

I would go with the board consensus of 1 or 2 changes, I would prefer 2, but I think it will be 1 from the selectors as they will probably give Bell a Test on his home ground, you know, the one he hardly ever plays at! So I think it will be Ballance out, Bairstow in.

alfie wrote:Ah well time to come back into the sunlight and give an opinion or two
(thanks for the nudge , guildford ) Not sure I have all the answers...

First the pitches .  I do wish Agnew for one would stop this rubbish about England designing pitches to order. Cook made it pretty clear that all he and the team want is normal English conditions (which they didn't get at Lord's !)  In truth , of recent years it is hard to think of too many home pitches which have really played to the the main strengths of the team - ie , a bit there for the swing/ seam bowler , but with regional variations.  These days everything seems geared to trying to make games go five days ; ironically enough this just isn't happening anyway  
I think most people ( perhaps not some Australians , who seem to feel
cheated if they are not provided with a surface closely resembling the WACA   - even in Chennai ) would be happy to see a variety of pitch conditions ; making Tests more interesting and less predictable. Trouble with the Lord's version is it places far too much emphasis on the toss of the coin - not to excuse England's lamentable failure in this match ; but to be honest the best they could really have aspired to from the close on day one was a draw ; and I suspect the reverse might have been true had the coin fallen the other way.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. Its by no means just Agnew mind.
I posted some stuff after day one to debunk some of the guff Dobell and Ponting had published. Dobell had even accussed the groundsman of making up weather conditions, when a 5 minute cursory check of records shows that the speed of pitches at lords is directly affected by the amount of sunshine in days preceeding the test and that it was wet and overcast prior to this one.
Maybe the weather god is on Englands side (except he isnt otherwise it wouldve been a lush green lawn for england to get seam movement from)
Doctoring it certainly isnt, no more so than the dead pitches in the west indies (land of the tall fast bowler) these days.

Some of the stuff thats been said is borderline libellous and at times insulting to the groundstaff.

Where there is a problem is the pressure form the ground owners and media companies to get 5 day tests. Getting the balance between avoiding 3 day lotteries and 5 day bore draws is difficult...although last time out at Lords( NZ) they got the "perfect test". As it was we still ended up with a pretty short game despite the pitch supposedly being ridiculously flat.

Can we shift the selection discussions to the series thread rather than the previous game thread?

Yeah.....guys...the best way to analyse a failure whihc in a sizable part can be attributed to "designer/ doctored pitch"...is to pretend it did not happen.

that not just Agnew and CI team..... but also Boycott and Michael Vaughan and Nasser Hussain have condemned the "designed pitch"....should be dismissed as their fanciful imagination

I though they failed beacuse of the way the handled KP?

Glad to see you are back on the england threads now they are losing again.

Gooseberry wrote:I though they failed beacuse of the way the handled KP?

Glad to see you are back on the england threads now they are losing again.

Ohh....Ok.....you want to continue to use the "KP cost-center" to dump all liabilities for all current and foreseeable future debacles

When there were questions about the pitches for the 2013 Ashes, one line of justification was that it didn't rain much, then now it is that it rained before the game. It is also interesting that the pitches where India played last year were a bit more quicker. That India's attack comprised of the fast medium of Ishant Sharma and Mohammed Shami, the medium pace of Bhuvneshwar Kumar and the slow medium of Stuart Binny in contrast to the Australian attack including the proper fast bowling of Mitchell Johnson and Mitchell Starc and fast medium of Hazelwood and Mitchell Marsh might just be coincidental.
Said that, I am all for home sides preparing pitches that play to their strength, provided they are result oriented and lively, spinning or seaming....... What I don't like though is the denial mentality though.......

For all of India's home tests, I would like to see proper spinning wickets. Not slow and low flat monsters, but bouncing, turning proper spinning wickets. And I would be very happy if the BCCI gives out instructtions on those lines or if the team management demands on those lines.

msp83 wrote:For all of India's home tests, I would like to see proper spinning wickets. Not slow and low flat monsters, but bouncing, turning proper spinning wickets. And I would be very happy if the BCCI gives out instructtions on those lines or if the team management demands on those lines.

Have they not tried that before?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/565807.html

That wasn't the first or last time it was tried. If you have followed the game long enough, you would know that that series win came after 3 decades, and there were tours in between where England lost 3-0. A loss or 2 here and there doesn't mean the strategy was wrong. For that very series, the pitches otherwise weren't great.

all I am saying is they produced a raging turner for that test, were outbowled so produced flat slow wickets for the last two.

If you are going to produce wickets that help bowlers you have to have the courage of your convictions and keep doing it.

Oh and I am fully able to remember the Bob Willis tour, thanks.

They were indeed outbowled and outplayed for that 2nd test and the wickets for the last 2 games weren't great. But there was a rather public altercation between the curator of the Kolkata pitch and the then Indian captain on that as the team management did want a spinning track.......
And all I am saying is that English supporters need not go all defensive and invent nonexistent reasons for the nature of the pitch, there is no shame in taking home advantage.......