The Ashes: 2nd Test, Adelaide

First topic message reminder :

2nd Test Adelaide, December 2-6, 2017

Australia:
Bancroft, Warner, Khawaja, Smith *, Handscomb, S Marsh, Paine †, Starc, Cummins, Lyon, Hazelwood

England:
Cook, Stoneman, Vince, Root *, Malan, Ali, Bairstow †, Woakes, Overton, Broad, Anderson

Malan just breaking the shackles goes onto 25 with a boundary and the 150 comes up.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Oh god I'm allowing myself to believe...the hope...it's going to kill me

I feel that this pair must stay in until close.

A massive appeal from Lyon for lbw on Malan. Not out. England 156 for 3 need 198 runs for an impossible win. Australia need seven wickets.

Olly
This is England batting - we'll collapse at some point...

Another Lyon appeal this time on Root turned down. England 160 for 3. They need 194 more to win. On comes Starc for another spell.

dummy_half wrote:Olly
This is England batting - we'll collapse at some point...

My head is telling me this Dummy...but the heart...the heart believes!!!

Still feel sure Australia will win but where was this application and fight in the first innings?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ricky Ponting is very good. Level-headed and fair.

He's Cricket's Gary Neville. Didn't like him at all as a player, but like him as a pundit.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Olly
This is England batting - we'll collapse at some point...

My head is telling me this Dummy...but the heart...the heart believes!!!

My Grandad was a wise man - he said expect the worst and anything better is a pleasant surprise.

I might start to believe when we are within 10 of the target with two proper batsmen still at the crease...

This is one of these situations where if one wicket falls you feel sure another will follow quickly.

Sorry to say 'Told You'

Malan bowled by a beauty from Cummins. Malan out for 29. England 169 for 4.

Chris Woakes in as a night watchman.

Corr that's a beauty from Cummins - 89mph, nipping in, top of off stump. Fair play!

England close on 176 for 4. Root 67 not out Woakes 5. They need an improbable 178 runs to win. Australia need 6 wickets to win. This would surely be the greatest run chase by England if they got this but my money is still on Australia.

Cummins was bowling some absolute rockets there - how Woakes kept that yorker out I don't know! But he did, and England have a glimmer. A chance. Hope.

What a day of test cricket

178 to win with 6 wickets remaining tomorrow.

Australia have to be patient, they got a little too hyped up at times in the evening session, Malans wicket bailed out their evening session. 1 often brings 5 for this England team.

England still have to get past the 2nd new ball to win this game so Australia still heavy favorites

Test cricket at its best. So much more entertsining and tense than one team running away with it. Clearly England batted terribly in first innings andcthatcmay come back to haunt them in the end. Much more grit and application in this innings.

Well Australia are still heavy favourites, but England have a slim chance. This is actually a good opportunity for Woakes to demonstrate how good he could be as a genuine all-rounder. I think we will be all out for around 280.

Hats off to England, its about time Root stepped up and backed his bowlers with some batting leadership...although no doubt he'll get slated if he gets out for 90 odd as usual
Really they are one senior batsman too many down to have a significant chance of pulling this off, but at least they have shown some comeptitive spirit and given themselves an outside sniff.
Theres few enough runs to get that time isnt an issue, and importantly they can knock the target off without having to face much under the lights .....if they can avoid losing a flurry of wickets.

I guess thisis where we find out how good that tail really is, and how much of a rick Australia really too going in a bowler light. 

Its going to take another day as good as today for England to do it, but getting thius far is more than most of us had expected. So well done whoever gave that rocket ahead of teh second innings, well done Woakes and Anderson for getting the wickets, and well done Stoneman for coming out with the positive intent to set the tone for a solid attempt to win rather than meek attempt to string out a painful death. 
 
I dont seem they haviong a cat in hells chance as the series progresses even if they gain some momentum here and tire the quicks, so it would be amazing to see a win. But realisticaly its still Australias game.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Woakes's Ashes have begun

Posted two days ago.

He's done the job with the ball.

Now time to make yourself a hero with the bat tomorrow.

#SirChris #Woakes'sAshes

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Woakes's Ashes have begun

Posted two days ago.

He's done the job with the ball.

Now time to make yourself a hero with the bat tomorrow.

#SirChris #Woakes'sAshes

Did a pretty good job with the bat in the first innings, along with Overton, to turn abject to merely underwhelming.

Still reckon the chase is 50-100 too many and that I will wake up in the morning to Australia having bowled out our remaining batsmen for about 100, but at least there have been some signs of fight.

Bet not too many people predicted that score line for stumps

Been watching this game too long to be totally surprised by anything ; so it is merely a pleasant upside to my overnight hopes. The target of 354 was about what I thought would eventuate : was hoping for three down at the close but four isn't that bad with half the score marked off.
Obviously the usual morning collapse could see a quick anticlimactic end...but if these two could somehow see out the first hour (tough ask !) then you'd think England would nearly become favorites

History says they won't get near it. But experience of fourth day chases says the number of wickets lost during the next hundred runs (if they can get that many !) will be decisive. Not many teams get over the line with the last couple of batsmen : usually the fielding side either triumphs or is slowly killed off by the batsmen from four to seven.

So ask me again after about 38 overs tomorrow

Amazed England are still in it, although I think Australia will go on to win. I echo other posters who are pleased that, even in likely defeat, England have shown some fight with both bat and ball. 
   Hope this sort of Test means the silly idea of having four-day Tests is quickly forgotten. 
   There are some reports that Smith did not consult with his bowlers before deciding not to enforce the follow-on. If that's true, it's poor from the Australian captain. Many will recall Vaughan asking his bowlers about the f-on at Nottingham in 2005. They were happy to carry on and it was enforced (Mind you, England only crept home by three wickets in the end!)

And do I think you northern hemisphere types should get up early ?

Why not ? It may fizzle ; but you'll curse yourselves if it doesn't - and you miss it

Whatever else it has given a bit of life to this series . If I were a neutral I'd be praying for an England win (or a washout - sorry not likely ) just so a potentially fascinating series isn't killed off too early.

sirfredperry wrote:Amazed England are still in it, although I think Australia will go on to win. I echo other posters who are pleased that, even in likely defeat, England have shown some fight with both bat and ball. 
   Hope this sort of Test means the silly idea of having four-day Tests is quickly forgotten. 
   There are some reports that Smith did not consult with his bowlers before deciding not to enforce the follow-on. If that's true, it's poor from the Australian captain. Many will recall Vaughan asking his bowlers about the f-on at Nottingham in 2005. They were happy to carry on and it was enforced (Mind you, England only crept home by three wickets in the end!)

I never expected Smith to enforce the follow on. Certainly after Overton and Woakes got close to the 200 cut off it was inevitable he'd bat again.
Smith is not a particularly attacking captain. Not many are these days. Benaud or Ian Chappell would have sent England back in ; but they played when Tests had rest days , and weeks between one and the next.

You can argue either way. But I really think Smith is very keen to preserve his three pace bowlers. If Lyon is actually his key weapon (contrary to the general hype) his quicks are all very good bowlers ; and the potential backups aren't in the same post code.

Fair play to Woakes batting it out to stumps.

However, one consequence of our using a nightwatchman is that Bairstow drops down the order to 8. I can't but feel that's a waste. Even if he gets going, will there be enough left to bat around him?

Anyway, a great day's cricket and a much improved performance from England. It's mighty frustrating that we didn't play like that from the start but, given where we were after one innings each, we have to take encouragement.

Just the 2 overs bowled by Overton in Australia's second dig. That's probably understandable given the damage that was expertly done by Anderson and Woakes but I did wonder if Root had been reading KP-f's posts.

At risk of encouraging Olly further, a very good day for Woakes. As has been said, so important that continues through the series. With no Stokes, his role is even more pivotal.

Without wishing to upset Jimbo, Vince seemed to do what Vince does. Showed good intent, played a few lovely shots and then got out all too soon.

For Australia, Cummins bowled well and certainly deserved his wicket. I did feel the (BT) commentators were too hard on Starc in picking him up on an expensive economy rate. That's always a risk with a fast man and, in any case, his end column was what mattered most.

Smith got it in the neck from the Barmy Army for wasting his reviews. That wasn't smart of him although I suspect the rule change of ''no review lost by the bowling side if it was umpire's call'' encourages the fielding captain to challenge more, at least for lbws. Of course, he doesn't get his reviews back now after 80 overs which needs to be factored in - Smith didn't appear to do that. For me, the recent rule change wasn't needed but I'll leave that for another time.

Like most here, I still can't see anything other than a home win (I assume the weather will stay good - thanks for that previous forecast, Duty) but I'll be watching and hoping otherwise.

I didn't realise there has been a rule change regarding the drs system. When was it changed, and what were the changes?

Hi LiI - the drs rule change has only come in recently, certainly after the last Tests in England.

Essentially, a side no longer loses a review when the review is unsuccessful but adjudged ''umpire's call''. However, reviews which have been lost are no longer reinstated after 80 overs or at any time during the innings. Thus, it's something of a double edged sword as experienced by Smith.

I quite like the DRS rule changes - always felt losing a review for an "umpires call" was harsh, but did think that having them topped up after 80 overs meant that they would be used for chance.

Smith used his horribly today - especially the second one, which I think he did out of desperation more than anything

Think Smith lost his head a bit in that final session in general. Patience required yet he was jumping about every ball

its the hope that kills you, very good effort from england today though. wasnt easy batting conditions and they stuck in there. like others have said Australia still favorites but we showed enough fight to say that a 5-0 drumming may not be on the cards

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I quite like the DRS rule changes - always felt losing a review for an "umpires call" was harsh, but did think that having them topped up after 80 overs meant that they would be used for chance.

Smith used his horribly today - especially the second one, which I think he did out of desperation more than anything

Olly - I appreciate where you are coming from but feel you need to consider why the drs system was introduced. Essentially it was to cut out (or, at least, cut down on) definite umpiring mistakes. If it's umpire's call, it's not a definite umpiring mistake and so I don't have an issue with a review being lost for what was effectively a speculative (albeit not ridiculous) referral.

Smith undoubtedly mucked up his reviews today.

GB

I'm with Olly on this - always felt harsh to lose a referral when it was umpire's call. Also like the not getting them reinstated with the new ball, so you've still got to use them wisely, which Smith didn't, particularly the second one against Malan - there's a description in poker of going 'on tilt' for playing in a wild manner after losing a big pot, and Smith's second challenge had that 'on tilt' feel about it. I do hope it doesn't come back to haunt him tomorrow

Dummy - it's meant to be a hard game. You and Olly are just too soft.

More seriously, I do see both sides of the argument. However, I go back to the original purpose of the review system. A referral was not intended for something being close but for something being definitely wrong. I'm therefore comfortable with a review being lost even if it turns out to be ''umpire's call''.

Given we have this new regime, there certainly shouldn't be any reinstatements after 80 overs or at any other time. I wouldn't have had an issue with there being no reinstatement under the old regime but guess it was introduced at the time as a concession to you softies.

Now we're entitled to get excited!

The highlight of the day was undoubtedly Swann saying that he thought fourth innings chases of 600 or 700 would soon become possible, but after that it was Joe Root's innings.

If England can get through the final morning - the morning that has the tricky first hour and the second new ball - with only one loss (preferably not Root), or zero, then they have a great chance of knocking the runs off in the tepid afternoon.

As I said earlier, it's behaving like a different pitch. Australia struggling to get the same amount of movement as England did in the previous innings.

This test reminds me of Galle 2012: England had to chase 340 to win and, after recent humiliation in the UAE and getting bowled out for 193 in the first innings of said Galle test, no one gave England a prayer. But they closed out day 3 on 111/2 with hope springing eternal. Trott dragged his side to the cusp of victory - 233/4 at one point - but then England collapsed losing their last six wickets for 31 runs.

I reckon it'll go the same way tomorrow - a heroic defeat - but it's bloody good to see England scrapping for once.

However, IF Root bats for 3.5+ hours tomorrow, England have got this. And his decision at the toss will be vindicated!

Sort of.

-->Watched the last hour live and hope to catch the rest on highlights
Eng's maligned seamers got a patch of English conditions and made it count...dismissing Aus for less than expcted

-->And so they started with a target of 350 odd rather impossible.... instead of a completely impossible 400
and they haven't been blown away.......getting half the runs with 6 wickets in hand

--> It would still be a miracle if they win from here and for that to happen Root has to bat until the end...and that would mean he would be n.o 150*
So pretty much one of his best career innings is what Root needs to pull off this miracle..simple

Interesting point yesterday after the Smith review that gave him a minor reprieve from Anderson:

The Independent wrote:The decision to reprieve Smith will clearly have very little bearing on the second Ashes Test, especially as Smith was later LBW to Chris Woakes for just six. But it does raise the intriguing question of how this particular law should work, and whether - because a thing has been in place for decades and decades - it is necessarily right. As any young cricketer will tell you, a ball pitching outside leg stump cannot be given out LBW. But why?

It used to be the case, pre 1930s, that you couldn't be out LBW if the ball pitched outside leg stump or outside off stump. LBWs used to be very rare!

This was then adjusted after the infamous Bodyline series so that you be out LBW even if the ball pitched outside off, but the outside leg distinction remained.

Hadn't realised the new DRS measures meant the get-them-back-after-80-overs rule had been scrapped. Now England could benefit from a bad decision on the last day.
   There will always be different views on the merits of DRS. One of my friends reckon teams should get just one review per innings as it should be there to account for the absolute howler. Personally, I think they've got it about right now.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Interesting point yesterday after the Smith review that gave him a minor reprieve from Anderson:

The Independent wrote:The decision to reprieve Smith will clearly have very little bearing on the second Ashes Test, especially as Smith was later LBW to Chris Woakes for just six. But it does raise the intriguing question of how this particular law should work, and whether - because a thing has been in place for decades and decades - it is necessarily right. As any young cricketer will tell you, a ball pitching outside leg stump cannot be given out LBW. But why?

I've always though it was to reduce the tactic during second innings of bowling round the wicket and pitching in bowlers footmarks which makes scoring almost impossible and the game becomes massively dull. Giles still deployed it against Tendular mind you albeit without the thought of taking his wicket. I have in the back of my mind that the umpire is allowed to stop this if he deems there's no intent to take a wicket.

The hurdles England will need to negotiate tomorrow:-

Settle back in an restart solidly. That won't be easy as the ball was starting to reverse swing by the close of play.

Negotiate the new ball which is due in 18 overs with minimum loss of wickets.

If/when a wicket falls then rebuid with another big partnership.

Avoid throwing away wickets to needless shots.

If they can do all of the above then anything is possible but you feel Root needs to make a century AND England need a century partnership or a couple of 50 partnerships.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The hurdles England will need to negotiate tomorrow:-

Settle back in an restart solidly. That won't be easy as the ball was starting to reverse swing by the close of play.

Negotiate the new ball which is due in 18 overs with minimum loss of wickets.

If/when a wicket falls then rebuid with another big partnership.

Avoid throwing away wickets to needless shots.

If they can do all of the above then anything is possible but you feel Root needs to make a century AND England need a century partnership or a couple of 50 partnerships.

Imo the hurdle England need to negotiate is scoring 178 runs without losing 6 wickets

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The hurdles England will need to negotiate tomorrow:-

Settle back in an restart solidly. That won't be easy as the ball was starting to reverse swing by the close of play.

Negotiate the new ball which is due in 18 overs with minimum loss of wickets.

If/when a wicket falls then rebuid with another big partnership.

Avoid throwing away wickets to needless shots.

If they can do all of the above then anything is possible but you feel Root needs to make a century AND England need a century partnership or a couple of 50 partnerships.

Imo the hurdle England need to negotiate is scoring 178 runs without losing 6 wickets

Before England even think about that though they need to clear those hurdles.

Just bat for two sessions and it’s job done. Get into the second session four or five down and it’s job done.

Lyon won’t be as effective, in all probability, because the only left handers left are Broad and Anderson. Overton, of all people, showed how to combat the short ball in the first innings.

One of Root or Bairstow needs to contribute 50-60% of the runs remaining, while the others can chip in the remaining total.

And Australia don’t have any reviews left, whilst England have two. Could be pivotal.

Duty281 wrote:Just bat for two sessions and it’s job done. Get into the second session four or five down and it’s job done.

Lyon won’t be as effective, in all probability, because the only left handers left are Broad and Anderson. Overton, of all people, showed how to combat the short ball in the first innings.

One of Root or Bairstow needs to contribute 50-60% of the runs remaining, while the others can chip in the remaining total.

And Australia don’t have any reviews left, whilst England have two. Could be pivotal.

dont forget ali, who could have a rather big part to play (hopefully)

CaledonianCraig wrote:The hurdles England will need to negotiate tomorrow:-

Settle back in an restart solidly. That won't be easy as the ball was starting to reverse swing by the close of play.

Negotiate the new ball which is due in 18 overs with minimum loss of wickets.

If/when a wicket falls then rebuid with another big partnership.

Avoid throwing away wickets to needless shots.

If they can do all of the above then anything is possible but you feel Root needs to make a century AND England need a century partnership or a couple of 50 partnerships.

this is key for me, and im mainly looking at ali and bairstow who have got form for it. them two and root are the ones who can win it for us

Some are getting way, way too optimistic. This is a huge score to get in the 4th innings of a Test. Eng could be 260-270 for four and I would still make Aus favourites, as they have the bowlers to blow away a tail. 
   The good thing is that we're still debating the outcome of this match. It looked done and dusted for Aus when England trailed by so much after the first innings.

sirfredperry wrote:Some are getting way, way too optimistic. This is a huge score to get in the 4th innings of a Test. Eng could be 260-270 for four and I would still make Aus favourites, as they have the bowlers to blow away a tail. 
   The good thing is that we're still debating the outcome of this match. It looked done and dusted for Aus when England trailed by so much after the first innings.

I have said I still fully expect Australia to wrap up the win but the unthinkable is still posdible. After all as near as makes no difference England are halfway there with six wickets remaining.

sirfredperry wrote:Some are getting way, way too optimistic. This is a huge score to get in the 4th innings of a Test. Eng could be 260-270 for four and I would still make Aus favourites, as they have the bowlers to blow away a tail. 
   The good thing is that we're still debating the outcome of this match. It looked done and dusted for Aus when England trailed by so much after the first innings.

I still think Australia will win, but England are only one big partnership away from victory. The ball wasn’t doing a lot for Australia yesterday, and if Root can bat through the first session undefeated, then England are in business.

I probably give England a 20%-25% chance of pulling off the greatest of great escapes, which is a hell of a lot better than yesterday!