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

Must have been a wild old run chase at the end ...

Leach four wickets , nearly forcing a win : but he went at over ten per over ! Talk about buying wickets...

Sadly Crane was just expensive. Suggests he's a fair bit short of ready for Tests just yet.

This game of ours really is wonderful! Jennings reminds us he's still out there with a top score of 80 and then follows it up with ... a first baller .

An undefeated 45 today for Ballance. I'm not going to let fireworks off for that but it's not a bad day at the office. Given Ballance was considered good enough by the selectors to make the touring party (even though that decision is not fully supported here ), he shouldn't be automatically ruled out of contention for a Test place.

Bayliss has recently picked up my demand for fifties to be converted into centuries. Three of our current top five do not have a Test century to their name. Ballance has four. A view may be taken that was in the past and won't help us now. Fair enough, that may be the case. However, if it is, Ballance shouldn't be in the tour party. Not too much looks right atm.

Poor Ballance hasn't had much of a chance to push his claims due to the (absurd) lack of proper tour matches.

But do any of us think letting him replace Vince at three would be a good plan ? Vince did make the so far best score for England in Brisbane , after all ; though he's been a walking wicket since.

And of course , another left hander as food for the Lyons...

alfie wrote:Poor Ballance hasn't had much of a chance to push his claims due to the (absurd) lack of proper tour matches.

But do any of us think letting him replace Vince at three would be a good plan ?  Vince did make the so far best score for England in Brisbane , after all ; though he's been a walking wicket since.

And of course , another left hander as food for the Lyons...

Surely, the same can be said of all the peripheral players in the squad and not just Ballance. Personally, I don't think he is the answer. He has had a number of chances in the test side and not been able to establish himself in an era when England have been struggling to put runs on the board - says it all really.

Leach going at over 10 runs an over! What sort of game was this? Sounds like it wasn't too competitive

alfie wrote:Poor Ballance hasn't had much of a chance to push his claims due to the (absurd) lack of proper tour matches.

But do any of us think letting him replace Vince at three would be a good plan ?  Vince did make the so far best score for England in Brisbane , after all ; though he's been a walking wicket since.

And of course , another left hander as food for the Lyons...

Hi Alfie - I think it was our (UK) yesterday evening that I said how dreadfully unfair itineraries are these days for touring sides and especially the squad players like Ballance.

I feel it's impossible for supporters like us to make a sensible call about promotion of the squad players to the Test team when we are not seeing them play or even getting any meaningful evidence of how they are doing. At least, Bayliss gets to see and talk to them and watch them in the nets.

My point really is if the right call was made to include Ballance in the squad and he's doing nothing wrong now out there in Bayliss' eyes, then he should at least be in contention given the batting woes so far.

As for Bayliss here, he does seem particularly supportive of the eleven players chosen for the last Test. Whilst backing your players is usually admirable, Bayless needs to be careful about creating a disconnect with those waiting in the wings and hoping for an opportunity. There's also the possible issue of being overly stubborn and adopting a siege mentality rather than being prepared to consider a change (an accusation I threw at Root for sticking to his ''bowl first'' decision in the last Test).

You mention Vince. He's a lovely batsman in full flow and his 80 odd at Brisbane has probably justified his tour place. However, it's not unreasonable to at least consider other alternatives after three successive failures. Malan's place wouldn't be set in concrete for me either. Sure, he's been out to some very good balls bowled but - with me now coming over all Sir Geoffrey - that's what he's going to be up against in Test cricket, not a succession of half-volleys and lollypops.

I like the look of Malan at 5. I agree he needs to start putting some scores on the board, but he at least seems to be a person who is ready to try and adapt his style to the situation he finds the team in.

I haven't seen Tom Curran but he sure did well in the side game with both bat and ball
i think I had seen his father Kevin Curran in the prudential and Reliance World cup and he was a top class allrounder

If Tom's bowling speed is 135+ they should consider giving him a break.

structurally and composition wise following changes suggested:

1) Get Bairstow to bat as high as possible even as high as No. 4 at the least No.5

2) get rid of Ali.....he's a waste of space & get Curran in his stead

3) Replace Overton with Jake Ball or Mark wood
and if you like the utility value of Overton....keep him in place of Ali instead of bringing Curran in

If Ali is fully fit he has to play - if not, then England need to look at it

Curran is more around Anderson pace - which is why I don’t think he’ll play until it’s series over and they rest Anderson

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:If Ali is fully fit he has to play - if not, then England need to look at it

Curran is more around Anderson pace - which is why I don’t think he’ll play until it’s series over and they rest Anderson

I am a big Ali fan...but here he is ineffective
batting like lower order...chancing his arm to 20s and 30s
which is also OK if he can be a reasonable 5th bowler...which he is far from in this series
ANYONE can bowl as good ( or as ordinarily ) as he is bowling now
Root would be better actually..... and if I recall right Ballance can bowl leg spin
BUT they have to get in a bowler in his place who can bat in his place.....4 bowlers would be one too few

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:If Ali is fully fit he has to play - if not, then England need to look at it

If this were English conditions and he was fully fit I'd see what you are saying. However, as things stand he is a walking wicket for Nathan Lyon who has got him out in all four innings. And he is just not contributing enough with the bat and bowling has only seen him take one wicket in the series so far is it? That is just not enough of a reason to ensure him a place in the side.

EDIT: Just to add that if there was an assurance he'd be back bowling at his best again and threatening to take wickets then I'd agree he must stay in the side. But that looks a long way off being the case.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Poor Ballance hasn't had much of a chance to push his claims due to the (absurd) lack of proper tour matches.

But do any of us think letting him replace Vince at three would be a good plan ?  Vince did make the so far best score for England in Brisbane , after all ; though he's been a walking wicket since.

And of course , another left hander as food for the Lyons...

Hi Alfie - I think it was our (UK) yesterday evening that I said how dreadfully unfair itineraries are these days for touring sides and especially the squad players like Ballance.

I feel it's impossible for supporters like us to make a sensible call about promotion of the squad players to the Test team when we are not seeing them play or even getting any meaningful evidence of how they are doing. At least, Bayliss gets to see and talk to them and watch them in the nets.

My point really is if the right call was made to include Ballance in the squad and he's doing nothing wrong now out there in Bayliss' eyes, then he should at least be in contention given the batting woes so far.

As for Bayliss here, he does seem particularly supportive of the eleven players chosen for the last Test. Whilst backing your players is usually admirable, Bayless needs to be careful about creating a disconnect with those waiting in the wings and hoping for an opportunity. There's also the possible issue of being overly stubborn and adopting a siege mentality rather than being prepared to consider a change (an accusation I threw at Root for sticking to his ''bowl first'' decision in the last Test).

You mention Vince. He's a lovely batsman in full flow and his 80 odd at Brisbane has probably justified his tour place. However, it's not unreasonable to at least consider other alternatives after three successive failures. Malan's place wouldn't be set in concrete for me either. Sure, he's been out to some very good balls bowled but - with me now coming over all Sir Geoffrey - that's what he's going to be up against in Test cricket, not a succession of half-volleys and lollypops.

All good points , guildford. I do fear though that there are three number fives and no number threes in this squad...they can shuffle 'em all they like but it probably won't help...

As you say , Bayliss can at least watch them (unlike when they play for their counties ) and select on visual evidence. But since that apparently led to picking Ball ahead of Overton for Brisbane

Seriously I do think Bayliss takes supportiveness to extremes - or is unduly stubborn once he has decided on a plan. Admittedly he did eventually give up on the "Dawson as first spinner" idea in the summer ; so he can change his mind. Not sure any changes in the XI will be effective right now though so I think he has to back the players who - to be fair - fought back after a terrible first two and a half days in Adelaide.
Hopefully we will see Bairstow at six and Moeen (who still should play , in my view , given the want of alternatives) back to seven. and I would also swap Malan and Vince...if that doesn't work it will probably be Ballance's turn anyway... Or Jennings.

In the meantime try to avoid any more adverse publicity ! Between the BBC and the papers in both countries this tour is looking set to go down in history as nearly outdoing the previous "Ashes disaster" so loved by the headline writers. I see KP has weighed in with a "helpful" little piece on the team's problems : pitching for a regular job on one of those rags ? With friends like these...

I would be tempted to bring in Jennings at 3 instead of Vince. I agree with alfie that Vince, Ballance and Malan are really all number 5 or 6's. Long term I would like to see Hameed Cook stoneman and Jennings battle it out for the top 3 places in the order

Got to stick with Vince after his opening knock. Buys him a bit more time, surely.
Id stick with the same team personally unless Moeen can't bowl then i would be tempted to give Tom Curran a game.

id be very surprised if we see any changes other than if ali is not fit. weve played ok for large parts but just not been able to string it over to all sessions. and when weve been bad we have been really bad.

Australia may well go on to 5-0 but dont actually feel like this Australia team is all that. the next home series id put us as the favourites

Well as I suspected England will remain unchanged for the Third Test. There will be a tweak to the batting order though with Bairstow now comingbin at six and Ali at seven.

Well Bairstow deserves a promotion, at least.

Might be some rain around on days four and five.

Rumour has it as well that the pitch in the last couple of years has lost a bit of pace. South Africa and New Zealand have coped very well on it posting large scores in the ladt two tests there.