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

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Nothing past Broad and Anderson. Others slide in too much filth

Broad and Anderson have been the least threatening of the seamers - sure Woakes/Overton are throwing in four balls, but they're the only ones creating chances.

Rain now

Anderson strikes and Khawaja is caught in the slips..Australia 139 for 3.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Nothing past Broad and Anderson. Others slide in too much filth

Broad and Anderson have been the least threatening of the seamers - sure Woakes/Overton are throwing in four balls, but they're the only ones creating chances.

Rain now

Wouldn't totally agree , Olly ...they've beaten the bat quite often , but not snared an edge..

Until now ...Jimmy removes Khawaja immediately on resumption

Broad joins Anderson in the attack. As he should...they must attack every time there is an opening.

As Craig says , they need a Big Session. Trouble is Smith is still there looking like the archetypal Immovable Object...

alfie wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Nothing past Broad and Anderson. Others slide in too much filth

Broad and Anderson have been the least threatening of the seamers - sure Woakes/Overton are throwing in four balls, but they're the only ones creating chances.

Rain now

Wouldn't totally agree , Olly ...they've beaten the bat quite often , but not snared an edge..

Until now ...Jimmy removes Khawaja immediately on resumption

Just channelling my inner Trebs...

Handscomb looking tentatove. Playing and missing and edging through the slips.

Once again England haven't been able to follow up the breakthrough...

Handscomb has been a bit edgy , and Smith restrained. But they are still there ; and you feel the bowling pressure will lessen eventually and they'll be away again. Couple more overs and the change bowlers will be tasked with the job. Still not certain they're quite up to it...in fact here's Woakes already. Hope he can prove me wrong.

Come on England. Handscomb looking a bit dodgy here. 1 wicket brings 2 and then you're into the tail..

Well, Overton is probably now the most dangerous bowler in the world

That could be a massive wicket for England. Overton bowls Smith for 40 in the first ball of his spell and Australua 161 for 4.Is the door ajar?

Overton

What a first Test wicket ! Bowls the unbowlable.

Smith gone so its a battle against mortals now...

Has to be said some luck in that with the bat-pad-stumps...but it was good bowling ; no fancy schemes just at the off stump on a good length.
Overton has bowled pretty well today ...thought that even before the wicket. Lets see if he can follow up...

alfie wrote:Has to be said some luck in that with the bat-pad-stumps...but it was good bowling ; no fancy schemes just at the off stump on a good length.
Overton has bowled pretty well today ...thought that even before the wicket. Lets see if he can follow up...

Hmm well there was a deviation on pitching that beat Smith so I would say it was a great delivery. Sure luck that it came off pad onto stumps but the movement did him.

A decent session for England but still need a lot more from it to retrieve the situation.

Nine overs left in the day and Australia are 186 for 4.

Will need to see some highlights later, but England chipping away and sticking to their task.

They're still behind, of course. Root will have some explaining to do.

Ali getting through plenty of overs.

No more wickets. At 190/4 you could say sending them in really hasn't worked.
Once again the bowlers have made them work hard for their runs , and never let things get out of control - which says something for their plans and their discipline ; but they've not been able take wickets in clumps and will eventually be chasing a pretty solid score.

Looking as if the pattern of this series may be setting in : unless England can make big runs themselves they are going to struggle. Without a bowler of extreme pace or a destructive spinner they are unlikely to bowl Australia out really cheaply on placid pitches ...what they need is a huge score of their own so they can worry the batsmen out through sustained pressure.
Need a couple of batsmen to step up and provide those runs...

200/4.

England, disappointingly, seem to be tired and going through the motions in these last few overs.

So very flat in the field. Easy pickings for Australia.

Sounds like England wasted the new ball today - if they’re to win this match they can’t afford to do that tomorrow. They’re climbing uphill after the bizarre decision to bowl first anyways...

Nrw ball taken for the last over the day brings no wicket. Australia's day as they close on 209 for 4. England have stuck to their task but the advantage is with the Aussies.

209/4. Tight day. Needed two more wickets really ...will need to do serious damage with the new ball tomorrow morning.

On the bright side : they did get Smith out

And I thought Overton had a good first day of Test Cricket.

Australia in complete control. Huge step towards the series for them.

England bowled, for the most part, too short to make full use of the first new ball or the possible movement under lights. The hosts, again, applied themselves to the task very well.

Australia will be looking for 400+ tomorrow, and then let their highly-skilled and effective seamers loose at a brittle and under-pressure English batting order.

Weird the way ya being talked about. If Australia had chosen to bat, I think most would see this is a balanced position. We seem to be “behind” cos we chose to bowl, which of course makes no real sense.

alfie wrote:209/4.  Tight day.  Needed two more wickets really ...will need to do serious damage with the new ball tomorrow morning.

On the bright side : they did get Smith out

And I thought Overton had a good first day of Test Cricket.

Spot on post this.

All is not lost but a run of wickets are needed early tomorrow for sure.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Weird the way ya being talked about. If Australia had chosen to bat, I think most would see this is a balanced position. We seem to be “behind” cos we chose to bowl, which of course makes no real sense.

Well, in a psychological sense, England are behind. Root and his side will be feeling very despondent at stumps; whereas had Australia won the toss, true enough, they might not have been feeling too grim.

In real terms, England are a long way back. It'll be a struggle for the tourists to make 300, given the nature of this test and the phenomenal record of Hazlewood and Starc with the pink ball in first-class cricket (averages of 18.3 and 17.9 respectively).

So I think England, barring some heroic intervention in the first session, are likely to be looking at a minimum 100-run deficit after the first innings-
and they also have to contend with batting last.

Well I did say yesterday I felt, given Ali's healing cut, it would have made more sense for England to bat second to give the cut 24 to 36 hours to heal further.Will this go down in folklore as Rott's Hussain moment? We shall see.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Weird the way ya being talked about. If Australia had chosen to bat, I think most would see this is a balanced position. We seem to be “behind” cos we chose to bowl, which of course makes no real sense.

DZ. If you choose to chuck away the advantage of winning the toss and insert the opposition, you're effectively saying it's a better day for bowling than it is for batting.
   IMHO, anything less than SEVEN wickets is a poor return for a side that puts the other lot in, and even then it would not be a good day if it was, say, 300-plus for seven. Really, you're looking to bowl the opposition out on the first day if you put them in.
   Haven't seen any of the match but by all accounts Eng bowled poorly early on which is hardly ideal if you have made an insertion. I was afraid that Root would do something silly like this. The Test is practically lost already, alas.

sirfredperry wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Weird the way ya being talked about. If Australia had chosen to bat, I think most would see this is a balanced position. We seem to be “behind” cos we chose to bowl, which of course makes no real sense.

DZ. If you choose to chuck away the advantage of winning the toss and insert the opposition, you're effectively saying it's a better day for bowling than it is for batting.
   IMHO, anything less than SEVEN wickets is a poor return for a side that puts the other lot in, and even then it would not be a good day if it was, say, 300-plus for seven. Really, you're looking to bowl the opposition out on the first day if you put them in.
   Haven't seen any of the match but by all accounts Eng bowled poorly early on which is hardly ideal if you have made an insertion. I was afraid that Root would do something silly like this. The Test is practically lost already, alas.

Certainly see what you are saying. England did bowl poorly before the last of the rain breaks but for a bity more luck there could have quite easily have been another two wickets down at close of play. Hanscomb played and missed several times and edged the ball through the slips on a number of occasions and Marsh also played and missed once or twice. A bit of luck and 209 for 4 could easily have been 209 for 6.

sirfredperry wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Weird the way ya being talked about. If Australia had chosen to bat, I think most would see this is a balanced position. We seem to be “behind” cos we chose to bowl, which of course makes no real sense.

DZ. If you choose to chuck away the advantage of winning the toss and insert the opposition, you're effectively saying it's a better day for bowling than it is for batting.
   IMHO, anything less than SEVEN wickets is a poor return for a side that puts the other lot in, and even then it would not be a good day if it was, say, 300-plus for seven. Really, you're looking to bowl the opposition out on the first day if you put them in.
   Haven't seen any of the match but by all accounts Eng bowled poorly early on which is hardly ideal if you have made an insertion. I was afraid that Root would do something silly like this. The Test is practically lost already, alas.

My issue is that it doesn’t matter, really. You are where you are in a game of cricket whether you chose to be or not. Seems to be more psychological than logical.

If they get em for around 300 they should be buzzing

alfie wrote:No more wickets.  At 190/4 you could say sending them in really hasn't worked.
Once again the bowlers have made them work hard for their runs , and never let things get out of control - which says something for their plans and their discipline ; but they've not been able take wickets in clumps and will eventually be chasing a pretty solid score.

Looking as if the pattern of this series may be setting in : unless England can make big runs themselves they are going to struggle.  Without a bowler of extreme pace or a destructive spinner they are unlikely to bowl Australia out really cheaply on placid pitches ...what they need is a huge score of their own so they can worry the batsmen out through sustained pressure.
Need a couple of batsmen to step up and provide those runs...

200/4.

I did say that, before and after.

Poor decision by Root to bowl. As regulars will know, not just being said with hindsight. We may not have known what the pink ball was going to do but we had insufficient evidence to gamble on it hooping round corners. As it was, the ball behaved, Australia dug in and have the likely bonus to look forward to of Lyon bowling at us fourth dig.

We're obviously not out of it at this stage but Australia have had the better of the day. That's particularly disappointing given the bowlers toiled away pretty well. At least we've generally kept it tight and stopped them getting too far away. However, it will very much be uphill going if we lose the opening session on day 2.

On a specific point and I hate to agree with Swann here, it was very poor that Stoneman was still wearing knee pads when fielding on the boundary. His legs and hands never seemed aligned when he spilled the chance offered by Khawaja off Woakes. Particularly disappointing as Stoneman usually has a safe pair of hands, I've seen him pouch a few near to the Oval rope. Fortunately the drop didn't prove too expensive but it was still bad cricket and especially so at Test level.

guildfordbat wrote:... as Stoneman usually has a safe pair of hands....

Safe hands, yes, but with a name like Stoneman... hard to envisage them being soft.

I think Joe got a little too taken in by the overhead conditions influencing his decision to send Australia in to bat first... and not the actual pitch itself.

Just looking at that drop-in pitch and hearing about the way it has been prepared to produce a 14mm thick dense mat of grass rolled in... it is a long way from the AO pitches of old where you'd get the clay exposed and cracks appearing at the weak spots after only a day or so sun and wear & tear. It is also considerably drier than last year's pitch as was shown on the 'organic growth' map. Will be interesting to see how quickly it starts to break up.

I echo what others have said on here. England really needed to rattle Australia early and have had them at least 6-7-8 down to give any credit to Root for his decision. It might be said that whilst Joe saw too much in the overhead conditions; he didn't fully understand the nature of the pitch or have the bowling stocks to extract more bounce out of it in addition to some seam and late swing.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:... as Stoneman usually has a safe pair of hands....

Safe hands, yes, but with a name like Stoneman... hard to envisage them being soft.

...

Yeah, he is nicknamed Rocky.

guildfordbat wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:... as Stoneman usually has a safe pair of hands....

Safe hands, yes, but with a name like Stoneman... hard to envisage them being soft.

...

Yeah, he is nicknamed Rocky.

He does look like a hard character.
Off for my Sunday swim... it's morning here. Enough time for a 6 hour kip for you, Guildford.

Match of the Day (Premier League highlights) for me a bit later tonight, then kip and try to join play about 7 in the morning here (5.30 pm match time, I think). Enjoy your swim.

I know Sydney is 11 hours ahead, but we’re looking at 10 and a half here, yes?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42207500

After all the hype, Ben Stokes lasts 7 balls on his Canterbury debut, leaving his new-side 8/3!

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I know Sydney is 11 hours ahead, but we’re looking at 10 and a half here, yes?

Indeed. With Perth being 8 hours ahead.

As with the last test, my other half’s lot are quiet and I’d imagine waiting till the end. I did win that slagging match by saying we’d have won with Stokes but were too worried to send him in case 45% of NSW tried to find him and hurt him for defending a gay couple (they’re very liberal, their poor yes count is my best line of attack)

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Weird the way ya being talked about. If Australia had chosen to bat, I think most would see this is a balanced position. We seem to be “behind” cos we chose to bowl, which of course makes no real sense.

DZ. If you choose to chuck away the advantage of winning the toss and insert the opposition, you're effectively saying it's a better day for bowling than it is for batting.
   IMHO, anything less than SEVEN wickets is a poor return for a side that puts the other lot in, and even then it would not be a good day if it was, say, 300-plus for seven. Really, you're looking to bowl the opposition out on the first day if you put them in.
   Haven't seen any of the match but by all accounts Eng bowled poorly early on which is hardly ideal if you have made an insertion. I was afraid that Root would do something silly like this. The Test is practically lost already, alas.

My issue is that it doesn’t matter, really. You are where you are in a game of cricket whether you chose to be or not. Seems to be more psychological than logical.

If they get em for around 300 they should be buzzing

I am probably the only one here who thinks you have a point , DZ.

While I agree with most that bowling first on this occasion might have been based partly on a misreading of the pitch , I always find it a little odd that the actual score line on the day is largely seen differently depending on who did what at the toss of the coin...

Once the decision has been made - and in this case , if you take Steve Smith at his word , it made no difference who won the toss - that decision is no longer relevant except in the psychological effect it has on the players (and critics !) . It is what it is : and 209/4 is either a good , poor or reasonable return on the day : and probably one on which opinions differ anyway ...actually very similar , in reverse , to day one at Brisbane.

I think most people feel Australia are on top. For three reasons : because they won the first match , asserting their superiority as the match progressed , and as a result England need to take a very solid advantage before they are thought to be doing well (logical) ; because most think there actually was enough in the pitch that the bowlers should have done better so the score is going to be better than par (debatable , still , at the moment) ...and lastly because Root sent them in ( irrelevant : just as it would have been had Australia been bowled out for 75 , whether or not they were batting from choice or otherwise)

Won't stop an Australian win here being used as a stick to beat Root whenever a critic feels the urge...but I imagine young Joe already knows that

...and just to clarify : I also consider Australia to be on top as they still have two recognized batsmen at the crease to deal with the second new ball , and therefore are in a good position to push on to a score of significantly over 300 , ie a good total for this day/night game. Of course a clatter of early wickets today could change that , so I wouldn't say they are out of sight. But I think they have the edge.

And I would have exactly the same view of the current situation had Smith won the toss and batted.

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I know Sydney is 11 hours ahead, but we’re looking at 10 and a half here, yes?

Indeed. With Perth being 8 hours ahead.

Yes, there are 5 time zones here.
Adelaide is half an hour behind NSW, Vic & Tas; Qld is one hour behind, NT one and a half hours and WA 3 hours behind AEST.

Showers easing this morning and it should be mostly clear in the afternoon.

http://m.weatherzone.com.au/sa/adelaide/adelaide/next48hours

Start of play delayed by light drizzle. It shouldn't be too long before play gets underway. Covers coming off as I type.

England need a minimum of four wickets in this first session with the new ball just an over old.

And in the third ball of the day Broad gets a ball to dart back and trap Handscomb LBW. Australia 209 for 5.

Good start Broad

Handscomb remains a constant lbw suspect...

Now England need to follow up ; as they kept failing to do yesterday...

Wow, Broad's got huge movement to start the day. Wicket off the 3rd ball! To the tune of Jerusalem.

England right back in it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And in the third ball of the day Broad gets a ball to dart back and trap Handscomb LBW. Australia 209 for 5.

Broad was probably the best of England's bowlers yesterday but went unrewarded ; perhaps he will get compensation this morning ?

Ball doing things first up today...

Paine looks as if he wants to counter attack.

England need to get into this tail whilst this new ball still has life in it.

Duty281 wrote:Wow, Broad's got huge movement to start the day. Wicket off the 3rd ball! To the tune of Jerusalem.

England right back in it.

Need more than one though. Not surprised they got one at the start ...as they did straight after tea. I guess the big difference this morning is they have a new ball so the chances of enlarging the breach are better...and Broad does look very menacing ...

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Wow, Broad's got huge movement to start the day. Wicket off the 3rd ball! To the tune of Jerusalem.

England right back in it.

Need more than one though.  Not surprised they got one at the start ...as they did straight after tea. I guess the big difference this morning is they have a new ball so the chances of enlarging the breach are better...and Broad does look very menacing ...

Absolutely. Broad looks in an Oval-2009 mood at the moment, so promising signs for England.