The Ashes: 3rd Test, Perth

First topic message reminder :

3rd Test Perth, December 14-18, 2017

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

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

England have been blown away. Out-batted and out-bowled  throughout the whole series so far. I think the conditions have greatly magnified things. England's best bowlers are just not as potent in Australian conditions and the batsmen have lacked application, guile and grit most of the time.

It is like horse racing. You can have great steeplechasers who won Gold Cups but they can't crack the Grand National. Great horses but just not suited to the different challenges posed by different conditions.

Geoff Boycott was spot on in that the England attack are too samey. Full of fast medium pace bowlers and nothing else. The thing is England have been here before snd haven't learnt their lesson. Hindsight is great I know but the selectors should have opted for much more variety in the bowling department. The quickest pace bowlers should have been guaranteed at leadt one slot in the starting line-up. Even if they were gorced to go for a totally green bowler at least it would have given.variety. England are now on the brink of losing the Ashes and the batsmen can takes some of the blame for throwing too many of their wickets away. The bowlers can take blame for bowling wrong lengths at times when there was something in the pitch and the selectors mudt take some blame for one dimensional and quite dim unimaginitive selections.

Australia have been better in every department and may now be eyeing a 5-0 whitewash.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results ~Einstein

Eng keep picking same bowling and getting the bowlers to bowl same line-length-preserve yourself for next game

I still believe batting is not too different both sides if subjected to identical bowling attacks

KP_fan wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results ~Einstein

Eng keep picking same bowling and getting the bowlers to bowl same line-length-preserve yourself for next game

I still believe batting is not too different both sides if subjected to identical bowling attacks

The selectors just have not learnt their lessons from past Ashes in Australia debacles. Broad and Anderson's records speak for themselves BUT their records are cut out on totally different surfaces from those in Australia. The selectors naively have fallen for the same mistake. Okay Broad and Anderson were always going to be selected but at least one and maybe even two of the other bowlers in the side should have been quicker pace bowlers - regardless of whether they were tried and trusted. As Boycott said they went for bowlers more because they can hold a bat but in this series they haven't held the bat so what is their point of being in the side? A bit like Ali. He is seen primarily as a batsmen who can bowl spin but he has done neither adequately yet he still gets selected.

Malan didn't do too badly in his cameo as a bowler, he almost had Smith caught and bowled.  I suppose that shows the power of having variety in the bowling.  He came on when I thought the Australians would accelerate the run rate  but he held them in check.
Malan 6 overs 1 maiden 13 runs  economy 2.17 / over.

Yes, Smith said post match that Malan was the best of the bowling he faced today and slowed down the acceleration late in the day.

Also an interesting comment I heard on the radio (Dirk Nannes) who picked up the fact that Broad's thumb was always pointing towards the rh batsmen upon release (in-swing) and he may have had some some trouble with the top of his finger preventing him from producing some variety; namely out-swinging deliveries with his pinky pointing towards the batsmen upon release of the ball. If so; that has limited his attacking options... but he just hasn't seemed up to it along with Anderson and Woakes.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Yes, Smith said post match that Malan was the best of the bowling he faced today and slowed down the acceleration late in the day.

Also an interesting comment I heard on the radio (Dirk Nannes) who picked up the fact that Broad's thumb was always pointing towards the rh batsmen out there today (in-swing) and may have had some some trouble with the top of his finger preventing him from producing some variety; namely out-swinging deliveries with his pinky pointing towards the batsmen upon release of the ball. If so; that has limited his attacking options... but he just hasn't seemed up to it along with Anderson and Woakes.

Horses for courses really. Give me Broad and Anderson in English conditions over the Aussie attack. They have the guile and extract much more from seaming pitches than the Australian attack would. In Australian conditions though, on fast strips with bounce give me the Australian attack to the English.

I'm glad I was playing today and didn't have to watch it all ...

Not exactly unexpected but a bit worse than I'd hoped. Australia have taken total control and you'd think they will wrap this up pretty easily for 3-0 , weather permitting.

Some rubbish comments (sorry guys) about picking fast bowlers etc : it wouldn't help if they aren't up to the standard. Australia happen to have three good pace bowlers at the moment - and a damn good spinner. England don't . Doesn't mean they're unbeatable ; but it requires maximum scores from our batsmen when they're in ...and it isn't happening . The contrast with Smith and the struggling Khawaja battling it out yesterday and England gifting wickets is remarkable.
Is the attack inadequate ? In these conditions , yes . But they don't have a fit Wood , a fit TRJ , a Swann to bowl spin...what do you want them to do?

Can they get out with a draw ? Well they'll be starting 300 behind ; have to bat five sessions. Haven't done so yet. At least the pitch is easy and unlikely to get much worse but I'm not putting money on it.

Bit of a waste of the Malan/Bairstow stand if they lose this but...it is going to need another one tomorrow.

alfie wrote:I'm glad I was playing today and didn't have to watch it all ...

Not exactly unexpected but a bit worse than I'd hoped.  Australia have taken total control and you'd think they will wrap this up pretty easily for 3-0 , weather permitting.

Some rubbish comments (sorry guys) about picking fast bowlers etc  : it wouldn't help if they aren't up to the standard.  Australia happen to have three good pace bowlers at the moment - and a damn good spinner.  England don't .  Doesn't mean they're unbeatable ; but it requires maximum scores from our batsmen when they're in ...and it isn't happening . The contrast with Smith and the struggling Khawaja battling it out yesterday and England gifting wickets is remarkable.
Is the attack inadequate ? In these conditions , yes . But they don't have a fit Wood , a fit TRJ , a Swann to bowl spin...what do you want them to do?

Can they get out with a draw ?  Well they'll be starting 300 behind ; have to bat five sessions. Haven't done so yet.  At least the pitch is easy and unlikely to get much worse but I'm not putting money on it.

Bit of a waste of the Malan/Bairstow stand if they lose this but...it is going to need another one tomorrow.

Sorry Alfie haven’t you heard Liam Plunkett has become Dennis Lillie, Mason Crane has become Shane Warne and George Garton transformed to Mitchell Johnson?

alfie wrote:I'm glad I was playing today and didn't have to watch it all ...

Not exactly unexpected but a bit worse than I'd hoped.  Australia have taken total control and you'd think they will wrap this up pretty easily for 3-0 , weather permitting.

Some rubbish comments (sorry guys) about picking fast bowlers etc  : it wouldn't help if they aren't up to the standard.  Australia happen to have three good pace bowlers at the moment - and a damn good spinner.  England don't .  Doesn't mean they're unbeatable ; but it requires maximum scores from our batsmen when they're in ...and it isn't happening . The contrast with Smith and the struggling Khawaja battling it out yesterday and England gifting wickets is remarkable.
Is the attack inadequate ? In these conditions , yes . But they don't have a fit Wood , a fit TRJ , a Swann to bowl spin...what do you want them to do?

Can they get out with a draw ?  Well they'll be starting 300 behind ; have to bat five sessions. Haven't done so yet.  At least the pitch is easy and unlikely to get much worse but I'm not putting money on it.

Bit of a waste of the Malan/Bairstow stand if they lose this but...it is going to need another one tomorrow.

Look at Anderson's record in Australia - on this tour he got his first 5 wicket haul in his mid-30s. This is a bowler with over 500 test wickets. He is just not potent enough in Australia. Why? Lack of white knuckle pace.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Yes, Smith said post match that Malan was the best of the bowling he faced today and slowed down the acceleration late in the day.

Also an interesting comment I heard on the radio (Dirk Nannes) who picked up the fact that Broad's thumb was always pointing towards the rh batsmen out there today (in-swing) and may have had some some trouble with the top of his finger preventing him from producing some variety; namely out-swinging deliveries with his pinky pointing towards the batsmen upon release of the ball. If so; that has limited his attacking options... but he just hasn't seemed up to it along with Anderson and Woakes.

Horses for courses really. Give me Broad and Anderson in English conditions over the Aussie attack. They have the guile and extract much more from seaming pitches than the Australian attack would. In Australian conditions though, on fast strips with bounce give me the Australian attack to the English.

Only one course we are talking about today though, aren't we?

No name Bertie wrote:Malan didn't do too badly in his cameo as a bowler, he almost had Smith caught and bowled.  I suppose that shows the power of having variety in the bowling.  He came on when I thought the Australians would accelerate the run rate  but he held them in check.
Malan 6 overs 1 maiden 13 runs  economy 2.17 / over.

As I say I didn't watch all day : but it is beyond me why Malan didn't come on way earlier (and Root too for that matter ) . I am not a fan of "hopeful" bowling changes but when your main bowlers are toiling to no effect why not try some alternates , even briefly ? Before the game is gone...

Root looks a bit lost right now. I wasn't one advocating for him to take over in a hurry ; and I fear he is taking a bit of a battering early in his tenure - I really hope it doesn't destroy him.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Yes, Smith said post match that Malan was the best of the bowling he faced today and slowed down the acceleration late in the day.

Also an interesting comment I heard on the radio (Dirk Nannes) who picked up the fact that Broad's thumb was always pointing towards the rh batsmen out there today (in-swing) and may have had some some trouble with the top of his finger preventing him from producing some variety; namely out-swinging deliveries with his pinky pointing towards the batsmen upon release of the ball. If so; that has limited his attacking options... but he just hasn't seemed up to it along with Anderson and Woakes.

Horses for courses really. Give me Broad and Anderson in English conditions over the Aussie attack. They have the guile and extract much more from seaming pitches than the Australian attack would. In Australian conditions though, on fast strips with bounce give me the Australian attack to the English.

Only one course we are talking about today though, aren't we?

Most definitely. It is where the selectors have thought very one-dimensional. Relying universally on a one dimensional bowling attack all of a very similar pace. Once that doesn't work you are in major trouble especially when A The batsmen don't get enough runs on the board. And B. You don't have a top notch reliable spinner to fall back on.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Yes, Smith said post match that Malan was the best of the bowling he faced today and slowed down the acceleration late in the day.

Also an interesting comment I heard on the radio (Dirk Nannes) who picked up the fact that Broad's thumb was always pointing towards the rh batsmen out there today (in-swing) and may have had some some trouble with the top of his finger preventing him from producing some variety; namely out-swinging deliveries with his pinky pointing towards the batsmen upon release of the ball. If so; that has limited his attacking options... but he just hasn't seemed up to it along with Anderson and Woakes.

Horses for courses really. Give me Broad and Anderson in English conditions over the Aussie attack. They have the guile and extract much more from seaming pitches than the Australian attack would. In Australian conditions though, on fast strips with bounce give me the Australian attack to the English.

Only one course we are talking about today though, aren't we?

Most definitely. It is where the selectors have thought very one-dimensional. Relying universally on a one dimensional bowling attack all of a very similar pace. Once that doesn't work you are in major trouble especially when A The batsmen don't get enough runs on the board. And B. You don't have a top notch reliable spinner to fall back on.

Seeing as you seem to know so much more than the English selectors about squad selection in Australia who exactly would you have picked then Craig?

All well and good slating them - but these are literally the best options we have at the moment. We can’t suddenly magic up a Graeme Swann or a Chris Tremlett when there just isn’t one out there.

The anger should be aimed towards the “Loughborough programme” which has barely produced a bowler of note yet, and has ruined quite a few promising ones

CaledonianCraig wrote:

alfie wrote:I'm glad I was playing today and didn't have to watch it all ...

Not exactly unexpected but a bit worse than I'd hoped.  Australia have taken total control and you'd think they will wrap this up pretty easily for 3-0 , weather permitting.

Some rubbish comments (sorry guys) about picking fast bowlers etc  : it wouldn't help if they aren't up to the standard.  Australia happen to have three good pace bowlers at the moment - and a damn good spinner.  England don't .  Doesn't mean they're unbeatable ; but it requires maximum scores from our batsmen when they're in ...and it isn't happening . The contrast with Smith and the struggling Khawaja battling it out yesterday and England gifting wickets is remarkable.
Is the attack inadequate ? In these conditions , yes . But they don't have a fit Wood , a fit TRJ , a Swann to bowl spin...what do you want them to do?

Can they get out with a draw ?  Well they'll be starting 300 behind ; have to bat five sessions. Haven't done so yet.  At least the pitch is easy and unlikely to get much worse but I'm not putting money on it.

Bit of a waste of the Malan/Bairstow stand if they lose this but...it is going to need another one tomorrow.

Look at Anderson's record in Australia - on this tour he got his first 5 wicket haul in his mid-30s. This is a bowler with over 500 test wickets. He is just not potent enough in Australia. Why? Lack of white knuckle pace.

Come on Craig ...I know that. (I also know that Anderson destroyed Australia in 2010/11 when his batsmen were on the job making big scores. ). Of course he doesn't bowl 90 plus these days but if the batsmen put up decent scores and the rest of the bowlers maintained control he'd not do too badly..but that isn't the point. What else do you want ? Pick Garton because he can allegedly hit 90 ? Or Plunkett who has never taken more than a handful of Test wickets on the premise that he looks quick with the white ball ? You work with what you have ...and I am not arguing that England wouldn't like a 93 mph bowler - just pointing out they don't have one.

Of course this isn't all about the bowlers lacking. In the batting department two fifth wicket stands in this match alone sum up the differences. Malan and Baistow's stand was really big but ended when Malan exited to a somewhat soft exit caught in the deep. Smith and Marsh have built a big partnership and carried on building and building going far beyond Malan and Bairstow's stand. It kind of echoes the first three tests. Barring the second innings in Adelaide the Australian batsmen have had to be prised out whereas a cocophany of loose shots, needless wafts and stupidity has cost English batsmen dear. Smith is like cement in the batting line-up and his very hard to remove whilst England just doesn't have that type of player with his mental discipline.

Olly - you just beat me to the George Garton recommendation.

Let's try him, eh? 20 years old, raw pace and left arm to boot. How that'll transform things!

Just have to overlook that he went wicketless and for 86 off 10 overs in a Lions game this month against junior opposition.

Bowlers don't just need to be different, they need to be good enough.

Our bowlers today didn't bowl well and needed to mix it up more in unhelpful conditions. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the wrong people were selected for the tour or this Test. I would be the first blowing a gasket if Wood and his speed had been chosen and, as I suspect would prove to be the case, he quickly broke down.

PS Alfie - hope you at least were amongst the wickets!

alfie wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

alfie wrote:I'm glad I was playing today and didn't have to watch it all ...

Not exactly unexpected but a bit worse than I'd hoped.  Australia have taken total control and you'd think they will wrap this up pretty easily for 3-0 , weather permitting.

Some rubbish comments (sorry guys) about picking fast bowlers etc  : it wouldn't help if they aren't up to the standard.  Australia happen to have three good pace bowlers at the moment - and a damn good spinner.  England don't .  Doesn't mean they're unbeatable ; but it requires maximum scores from our batsmen when they're in ...and it isn't happening . The contrast with Smith and the struggling Khawaja battling it out yesterday and England gifting wickets is remarkable.
Is the attack inadequate ? In these conditions , yes . But they don't have a fit Wood , a fit TRJ , a Swann to bowl spin...what do you want them to do?

Can they get out with a draw ?  Well they'll be starting 300 behind ; have to bat five sessions. Haven't done so yet.  At least the pitch is easy and unlikely to get much worse but I'm not putting money on it.

Bit of a waste of the Malan/Bairstow stand if they lose this but...it is going to need another one tomorrow.

Look at Anderson's record in Australia - on this tour he got his first 5 wicket haul in his mid-30s. This is a bowler with over 500 test wickets. He is just not potent enough in Australia. Why? Lack of white knuckle pace.

Come on Craig ...I know that. (I also know that Anderson destroyed Australia in 2010/11 when his batsmen were on the job making big scores. ).  Of course he doesn't bowl 90 plus these days but if the batsmen put up decent scores and the rest of the bowlers maintained control he'd not do too badly..but that isn't the point. What else do you want ?  Pick Garton because he can allegedly hit 90 ?  Or Plunkett who has never taken more than a handful of Test wickets on the premise that he looks quick with the white ball ?  You work with what you have ...and I am not arguing that England wouldn't like a 93 mph bowler - just pointing out they don't have one.

My point is alfie - same old, same old evidently has not worked and didn't on the last tour either. How many more times do England make this mistake before they realize it is worth taking a risk on variety and getting a pace bowler in there even if untried. It really isquite obvious that a pace bowler (real pace) is a pre-requisite for an Ashes tour.

Alfie, one could say that Anderson's in 2011 was pretty much an anomaly given his very poor bowling average here. What is it? 38? Probably be well over 40 if it were not for that low point for Australia in 2011.

Craig, give me McGrath any day over Anderson... who is the weakest member of the 500 club.
An average of 19.34 in England. Even better than his home average of 21.64.
Generally speaking, our bowlers have performed better in both home & away conditions traditionally... until the early part of this century.
Or from that Kasprowicz 'dismissal' in particular. As Olly might say... that was BS.
Yet we have to live with that ridiculous piece of Bowden umpiring.

Disagree , Craig. 2010/11 they had Anderson , Bresnan , Tremlett (bouncy but not excessively pacey ) and Finn.(Broad went home early) Worked fine.

Get enough runs the bowling will be OK - though it rather helped that Swann was the spinner

Main point remains : you cannot pick what you don't have !


guildford : no success ( we got mauled ) though I did have four catches dropped

Some days are diamonds ...some days are stone...

The Loaded Dog wrote:

Craig, give me McGrath any day over Anderson... who is the weakest member of the 500 club.
.

Oh of course. Don't get me wrong. I was speaking purely of the bowling attacks in this Ashes series alone.

alfie wrote:Disagree , Craig.  2010/11 they had Anderson , Bresnan , Tremlett (bouncy but not excessively pacey ) and Finn.(Broad went home early) Worked fine.

Get enough runs the bowling will be OK - though it rather helped that Swann was the spinner

Main point remains : you cannot pick what you don't have !


guildford : no success ( we got mauled ) though I did have four catches dropped

Some days are diamonds ...some days are stone...

Yes but remember that tour saw the England batsmen deliver as well and create scoreboard pressure which also helps of course. I concede I may be being a smart arse after the Ashes are as good as lost but watching England bowl today it was difficult to see any real differences between England's pace bowlers. Most impressive of those was Overton I'd say. And just to add my thoughts are only my opinion - not saying I am right just my thoughts on things.

alfie wrote:Disagree , Craig.  2010/11 they had Anderson , Bresnan , Tremlett (bouncy but not excessively pacey ) and Finn.(Broad went home early) Worked fine.

Get enough runs the bowling will be OK - though it rather helped that Swann was the spinner

Main point remains : you cannot pick what you don't have !


guildford : no success ( we got mauled ) though I did have four catches dropped

Some days are diamonds ...some days are stone...

Blooming heck, Alfie! 4 drops! When I was playing, one of our team was such a dreadful catcher he was nicknamed ''Parachute'' - it being said, ''Everything lands safely!''.

At risk of embarrassing you, Alfie, I would add that when someone as knowledgeable and normally so polite and restrained as you is referring to ''rubbish comments'', that's more than sufficient evidence of how totally rubbish those comments must be.

If the wrong players have been picked for this tour, I would like to see the names of the right players who should have been chosen instead. Without constructive suggestions as to actual replacements, little is being accomplished.

I liked what I saw of Overton too , Craig. Rough diamond still , but some promise.

Look I am not wishing to come on here as Anderson's agent ; but surely it is obvious that one of the reason he doesn't get a load of wickets in Australia is that the batsmen don't try to get after him : look at the economy rates. They know other bowlers will offer more easy pickings (and with little scoreboard pressure - unlike 2010/11 - they aren't in a hurry.

And LD : I would certainly put McGrath ahead of Jimmy but I don't think that is cause to be as disparaging as you were in that post. His average here would be much better if it weren't for the 2006/7 series for which he was manifestly not ready. It is what it is : but to call 2010/11 an "anomaly" as if to disregard it is a bit like saying that Mitchell Johnson was rubbish except for six weeks in 2013/14...

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Disagree , Craig.  2010/11 they had Anderson , Bresnan , Tremlett (bouncy but not excessively pacey ) and Finn.(Broad went home early) Worked fine.

Get enough runs the bowling will be OK - though it rather helped that Swann was the spinner

Main point remains : you cannot pick what you don't have !


guildford : no success ( we got mauled ) though I did have four catches dropped

Some days are diamonds ...some days are stone...

Blooming heck, Alfie! 4 drops! When I was playing, one of our team was such a dreadful catcher he was nicknamed ''Parachute'' - it being said, ''Everything lands safely!''.

At risk of embarrassing you, Alfie, I would add that when someone as knowledgeable and normally so polite and restrained as you is referring to ''rubbish comments'', that's more than sufficient evidence of how totally rubbish those comments must be.

If the wrong players have been picked for this tour, I would like to see the names of the right players who should have been chosen instead. Without constructive suggestions as to actual replacements, little is being accomplished.

I concede guildford bat I am not up on the county cricket scene so would be foolish of me to even try to make suggestions. Perhaps others better versed on the county scene can offer suggestions.

However, lets not make the mistake of rubbishing a pace bowler for poor figures bowling in English conditions as Australian conditions offer a lot more to pace bowlers.

This tour is fast turning into a replica of the last Ashes Tour down under. Batting collapses backed up by a bowling attack not equipped to get the best of Australian fast track pitches.

Let's just face the facts: there is no way England's bowling can consistently keep the lid on the bigger guns of the Australian batting... save for a spell or two where they suffer a collapse like the 2nd innings in Adelaide under the most English-like conditions... or in 2011 when there was a major La Nina event...floods galore. England have won 8 of 15? Ashes series here I think when we have that combination of wetter overcast conditions/weaker players.

It's almost impossible when your 2 senior strike bowlers are looking tired and struggling with their energy levels, Ali and Overton carrying injuries, Woakes not getting his length right, no Stokes, Root and Malan doing their best to contain the runs and control the damage (both did well and gave the others a break).... that's really an uphill battle and will not produce the 20 wickets required.

By contrast, Smith has used our 3 prong pace attack cleverly. Lyon not able to do much. Mitch offering not much either with the ball but a good filler in between the more quicker and accurate spells. More importantly, our fast bowlers know the proper length to bowl and have been able to keep it up despite Malan and YJB scoring a few runs.

Guildford... I heard an ear grating comment from your friend Alison yesterday morning before play commenced. Something along the lines of "the England batsmen should not show any fear to Starc & co... they should 'fight fire with fire' "... easy for her to say. Even Boudicea would have been impressed with the boldness of that comment. They did do well for a little while but then the fire got a little too hard to handle.

I like the look and attitude of Overton too.

Tell me... are those folk from the deep south west (Devon... where my ancestors hail from) made of stern stuff with a bit of fight? He has that strong jowly face which shows no fear. If so; it's a nice counter balance with the gritty no-nonsense Yorkshire stereotype that exists.

It's a bit like here then... we can draw on some rugged individuals from WA or Qld to produce the goods at times (excl. Khawaja who is from NSW but think of Langer, Lillee, Hayden, etc.)

What are the chances of his slightly younger brother teaming up with Craig in the future? I read that he had some temperament issues but that the ECB took him aside and have tried to knock those rough edges off him. Have a feeling the combination of twins tearing in from both ends could cause the Aussies some disruption next time around in England... or when Sir Jimmy has his legs up in the comm box at some date in the future.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Let's just face the facts: there is no way England's bowling can consistently keep the lid on the bigger guns of the Australian batting... save for a spell or two where they suffer a collapse like the 2nd innings in Adelaide under the most English-like conditions... or in 2011 when there was a major La Nina event...floods galore. England have won 8 of 15? Ashes series here I think when we have that combination of wetter overcast conditions/weaker players.

It's almost impossible when your 2 senior strike bowlers are looking tired and struggling with their energy levels, Ali and Overton carrying injuries, Woakes not getting his length right, no Stokes, Root and Malan doing their best to contain the runs and control the damage (both did well and gave the others a break).... that's really an uphill battle and will not produce the 20 wickets required.

By contrast, Smith has used our 3 prong pace attack cleverly. Lyon not able to do much. Mitch offering not much either with the ball but a good filler in between the more quicker and accurate spells. More importantly, our fast bowlers know the proper length to bowl and have been able to keep it up despite Malan and YJB scoring a few runs.

Guildford... I heard an ear grating comment from your friend Alison yesterday morning before play commenced. Something along the lines of "the England batsmen should not show any fear to Starc & co... they should 'fight fire with fire' "... easy for her to say. Even Boudicea would have been impressed with the boldness of that comment. They did do well for a little while but then the fire got a little too hard to handle.

Hi LD - yes, that sounds exactly the sort of cliched, over-excitable rubbish she would spout. As you may have picked up, I'm not that keen on her.

I agree with you about Smith using his pace attack cleverly. As I mentioned yesterday and during the second Test, I do like Starc. Most of the pundits (apart from my mate Boycs ) seem too ready to find fault with some of his deliveries but he does what his job is and that is to take wickets.

If you win this Test and the Ashes, do you think one of your fast men might be rested with Patto coming in for the next Test?

Not sure Guildford. I think that if they are successful again they will try to keep the same combination going. A mixture of adrenaline and hunger to succeed should drive them on.

Also, there would be the little incentive of playing before a 90,000+ crowd at the G; topped off with our favourite sons doing their thing in their hometown of Sydney, although Young (Lyon's hometown) is around 300 km west... over the Great Divide... and Hazelwood is from Tamworth - the country music capital of Australia.

A lot of focus is being put on England's poor bowling performance. Were they so bad or were Smith and Marsh simply brilliant today? For me, I say that Smith and Marsh were simply brilliant today. Sometimes, in all sports, good players can make other good players look average on their day.

As I said earlier, the main difference that I see between the sides is that the Aussies seemingly have a far stronger mentality than England.

For me, full credit to Smith and Marsh today

eirebilly wrote:A lot of focus is being put on England's poor bowling performance. Were they so bad or were Smith and Marsh simply brilliant today? For me, I say that Smith and Marsh were simply brilliant today. Sometimes, in all sports, good players can make other good players look average on their day.

As I said earlier, the main difference that I see between the sides is that the Aussies seemingly have a far stronger mentality than England.

For me, full credit to Smith and Marsh today

Yes I'd definitely agree about being stronger mentally. Also they are more clinical. When on top they keep their foot firmly on the throat.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
...

I concede guildford bat I am not up on the county cricket scene so would be foolish of me to even try to make suggestions. Perhaps others better versed on the county scene can offer suggestions.

However, lets not make the mistake of rubbishing a pace bowler for poor figures bowling in English conditions as Australian conditions offer a lot more to pace bowlers.

This tour is fast turning into a replica of the last Ashes Tour down under. Batting collapses backed up by a bowling attack not equipped to get the best of Australian fast track pitches.

If I understand you correctly here, you're suggesting a paceman not doing it regularly in England could be more successful in Australia.

It's possible I suppose but I don't think history particularly supports it. Some of England's fastest and most successful quicks down under over the decades - Larwood, Tyson, Snow - didn't exactly suffer on home soil.

I would like to be wrong but I don't think the sort of answer you are seeking is going to be found on the fringes of an English county side.

In many ways, Garton seems to be the type of player you are suggesting. Not a regular in Sussex's attack but noted for his speed. He's now being given an opportunity in Australian conditions with the Lions. However, as per my earlier post, he failed badly in his opening game on tour.

No one disagrees with what you want. However, we shouldn't assume it's automatically available just because we want it so much. How to fully develop such talent and why we are not properly doing so is perhaps the more important consideration as touched on earlier by Olly.

Also a lot a stake with the possibility of regaining the Ashes and 3 WA players desperate to put on a good show to support their selection.
It's sort of a battle within a battle in that sense. A good motivator for them which could benefit the team / fans as a whole.

At least one has made a mark thus far; Bancroft and Shaun Marsh would be ruing their missed opportunities but can still make amends if they get another chance in the 2nd dig.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

eirebilly wrote:A lot of focus is being put on England's poor bowling performance. Were they so bad or were Smith and Marsh simply brilliant today? For me, I say that Smith and Marsh were simply brilliant today. Sometimes, in all sports, good players can make other good players look average on their day.

As I said earlier, the main difference that I see between the sides is that the Aussies seemingly have a far stronger mentality than England.

For me, full credit to Smith and Marsh today

Yes I'd definitely agree about being stronger mentally. Also they are more clinical. When on top they keep their foot firmly on the throat.

I would also suggest that the Aussie bowlers (whom everyone is lauding) would have struggled just as badly today against Smith and Marsh. Sometimes the batsmen are simply on top.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Not sure Guildford. I think that if they are successful again they will try to keep the same combination going. A mixture of adrenaline and hunger to succeed should drive them on.

Also, there would be the little incentive of playing before a 90,000+ crowd at the G; topped off with our favourite sons doing their thing in their hometown of Sydney, although Young (Lyon's hometown) is around 300 km west... over the Great Divide... and Hazelwood is from Tamworth - the country music capital of Australia.

Hi again LD - I was particularly thinking of Jumbo Cummins. With a bit of exaggeration and zero checking, I thought that before this series he had played something like two first-class games in six years!

I do though take your general point - you don't get tired when you're winning.

guildfordbat wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:
...

I concede guildford bat I am not up on the county cricket scene so would be foolish of me to even try to make suggestions. Perhaps others better versed on the county scene can offer suggestions.

However, lets not make the mistake of rubbishing a pace bowler for poor figures bowling in English conditions as Australian conditions offer a lot more to pace bowlers.

This tour is fast turning into a replica of the last Ashes Tour down under. Batting collapses backed up by a bowling attack not equipped to get the best of Australian fast track pitches.

If I understand you correctly here, you're suggesting a paceman not doing it regularly in England could be more successful in Australia.

It's possible I suppose but I don't think history particularly supports it. Some of England's fastest and most successful quicks down under over the decades - Larwood, Tyson, Snow - didn't exactly suffer on home soil.

I would like to be wrong but I don't think the sort of answer you are seeking is going to be found on the fringes of an English county side.

In many ways, Garton seems to be the type of player you are suggesting. Not a regular in Sussex's attack but noted for his speed. He's now being given an opportunity in Australian conditions with the Lions. However, as per my earlier post, he failed badly in his opening game on tour.

No one disagrees with what you want. However, we shouldn't assume it's automatically available just because we want it so much. How to fully develop such talent and why we are not properly doing so is perhaps the more important consideration as touched on earlier by Olly.

Point taken guildford bat.

The Loaded Dog wrote:That's pure conjecture, Billy. Starc may have yorked Smith 3rd ball for all we know.

Conjecture indeed LD, its what I do best

What have I just read on here? Who comprises this 90mph pace battery that we should have sent over? We don't have these players, and we won't have until County Cricket is overhauled to stop silly things like Jesse Ryder being an effective new ball bowler. Can't see that happening though with First Class cricket now shoved wherever they can fit it in to allow more T20 to be played

alfie wrote:I liked what I saw of Overton too , Craig.  Rough diamond still , but some promise.

Look I am not wishing to come on here as Anderson's agent ; but surely it is obvious that one of the reason he doesn't get a load of wickets in Australia is that the batsmen don't try to get after him : look at the economy rates.  They know other bowlers will offer more easy pickings (and with little scoreboard pressure - unlike 2010/11 - they aren't in a hurry.

And LD : I would certainly put McGrath ahead of Jimmy but I don't think that is cause to be as disparaging as you were in that post. His average here would be much better if it weren't for the 2006/7 series for which he was manifestly not ready.  It is what it is : but to call 2010/11 an "anomaly" as if to disregard it is a bit like saying that Mitchell Johnson was rubbish except for six weeks in 2013/14...

I suppose that Jimmy's stats here are book-ended by more rubbish performances either side; which is a pity in his case. I think he was "manifestly not ready" in 2006/7 in the sense that the opposition more than had his measure and simply destroyed him. Can still see the scars on his face from both whitewashes. I'd almost feel sorry for him if he weren't such a grumpy looking chap.

eirebilly wrote:A lot of focus is being put on England's poor bowling performance. Were they so bad or were Smith and Marsh simply brilliant today? For me, I say that Smith and Marsh were simply brilliant today. Sometimes, in all sports, good players can make other good players look average on their day.

As I said earlier, the main difference that I see between the sides is that the Aussies seemingly have a far stronger mentality than England.

For me, full credit to Smith and Marsh today

Hi Billy - yes, they batted exceptionally well. As you posted earlier, great application by both. Regardless of the quality of the bowling, tremendous concentration to never give it away. I wouldn't have been amazed to see Mitchell Marsh, in particular, get momentarily carried away against the part-time spin of Malan and lose his wicket through one bit of overconfidence in the closing stages - full credit then, not only for the shots played but for knowing when to rein them in as well.

As has been discussed, England's attack is pretty samey and there are few viable alternatives. The track as well was anything but encouraging for our type of bowlers. What I would have liked them to do more though is to have mixed it up - a few yorkers, a few slower balls out of the back of the hand. Whilst the attack is samey, each ball bowled doesn't have to be. If we had made Smith and Marsh think more about the possible differences in balls they were facing, they might not have settled in so comfortably.

So after a flurry of surprising wickets fell (three) Paine and Cummins put on 50 to take the lead up to 250 at lunch. The cracks on the pitch are beginning to play a part and England will have to bat four sessions to save the Ashes you feel.

No declaration at lunch but you feel it is imminent. Australia will be licking their lips looking at those cracks. They could complete the coup de gras on this series very quickly.

Anderson pouches his third wicket of the day with Cummins trapped lbw. Australia 654 for 8 but they decide to bat on. That is Anderson's 50th test wicket of 2017.

Would imagine the declaration will come once Paine (45) bags a half century.

And there comes the declaration for Australia. They declare on 662 for 9 and hold a first innings lead of 259. Paine (49 not out). Four wickets for Anderson. England have to bat through four sessions to keep the Ashes alive.

This could be over today if the Australians utilize the cracks coupled with their pace.

Stoneman caught prodding at one. England 4 for 1.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And there comes the declaration for Australia. They declare on 662 for 9 and hold a first innings lead of 259. Paine (49 not out). Four wickets for Anderson. England have to bat through four sessions to keep the Ashes alive.

Indeed. In fact they need to make 350 plus...by the time they've done that it might be getting pretty close to end of day five , no ?

Can I see them doing so ? I think it is rather unlikely : their second innings efforts have been pretty ordinary so far and you'd imagine morale will be a bit low at the moment. But Malan and Bairstow showed in the first innings that batting big even against this very effective Australian bowling unit is possible...

Need to take a leaf from the Australian batsmen's book : until Lyon , not one of their wickets was given away to a rash shot ...England had to prise out all of them , even when they were miles in front. P is for patience.

Not a very good start . Stoneman gone already.

My honest expectation is for this to finish either late today or around lunch tomorrow. Really hope I'm wrong as I find the OTT chest-beating of victorious Australians and the unpleasant turning on their own of defeated England fans equally hard to stomach...

England 16 for 1. Cook's lack of footwork looks like it will be the death of him here. He doesn't look anywhere near the nick needed to play a long, long innings.

Yes I'd be very surprised if England are still in there batting by this time tomorrow. As you say England need BIG partnerships - one in the realm of Malan/Bairstow in the first innings would help a great deal. England 25 for 1.

And Cook goes - caught and bowled by Hazlewood. England 29 for 2 and still 230 runs adrift.