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

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

KP_fan wrote:One of the major bad outcomes for Eng is loss of batsman Root clearly to the pressures of captaincy
Visibly nervous, ruffled and desperate in that order is what he gets as things do not go his way...and it definitely affects his batting

Early signs were visible in the rather ignominious defeat when WI chased down a big 4th inning total

This series he is averaging 20 something  and I don't see it getting better anytime soon...and at this rate his once close to 54 batting average will drop under 50 sooner

In my view his problem is he's been given a job that requires bearing out a lot of rough patches manfully.....and he's not grown into a man yet

He had a worse tour last time when he wasnt captain against a weaker attack.
He had a strong summer and a good winter tour as Captain despite the results being poor.

In which sense was the 2013-14 Australian attack 'weaker' than the 2017-18 attack? Mitchell Johnson displayed pace and aggregation that has only been fleetingly on display by Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. In 2013-14 there was a chap by the name of Ryan Harris, arguably the best Australian fast bowler of his generation -when fully fit(like in 2013-14) the only fast bowler to hold a candle to Dale Steyn - who is the undisputed best bowler of his generation. Whilst in 2013-14 the third seamer was Siddle, not  exactly a speed merchant, they had Watson as a genuine fourth seamer.

The 2017-18 might go on to surpass the 2013-14 version but not just yet

I dunno why dont ytou ask their coach ...Ryan Harris

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21320592/australia-quicks-better-5-0-trio-ryan-harris

Gooseberry wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

KP_fan wrote:One of the major bad outcomes for Eng is loss of batsman Root clearly to the pressures of captaincy
Visibly nervous, ruffled and desperate in that order is what he gets as things do not go his way...and it definitely affects his batting

Early signs were visible in the rather ignominious defeat when WI chased down a big 4th inning total

This series he is averaging 20 something  and I don't see it getting better anytime soon...and at this rate his once close to 54 batting average will drop under 50 sooner

In my view his problem is he's been given a job that requires bearing out a lot of rough patches manfully.....and he's not grown into a man yet

He had a worse tour last time when he wasnt captain against a weaker attack.
He had a strong summer and a good winter tour as Captain despite the results being poor.

In which sense was the 2013-14 Australian attack 'weaker' than the 2017-18 attack? Mitchell Johnson displayed pace and aggregation that has only been fleetingly on display by Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. In 2013-14 there was a chap by the name of Ryan Harris, arguably the best Australian fast bowler of his generation -when fully fit(like in 2013-14) the only fast bowler to hold a candle to Dale Steyn - who is the undisputed best bowler of his generation. Whilst in 2013-14 the third seamer was Siddle, not  exactly a speed merchant, they had Watson as a genuine fourth seamer.

The 2017-18 might go on to surpass the 2013-14 version but not just yet

I dunno why dont ytou ask their coach ...Ryan Harris

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21320592/australia-quicks-better-5-0-trio-ryan-harris

It's called Humility

kingraf wrote:Well that was thorough. England have a general problem in Australia now. In all lost Ashes aways eries since 1998, they've lost
3-1
4-1
5-0
5-0
3-0*

2010-11 is beginning to look more an aberration by the day. Especially considering Tim Bresnan was rolling through Australia back then.

For England to succeed in Australia they will need to go there armed with a quicker pace attack than they normally do. Find a true quality spinner. Turn up with a batting line-up on-form and that bats sensibly.

The catch for England I reckon is that seam bowlers of the ilk of Anderson and Broad have served them so well (Australia Tours aside) that those sort of bowlers are seen now as the Holy Grail. Unfortunately, it has led to neglect of nurturing and bringing through true pace bowlers. Either that or they just aren't out there now and not seen as much use on England's county scene where seam movement is everything. The same, I feel, has been the case for spinners. It is something the ECB needs to look to address if they truly want to be able to be competitive in series across the globe rather than just on home soil.

England need to have a quick bowling attack, a good spinner and bat well? Won’t catch on

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:England need to have a quick bowling attack, a good spinner and bat well? Won’t catch on

I did say bat well, sensibly and be on good form. In this series only Malan has pretty consistently done that whilst Cook came into the series out of nick. And it is a given that you need a real fast pace bowler (or preferably two) in the bowling attack and a spinner who can support and chip in with wickets. England have had neither on this tour.

But when you think about it (if it is to be 5-0) it is unlike the previous tour Down Under which also ended 5-0. Going into that tour the side had a far more settled look about the batting and better spinner and younger bowling attack. This time around Stokes loss was a big blow, the batting line-up was unproven and almost patched together in recent months and some potentially useful bowlers were lost to injury so a 5-0 savaging can't be seen as a huge surprise.

are we suggesting we need more saj mahmoods over the jimmy andersons?

nah your alright

compelling and rich wrote:are we suggesting we need more saj mahmoods over the jimmy andersons?

nah your alright

I am suggesting horses for courses in Australia. You need an attack with some true pace in it and a quality spinner. If England can't find them there is no hope of winning down under. As I said innother post it may be that England are concentrating too much on what has won them home series and forgetting about what is needed to win in away series.

we need a attack that we haven't got then. in my lifetime there has been very few bowlers ive watched that would have been good enough to do what your suggesting. broad (at his best) flintoff are about the only two that would fall into the pace category, perhaps harmison at his best but even then he was erratic. and the only spinner would have been swann. its all well and good suggesting what we need but, but the fact is we dont have it.

maybe a bit stereotypical but every country has its different development, sub continents teams produce good spinners, the aussies produce good fast bowlers and we generally produce very good bowlers who can swing it. they all play the strengths of the conditions they play in for 95% of their career. be incredibly difficult to tell a young developing anderson at headingly/trent bridge with it moving around to ignore that and concentrate and bowling fast bouncers. competitive sport doesn't work like that

Simon Jones would have been effective if he had stayed fit.

Don't think you can really claim Broad as a fast bowler even in his "enforcer" phase in the team.

The fact you don't have it should be being addressed by the ECB. They should be looking into why the country that created the sport doesn't have the capability of nurturing and developing true pace and spin bowlers and working to change that. Until they do there will be fsr more pain to come in tours Down Under.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:are we suggesting we need more saj mahmoods over the jimmy andersons?

nah your alright

I am suggesting horses for courses in Australia. You need an attack with some true pace in it and a quality spinner. If England can't find them there is no hope of winning down under. As I said innother post it may be that England are concentrating too much on what has won them home series and forgetting about what is needed to win in away series.

No I think it’s more that, shockingly, English bowlers who are brought up playing in English conditions rather than elsewhere in the world, are more effective in English conditions.

Hardly rocket science this

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:England need to have a quick bowling attack, a good spinner and bat well? Won’t catch on

I did say bat well, sensibly and be on good form. In this series only Malan has pretty consistently done that whilst Cook came into the series out of nick. And it is a given that you need a real fast pace bowler (or preferably two) in the bowling attack and a spinner who can support and chip in with wickets. England have had neither on this tour.

Come on Craig you're over complicating this it's quite simple really. In order to win an Ashes series abroad England just have to win more test matches during the series in stadiums that are built in Australia by Australians unless of course it's stadiums that are built by people that are employed in Australia to build stadiums.

Seriously I've been pretty bored by the hand wringing that's gone on due to the fact we've been stuffed again. As far as I can tell we've picked the best team that's been available and they either aren't good enough or haven't played well enough. Doesn't make for much of a forum debate but f*ck it at least we've been winning in England during the last decade or so.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:are we suggesting we need more saj mahmoods over the jimmy andersons?

nah your alright

I am suggesting horses for courses in Australia. You need an attack with some true pace in it and a quality spinner. If England can't find them there is no hope of winning down under. As I said innother post it may be that England are concentrating too much on what has won them home series and forgetting about what is needed to win in away series.

No I think it’s more that, shockingly, English bowlers who are brought up playing in English conditions rather than elsewhere in the world, are more effective in English conditions.

Hardly rocket science this

Yes I realize that Good Golly Olly but it needs addressing as pace bowlers in England are rarer than Hailey's Comet as are the development of truly class spinners needed in both the sub-continent and Australia.

Hibbz wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:England need to have a quick bowling attack, a good spinner and bat well? Won’t catch on

I did say bat well, sensibly and be on good form. In this series only Malan has pretty consistently done that whilst Cook came into the series out of nick. And it is a given that you need a real fast pace bowler (or preferably two) in the bowling attack and a spinner who can support and chip in with wickets. England have had neither on this tour.

Come on Craig you're over complicating this it's quite simple really. In order to win an Ashes series abroad England just have to win more test matches during the series in stadiums that are built in Australia by Australians unless of course it's stadiums that are built by people that are employed in Australia to build stadiums.

Seriously I've been pretty bored by the hand wringing that's gone on due to the fact we've been stuffed again. As far as I can tell we've picked the best team that's been available and they either aren't good enough or haven't played well enough. Doesn't make for much of a forum debate but f*ck it at least we've been winning in England during the last decade or so.

England aspire (or so we are led to believe) to be No 1 test side in the world. You will never be that only winning at home.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:are we suggesting we need more saj mahmoods over the jimmy andersons?

nah your alright

I am suggesting horses for courses in Australia. You need an attack with some true pace in it and a quality spinner. If England can't find them there is no hope of winning down under. As I said innother post it may be that England are concentrating too much on what has won them home series and forgetting about what is needed to win in away series.

No I think it’s more that, shockingly, English bowlers who are brought up playing in English conditions rather than elsewhere in the world, are more effective in English conditions.

Hardly rocket science this

Yes I realize that Good Golly Olly but it needs addressing as pace bowlers in England are rarer than Hailey's Comet as are the development of truly class spinners needed in both the sub-continent and Australia.

What you say is true up to a point , Craig . But I do think there is a little over emphasis on the pace angle. Having one or more very fast bowlers is always helpful (provided they're good enough) and particularly in Australia : several England successes in that country have been won on the back of a fast bowler having a great series : Tyson and Statham in 54/55 , Snow in 70/71 , Willis 78/79. But more recently Gatting's team won through the swing bowling of Botham and Small ; and Anderson was the main weapon for Strauss in
2010/11 (assisted by Bresnan and Tremlett - who was more noted for bounce than outright pace . So it isn't essential to have an express bowler on board...
And actually if you look at the Australian sides who have won well at home you might also note that McGrath and Clark (neither particularly rapid) were the key destroyers in 2006/7 : Johnson and Harris blew England away in 2013 but were also part of the defeated attack three years earlier.
Summary : pace helps ; if allied with skill. But it isn't everything.

The other point is that most of those winning teams from both countries had a good spinner (Warne ; Swann ; Underwood...and now Lyon.) the losing teams generally didn't. While the spinner generally isn't the main wrecker in Australia , it is remarkable how often the team better equipped in that area wins... It really is important for the balance of the attack - as you indeed said ; and not just for Asia.

I guess what I'm saying here is that it would be lovely to get a new Willis but if I get the choice I'd like someone to replace Swann as the first priority

I wonder if that means the ECB should encourage all counties to produce pitches like Taunton

Alfie and all - yes, pace needs to be allied with skill. Otherwise, like a runaway train, the destruction wrought will be more likely on ourselves than the opposition.

As I mentioned the other day, the ECB and the counties do need to do more with the format and scheduling of 4 day cricket to encourage spin bowling. However, we still need to be realistic about developing a 'truly world class spinner' as has been asked for. I reckon only three - Swann, Underwood and Laker - would fall into that category over the last seventy or so years. We've had a few more decent ones as well during that period. Up until the start of this tour, Moeen's record would have comfortably put him in that latter category.

The error for me as regards this tour was not taking Dawson as cover for Moeen in case he be injured (stated at the time, not just with hindsight). Crane has potential but isn't a ready made replacement and would have been better off bowling for the Lions.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hibbz wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:England need to have a quick bowling attack, a good spinner and bat well? Won’t catch on

I did say bat well, sensibly and be on good form. In this series only Malan has pretty consistently done that whilst Cook came into the series out of nick. And it is a given that you need a real fast pace bowler (or preferably two) in the bowling attack and a spinner who can support and chip in with wickets. England have had neither on this tour.

Come on Craig you're over complicating this it's quite simple really. In order to win an Ashes series abroad England just have to win more test matches during the series in stadiums that are built in Australia by Australians unless of course it's stadiums that are built by people that are employed in Australia to build stadiums.

Seriously I've been pretty bored by the hand wringing that's gone on due to the fact we've been stuffed again. As far as I can tell we've picked the best team that's been available and they either aren't good enough or haven't played well enough. Doesn't make for much of a forum debate but f*ck it at least we've been winning in England during the last decade or so.

England aspire (or so we are led to believe) to be No 1 test side in the world. You will never be that only winning at home.

India seemed to have achieved it by just playing at home

Hey guildford...agree with you re spinners. (And , like you , I was an advocate for Dawson as the spare - not that I think he's a world beater ; but I wonder if he had been on the tour whether he mightn't have , say , played in Townsville and Brisbane and allowed Moeen a bit more time to deal with his injuries ?) never mind...

I'd agree with your Big Three in the time I've been following the game : certainly though there have been others on a lower level who were a good deal better than Moeen with the ball ( if not with the bat ) : David Allen , Fred Titmus , Emburey and Edmonds all come to mind ...without getting to more modern - and rather erratic personalities -like Tufnell and Panesar.
Moeen isn't the only one to have serious ups and downs in his career : perhaps worth remembering England won in Pakistan and Sri Lanka once with the King of Spain and Robert Croft (surely the zenith of his career ! ) And not to forget Percy Pocock's contribution to India
1984/1985...

Love to see another. Swann but I'd settle for a Titmus ...

Another recent spinner who held his own at test level - Ashley Giles.

I would settle for another panesar, if nothing else he added comedy value

CaledonianCraig wrote:Another recent spinner who held his own at test level - Ashley Giles.

Moeen has a better Test record than Giles.

Hi Alfie - good to see such mentions of Fred Titmus, so cruelly denied entry to our Hall of Fame. I would also give a shout out from those of yesteryear to Ray Illingworth - possibly his captaincy achievements overshadow his bowling but he should still be better remembered for his playing successes than he is.

Anyway, I digress. My main point really was that Moeen - although not a great spinner or near to that standard - more than deserved his staring place on this Test tour due to his highly effective record (subject, of course, to his fitness).

Moeen takes more wickets, but Giles offered much more control. He could tie down an end quite effectively.

https://thefield.scroll.in/862071/thrashed-in-india-pummeled-in-the-ashes-heres-why-england-are-struggling-away-from-home

An interesting article appeared in Scroll analyzing Eng's struggle in Ind and Aus
What should be worrying for Eng......they lost 3 times by an inning after scoring 400+ in the last 12 months or so twice in India and now in Perth

What's Bizarre that these are the only 3 such occurrences in the history of test cricket

KP_fan wrote:https://thefield.scroll.in/862071/thrashed-in-india-pummeled-in-the-ashes-heres-why-england-are-struggling-away-from-home

An interesting article appeared in Scroll analyzing Eng's struggle in Ind and Aus
What should be worrying for Eng......they lost 3 times by an inning after scoring 400+ in the last 12 months or so twice in India and now in Perth

What's Bizarre that these are the only 3 such occurrences in the history of test cricket

Very interesting. The big question is whether it is as a result of a problem with the bowling performance or a problem with the batting.

Both really. Not going on enough on really flat pitches ...almost as if they think they have enough...and then the lack of incisive spin or extreme pace plus the fact that in the games mentioned the attack featured some bowlers rather hampered by injuries and others arguably not quite up to it at this point in time...
Suppose there is a question as to whether the current game plans adopted under the Bayliss coach group are appropriate for such conditions ? I haven't analyzed the tactics employed in the three games : too painful And I didn't even see day three at the WACA (mercifully ?) ; but I do wonder if they don't get too passive too early.

They aren't the only three such occurrences in history though. Have been several others : though not featuring the same team over such a short time frame !

With no analysis whatsoever and as an entirely sweeping statement, my gut feel is that around 300 was generally a par score for a first Test innings forty years ago whereas now it's more like 400.

I also suspect that the scoring rate in Tests has increased during this time. In the past, if both sides were chalking up 400+ first dig, so much time would have been taken out of the game that it would be odds on a draw.

If I'm right, that may go some way to explaining England's three defeats by an innings in the last year when posting 400.

I think Alfie could have hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the tactics. But for me it is the tactics of our batting that has let us down. Our aggressive attacking style (particularly middle and lower order) is good for adding quick 50's and turning low to medium scoring games in our favour, but simple doesn't provide enough runs in high scoring games like the three tests mentioned. Yes we passed 400 in our first innings, but we should have been looking for 550 or 600. The counter-attacking innings has it's place, but so does the slow accumulation of runs while refusing to give any easy chances. The problem is our players don't seem to have the game intelligence to decide which approach is best suited to the game situation. Probably only Malan has shown in thos series the ability to change tactics depending on the situation. It's no coincidence he is our top scorer this series.

guildfordbat wrote: my gut feel is that around 300 was generally a par score for a first Test innings forty years ago whereas now it's more like 400.

LivinginItaly wrote: Yes we passed 400 in our first innings, but we should have been looking for 550 or 600.

Yes, so now 550-600 is the new 400 par score for a sizeable innings at certain grounds under particular conditions.

Just like I had to a leave at 7am (say 25 years ago) to escape the peak hour traffic... now you have to leave before 6am if you are to have any chance to get to where you want to be on time... sometimes it's even crowded at 5:30.

Point is; the world has moved on.
The bar is always continuously rising and 400 runs, whilst still a pretty good score, just might not cut it on some occasions when 550-600 or more runs are achievable.

guildfordbat wrote:With no analysis whatsoever and as an entirely sweeping statement, my gut feel is that around 300 was generally a par score for a first Test innings forty years ago whereas now it's more like 400.

I also suspect that the scoring rate in Tests has increased during this time. In the past, if both sides were chalking up 400+ first dig, so much time would have been taken out of the game that it would be odds on a draw.

If I'm right, that may go some way to explaining England's three defeats by an innings in the last year when posting 400.

That 400 is the new 300 could be valid...

But for this theory to be accepted other teams have to also lose by an innings when scoring 400 in the first inning in the very near future

Its happened 3 times only and to Eng only and in last 12 months only.....could otherwise be interpreted as a serious syndrome symptomatic of mental brittleness in "This" England side only

Must say I'm particularly pleased with our bowling. At times it looked as though they would be more stretched but they held it together and were workman-like in getting the necessary wickets.

How often do you get a bowling attack with Starc, Hazelwood, Cummins and Lyon? One of the finest combinations I've seen - ever.

It's like having a taipan, brown snake, tiger snake & copperhead as your bowling attack! (OK, maybe Lyon is the platypus with the deadly spur...)

They are not only very well balanced but also lethally primed for success at a home Ashes series. Great example of a group effort; sharing the load.

All 4 of them took turns in striking at the ankles or neck of the England lion.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Must say I'm particularly pleased with our bowling. At times it looked as though they would be more stretched but they held it together and were workman-like in getting the necessary wickets.

How often do you get a bowling attack with Starc, Hazelwood, Cummins and Lyon? One of the finest combinations I've seen - ever.

It's like having a taipan, brown snake, tiger snake & copperhead as your bowling attack! (OK, maybe Lyon is the platypus with the deadly spur...)

They are not only very well balanced but also lethally primed for success at a home Ashes series. Great example of a group effort; sharing the load.

All 4 of them took turns in striking at the ankles or neck of the England lion.

How long have you been waiting to use that then, LD?

More seriously, do you know how Starc is doing? I read just after the last Test that his heel was giving him some trouble.

I'm glad you appreciate my analogy, Guildford.

Talk of Bird replacing him were he to miss out is the last I heard. There you go. More fauna to add to the list.

I must admit I haven't delved in too deeply on the subject since I've been too busy out celebrating.
   
Well not really ... but I certainly hope he's recovering from whatever the problem is.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Must say I'm particularly pleased with our bowling. At times it looked as though they would be more stretched but they held it together and were workman-like in getting the necessary wickets.

How often do you get a bowling attack with Starc, Hazelwood, Cummins and Lyon? One of the finest combinations I've seen - ever.

It's like having a taipan, brown snake, tiger snake & copperhead as your bowling attack! (OK, maybe Lyon is the platypus with the deadly spur...)

They are not only very well balanced but also lethally primed for success at a home Ashes series. Great example of a group effort; sharing the load.

All 4 of them took turns in striking at the ankles or neck of the England lion.

I'd still rate the attack from 13/14 better than your current bunch LD! Although maybe in time this lot will get up there. It may be a case that the 13/14 attack burned twice as brightly for half the time, or whatever the cliche is, and the current attack might be great for longer.

Johnson > Starc
Harris > Hazlewood
Siddle = Cummins (I rate Cummins better, but Siddle was great that series)
17 Lyon > 13/14 Lyon

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hibbz wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:England need to have a quick bowling attack, a good spinner and bat well? Won’t catch on

I did say bat well, sensibly and be on good form. In this series only Malan has pretty consistently done that whilst Cook came into the series out of nick. And it is a given that you need a real fast pace bowler (or preferably two) in the bowling attack and a spinner who can support and chip in with wickets. England have had neither on this tour.

Come on Craig you're over complicating this it's quite simple really. In order to win an Ashes series abroad England just have to win more test matches during the series in stadiums that are built in Australia by Australians unless of course it's stadiums that are built by people that are employed in Australia to build stadiums.

Seriously I've been pretty bored by the hand wringing that's gone on due to the fact we've been stuffed again. As far as I can tell we've picked the best team that's been available and they either aren't good enough or haven't played well enough. Doesn't make for much of a forum debate but f*ck it at least we've been winning in England during the last decade or so.

England aspire (or so we are led to believe) to be No 1 test side in the world. You will never be that only winning at home.

India seemed to have achieved it by just playing at home

Kind of true but not strictly ...their away record has been better than their home one this year. But the reality is theyve become number one by only losing 2 tests in  over 3 years, England lost more than that in the space of month. Home advantage or not they are clearly a class above, the ratings do have a home series weighting ( which perhaps nbeeds to be higher)
You can also see the difference having "all conditions" bowlers made for Aus. The only team England managed an away series draw with in this period was Bangladesh.

So yes all teams tend to struggle with tours. India have packed their home schedule (for revenue) and really do need to travel to a stronger test nation to prove they are great rather than good. But it doesnt change that they are the dominant team in recent years and that England are woeful away from home.


Last 2.5 years (wld)
Away Sri Lanka 2-0-1
Home South Africa 4-1-0
Away West Indies 2-2-0
Home NZ 3-0-0
Home England 4-1-0
Home Bangladesh 1-0-0
Home Australia 1-1-1
Away Sri Lanka 3-0-0
Home Sri Lanka 1-2-0

Overall home

It will be interesting to see how India cope on their next tour of England. India are a better side, but with the home conditions favouring England I think it could be a very competitive series.

India literally haven’t played outside of sub continental conditions for 2 and a half years is all that list shows me Goose - which is why they’ve gone to number 1!

Will be interesting to see how they do in SA coming up

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:India literally haven’t played outside of sub continental conditions for 2 and a half years is all that list shows me Goose - which is why they’ve gone to number 1!


Will be interesting to see how they do in SA coming up

India has won a series in WI and 2 in Lanka( which is not easy)
However SA is the real big test as a captain for kohli
& Moment of Truth for India...how they perform in SA, Eng, NZ & Aus is what will differentiate between a good and great side

I think this Indian team will put a better performance than last ones...but am not sure if they have enough to win
I would be happy with a drawn series also

india playing sri lanka/bangaldesh is hardly playing away. very similar conditions to home. would also argue that sri lanka are not a tough test in test match cricket these days.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/the-ashes/lest-we-already-have-forgotten-ashes-pace-barrage-offers-painful-reminder-20171221-h08vnf.html

Good article on the point raised on here many times about the short bowling to tailenders, and the umpires shocking inability to enforce the two bouncers per over law.

Seems Tom Curran is in line to replace Overton for the 4th test, with doubts over Mark Wood’s fitness still lingering

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Seems Tom Curran is in line to replace Overton for the 4th test, with doubts over Mark Wood’s fitness still lingering

Don’t see what Curran offers. A dibbly dobber 80mph ain’t getting it done

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Seems Tom Curran is in line to replace Overton for the 4th test, with doubts over Mark Wood’s fitness still lingering

Don’t see what Curran offers. A dibbly dobber 80mph ain’t getting it done

Says the poster who has ''been watching cricket since the War'' and regards Nathan Lyon as ''such a limited bowler''. I rest the case for Tom Curran, m'lud.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Seems Tom Curran is in line to replace Overton for the 4th test, with doubts over Mark Wood’s fitness still lingering

Plenty of chatter about Mason Crane making the first XI as well.

Tom Curran or Mason Crane? Far more likely to be Curran I would say. More of a like-for-like replacement with Overton and the real clincher being he isn't too shabby with the bat either. Crane is still a bit too green and if the pitch does not spin then they would be in big trouble. Besides they now know that Malan can do.a job of sorts as well if needed to shore up an end.

Lets face it neither is exactly a terrifying prospect for the opposition.

Gooseberry wrote:Lets face it neither is exactly a terrifying prospect for the opposition.

Well Ian Botham, Andrew Flintoff, Bob Willis and Fred Trueman were all unavailable.

Craig - you need to read up about Typhoon Tyson and have him leading your pace attack of yesteryear!

He was before even my time but cricket elders I know and respect still strongly vouch for him. Think Alfie once posted that his dad saw him, yeah?

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Seems Tom Curran is in line to replace Overton for the 4th test, with doubts over Mark Wood’s fitness still lingering

Im a fan of Tom Curran. Hope him and Crane are picked. Both have a bit of fight about them, something we've lacked in the first 3 games.