The Ashes: 4th Test; Boxing Day Test, Melbourne

First topic message reminder :

4th Test; Venue: Melbourne Cricket Ground; Dates: 26-30 December (23:30 GMT, 25 December)

Expected XIs:

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

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

No creativity, no attacking sense and having to listen to that useless commentator Allison Mitchel... This game is done for me.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Jimbo - did you hear it said that Agar has been added to Australia's squad for the last Test?

That of course doesn't guarantee anything but it suggests there's some thought of them playing a second spinner then. Might be encouraging for you and your man Crane.

Hi Guildford, yes i did hear that, certainly gives him a better chance of getting a game. I still think it was a good idea for him to have played this game too. As we said pre-match, introducing Curran and Crane would have added a bit of fight to the team. Curran has done well on debut. Would get him to bowl a bit like he does in the t20's with a few slower balls

Alison Mitchell and Swann, it doesn't get much worse than this. She's really trying to be 'one of the lads' - beyond cringey.

eirebilly wrote:As Duty said, the MCG is absolutely empty. Never seen that stadium so empty, must be a good day to go to the beach in Melbourne.

Warner and Smith must be two of the most complete batsmen in the world right now. Perfect control.

Australia only 5 behind and still with 8 wickets left as rain stops play. I'll say that's it now for the game and me.

I did fear the comments about the empty stadium from Duty and Billy might be telling. Locals are normally a pretty good judge of a game and if they ain't there, that says a lot.

Night all.

Night guildford.
Yeah, 90% Barmy Army... and only a smattering of locals. I'm not blaming the Christmas sales but I would have expected a few more people there with gold coin entry today.

and Joe strikes! A nice birthday present for him - the wicket of Warner.

The Loaded Dog wrote:and Joe strikes! A nice birthday present for him - the wicket of Warner.

The 'batsman' Joe. He should be the frontline bowler. Maybe I underestimated how good my tactic and team would be.

Doesnt look enough now. The new balls not delivered despite Broad consistently beating Mitchell Marsh. Draws favourite again now.

Poor Moeen looks miserable.

Mooen appears utterly pointless. Might be better for his confidence to drop him

One of the worst test match pitches I’ve ever seen that one

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:One of the worst test match pitches I’ve ever seen that one

Yeah was just a bit - or a lot - too flat. These drop in pitches really aren't as good for the game as the old MCG pitches...but we have to move with the times (we are told)

Just the same I quite enjoyed my day at the cricket : devil of a lot cheaper than the pre-sold days , sit where you like , no big queue at the bar...

If the day pretty much died about a half hour after lunch it was still quite fun watching Smith and Mitch 3 reviving memories of the '60s with a run rate of about one and a half per over

The Barmy Army kept up a good supply of reasonably tuneful hymns and the rain went away so it was a pleasant enough way to spend the afternoon...obviously I'd rather have had a quick collapse and an exciting run chase but to be honest I hadn't really been expecting too many fireworks.

As Olly said...pitch had the last say.

I liked this comment from cricinfo -
''England stopped the rot but couldn't stop Smith.''

>Eng bowled a 125 overs for 4 wickets only on D4/ D5
Some might argue this was owing to the docility of the pitch......and it's true pitch was really flat and it required a good spinner and 1 or two bowlers faster than the one Eng has who could dig it in short and /or get more reverse through 90mph speed in the air, taking pitch out of the equation.

> Rain only saved Eng from a potential 180 runs with 40 overs to survive type tricky 2.5 hours of play

> Going into the final test
don't see how Khawaja can hold his place
and can't see logically why Moeen and Curran should be selected either.

On Ali, I fully agree that he should be rested. He is woefully low on confidence.

Curran though? I think he did enough to retain his spot (unless Overton is fit again). He bowled very well and made the Aussies play their shots. I actually felt he was the most attacking bowler for England in this test.

If the SCG is a spinning wicket, usually is, then I really fear for England going into that test without a proper front line spinner.

There is no doubt Moeen Ali is struggling big time and I have been saying he should be dropped since post Second Test. It needn't be no more than a rest. Allow him to return to full fitness and work on all aspects of his game with his coaches and stop his confidence being ravaged. I cannot see that doing him any harm whatsoever unlike playing him in match after match with his confidence being rock bottom and forcing him to play differently as we saw with his first innings batting.

Look at the spinning options out there and give them the chance to show where they are at. The likes of Mason Crane or Liam Dawson should be drafted in and let them show what potential they have (or don't) at Test level. What is the worst that can happen? They don't perform up to standard then selectors can look around for other options and they won't be any worse off as Ali is not performing at present anyway. On the other hand they may show a lot of promise and be a possible missing cog in the side.

I’m happy Ali played, this should have been a match where he had a chance to find form under less pressure, but it didn’t work.

eirebilly wrote:If the SCG is a spinning wicket, usually is, then I really fear for England going into that test without a proper front line spinner.

Australia are clearly expecting it to be, as they've added Agar to their squad.

Duty281 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:If the SCG is a spinning wicket, usually is, then I really fear for England going into that test without a proper front line spinner.

Australia are clearly expecting it to be, as they've added Agar to their squad.

I was thinking I would put someone like Agar Or Maxwell in in place of Khwaja for Sydney.....and move S. Marsh to No. 3
Now they have brought Agar in the squad..... Lets see what they do with the team selection?
If they were looking to pick purely the best spinner O'Keefe it should have been or could have been Swepson

But for the sake of balance they want a spinner who can bat as the 5th bowler......criteria that Maxwell would also theoretically satisfy...but he's probably not deemed to make the cut as a spinner who could be effective

wouldn't Eng consider playing a second spinner in place of Curran?

after all having carried Ali as a dead load for 3 tests......they would rather gamble and keep him on a spinning pitch and bring a 2nd spinner
3 seam+ 2 spin may work once they have a look at the pitch and its expected to spin as reputed

Well at least the 5-0 that most English fans feared has been averted. Broad and Cook have had good matches and England have fought hard.
   Getting regular 50s and not going on to the century is a nice problem to have but it's beginning to become a worry for Root. He must look at the likes of Smith and Kohli and think: "I should be making these big scores."
   Interestingly, at the start of his Test career, Root WAS making daddy hundreds but they have proved somewhat elusive of late. He really must start cashing in.

An extra small encouragement for England from this Test was Broad rediscovering some form with the bat.

That should be enough to justify promoting him one spot to number 9 if a place in the team (which would certainly be no higher than 10) needs to be found for Crane.

I'll assume Woakes stays at 8. It would be a massive tail if Curran or Overton batted there even allowing for Broad's batting improvement.

I'll leave you folks to tell me who bats at 7.    

guildfordbat wrote:An extra small encouragement for England from this Test was Broad rediscovering some form with the bat.

That should be enough to justify promoting him one spot to number 9 if a place in the team (which would certainly be no higher than 10) needs to be found for Crane.

I'll assume Woakes stays at 8. It would be a massive tail if Curran or Overton batted there even allowing for Broad's batting improvement.

I'll leave you folks to tell me who bats at 7.    

And Cook rediscovering form of course.

By all accounts Sydney looks to be a pitch that will offer spin so surely Crane has to start even if its as a secondary spinner with Ali.

Thanks, Craig. Yes, I had picked up on Cook's unbeaten double century. That's why I referred to Broad's batting as ''an extra small encouragement''.

The track needs to be actually seen before the team is finalised but it seems likely and reasonable that Crane will be in the mix.

My question was - who bats at 7 in the last Test? You've been pushing for some time for Moeen to be dropped but you're now planning on including him there at Sydney, right?

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks, Craig. Yes, I had picked up on Cook's unbeaten double century. That's why I referred to Broad's batting as ''an extra small encouragement''.

The track needs to be actually seen before the team is finalised but it seems likely and reasonable that Crane will be in the mix.

My question was - who bats at 7 in the last Test? You've been pushing for some time for Moeen to be dropped but you're now planning on including him there at Sydney, right?

Personally, I would drop him - send him off to work with his coaches, sort his bowling and batting and mind out. At present he is like a punch-drunk boxer who has taken one punch too many. Bring Crane in and if Overton is fit again then play him as well. Overton in place of Curran and Crane in place of Ali. Move Woakes up to bat at seven, Overton at eight, Broad at nine, Curran at ten and Anderson at eleven. Another option would be to bring Ballance in instead of Overton.

And just to add I fully expect to see Ali in the England team for the next two or three years as he can get wickets when fit and in English conditions. But at present take the opportunity to look at other options and spare him another mental pummelling.

Woakes at 7, Overton 8 and Broad 9 is suicide for me. England collapse in a heap often enough with their 'strong' tail! The obvious answer to balancing the side is in NZ, but he is not an option (although he is for the ODI series apparently...) - but Moeen has to be dropped, with the intention of him coming back in for T1 in NZ when he is fit.


Cook, Stoneman, Vince, Root, Malan, Ballance, JB, Woakes, Broad, Crane, Anderson is about the only way I can see of doing it. Lot of stress on the three seamers, but they are fairly reliable (I would like to see Overton if fit, but you can't gamble on his fitness if you only have three seamers) especially if Crane goes around the park - but if you think he will go around the park then you can't pick him for the team in the first place.

On a side note, every time there is an Ashes Test at Sydney the angle of how it will be a spinners pitch comes out, but I don't remember it ever spinning big there? Certainly not the Ashes Tests I remember anyway.

JDizzle wrote:

On a side note, every time there is an Ashes Test at Sydney the angle of how it will be a spinners pitch comes out, but I don't remember it ever spinning big there? Certainly not the Ashes Tests I remember anyway.

Australia have called up spinner Agar to the squad. In hindsight this will be as cover for Lyon who picked up a knock to his bowling finger at the MCG. If not fit Agar will replace him.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

On a side note, every time there is an Ashes Test at Sydney the angle of how it will be a spinners pitch comes out, but I don't remember it ever spinning big there? Certainly not the Ashes Tests I remember anyway.

Australia have called up spinner Agar to the squad. Says it all.

We will see. England played Panesar and Swann at Cardiff in 09 thinking it would spin big, and it was flat as a pancake. Teams don't always get it right.

Plus if Starc to Bird is a drop off then the gap in quality from Lyon is Agar is an absolute chasm.

JDizzle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

On a side note, every time there is an Ashes Test at Sydney the angle of how it will be a spinners pitch comes out, but I don't remember it ever spinning big there? Certainly not the Ashes Tests I remember anyway.

Australia have called up spinner Agar to the squad. Says it all.

We will see. England played Panesar and Swann at Cardiff in 09 thinking it would spin big, and it was flat as a pancake. Teams don't always get it right.

Plus if Starc to Bird is a drop off then the gap in quality from Lyon is Agar is an absolute chasm.

Of course the decisions no doubt will be made once they assess the pitch. If they don't deem it a raging spinner then Crane will replace Ali and that may be it for changes. Agar I see as being back-up, now that I think about it, to Lyon who reportedly picked up a knock at the MCG.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks, Craig. Yes, I had picked up on Cook's unbeaten double century. That's why I referred to Broad's batting as ''an extra small encouragement''.

The track needs to be actually seen before the team is finalised but it seems likely and reasonable that Crane will be in the mix.

My question was - who bats at 7 in the last Test? You've been pushing for some time for Moeen to be dropped but you're now planning on including him there at Sydney, right?

Personally, I would drop him - send him off to work with his coaches, sort his bowling and batting and mind out. At present he is like a punch-drunk boxer who has taken one punch too many. Bring Crane in and if Overton is fit again then play him as well. Overton in place of Curran and Crane in place of Ali. Move Woakes up to bat at seven, Overton at eight, Broad at nine, Curran at ten and Anderson at eleven. Another option would be to bring Ballance in instead of Overton.

Think you mean Crane there. Understand your preference and the options you outline. Not at dig at you but none of the pieces seem to properly fit. That's why I asked the question. It appears to be a case of coming up with the least bad solution.

I also thought about Ballance but he doesn't seem a natural fit at 7 and we probably don't want to move Bairstow lower down again to get him (Ballance) in the top 6. More significantly, I don't think we can look to get 20 wickets - which has to be the main aim - from 3 seamers and a debutant leggie plus whatever Malan and Root can cobble together.

Woakes and Overton at 7 and 8 allows us the extra bowler but, boy, I don't like the length of the tail. It's even worse if Overton is unfit and you not only retain Curran but move him up to 8.

As regards balancing the team -at least on paper-, there's a case to be had for giving Moeen another shot. But isn't he just a liability on grass atm?

Btw, things are also not helped for Moeen or us by England's slow bowling coach being on a part-time contract and now on a different continent.

guildfordbat wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks, Craig. Yes, I had picked up on Cook's unbeaten double century. That's why I referred to Broad's batting as ''an extra small encouragement''.

The track needs to be actually seen before the team is finalised but it seems likely and reasonable that Crane will be in the mix.

My question was - who bats at 7 in the last Test? You've been pushing for some time for Moeen to be dropped but you're now planning on including him there at Sydney, right?

Personally, I would drop him - send him off to work with his coaches, sort his bowling and batting and mind out. At present he is like a punch-drunk boxer who has taken one punch too many. Bring Crane in and if Overton is fit again then play him as well. Overton in place of Curran and Crane in place of Ali. Move Woakes up to bat at seven, Overton at eight, Broad at nine, Curran at ten and Anderson at eleven. Another option would be to bring Ballance in instead of Overton.

Think you mean Crane there. Understand your preference and the options you outline. Not at dig at you but none of the pieces seem to properly fit. That's why I asked the question. It appears to be a case of coming up with the least bad solution.

I also thought about Ballance but he doesn't seem a natural fit at 7 and we probably don't want to move Bairstow lower down again to get him (Ballance) in the top 6. More significantly, I don't think we can look to get 20 wickets - which has to be the main aim - from 3 seamers and a debutant leggie plus whatever Malan and Root can cobble together.

Woakes and Overton at 7 and 8 allows us the extra bowler but, boy, I don't like the length of the tail. It's even worse if Overton is unfit and you not only retain Curran but move him up to 8.

As regards balancing the team -at least on paper-, there's a case to be had for giving Moeen another shot. But isn't he just a liability on grass atm?

Btw, things are also not helped for Moeen or us by England's slow bowling coach being on a part-time contract and now on a different continent.

Yes sorry I meant Crane not Curran.

No I wouldn't select Ballance either but just threw that in there as another option.

The length of the tail is a bit of a myth though when the option is to play Ali who is woefully out of form anyway. Overton and Broad have posted higher scores than Ali in the series so far.

Give Ali another shot just to keep balance of the team? I don't see him bringing any balance given he is so out of nick with the bat and ball. Surely, it makes sense to look at other spinning options and save Ali from another mental abhorration.

As for your final point. Very true.

JDizzle wrote:Woakes at 7, Overton 8 and Broad 9 is suicide for me. England collapse in a heap often enough with their 'strong' tail! The obvious answer to balancing the side is in NZ, but he is not an option (although he is for the ODI series apparently...) - but Moeen has to be dropped, with the intention of him coming back in for T1 in NZ when he is fit.


Cook, Stoneman, Vince, Root, Malan, Ballance, JB, Woakes, Broad, Crane, Anderson is about the only way I can see of doing it. Lot of stress on the three seamers, but they are fairly reliable (I would like to see Overton if fit, but you can't gamble on his fitness if you only have three seamers) especially if Crane goes around the park - but if you think he will go around the park then you can't pick him for the team in the first place.

On a side note, every time there is an Ashes Test at Sydney the angle of how it will be a spinners pitch comes out, but I don't remember it ever spinning big there? Certainly not the Ashes Tests I remember anyway.

Hi JD - just seen your posts including the one above.

I think you make a particularly good point in your final para. I'm sure you noted my earlier ''if'' about Crane playing. I think he's in the frame for Sydney but there's no assumption on my part that he will definitely play. We must see the pitch before we print the team sheet. I wouldn't regard Agar's inclusion as certain proof of anything. It could be (i) Australia being sure the track will favour spin; (ii) Australia thinking the track may take spin and wanting at this stage to cover all options; (iii) Australia trying to kid us about the track.

As with Craig, I understand your team. However, having 3 seamers (even reliable ones) and a debutant leggie as your main strikeforce concerns me.

PS I would guess Curran's debut largely confirmed your earlier thoughts. It did mine too although I'm probably more on the glass ''half-full'' side.

Whether the pitch offers spin or not is it really that relevant? Ali dropped for Crane is (at present) a like-for-like change and gives selectors the chance to see how Crane does at test level. Sure Crane is not of the calibre of batsman as Ali but Ali is not in any sort of nick at present anyway so it dilutes the loss of Ali's batting a lot.

guildfordbat wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Woakes at 7, Overton 8 and Broad 9 is suicide for me. England collapse in a heap often enough with their 'strong' tail! The obvious answer to balancing the side is in NZ, but he is not an option (although he is for the ODI series apparently...) - but Moeen has to be dropped, with the intention of him coming back in for T1 in NZ when he is fit.


Cook, Stoneman, Vince, Root, Malan, Ballance, JB, Woakes, Broad, Crane, Anderson is about the only way I can see of doing it. Lot of stress on the three seamers, but they are fairly reliable (I would like to see Overton if fit, but you can't gamble on his fitness if you only have three seamers) especially if Crane goes around the park - but if you think he will go around the park then you can't pick him for the team in the first place.

On a side note, every time there is an Ashes Test at Sydney the angle of how it will be a spinners pitch comes out, but I don't remember it ever spinning big there? Certainly not the Ashes Tests I remember anyway.

Hi JD - just seen your posts including the one above.

I think you make a particularly good point in your final para. I'm sure you noted my earlier ''if'' about Crane playing. I think he's in the frame for Sydney but there's no assumption on my part that he will definitely play. We must see the pitch before we print the team sheet. I wouldn't regard Agar's inclusion as certain proof of anything. It could be (i) Australia being sure the track will favour spin; (ii) Australia thinking the track may take spin and wanting at this stage to cover all options; (iii) Australia trying to kid us about the track.

As with Craig, I understand your team. However, having 3 seamers (even reliable ones) and a debutant leggie as your main strikeforce concerns me.

PS I would guess Curran's debut largely confirmed your earlier thoughts. It did mine too although I'm probably more on the glass ''half-full'' side.

Hi GB - hope all is well. It definitely still is an 'if' on Crane playing, but if I had to put a number on it I would say it would be 75% likely he gets his debut at this point. If the series was still live, I think they would ride with Moeen and bank on past experiences but with it being dead they can pick on potential some what and don't have to worry so much about perfectly balancing the side - which seems impossible to do if they pick Crane with this squad.

Agree on Agar - it is just a sensible precaution. Better to have an extra spinner lying about and then release him if it isn't a tuner than not have the option in the first place.

And Craig, I think it does matter if the track will take spin or not. It won't be MCG flat, which is why I think Crane will play - but if it is flatter or even a bit greener than expected, I would happily play four seamers + Root/Malan rather than throw Crane in for the sake of it.

JDizzle wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Woakes at 7, Overton 8 and Broad 9 is suicide for me. England collapse in a heap often enough with their 'strong' tail! The obvious answer to balancing the side is in NZ, but he is not an option (although he is for the ODI series apparently...) - but Moeen has to be dropped, with the intention of him coming back in for T1 in NZ when he is fit.


Cook, Stoneman, Vince, Root, Malan, Ballance, JB, Woakes, Broad, Crane, Anderson is about the only way I can see of doing it. Lot of stress on the three seamers, but they are fairly reliable (I would like to see Overton if fit, but you can't gamble on his fitness if you only have three seamers) especially if Crane goes around the park - but if you think he will go around the park then you can't pick him for the team in the first place.

On a side note, every time there is an Ashes Test at Sydney the angle of how it will be a spinners pitch comes out, but I don't remember it ever spinning big there? Certainly not the Ashes Tests I remember anyway.

Hi JD - just seen your posts including the one above.

I think you make a particularly good point in your final para. I'm sure you noted my earlier ''if'' about Crane playing. I think he's in the frame for Sydney but there's no assumption on my part that he will definitely play. We must see the pitch before we print the team sheet. I wouldn't regard Agar's inclusion as certain proof of anything. It could be (i) Australia being sure the track will favour spin; (ii) Australia thinking the track may take spin and wanting at this stage to cover all options; (iii) Australia trying to kid us about the track.

As with Craig, I understand your team. However, having 3 seamers (even reliable ones) and a debutant leggie as your main strikeforce concerns me.

PS I would guess Curran's debut largely confirmed your earlier thoughts. It did mine too although I'm probably more on the glass ''half-full'' side.

And Craig, I think it does matter if the track will take spin or not. It won't be MCG flat, which is why I think Crane will play - but if it is flatter or even a bit greener than expected, I would happily play four seamers + Root/Malan rather than throw Crane in for the sake of it.

My point is that one or two wickets (minimum) will go to spinners at Sydney. On current form Ali won't be getting any in any case so play Crane and see how he does at test level. And what is the worst he can do? Get no wickets? And if that is the case it tells us Crane is not ready so we learn something unlike playing an out of form Ali. Okay if it is a clear seamer's wicket bring Overton in for Ali and not bother with Crane. I do think though that Ali should be dropped for the test. He is mentally shot and rock bottom on confidence - another mauling is not what he needs just now.

Hi again JD - yeah, all good, thanks. Things have probably improved since Batgirl graduated and we no longer have to motor up to Durham. Wonderful place - it's just so far from here!

Agree with your comments. Whether a track will take spin or not won't matter too much to Australia as they have a class slow act who will normally always deliver anyway. The only possible issue for them is whether or not to include a second spinner. However, as you say, England have no such slow banker and so it's a case of getting through as best we can which is very dependent on the track.

Did you see my PS re Curran? Cheers.

Pretty sure that Agar has only been draughted in as cover for Lyon. I know Lyon had issues with his spinning hand at the MCG and had to go off for treatment but still bowled later. Agar is in as a precaution - that is how I see it.

How’s Curran’s debut being rated then? I like him.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Not the score and the weather I wanted to wake up to but there you go! A shame as I thought our seam quartet bowled pretty well in the first session that I saw and deserved the two wickets between them, admittedly the weaker two of Australia's top 4 by some distance.

Mainly going now from the scorecard, an innings of great self-restraint from Warner. He does seem to have found different gears than just top. If he can see his side to safety, I feel he might then reward the last day crowd with some fireworks!

Going to be mighty hard for England to force a positive result from here but, weather permitting, the game isn't dead yet and I'll be watching the first session. What makes it so difficult is that we really need not just Warner but also the indomitable Smith plus ideally a Marsh brother all before lunch. Do that and we could be in business ... it's the hope that gets you!

At least you didn't miss much action , guildford .

The positive thing for England is that being still 60 behind , and not scoring too freely , the Australians are unlikely to feel "safe" until after tea ; which means if a couple of wickets can be prised out they will be playing under pressure for a long time.

The hard part is getting through these two , their best batsmen , with not much happening for the bowlers. What Root wouldn't give for a Lyon equivalent to bowl spin ! Moeen seems to be so short on confidence he is unlikely to be a factor so it does rather leave a lot of heavy lifting to the four pace bowlers.

By the way your young Surrey lad bowled very well again in that afternoon session : gave nothing away , and kept the batsmen very much alert with his variations.  May not be destined to play a lot of Tests just yet , when the other regulars are fit and available ; but he's done himself no harm with this initial display.  I certainly see a white ball future for him in the short to medium term.

Thanks, Alfie. Spot on. I agree we need to get 'em all out no later than tea or, at a pinch, very slightly after. That's why I'm so keen to get 3 wickets - including the big two - in the opening session.

Meanwhile, full credit to goose for never letting facts get in the way of a post. His reference on this thread to ''the Surrey mafia's love for Curran'' is so over the top that I'm still waiting for it to come down. I believe I've been reasonably on the money in saying that his Test debut had come a bit too soon but needs must and at least he wouldn't be overawed by the occasion. I also pointed out that his unbeaten 70 odd in the recent practice game flattered his batting. He's actually done a bit better with the ball than I expected, albeit with only the one wicket so far. In line with your post, Alfie, he's kept it dry (di Venuto speak there ) and helped to build pressure as well as mixing it up nicely (I won't risk the wrath of goose and others by saying whom he credits for that! ). As you also say, he's done himself no harm which ain't too bad as a replacement for a replacement.

Your last line is important here - Curran is only playing due to a boatload of injuries/and suspension. He's a youngster, beginning his career, so you'd think is likely to develop and put on more pace as he grows. He's off to a promising start (his control is very good), but clearly a long way to go. He's not going to be first choice, because you have Stokes, Roland Jones, Finn, Overton, Wood all to come back (I'm probably missing someone), but considering the circumstances he's done well. Certainly hasn't looked out of place like a Kerrigan etc

Dolph - keep up!

We covered Curran a fair bit on Friday. The above is pretty representative. There's also some man for him from Billy later that day.

Seems Craig , JD and eirebilly (and jimbo, of course) are picking Crane for Sydney ; while guildford is undecided ? Guess I am too : reasons for and against , are there not ?

Moeen is in a really bad place (apparently : I can't see inside his head ) and hopelessly out of form and they do need a spinner.
Sydney will spin ...well maybe . As someone said above that has in recent years been more rumour than fact. Australia have called up Agar ; but that does seem more cover for Lyon than a two spinner plan as you'd think Swepson the better choice if they really intended to play both.
And Crane has both some decent form on this trip and has to be trialled one day...

As against :

Batting ...last five Woakes Overton Broad Crane Anderson seems a bit light ...though given Moeen is averaging under twenty would it be much worse ?
Crane could be destroyed like Kerrigan ? Suppose so : but that could happen at any debut , anytime. (Borthwick wasn't really destroyed four years ago ; it is probably more his limited bowling for his county since that has held him back)
Play an extra batsmen ? Be a lot on Jimmy , Broad , Woakes if Crane was their only assistant...especially if pitch is another dead one.

No easy answer. I think I'd play Crane in a straight swap for Mo but may feel different tomorrow.

Meanwhile I'm off out ...Happy New Year all

I'm not 100% inking Crane in yet! I am definitely dropping Mo though, which does put him in poll position to play for sure. There is certainly an argument for picking Ballance, pushing JB back down to 7 and going in with Woakes, Overton/Curran, Broad and Anderson as the attack though - especially if the pitch doesn't look like it will favour spin.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi again JD - yeah, all good, thanks. Things have probably improved since Batgirl graduated and we no longer have to motor up to Durham. Wonderful place - it's just so far from here!

Agree with your comments. Whether a track will take spin or not won't matter too much to Australia as they have a class slow act who will normally always deliver anyway. The only possible issue for them is whether or not to include a second spinner. However, as you say, England have no such slow banker and so it's a case of getting through as best we can which is very dependent on the track.

Did you see my PS re Curran? Cheers.

Good to hear!

Yes, just read your comments on Curran now and I pretty much agree. Unless you had unrealistic expectations of the man, he has pretty much done as expected. Charged in and given it his all, kept it reasonably tight and also mixed it up with some ODI/T20 variations.

That is the positives, the negatives are what I feared - certainly in Australia he looks a bit limited in how he can pick up wickets. Sharp without ever looking like worrying batsmen with his pace and not too much in the way of sideways movement (although that can be said for everyone on this pitch!). I do still wonder just what are the stand out attributes that will make him a successful Test bowler or whether he, as you allude to, needs to improve his batting to be competing with Woakes for the third seamer/batting 8 role in the future rather than as a leader of the pack.

But given we are missing Finn, TRJ, Wood, Overton, Ball (?)... He was a long way down the pecking order and it can't ever have been the plan to debut him this winter, so hopefully the selectors are realistic about what they have seen.

Cheers, JD. What you up to these days?

In line with your comments and concern, Curran has never been a prolific wicket taker in the four-day county game. Surrey too often overbowl him, in the unreasonable hope that he can combine being a containing workhorse and strike bowler.

Meanwhile, I'm surprised at suggestions that the reason for Agar's inclusion in Australia's squad is doubt over Lyon's fitness. Isn't Agar more a second spinner who could add some runs and be a support act for Lyon rather than his replacement? If Lyon is crocked, wouldn't O'Keefe be the more likely replacement? I'm also hearing mention of Swepson although have to be honest and admit that name had passed me by until now.

Guildford I think O’Keefe has found himself in hot water since off the field since his impressive tour of India last winter thus his shunt from selection

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Guildford I think O’Keefe has found himself in hot water since off the field since his impressive tour of India last winter thus his shunt from selection

Thanks, Olly. I hadn't picked up on that. A quick internet search does suggest O'Keefe has been a bit thirsty this year.

I still have a gut feel that Sam will be a star test player, with older brother Tom only ever a 3rd/4th choice stand in. While Tom has done all that could have been expected of him, Sam seems to be appreciably quicker, has the advantage of being a lefty and seems the better batter. However he will need to be a little protected and used as a strike bowler this summer in CC and not a workhorse (though that could of course be to the detriment of Tom who would be expected to pick up the extra overs).

In regard to the pitch theres not much to suggest it will be a spinners wicket. The talk seems tonhave come from Agars call up rather than recent conditions there. TMS did a big stats piece in the middle of the night on day 5 which showed yhe last decade has been a spinners graveyard in the past decade.

In regard to Moeen and Crane the same reasons why one got picked to start and the other didnt are still there ...ballance of the team...doubly so with no Stokes.
There is no right solution that sees Mooen dropped. As well as Malan has avoided getting smashed hes not been a wicket taking threat, Roots occasional partnership breaking habit is handy extra but no more.
For me if Moeen goes Crane has to play ...wickets is Englands real issue. The top 6 should score the bulk of the runs and if they arent its their places that should be in jeopardy.
But do I think Crane is ready or likely to be effective even if he "bowls well" like Curran did? Nope. Again he would be a "somebody has to play" pick. In light of how bad Moeen has been though he certainly isnt going to weaken the team and would destabilise it less. Collingwoods mid game comments seem to have written him off.

In terms if this series its a bit meh now. With Stokes back England could carry a proper non batting spinner in the summer if Moeens done. Root hardly using him to bowl further indication that hes just not trusted by the team.

But theres also the limited overs games. Him and stokes missing leaves a huge huge whole in what was a successful functional team. Dawson and Rashid both move the ball in the same direction ( well thats generous to Dawson) and dont offer quite the same options or quality that the Moeen Rashid combo did. I assume he will start those but he really needs to switch back on. Is ditching him from the tests the best way to relieve the pressure and build his confidence? Guess we will find out.

Having just read Bayliss' interview its pretty clear Crance is going to play in the 5th test

Bayliss wrote:There's maybe no time like the present to find out. "We think he's a guy that has got the goods and the more he plays at this level the better he will get. You have got to start somewhere.

Hes also back Moeen to get his confidence back and seemingly backed Vince and Stoneman for the New Zealand tour. None of which seems massively controversial.

LondonTiger wrote:I still have a gut feel that Sam will be a star test player, with older brother Tom only ever a 3rd/4th choice stand in. While Tom has done all that could have been expected of him, Sam seems to be appreciably quicker, has the advantage of being a lefty and seems the better batter. However he will need to be a little protected and used as a strike bowler this summer in CC and not a workhorse (though that could of course be to the detriment of Tom who would be expected to pick up the extra overs).

Tiger - that's also the view of most Surrey supporters (I appreciate you're not) and probably all Oval insiders concerning Sam Curran. I certainly don't rubbish him for a moment. I just find it difficult to confidently predict how far a teeenager, particularly an all rounder, will go in the game. He did have an ordinary 2017 season which rather tied in with my thoughts at the end of 2016 that, for all his potential, he was being built up too quickly if not too much.

I've already commented a fair bit on Tom Curran in earlier posts on this thread.

Gooseberry wrote:Having just read Bayliss' interview its pretty clear Crance is going to play in the 5th test

Bayliss wrote:There's maybe no time like the present to find out. "We think he's a guy that has got the goods and the more he plays at this level the better he will get. You have got to start somewhere.

Hes also back Moeen to get his confidence back and seemingly backed Vince and Stoneman for the New Zealand tour. None of which seems massively controversial.

Yeah, that all seems fair enough. We can't go into this Test with Moeen as our number one spinner. I therefore go along with calling up Crane.

Who does Crane replace? Assuming the track doesn't look particularly spin friendly, I would drop Moeen (thus playing Woakes and Curran at 7 and 8 which is too high, especially for Curran, but is probably the best of the bad choices available). If it's thought the pitch will favour spin, I would retain Moeen (as the second spinner) and leave out Curran. We need 5 frontline bowlers to have a chance of taking 20 wickets and on a spinner's track (if that's what it is) I'll say that Moeen is still more likely to be a frontline bowler than a Malan / Root combo.

New Zealand are nothing like the lightweights of my youth but they are still some way from being as formidable as Australia. Having competed in an Ashes series with fortitude (if not distinction), it seems right that Vince and Stoneman have an opportunity against less tough opposition. Quite where that leaves Ballance I don't know!