England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

If Pope can't play I'd probably prefer Foakes coming in, taking the gloves, myself. Maybe:

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Brook 4.Root 5.Bairstow 6.Stokes (c) 7.Foakes (wk)

It means a rejigging of the order but gets better players in the XI than Lawrence at 3 IMO. Particularly when I'm not that convinced by Lawrence against higher pace. Given the 15 man squad that isn't on the cards though.

If Wood is genuinely fit I'd like his pace in the attack but would probably ere towards the seam heavy attack again if the 4  below are good to go:

8.Woakes 9.Broad 10.Wood 11.Tongue

If Wood isn't fit then:

8.Moeen 9.Woakes 10.Broad 11.Tongue

Which does have a lot of batting depth on the upside.

Afro wrote:Also, got to his first FC 150 today!

Yes, up to 170 now.

Also noting Dawson has a tidy 4/77. Very good season he's having. But it counts for nothing with the England selection.

Make it a double for Rew, despite the number 11 slogging away at the other end!

I can (kind of) understand the persistence with Crawley - at least he's now quite regularly contributing a quick 30 or 40 at the top of the order, but is failing to go on and make a meaningful score. One day it might click and he'll stop being James Vince reincarnate (look good, nick off just when looking set) and start to post some real scores.

Moeen's a bit different - we know he has at times in the past been a good bowler and occasionally a sound batsman, and the cupboard is really quite bare regarding spin bowlers who can bat in the top 7. OK, so it's been some time since Mo has batted well in a Test, and it's doubtful he ever will again. But with Stokes not able to be a 4th seamer this series, the balance of the side is thrown, So Mo's more a selection due to particular circumstances than an ideal choice.

I did wonder if someone was going to suggest Buttler as the keeper to replace Bairstow with the gloves. Would certainly be full-on Bazball (I do recall a comment in jest that we won't be going full Bazball until Buttler and Roy are the opening pair).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66167520

The MCC's world committee have met and made suggestions to the ICC.

The most eyebrow-raising suggestion is to eliminate bilateral ODI series, except in the year leading up to an ODI World Cup. I wouldn't be in favour of this move; I'd much rather see international T20 cricket thrown into the dustbin.

There's also talk about funds and audits to secure the test game, give financial support where necessary, balance out the FTP, and grow women's cricket.

VTR wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote: Complete change of subject and not relevant to the England Test make up for this Ashes series (unless an injury comes along) but someone batting very soundly this morning at the Oval is Haseeb Hameed. Playing with good control and timing the ball nicely, striking it harder than I remember.

Someone

It's massively infuriating that some players, complete no-hopers in the test arena, like Crawley or Buttler or current Moeen get given chance after chance after chance, with seemingly no consequence for their failings, but other players like Hameed get thrown on the scrapheap with little opportunity to prove themselves.

Always felt for Michael Carberry, who did better than most in the complete batting meltdown that was the 2013-14 Ashes, then never seen again

Along with Kevin Pietersen, Carberry was made the scapegoat at the end of that series. And they were the only 2 who could put bat to ball with some semi success throughout that series along with an emerging young talent.

Quick thoughts on Australia: as pretty much everyone has alluded to, this feels like a beatable team with Warner and Labuschagne in poor form, Smith not at his very best, and Lyon out. I'd add that the Bairstow dismissal is looking like a Mistake; not only because England look re-energised, but because Carey's response to the boos was to get out quickly and cheaply before dropping a catch he shouldn't have put his name on in the first place.

Lowlandbrit wrote:Quick thoughts on Australia: as pretty much everyone has alluded to, this feels like a beatable team with Warner and Labuschagne in poor form, Smith not at his very best, and Lyon out. I'd add that the Bairstow dismissal is looking like a Mistake; not only because England look re-energised, but because Carey's response to the boos was to get out quickly and cheaply before dropping a catch he shouldn't have put his name on in the first place.

Add to that that Boland doesn't look to be particularly threatening in English conditions and with the Dukes ball (surprisingly, given his reputation as kind of the new McGrath, who certainly was a handful in England), and the 4th seamer of Green or Marsh look a bit short. Obviously Cummins and Starc are a handful and Hazlewood is decent, but so far the difference between the sides has been Khawaja and not dropping many chances.

Don't think either side has pput together a really compete performance yet, which is probably why the three matches have been so close - I still struggle with the fact we lost the first Test courtesy of not being able to dismiss Cummins and Lyon, but then we won this week because of Woakes getting a decent score and Wood slogging a few, so it's not much difference.

Can't rely on Labushegne and Smith not making big contributions in the next couple of matches, but hopefully that will be at the expense of Khawaja and Head or Marsh scoring heavily. Then again, we've not had much of the best of Root or Bairstow with the bat so far either.

Still think that we should have found a way to get Foakes into the side, probably at Bairstow's expense overall - missing fairly regulation chances is going to cost us more than the difference in the batting between Bairstow and Foakes.

Same side next week other than presumably Robinson out with his back and Anderson in for possibly his final test at his home ground.

Not exactly astonished to see England retaining the same squad. Seems the only issue is one bowling place , and I would expect Anderson to replace Robinson for this one.

Could easily criticize selection ; but I think we should accept that there is no perfect solution to some of the issues. Balance of the side is the big one : while Stokes is a doubtful bowling option , the need for an extra bowler is paramount. And obviously that means you need a couple of bowlers who can be expected to play a serious part with the bat. Woakes fills a role here beautifully - at least in England.

And Moeen - very unexciting figures aside - fills another. Sure we'd love a more effective spinner who has also at least nominal batting ability : but is there really one around ?  Might be a bit soon for Ahmed ; and is Liam Dawson really going to set the world on fire as he couldn't in his previous brief appearance in the Test arena ? (Plus I don't see him batting at number three even as a sort of "lunch watchman")

Won't be surprised if Moeen stays at three for now. Clearly not a permanent arrangement (Unlike KP_fan I don't see him going to India : reckon this Ashes is a one-off) Could have brought in another bat - suppose they still could with Lawrence in the squad ; but that would kind of mess up the bowling plans. Although he had no impact with the bat , Mo going at three did keep Brook to come in just that bit later ; which rather paid off...

Was certainly a case for Foakes to take the gloves but they obviously don't want to dump Jonny at this point. He hasn't been able to reproduce last year's form yet (although that first innings at Edgbaston was terrific) but you probably give a player capable of some quite outstanding performances more time rather than less. And again , given the team balance question : hard to fit him in as a pure batsman. Have to hope he can avoid costly errors next week ; and with a bit of time gone by might have settled down from the aftermath of that Lord's controversy - I did think he seemed strangely on edge both innings and reckon that was a contributory factor.

Guess we will have to wait until next week to see what Australia are going to do with their team.

Who cares if Dawson doesn't set the world on fire? If he came in and averaged 20 with the bat and 40 with the ball, he would be an improvement on Moeen. That's how low the bar is with Moeen.

Why won't Moeen go to India? The selectors obviously love him. His face clearly fits, and poor performance after poor performance does nothing to alter his standing.

msp83 wrote:

VTR wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote: Complete change of subject and not relevant to the England Test make up for this Ashes series (unless an injury comes along) but someone batting very soundly this morning at the Oval is Haseeb Hameed. Playing with good control and timing the ball nicely, striking it harder than I remember.

Someone

It's massively infuriating that some players, complete no-hopers in the test arena, like Crawley or Buttler or current Moeen get given chance after chance after chance, with seemingly no consequence for their failings, but other players like Hameed get thrown on the scrapheap with little opportunity to prove themselves.

Always felt for Michael Carberry, who did better than most in the complete batting meltdown that was the 2013-14 Ashes, then never seen again

Along with Kevin Pietersen, Carberry was made the scapegoat at the end of that series. And they were the only 2 who could put bat to ball with some semi success throughout that series along with an emerging young talent.

Not really. I mean Carberry was perhaps harshly treated, but only one batsman made a century on that tour (Stokes), and there really wasn't much difference between KP/Root/Bell/Cook in that series. Pietersen was a complete pillock who should have been ditched long before that series anyway.

Much has already been well rehearsed here and I'll try to avoid repeating much of that but a quick look forward to the next Test and look back to Sunday when I was away.

1. Moeen is far from ideal at 3 but I generally prefer a volunteer to a pressed man (not for brain sugery admittedly!). Despite much thought as to other options and I even considered Lawrence who seems destined to be the permanent reserve, Moeen keeps the gig in my team. I saw some media speculation about Root moving to 3 but that didn't address who then bats at 4 - that would also be an issue with Brook back to 5 and it being too high for Bairstow as keeper.

2. Robinson was a vitual passenger last time out and so can't be trusted in the next Test or PJ's comp. My inclination would be to replace him with Tongue rather than Anderson. I was impressed and surprised by Tongue's pace which Australia didn't like and his ability to maintain it in subsequent spells. Wood was devastating and effective at Headingley. Allied with Tongue, the duo might be game winning. But you never know  ... they could just be expensive whereas Jimmy has experience and nous, knows Old Trafford well and is usually economical. So a tight call. However, Jimmy wasn't penetrating in the first two Tests, was poor in the field and is a worse batter than Tongue - that's why he loses out for me.

3. Australia conceded 20 runs in the third Test to no balls and wides. England gave away just 3. That's a massive improvement which needs to be maintained. This might seem petty but with all the Tests so far being won by such margins it could be game changing.

4. Carlos wouldn't forgive me if I didn't point this out. Crawley and Duckett understandably have their (severe) critics but they did an excellent job in getting us to stumps unscathed on Saturday evening and I don't feel there has been sufficient recognition of that. Losing a wicket then and probably sending a night watchman out to fall the same evening or early the next day would have been a massive boost to Australia. Yep, you've got it, we were never going to win the Test in those 5 overs but we could have lost it.

Duty281 wrote:Who cares if Dawson doesn't set the world on fire? If he came in and averaged 20 with the bat and 40 with the ball, he would be an improvement on Moeen. That's how low the bar is with Moeen.

Why won't Moeen go to India? The selectors obviously love him. His face clearly fits, and poor performance after poor performance does nothing to alter his standing.

And on top of that he will be made VC
And then inevitably when Stokes will be forced into a break, he will captain England and one Muffasil town of Mirpur in Kashmir,  Pak will be lit up in celebrations .

guildfordbat wrote:2. Robinson was a vitual passenger last time out and so can't be trusted in the next Test or PJ's comp. My inclination would be to replace him with Tongue rather than Anderson. I was impressed and surprised by Tongue's pace which Australia didn't like and his ability to maintain it in subsequent spells. Wood was devastating and effective at Headingley. Allied with Tongue, the duo might be game winning. But you never know  ... they could just be expensive whereas Jimmy has experience and nous, knows Old Trafford well and is usually economical. So a tight call. However, Jimmy wasn't penetrating in the first two Tests, was poor in the field and is a worse batter than Tongue - that's why he loses out for me.)

My concern about picking Tongue would be that he would be unlikely to feature at the Oval if he played at Old Trafford, seeing as how England didn't think he could manage back-to-back tests this time around. And if Wood plays at Old Trafford, he'll also likely miss out at the Oval. That would mean England being without any pace for the Oval test, which would be a concern.

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:2. Robinson was a vitual passenger last time out and so can't be trusted in the next Test or PJ's comp. My inclination would be to replace him with Tongue rather than Anderson. I was impressed and surprised by Tongue's pace which Australia didn't like and his ability to maintain it in subsequent spells. Wood was devastating and effective at Headingley. Allied with Tongue, the duo might be game winning. But you never know  ... they could just be expensive whereas Jimmy has experience and nous, knows Old Trafford well and is usually economical. So a tight call. However, Jimmy wasn't penetrating in the first two Tests, was poor in the field and is a worse batter than Tongue - that's why he loses out for me.)

My concern about picking Tongue would be that he would be unlikely to feature at the Oval if he played at Old Trafford, seeing as how England didn't think he could manage back-to-back tests this time around. And if Wood plays at Old Trafford, he'll also likely miss out at the Oval. That would mean England being without any pace for the Oval test, which would be a concern.

I certainly follow your reasoning, Duty, but feel we need to concentrate upon and win the one in front of us.

Also, although England spoke about ''resting'' Tongue, I wonder if that was really the case. Perhaps no more than a sop with him effectively dropped for Wood and the other three preferred seamers? Always hard to tell from this distance.

He only played at Lord's because Wood wasn't ready so yeah I would read it as England wanted to play one of the two

Duty281 wrote:Who cares if Dawson doesn't set the world on fire? If he came in and averaged 20 with the bat and 40 with the ball, he would be an improvement on Moeen. That's how low the bar is with Moeen.

Why won't Moeen go to India? The selectors obviously love him. His face clearly fits, and poor performance after poor performance does nothing to alter his standing.

I really doubt Dawson would do much better than even current Mo though. He's a useful cricketer but at the end of the day has basically the same F-C bowling average, economy and strike rate as Dom Bess. Whilst he'd be a SLA ortho against an Aussie team full of lefties and Steve Smith.

With the bat he's got lower F-C average than Woakes.

He's a good fielder but so is Mo.

My argument for Dawson before the series was that if England's seamers are bowling more attack lines and lengths then a holding spinner makes sense. The seamers haven't really been bowling that way though overall though. So a spinner who might go for a few but can genuinely rip one through a set batter becomes more useful.

Mo obviously shouldn't be batting at three but I've seen you say a few times in previous posts about T3 that he offered 'nothing'. Which isn't true. He got Smith and Marnus out at the point that the Aussies should have iced that game like England should have on T2 D2.

We should have a spinner who offers more, obviously. Had Leach not got injured that would hopefully have been him given all the hard work he's put in to finally get drift and drop when it isn't ragging. I reject the idea that there is an obvious superior option to Mo though given Rehan at this stage would likely be even more inconsistent and Dawson does not have the F-C record indicative of someone who would step up.

guildfordbat wrote:Much has already been well rehearsed here and I'll try to avoid repeating much of that but a quick look forward to the next Test and look back to Sunday when I was away.

1. Moeen is far from ideal at 3 but I generally prefer a volunteer to a pressed man (not for brain sugery admittedly!). Despite much thought as to other options and I even considered Lawrence who seems destined to be the permanent reserve, Moeen keeps the gig in my team. I saw some media speculation about Root moving to 3 but that didn't address who then bats at 4 - that would also be an issue with Brook back to 5 and it being too high for Bairstow as keeper.

2. Robinson was a vitual passenger last time out and so can't be trusted in the next Test or PJ's comp. My inclination would be to replace him with Tongue rather than Anderson. I was impressed and surprised by Tongue's pace which Australia didn't like and his ability to maintain it in subsequent spells. Wood was devastating and effective at Headingley. Allied with Tongue, the duo might be game winning. But you never know  ... they could just be expensive whereas Jimmy has experience and nous, knows Old Trafford well and is usually economical. So a tight call. However, Jimmy wasn't penetrating in the first two Tests, was poor in the field and is a worse batter than Tongue - that's why he loses out for me.

3. Australia conceded 20 runs in the third Test to no balls and wides. England gave away just 3. That's a massive improvement which needs to be maintained. This might seem petty but with all the Tests so far being won by such margins it could be game changing.

4. Carlos wouldn't forgive me if I didn't point this out. Crawley and Duckett understandably have their (severe) critics but they did an excellent job in getting us to stumps unscathed on Saturday evening and I don't feel there has been sufficient recognition of that. Losing a wicket then and probably sending a night watchman out to fall the same evening or early the next day would have been a massive boost to Australia. Yep, you've got it, we were never going to win the Test in those 5 overs but we could have lost it.

Going to have to disagree with you on point 2 Mr Bat - unless the pitch at Old Trafford is a total featherbed of a wicket, I would be bringing in Anderson. I think England see it as one of Wood/Tongue too, rather than both. I'd have concerns England would be far too short ball heavy in that instance.
Jimmy didn't have his best start to this series, but I suspect he will be absolutely chomping at the bit after missing out the last game, especially on his home ground too.
Also while I do appreciate Tongue did have a good game at Lords, I don't think he's a "match winner" in the same sense Jimmy can be if the ball is moving.

Think Tongue is very much in the Matthew Potts camp for me when it comes to selection. Good honest cricketer, who when called upon won't let us down...but shouldn't be being picked when we have our actual frontline options fit and available to go.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Who cares if Dawson doesn't set the world on fire? If he came in and averaged 20 with the bat and 40 with the ball, he would be an improvement on Moeen. That's how low the bar is with Moeen.

Why won't Moeen go to India? The selectors obviously love him. His face clearly fits, and poor performance after poor performance does nothing to alter his standing.

I really doubt Dawson would do much better than even current Mo though. He's a useful cricketer but at the end of the day has basically the same F-C bowling average, economy and strike rate as Dom Bess. Whilst he'd be a SLA ortho against an Aussie team full of lefties and Steve Smith.

With the bat he's got  lower F-C average than Woakes.

He's a good fielder but so is Mo.

My argument for Dawson before the series was that if England's seamers are bowling more attack lines and lengths then a holding spinner makes sense. The seamers haven't really been bowling that way though overall though. So a spinner who might go for a few but can genuinely rip one through a set batter becomes more useful.

Mo obviously shouldn't be batting at three but I've seen you say a few times in previous posts about T3 that he offered 'nothing'. Which isn't true. He got Smith and Marnus out at the point that the Aussies should have iced that game like England should have on T2 D2.

We should have a spinner who offers more, obviously. Had Leach not got injured that would hopefully have been him given all the hard work he's put in to finally get drift and drop when it isn't ragging. I reject the idea that there is an obvious superior option to Mo though given Rehan at this stage would likely be even more inconsistent and Dawson does not have the F-C record indicative of someone who would step up.

Dawson's recent FC record (since the start of 2021) shows a bowling average of 26.21, indicating he's in a good vein of form. This season he's got 26 wickets @ 18.46. While his batting average is a solid 30 in the same time frame.

He would easily be an improvement with the ball on Moeen, who has an average of over 55 with the ball in this Ashes series and a strike-rate of 87. Labuschagne and Smith both got out to Moeen in the last test through expansive shots that didn't come off. It wasn't as if Moeen outwitted them or something. It was like Murphy's dismissal of Stokes.

And with the bat, Moeen's top score is 21 in four innings, another low bar. Again, Dawson would be likely to eclipse that.

Rehan Ahmed would be inconsistent? OK, if he's inconsistent I'd take that over consistent failure, which is what Moeen offers. Plus Rehan Ahmed is an improving cricketer, while Moeen is a short-term stopgap, so it's better for the long term. Poor Rehan Ahmed has been patronised heavily with all the talk of how he needs to be protected from Australia.

As said earlier though my choice for the fourth test would be neither Dawson nor Ahmed, it would be to get Foakes in for Moeen and trust Root to bowl the overs of spin necessary, but Dawson and Ahmed would be the choices after that.

The bar is so low with Moeen, it's amazing. But I knew this would happen. Whenever Moeen has a bad performance, or a run of bad performances, he is totally free of criticism from most. Averaging under 16 with the bat and over 50 with the ball in two tests, so grimly predictable, and yet people still want him in the team or think that other options such as Dawson or Ahmed wouldn't be an improvement in some way. It's baffling. The selection of Moeen actually cost England the first test, that's the most frustrating thing.

When India comes around you'll still see the same people arguing for Moeen's inclusion, because to them his poor performances in this series simply don't matter. And next summer, if Leach gets an injury again, call up Moeen will be the cry from the same faithful. Shelmit will be arguing that Moeen is England's premier spinner etc.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Much has already been well rehearsed here and I'll try to avoid repeating much of that but a quick look forward to the next Test and look back to Sunday when I was away.

...

2. Robinson was a vitual passenger last time out and so can't be trusted in the next Test or PJ's comp. My inclination would be to replace him with Tongue rather than Anderson. I was impressed and surprised by Tongue's pace which Australia didn't like and his ability to maintain it in subsequent spells. Wood was devastating and effective at Headingley. Allied with Tongue, the duo might be game winning. But you never know  ... they could just be expensive whereas Jimmy has experience and nous, knows Old Trafford well and is usually economical. So a tight call. However, Jimmy wasn't penetrating in the first two Tests, was poor in the field and is a worse batter than Tongue - that's why he loses out for me.

...

Going to have to disagree with you on point 2 Mr Bat - unless the pitch at Old Trafford is a total featherbed of a wicket, I would be bringing in Anderson. I think England see it as one of Wood/Tongue too, rather than both. I'd have concerns England would be far too short ball heavy in that instance.
Jimmy didn't have his best start to this series, but I suspect he will be absolutely chomping at the bit after missing out the last game, especially on his home ground too.
Also while I do appreciate Tongue did have a good game at Lords, I don't think he's a "match winner" in the same sense Jimmy can be if the ball is moving.

Think Tongue is very much in the Matthew Potts camp for me when it comes to selection. Good honest cricketer, who when called upon won't let us down...but shouldn't be being picked when we have our actual frontline options fit and available to go.

That's fair enough, Mr Good Golly. My comments now are not what I would have said after the Ireland Test. Although Tongue peformed well in that, it counted for little in my book with the opposition being too ordinary. However, as stated above, he surprised and impressed me in the second Ashes Test and I thought he was unlucky - for whatever reason - to be left out at Headingley.

I most definitely don't rubbish the selection of Anderson at Old Trafford. As I said to Duty, it's always hard to tell from this distance. If he's (Jimmy, not Duty) performing well in the nets and chomping at the bit to play, then it might be the best call. Hard to tell, simply that my preference at the top level is usually pace and so my inclination is to go for two in form speedsters. Btw, besides possibly Carlos recently, I noticed that even Lancastrian David 'Bumble' Lloyd - and I do like him when not playing the fool - was also advocating Tongue in place of Anderson yesterday.

Liam Dawson is a decent county cricketer who simply isn't test class. Just a left-arm slow bowler, not even a spinner. When I saw him last at the top level, couldn't recall him turning a one...
Young Rehan Ahmed might evolve into a decent spinner and batter. Or he may not, like many English Shane Warnes that we saw and heard about over the years. But despite that performance in Pakistan on debut that gave him impressive numbers, his FC record at this stage seems to be a truer indicater of where he stands as a bowler. Took 7 wickets in that test match, then another 15 in 10 other FC games. I guess he's not picked in this series not because he needed protection from the Australians, but because at this stage of his career, he's not ready to be England's primary and lone spinner... Hopefully, he will develop. Untill then, its Moeen...

Liam Dawson has a FC bowling average that is 5 runs lower than Moeen, so if Dawson is a decent county cricketer who simply isn't test class, heaven knows what that makes Moeen.

Can anyone with a straight face actually argue that Liam Dawson would have a worse return than Moeen in this Ashes series?

Does anyone really care? This stuff was beyond tiresome before the first test, actively offputting soon after and god knows what it is now

Checking back in when the real stuff starts

Well, yes, I care because I want England to win. And their best chance to win is by picking the best side, which by rights doesn't have Moeen anywhere near it. Some people dispute this, so we have a discussion about it. If you don't like it, don't participate and scroll past it. Easily done.

Duty281 wrote:Liam Dawson has a FC bowling average that is 5 runs lower than Moeen, so if Dawson is a decent county cricketer who simply isn't test class, heaven knows what that makes Moeen.

Can anyone with a straight face actually argue that Liam Dawson would have a worse return than Moeen in this Ashes series?

The difference being that Mo came to bowling late so his Test record is better than his F-C one. Which is rare. Leach for instance averages 26 in F-C cricket when you remove Test numbers. He averages 34 as a Test bowler.

A 33 average with 269 wickets in 184 F-C games isn't in any way the profile of Test spinner. As said before I think Dawson is a useful cricketer too. I've argued he should be closer to the T20i side a few times. But he's not a Test spinner. He doesn't put the revs on the ball, whilst only spinning it one way. Combined with bowling to Aussie lefties and a very good player of spin in Smith he'd be a obliterated.

Re Rehan. It's not condescending, it's sensible. Leggies in English conditions rarely go well. He's an inexperienced one who can be inaccurate.

Mo isn't immune to criticism either. He's been criticised tons of times by most England fans on here. Almost every innings with the bat and many spells when he's poor. The rest of us just put the criticism in perspective of how poor England's alternative options are without Leach and how poor our attack often looks with only 4 bowlers. Which are both completely fair to raise IMO.

We are also capable of praising him when something works. Such as getting Smith and Marnus out when the no 1 and 2 ranked Test batters could and probably should have ended this Ashes series. Do I care how Mo got them? Nope. Ball of the century or chip to midwicket it's the same result and played no small role in keeping this Ashes live.

I said before that squad was announced I'd have recalled Foakes (saying I'd probably get him in by not playing a spinner) and Surran as a potential option to add batting depth if the pitch is flat (reason being that Mo isn't an all-rounder in Tests). So it's clearly not my preferred option to have Mo at 3. A 4-man seam attack with Stokes unable to bowl and no spinner is just woefully balanced in a different way though.

With Stokes unable to bowl England are trying to plaster over a giant crack. They've had the luxury of a genuine all-rounder for years and it's covered issues with some of our seamers durability and their potency with the older ball. With that luxury gone balancing the side is least worst option. With Leach out we basically have the below:

- 3 seamers and a spinner - Most the seamers struggle with this balance and none of our spinners are options to bowl bulk overs
- Lose a batter, Bairstow keeps, no Foakes, 4 seamers and a spinner - YJB post leg injury is struggling with mobility as a WK
- No spinner but 4 seamers - If we don't take advantage of the new ball then the seamers will whir away tiring themselves out or Root has to turn his arm over, tiring our best batter

I've never said Mo isn't a very flawed option. What I do is also consider the alternatives and balance my views from that. The alternatives are very flawed too. That isn't a player being free from criticism. It's perspective.

Excellent post above, Carlos.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Liam Dawson has a FC bowling average that is 5 runs lower than Moeen, so if Dawson is a decent county cricketer who simply isn't test class, heaven knows what that makes Moeen.

Can anyone with a straight face actually argue that Liam Dawson would have a worse return than Moeen in this Ashes series?

The difference being that Mo came to bowling late so his Test record is better than his F-C one. Which is rare. Leach for instance averages 26 in F-C cricket when you remove Test numbers. He averages 34 as a Test bowler.

A 33 average with 269 wickets in 184 F-C games isn't in any way the profile of Test spinner. As said before I think Dawson is a useful cricketer too. I've argued he should be closer to the T20i side a few times. But he's not a Test spinner. He doesn't put the revs on the ball, whilst only spinning it one way. Combined with bowling to Aussie lefties and a very good player of spin in Smith he'd be a obliterated.

Re Rehan. It's not condescending, it's sensible. Leggies in English conditions rarely go well. He's an inexperienced one who can be inaccurate.

Mo isn't immune to criticism either. He's been criticised tons of times by most England fans on here. Almost every innings with the bat and many spells when he's poor. The rest of us just put the criticism in perspective of how poor England's alternative options are without Leach and how poor our attack often looks with only 4 bowlers. Which are both completely fair to raise IMO.

We are also capable of praising him when something works. Such as getting Smith and Marnus out when the no 1 and 2 ranked Test batters could and probably should have ended this Ashes series. Do I care how Mo got them? Nope. Ball of the century or chip to midwicket it's the same result and played no small role in keeping this Ashes live.

I said before that squad was announced I'd have recalled Foakes (saying I'd probably get him in by not playing a spinner) and Surran as a potential option to add batting depth if the pitch is flat (reason being that Mo isn't an all-rounder in Tests). So it's clearly not my preferred option to have Mo at 3. A 4-man seam attack with Stokes unable to bowl and no spinner is just woefully balanced in a different way though.

With Stokes unable to bowl England are trying to plaster over a giant crack. They've had the luxury of a genuine all-rounder for years and it's covered issues with some of our seamers durability and their potency with the older ball. With that luxury gone balancing the side is least worst option. With Leach out we basically have the below:

- 3 seamers and a spinner - Most the seamers struggle with this balance and none of our spinners are options to bowl bulk overs
- Lose a batter, Bairstow keeps, no Foakes, 4 seamers and a spinner - YJB post leg injury is struggling with mobility as a WK
- No spinner but 4 seamers - If we don't take advantage of the new ball then the seamers will whir away tiring themselves out or Root has to turn his arm over, tiring our best batter

I've never said Mo isn't a very flawed option. What I do is also consider the alternatives and balance my views from that. The alternatives are very flawed too. That isn't a player being free from criticism. It's perspective.

'A 33 average with 269 wickets in 184 F-C games isn't in any way the profile of Test spinner.' - and yet Moeen's FC average (once you exclude test games) is 39 with 187 wickets in 134 games. Inferior, once again.

This is also why I brought up Dawson's recent average, over the last few seasons, where he's averaging 26 with the ball, indicating improvement. It seems strange to argue Dawson isn't a test spinner, when the option ahead of him, Moeen, is averaging 55 in the series with the ball and has an inferior FC record, plus his selection cost England the first test.

I agree Rehan Ahmed is inexperienced. And he will be forever inexperienced whilst he gets talked about in those terms.

I didn't say Moeen was immune to criticism, I said most avoid criticism of him. This isn't necessarily the case on here, but in general the media and cricket fans give Moeen a very gentle ride, as well as tout his name for recall when he is incredibly unsuitable.

The result of the dismissal is the same, yes, but the method of dismissal matters. The manner of Smith or Labuschagne's dismissal could have been reproduced with a part-timer like Root bowling. If they were dismissed with an excellent delivery then that would be an argument for the skill of the bowler, but for both of those dismissals such skill was absent.

I agree that Foakes should have been recalled. I think Stokes will be able to bowl in the fourth test, for what it's worth. Further, Root can bowl any overs of spin required, and he would actually do a better job with the ball than Moeen, surprisingly enough.

I didn't say you've never said Moeen isn't a very flawed option. But I disagree that the alternatives would be worse.  Moeen only outperforming Anderson with the ball, and only outperforming a couple of tailenders with the bat, that's how low the bar is. To claim Foakes, or Dawson, or Rehan Ahmed, or even Liam Livingstone can't, or wouldn't, improve on either or both of those measures is, to me at any rate, very bizarre. Still, we're stuck with it.

Duty281 wrote:Well, yes, I care because I want England to win. And their best chance to win is by picking the best side, which by rights doesn't have Moeen anywhere near it. Some people dispute this, so we have a discussion about it. If you don't like it, don't participate and scroll past it. Easily done.

I appreciate you care , Duty.  But I think what gets a bit wearing is that you relentlessly rubbish Moeen at every opportunity no matter what he does...one might almost think that you just don't like him ?

For the record I didn't approve of the call by Stokes to bring him back at the start of this series ; and would also have preferred the option of going all-pace rather than picking him last week. But despite his unflattering figures I have to agree with KC that his two wickets in the second innings - plus the overs he saved from the legs of the reduced complement of seamers - played a significant part in the narrow victory. (And in fact even in that first game he bowled a large number of overs without getting mauled any worse than opposite number Lyon , until his finger issues arose ; so not totally useless)

Could England do as well or better by utilising Joe Root more ?  Maybe. Maybe not. Sort of worked at Lord's to be fair. Undecided...

Will Moeen be a passenger at Old Trafford ?  I hope not .

I don't expect him to be a major matchwinner , by the way ; just (hopefully) a contributor.   If he does manage to take 3 or 4 wickets and maybe twenty odd runs and aid in another win , I trust you would be as pleased as the rest of us ?

Apart from all that I do think KC summed things up rather well. "best of the imperfect options" ?

Moeen's a done deal, and he's doing OK under the circumstances. Being a great team man as always by helping to shield an attacking but defenseless Harry Brook against the new ball in addition.
But think the substantive discussion should be about Anderson's place. Is he finally done at the top level? Should he get the next game because its at his home ground? When Tongue has done alright in the given opportunities? By his standards, Anderson has been absolutely mediocre in the 2 games he played. Think the tank has emptied enough so that he can't produce consistently impactful performances on flat pitches. But if its a lively track, I'd still have Anderson the mix. Do England consider Tongue also as a 1 test at a go player? Else, they should seriously consider him for the next game as well as the 5th. How much integral do they consider Mark Wood in the ODI setup? If they have options there, they should risk him with a 3rd test if the series is still on the line then. Oval could even be the place where they might need the pace of both Wood and Tongue together, considering the track tends to be on the flatter side there, more often than not. So Anderson gets a farewell game at home, wood and Tongue unleashed together at the Oval? Or should it be Wood and Tongue together for the next 2 games? And, can Stuart Broad play all 5 tests? I hope he can, he has been the standout bowler for England throughout the series. And if Broad i to miss out at some point, who should come in? Potts?

Just further on the spin business : I seriously doubt Moeen is going to be off to India with the Test squad , whatever he does over the next couple of weeks. I don't imagine he'd even want to - reckon he agreed to reverse his retirement for this Ashes Series (partly to answer the appeal from Stokes and perhaps to experience "Bazball") ; but given he has previously indicated a desire to concentrate on white ball - national and franchise - I can't see him signing up for further commitment to the long game.

In any case I think it's fairly obvious he's not the future : Leach (as long as he is fit) ; Rehan Ahmed ; and one of the other fringe candidates (Livingstone, Jacks, Dawson , AN Other) will be the spin contingent. No matter what KP_fan might mischievously suggest

msp83 wrote:Moeen's a done deal, and he's doing OK under the circumstances. Being a great team man as always by helping to shield an attacking but defenseless Harry Brook against the new ball in addition.
But think the substantive discussion should be about Anderson's place. Is he finally done at the top level? Should he get the next game because its at his home ground? When Tongue has done alright in the given opportunities? By his standards, Anderson has been absolutely mediocre in the 2 games he played. Think the tank has emptied enough so that he can't produce consistently impactful performances on flat pitches. But if its a lively track, I'd still have Anderson the mix. Do England consider Tongue also as a 1 test at a go player? Else, they should seriously consider him for the next game as well as the 5th. How much integral do they consider Mark Wood in the ODI setup? If they have options there, they should risk him with a 3rd test if the series is still on the line then. Oval could even be the place where they might need the pace of both Wood and Tongue together, considering the track tends to be on the flatter side there, more often than not. So Anderson gets a farewell game at home, wood and Tongue unleashed together at the Oval? Or should it be Wood and Tongue together for the next 2 games? And, can Stuart Broad play all 5 tests? I hope he can, he has been the standout bowler for England throughout the series. And if Broad i to miss out at some point, who should come in? Potts?

Msp - so many questions - that sounds like a great trailer for your own forthcoming cricket podcast!

With Anderson, I think this series would have been the end whatever happened. One final crack at The Ashes, seems the logical place to finish for a guy who really has nothing left to prove or achieve

VTR wrote:With Anderson, I think this series would have been the end whatever happened. One final crack at The Ashes, seems the logical place to finish for a guy who really has nothing left to prove or achieve

With Anderson, I think this series would have been the end whatever happened. One final crack at The Ashes, seems the logical place to finish for a guy who really has nothing left to prove or achieve or deliver

It's that bit in red that will make it terminal

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well, yes, I care because I want England to win. And their best chance to win is by picking the best side, which by rights doesn't have Moeen anywhere near it. Some people dispute this, so we have a discussion about it. If you don't like it, don't participate and scroll past it. Easily done.

I appreciate you care , Duty.  But I think what gets a bit wearing is that you relentlessly rubbish Moeen at every opportunity no matter what he does...one might almost think that you just don't like him ?

For the record I didn't approve of the call by Stokes to bring him back at the start of this series ; and would also have preferred the option of going all-pace rather than picking him last week. But despite his unflattering figures I have to agree with KC that his two wickets in the second innings - plus the overs he saved from the legs of the reduced complement of seamers - played a significant part in the narrow victory. (And in fact even in that first game he bowled a large number of overs without getting mauled any worse than opposite number Lyon , until his finger issues arose ; so not totally useless)

Could England do as well or better by utilising Joe Root more ?  Maybe. Maybe not. Sort of worked at Lord's to be fair. Undecided...

Will Moeen be a passenger at Old Trafford ?  I hope not .

I don't expect him to be a major matchwinner , by the way ; just (hopefully) a contributor.   If he does manage to take 3 or 4 wickets and maybe twenty odd runs and aid in another win , I trust you would be as pleased as the rest of us ?

Apart from all that I do think KC summed things up rather well. "best of the imperfect options" ?

Perfect illustration of how low the bar is. Apparently not getting mauled worse than Lyon in the first test is some arbiter of success? Well Lyon took 8 wickets in that test, a key cornerstone of Australia's victory, while Moeen managed 3/204 in terms of figures. I don't know about anyone else, but I expect a spinner picked by England to do better than 3/207 on a wicket favourable to his type of bowling. And in the last test, again I expect a little more from an England player than 2/74, with both wickets the result of misplaced attacking shots, as opposed to bowling skill. In terms of economy, Moeen's economy is only better than Woakes, for England. Can't really compare it to Australia's economies, because of course England bat much more aggressively than Australia.

'Moeen's a done deal, and he's doing OK under the circumstances.' - yes, only doing better than Anderson with the ball, and outperforming a few 10s/11s with the bat, qualifies as doing OK. Perfect example of what I mean when I say Moeen is free of criticism from most.

'If he does manage to take 3 or 4 wickets and maybe twenty odd runs and aid in another win' - again, my expectations are higher than twenty odd runs for someone who's supposed to be a test seven. 3 wickets for what, I wonder? If it's 3/204 again, kindly forget it.

With regards to 'relentlessly rubbish Moeen at every opportunity no matter what he does...one might almost think that you just don't like him ?' - No, this isn't the case, it's just that criticism of Moeen is met with a backlash. I've criticised Anderson in this series, and I've criticised Bairstow's keeping, no backlash, no accusations of dislike. But if you criticise a guy who averages 16 with the bat and 55 with the ball, and looks well below test level in the process, then every time with Moeen, it's excuse, setting the bar low, 'you're being mean towards him', and rubbishing other players who would do a far better job.

Duty281 wrote:
'A 33 average with 269 wickets in 184 F-C games isn't in any way the profile of Test spinner.' - and yet Moeen's FC average (once you exclude test games) is 39 with 187 wickets in 134 games. Inferior, once again.

This is also why I brought up Dawson's recent average, over the last few seasons, where he's averaging 26 with the ball, indicating improvement. It seems strange to argue Dawson isn't a test spinner, when the option ahead of him, Moeen, is averaging 55 in the series with the ball and has an inferior FC record, plus his selection cost England the first test.

I agree Rehan Ahmed is inexperienced. And he will be forever inexperienced whilst he gets talked about in those terms.

I didn't say Moeen was immune to criticism, I said most avoid criticism of him. This isn't necessarily the case on here, but in general the media and cricket fans give Moeen a very gentle ride, as well as tout his name for recall when he is incredibly unsuitable.

The result of the dismissal is the same, yes, but the method of dismissal matters. The manner of Smith or Labuschagne's dismissal could have been reproduced with a part-timer like Root bowling. If they were dismissed with an excellent delivery then that would be an argument for the skill of the bowler, but for both of those dismissals such skill was absent.

I agree that Foakes should have been recalled. I think Stokes will be able to bowl in the fourth test, for what it's worth. Further, Root can bowl any overs of spin required, and he would actually do a better job with the ball than Moeen, surprisingly enough.

I didn't say you've never said Moeen isn't a very flawed option. But I disagree that the alternatives would be worse.  Moeen only outperforming Anderson with the ball, and only outperforming a couple of tailenders with the bat, that's how low the bar is. To claim Foakes, or Dawson, or Rehan Ahmed, or even Liam Livingstone can't, or wouldn't, improve on either or both of those measures is, to me at any rate, very bizarre. Still, we're stuck with it.

As already said though, Mo coming to bowling late means his Test record is better than his F-C record. Which is very rare. When bowling for Worcs he was a part timer that England noticed could rip it and took a punt on. He then learnt on the job as a Test bowler but hardly bowled at F-C level after the improvements because he was with England in three formats.

Whereas Dawson's record is pretty much all CC based. Which isn't comparable to a Test record. Where Mo has 200 wickets for his faults. Worth mentioning at this point that Dawson has had 3 Tests and looked ineffectual.

I disagree that Root would replicate Mo's bowling however limited it may be. Root is even more limited. His record is worse than Mo's whilst being used in preferable circumstances - bowling at lefties and when it's ragging. Which is precisely how a bowler such as Root should be used. And a bigger bowling load could affect his batting of course.

Re Rehan once again. Experience for a bowler such as Rehan should be gained in the right conditions. Which isn't IMO a home Ashes on decks that wont turn much.

As for the lack of criticism I'd argue that might be a case of hearing what you want to be honest. I listen to a ton of podcasts as they help early mornings at work pass - TGC, Last Word, Jarrod Kimber, Wisden, Caribbean Cricket, Cricket Et Cetera probably my favourites for anyone on the lookout. I'd say basically all consider Mo's flaws and put them in perspective. The better commentators do too.

The rubbish commentators don't of course but they are predominantly former players trading off past glories who only take punditry gigs as it's the easiest way to earn a few quid. Rather than any lingering interest in the game or passion for broadcasting it. They certainly put no preparation into the gig. Which is depressing. I'd fully believe those muppets might talk of Mo like he's still batting in 2016. But they're probably also wondering why Australia have dropped Stuart Clark and ask questions like, "why don't batters just sweep spin more?", because they're unaware that DRS has altered cricket a bit. So probably best ignored.

The other bastion of sporting ignorance that might not put his faults in perspective could be BBC HYS. For which I re-enter the last comments I read there before giving up. "Why hasn't Foakes been picked?" First reply beneath that with lots of likes, "His dad doesn't play golf with the selectors". Next reply beneath that with depressingly few likes from those with an ounce of cricket knowledge, "I don't think Jonny's dad plays golf with them either these days".

On which note it's probably best for us to leave it there. Feels we are going in an endless circle. Clearly an agree to disagree one!

Anyway, to change the subject, anyone want to discuss the Women's Ashes series?
Almost as tight as the Men's on a match by match basis, with England having won the last 2 T20s and last night's ODI by two thirds of not much to keep the series alive after losing the Test that they were close until the last day, and the first T20 (iirc, lost with 3 balls to go).

It's good to see that both teams have players in their ranks who can bowl at least int he high 70s mph, - I don't see why a woman bowler couldn't reach low 80s, at which point they are quick enough that short pitched bowling presents a threat.

dummy_half wrote:Anyway, to change the subject, anyone want to discuss the Women's Ashes series?
Almost as tight as the Men's on a match by match basis, with England having won the last 2 T20s and last night's ODI by two thirds of not much to keep the series alive after losing the Test that they were close until the last day, and the first T20 (iirc, lost with 3 balls to go).

It's good to see that both teams have players in their ranks who can bowl at least int he high 70s mph, - I don't see why a woman bowler couldn't reach low 80s, at which point they are quick enough that short pitched bowling presents a threat.

I think Filer could - who debuted in the Test Match. She has a lovely action and looks like with a bit of gym work and refinement in the action could go from low 70s to up around 80. I think Wong looks kind of maxed out pace wise, she doesn’t have the build of someone who can find much more IMO.

It’s an incredible achievement by them to win the T20 series, give how dominant Aus are - hadn’t lost a series since 2017 I believe and were on a ridiculous winning run till recently. Lanning is a loss but Australia’s depth is unrivalled and should cover her.

I was getting nervous when Ecclestone played a stupid shot to deep mid wicket - and then Knight tried the same thing 8 down but just managed to clear her! They were trying to throw it away, and as for Kate Cross ramping when 8 down and 10 to win… she hit it, luckily. Helps Capsey has translated her domestic hall striking to the international game in the last two knocks, as she has rare power

A win in the next game and Aus will be really sweating and might exacerbate their woeful fielding and extras… even a tied series would be huge for England given they lost the Test and how good Aus’s white ball team is

dummy_half wrote:Anyway, to change the subject, anyone want to discuss the Women's Ashes series?
Almost as tight as the Men's on a match by match basis, with England having won the last 2 T20s and last night's ODI by two thirds of not much to keep the series alive after losing the Test that they were close until the last day, and the first T20 (iirc, lost with 3 balls to go).

It's good to see that both teams have players in their ranks who can bowl at least int he high 70s mph, - I don't see why a woman bowler couldn't reach low 80s, at which point they are quick enough that short pitched bowling presents a threat.

It's been terrific. Though Australia are a long way from their best. Certainly missing Lanning's leadership.

That England won whilst dropping 5 catches is remarkable. Australia had a couple of experienced players who had never lost an ODI before such is their dominance.

I think eyebrows were raised at Knight trusting the lower order with the strike at 50 left to win but it worked in the end. As great a bowling talent as Lauren Bell is I wasn't wanting to see her bat so it was a relief when Cross helped get them over the line. That scoop from nowhere was a great moment!

I think it's notable that England are using their bowlers more intelligently. Not long ago England would often use only 5 bowlers even if they were getting hit. Yesterday Capsey came on as a 6th bowler and got through 9 overs. The first 8 of which didn't concede a boundary. That's huge in terms of flexibility.

In Bell, Wong and Filer England have three strong bowling talents, two of which are sharp as you say. The Aussies have Brown.

It does feel like the next big shift in women's cricket.

Fielding was the obvious issue when the game was mostly amateur. Early batters such as Charlotte Edwards were masters at taking advantage of the easy 1s, 2s and 3s they could get through that. Players have got much quicker across the ground and have much stronger arms now. Having kept wicket to several Scotland women's players when they played in mixed teams whilst coming though at my old Edinburgh club I can say that they had extremely accurate throws.

Then came power hitters. Many women's players have really good 'textbook' technique but struggled with power hitting. Clearing a leg and hitting through didn't come naturally to players coached with strict technique. That's changed massively in the last few years. More and more batters are capable of clearing the rope.

The natural evolution to that change in batting is spinners putting more revs on the ball (we're already seeing that) and quicker seamers to counter the power hitters. It's fascinating to watch the game evolve so quickly.

At juniors the difference between coaching boys who came to the game early and girls who can tend to come to it a bit later is fascinating. Boys often get coached by dads early on, maybe pick up some bad habits that are hard to coach out. Often you'll tell a talented young lad he needs to play straighter and next ball he tries to hit a straight one into space only to get bowled. Whereas it's really noticeable when you coach both that if you tell the girls to play a certain way they will follow that instruction far better. "Your elbow needs to be a bit higher there", next forward defensive the elbow is higher. "You're tall so take advantage of that by taking a good stride into your front foot shots", next ball the weight transfer is better. It does make sense from that perspective that you get a lot of players who are very good technically but could lack power with the bat for instance.

Now there's more money in the women's game we will see more 'athletes' coming into it though. Which will lend itself to quicker bowlers and more powerful batters. Exciting stuff.

Carlos

Thanks for the interesting comment, especially with regards to coaching - I am doing some football coaching and this coming season am changing from coaching amixed team to an all girls' team, so it will be interesting if a similar pattern emerges there.

Regarding your last point, the other issue is that the money is allowing the existing players to be full time professionals (and in some cases, thanks to the Hundred and similar franchise leagues, pretty well paid), with the improved strength and conditioning that can follow. One of the Test match lunch breaks there was a discussion of the first Women's cricket world cup, and to say it was an amateur affair is unfair on amateurs - the women players of the 70s and 80s were real part timers, fitting in cricket where possible around jobs, family etc.

Removed - duplication

At the risk of being pessimistic, the debate about Mo may be redundant as the forecast from Wednesday looks pretty grim for the chances of getting a result

It doesn't look too bad, but agree the chances of a draw are raised. At least the test isn't being played this weekend!

Hmm. Don't like the look of that forecast !

"Sprinkles" on the first couple of days ... but the Saturday looks a bit grim. Still not sure you can take too much notice of any British weather forecast a week in advance. Except maybe "it always rains in Manchester" ...

Would be a pity if a rain affected draw decides the Ashes. Fingers crossed.

A really good ODI shaping up in the Women's Ashes.

Bell taking two early wickets but too many loose balls from the openers also allowing runs.

The change bowlers quietened things down but Capsey is now being attacked. Ecclestone dropping a tough chance off McGrath who's now hitting the accelerator.

Perry is playing a vital anchor role going to 50* at a good lick. Pez may not be the force she was when undoubtedly the best batter in the women's game as well as one of the best bowlers and genuinely quick. Like most of the greats she's reinvented herself as a more of a batter who bowls though. Her hitting in T20s has developed well whilst in ODIs and Tests here impeccable technique still shines through.

As much as I like watching Pez bat I'd love England to get her out here. It's the key wicket.

This looks a good batting track though.

Gardner gone just when England needed a breakthrough. That partnership was fast and fluent. It was threatening to take the game away from England. Lauren Bell back into the attack and does the trick again. It's not a good shot from Gardner but the extra bounce from Bell's height combined with her slower balls stopping batters from settling on a rhythm have a tendency to produce those mishits in the middle overs.

Aaargh. Perry dropped again. At least England's fielding is consistently poor...

That was a chance for England to grab control of the game.

Cross going off injured as well. On the upside she's bowled her 10 overs so it won't affect this innings. Certainly a blow for the final ODI if it's significant though.

England might be chasing something similar to Wednesday's target...though if these two bat through it could go a bit higher.

Fifty stand up. Haven't gone ballistic yet ... this last seven or eight overs are BIG

Perry gone short of her century...England needed that ! But she's put Australia on for a good finish with Sutherland still there...

Except she's gone too ! Ecclestone's last over a two wicket ripper... 240/7 with three overs left

It's been a commanding partnership for Australia. Sutherland is a cracking talent.

England finally get Perry but much later than they should have. A terrific innings from Pez nonetheless though. It's kept this innings ticking and very much kept Australia in this game.

If England can keep this around the 260 mark now then it will be a very well poised game.

Australia have gone spin heavy. Gardner, Jonassen, Wareham and King. There isn't that much turn in the pitch but Ecclestone has been typically hard to score off.

They aren't short of seam either though with Schutt (off the boil thus far though), Perry, Sutherland and McGrath. It's the ridiculous luxury of Australia's all-round talent.

Sutherland goes! Two big wickets in quick succession. Ecclestone delivers with her final over.

An astonishing cameo from Wareham has given Australia a big advantage. 26 off the final over.

Might have done better to keep Perry in

Wareham murdered that last over : 26 off it ! I reckon that might have put this beyond chasing...but no doubt England will give it a brave try.

Brilliant hitting by Wareham.

Bell has had a very good Ashes and is a terrific young bowler but it was a poor final over really. Started with two balls in the slot which then telegraphed her go to slower ball that Wareham was waiting for.

37* from 14 for Wareham has propelled the Aussies to a very good score all of a sudden.

It's a good batting track but the Aussies have plenty of bowling.