|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 19, 2015 7:38:13 GMT
The idea of preparing slow wickets to blunt your opponents' pace attack has one fundamental flaw - if they have two who bowl at 90 mph+ they will still get the ball through with uncomfortable alacrity. Everyone says Hazlewood doesn't have genuine place, but he clocked 88mph. Even Mitchell Marsh - who has a touch of Botham, I think - got up to 87.5 mph, which was faster than anyone in the England attack. So England are blunted far more than Australia as their fast-medium line-up is rendered inocuous. Will there be replacements? Wood may be rested and Finn brought back, unless they want to take a gamble on Matt Coles who has 54 CC wickets but is being rested for Tunbridge Wells week (could Kent have been asked by England to wrap him in cotton wool in case he's needed?). Among the batsmen, the last knell should toll for Bell but if they drop anyone it will be Lyth and they could go back to Compton or Robson.Anyway, it's a cracking Test match despite the slow pitch. Australia will either storm to a memorable triumph or England will mount a famous rearguard and bat for 150 overs with the tension maintained until the final afternoon. I don't have any problem with an Aussie victory - 1-1 with three to play sets up a fantastic series. I think they've given him enough rope, time to ring the changes  On a serious note, I wouldn't suggest going back to Compton or Robson if we are serious about building an aggressive, entertaining side. The problem wiht both of those players - and I think Compton is particularly worthy of praise - is that having Cook there already makes them redundant. We really need to look for a Warner-alike. If Luke Wright were 5 years younger I'd suggest a change of position would be ideal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 8:13:05 GMT
So that means Hales, then?
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 19, 2015 8:24:24 GMT
So that means Hales, then? Probably. I wasn't greatly impressed with him, specifically his attitude, but I've come round to the view that we have to try to break the mould and given that ridiculously tough fixture list, he might as well win/fail against Australia as be sent to scratch around in the sand against the Pakistani spinners in the autumn. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 19, 2015 16:47:17 GMT
Could it be Gale and Bairstow for Lyth and Ballance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 18:01:41 GMT
Probably all the fault of the pitch. You know, the strip that after day one was allegedly ruining Test cricket because England's bowlers only took one wicket in 90 overs. Oh, hang on a minute...
|
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Jul 19, 2015 18:58:15 GMT
Could it be Gale and Bairstow for Lyth and Ballance? Are Sussex trying to play Taylor into contention? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 20:51:20 GMT
Wow. Just watched the highlights. Awesome is a word I generally hate, but Mitch Johnson was it, getting incredible pace and bounce from barely short of a length. He's going to have the hoodoo on England's batsmen now for the rest of the series, I'd say.
What was equally impressive was how quickly Australia have worked out how to dismiss England's top order. They now know exactly how to get Lyth out just outside his off stump and how to dismiss Ballance by trapping him in the crease. Both probably have to go because you cannot see either of them thriving against Johnson and Starc. The Aussies also seem to have worked out a good plan against Root.
Watching the highlights, one wondered how England even got to 103.
Awesome cricket from Australia.
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jul 19, 2015 23:10:31 GMT
Well, that was worse than I was expecting - Stokes' run out summed us up perfectly, schoolboy stuff. The only point I'm making about the pitches BM is that they are boring and anti bowling, - you seem to be saying Australia are doing well on it so it's fine. Australia are better equipped to deal with these tracks maybe but the most potent weapon on these surfaces is scoreboard pressure. All you have to do is win the toss on these tracks and you'll probably win.
England are shooting themselves in the foot with these pitches, it's as simple as that. Granted, this game had its moments of excitement due to the Aussies' attack but as a whole it's been a s**t spectacle. As well as giving spectators very little we're also giving Anderson, Broad and Wood nothing. We should know by now what Anderson likes to bowl on and as the leading English wicket taker of all time we should try and give him it.
We gotta get Jonny in for one of Bell or Ballance, then just play on a competitive track. Robson or Compton - God no.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 20, 2015 6:43:56 GMT
Well, that was worse than I was expecting - Stokes' run out summed us up perfectly, schoolboy stuff. The only point I'm making about the pitches BM is that they are boring and anti bowling, - you seem to be saying Australia are doing well on it so it's fine. Australia are better equipped to deal with these tracks maybe but the most potent weapon on these surfaces is scoreboard pressure. All you have to do is win the toss on these tracks and you'll probably win. England are shooting themselves in the foot with these pitches, it's as simple as that. Granted, this game had its moments of excitement due to the Aussies' attack but as a whole it's been a s**t spectacle. As well as giving spectators very little we're also giving Anderson, Broad and Wood nothing. We should know by now what Anderson likes to bowl on and as the leading English wicket taker of all time we should try and give him it. We gotta get Jonny in for one of Bell or Ballance, then just play on a competitive track. Robson or Compton - God no. And Trevor Bayliss seems to agree with you on this, according to Nick Hoult in the Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11750213/Ashes-2015-Trevor-Bayliss-calls-on-groundsmen-to-stop-preparing-pitches-which-play-into-Australians-hands.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2015 7:33:04 GMT
My admiration for Vaughan's cricketing brain grew during this match. He was the only 'expert' who read the pitch correctly after day one.
While everyone else said it was a pitch that would "damage Test match cricket" and they could play on it until August and still not get a result, Vaughan stood out alone and said: "It won't seem slow when Johnson and Starc are bowling on it", adding that "quality bowlers take the pitch out of the equation."
He was spot on and that is one of the reasons I really can't agree that the match was "a s*** spectacle" . You might as well say Michhael Holding's 14 wkts on a docile Oval pitch in 1976 was a "s*** spectacle."
I thought this match produced some dramatically superb cricket and if England can now regroup and hit back as Australia did after losing the first Test, this could go down as one of the truly great Ashes series.
My gut instinct is that to do that England need to freshen up the side as Australia did. Watson looked like he was struggling and was ruthlessly jettisoned and Marsh came in and made an immediate impact. England need to do something similar (although I'm not sure who our Mitchell Marsh might be!)
Everyone is looking at the England top order, which is surely right. But part of the explanation of yesterday's collpase is also that however talented the much vaunted lower middle-order of Stokes, Buttler and Moeen Ali might be, they are still neophytes. It's salutary to remember Stokes has two Test hundreds to his name, Buttler none and Ali just one.
|
|
|
|
Post by howardh on Jul 20, 2015 8:46:59 GMT
I was there yesterday.
It was the most shameful performance from an English team that I have seen in any sport in recent years. The first session was laughable from ball 1 whne Anderson's body language summed it up well. The 37 overs of our innings were a complete embarrassment, even when acknowledging the good bowling from Australia. It was good, NOT exceptional bowling.
I warned friends about the false dawn of Cardiff. My 3-1 to australia prediction before the start of the series is now looking somwhat undercooked.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Jul 20, 2015 9:28:37 GMT
As well as all the criticism of the batsman I am also concerned that Stokes is not yet a reliable 4th seamer. However due to his batting success this is never mentioned. The experts talk of the balance of the side with him as an all rounder but I still regard him as a batsman who bowls, rather like Moin. This means effectively we are only playing three frontline bowlers and the results are there for all to see 10 wickets over two innings and a mountain of runs against.
I think the clamour for the inclusion of Bairstow will result in his deserved selection. However he is another dasher so the middle order will be very exciting but also prone to nick off at any moment. Perhaps if Moin replaces Lyth as opener, Root moves to 3, Taylor(I know he has had only one innings of note but who else?) at 4, Bairstow 5 then either Rashid or Plunkett at 8 (depending on conditions)' I would also replace Wood with Footitt for the variety he brings.
There will be much speculation before the team is announced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 9:59:22 GMT
Meanwhile, Dobell blames Rashid and suggests he bottled out and now faces the axe. Not sure what to make of that. Just Dobbers looking for his usual quirky 'angle'? Hard to believe any professional cricketer would fake or exaggerate an injury to miss a Test match.. I wouldn't give Dobell's story much credence. I agree, he is just trying to find an angle or to create a story from nothing. In Muriel Spark's splendid phrase he is a pisseur de copie.Indeed you were right, HH. For those who ask why some of us get so irritated by Dobell, let's put this on the record. He alleged that England were so suspicious of Rashid's 'injury' that if he then declared himself fit to play for Yorks this week, he would be dropped from the squad for Edgbaston. Needless to say, he played for Yorks and he is in the squad for Edgbaston. It's the desperate quest for a muck-stirring 'angle' and the constant contrarianism that gets so tiresome. For example, I see today he is saying Ballance is "unlucky" and Bell is "lucky". You just know that if it had been the other way around and England had retained Ballance and dropped Bell, he would then have said that Ballance was "lucky" and Bell was the "unlucky" one! |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jul 22, 2015 18:29:59 GMT
Good move by England - Jonny, you're in, Bell, you're batting at three. Think they dropped the right man for now. We now just need to produce a nice green English seaming wicket for Anderson & Co and we may at last have got it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 22, 2015 18:57:57 GMT
England top order this summer
Innings Runs Average Highest
Cook 8 448 56.00 162
Lyth 8 200 25.00 107
Ballance 8 134 16.75 61
Bell 8 116 14.50 60
Root 8 395 49.37 134
If Lyth and Bell fail at Edgbaston then what? Hales and Taylor?
|
|
