England v Australia, 1st Test, Trent Bridge, 10-14 July, 2013 (III)

PeterCS wrote:Warner for Cowan, I suppose is the way they will go.

Is Warner going to be in the country?

Gary 111 wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Warner for Cowan, I suppose is the way they will go.

Is Warner going to be in the country?

Well they will look a bit stupid if they recall him before he has left.

Gary 111 wrote:

Henry wrote:I reckon they'll get Ryan Harris into the team for Lord's. Maybe for Starc.

The one advantage Aus have is with their bowling reserves, Harris and Bird both primed and ready to come in whereas England are gambling on Tremlett, Bresnan or Onions being able to regain past glories despite their iffy track record in the last couple of years. Even Lyon for Aus has 7 wickets under his belt in his last Test.

Would be a good toss for Aust to win and bat first with the England bowlers having had a long spell today and yesterday.

Jimmy is going to have to be a superman to maintain his fitness over the next 9 Tests. Aust really should try to make him bowl as much as possible.

If Jimmy was an Aussie bowler they'd probably rotate him for the Lord's test!

Another question though is do England want to be bowling last again? With this Aussie tail then it's hard to set a target you feel comfortable with.

Surely England shouldn't factor in Australia's last three batsmen when deciding what to do at the toss! Although the Lord's pitch tends to get flatter and flatter as a game goes on so chasing might not be that daunting a prospect.

Still, there's no chance they'll bowl first after Jimmy's workload in this test.

Australia have now lost their last five tests, which is their worst run since 1984, when they lost six in a row to the mighty West Indies.

Good match.
Broad decision was a shocker, probably one of the worst ever in modern Tests, but shit happens. Still a good match.

It's also given me hope that this is going to be a close and competitive series, rather than the demolition I was expecting.

BTW: Ponting says "forget DRS, the team that won was the one that managed a century and two michelles". Typical stupid Ponting. So if Agar had got two more runs, or Australia's wickets in the second innings had been mostly by one bowler rather than evenly spread, that would have made all the difference? I'm still of the view that he was basically too dim to captain.

Henry wrote:Surely England shouldn't factor in Australia's last three batsmen when deciding what to do at the toss! Although the Lord's pitch tends to get flatter and flatter as a game goes on so chasing might not be that daunting a prospect.

Still, there's no chance they'll bowl first after Jimmy's workload in this test.

If its as hot as anticipated then surely whoever wins the toss will want to bat and try and bat big and put the other team under scoreboard pressure.

Although with both teams bowling attacks looking stronger than batting we should be in for a good series as the batsmen won't get away.

None of the star batsmen have made their mark yet - Clarke and Cook unconvincing, Trott's first ever golden duck and KP grinded out a score but not in his customary style.

OP Tipping wrote:Good match.
Broad decision was a shocker, probably one of the worst ever in modern Tests, but shit happens. Still a good match.

It's also given me hope that this is going to be a close and competitive series, rather than the demolition I was expecting.

BTW: Ponting says "forget DRS, the team that won was the one that managed a century and two michelles". Typical stupid Ponting. So if Agar had got two more runs, or Australia's wickets in the second innings had been mostly by one bowler rather than evenly spread, that would have made all the difference? I'm still of the view that he was basically too dim to captain.

His point is that the outstanding bowler of the match was Anderson, and of all the specialist batsmen one managed to apply himself for six hours to set up the win.

For Australia to get over the line they needed one of their batsmen to turn a start into a ton (like Ponting or Waugh in days of old).

Great test match could have gone either way. Sporting drama at its absolute best. 

So, how to solve the Finn conundrum? He's got all the raw materials, pace, bounce and wicket-taking ability. Still averages under 30 in Tests with not far short of 100 wickets. But for some reason he hasn't really developed as a bowler, a scattergun approach, unable to build pressure and in some cases like today an absolute liability. Is it just a case of try to manage him carefully and hope he matures into a real top class bowler over the next few years?

Bring him in for dead rubbers.

If he hasn't got the nous not to keep bowling short pies on a pitch that offers no pace, it's his head that needs counselling, not his technique addressing.

Jeez. Well that was a humdinger. Typical Aussies, especially in the Ashes, to have so much fight. They were tremendously calm all the way through the day's play. Credit to them. Credit to anyone else? Well, Jimmy Anderson. What a performance. Always seemed the manful bowler, but I thought this almost went beyond that. He'd better not be relied upon as much all throughout the series, or we'll break him. My missus said I was white as a sheet.

Let's be fair to Finn. Apart from Jimmy, they were all mediocre or worse today. Graeme Swann deserves the greatest criticism. Not for the first time, on a pitch suited most to him of all the bowlers, he was utter toss - bar two overs yesterday evening. He didn't settle into any rhythm and his most likely method of dismissal was caught in the deep.

Swann was abominable. The amount of full tosses served up were astounding. But no, Finn completely deserves the disdain - at least Swann could keep it tight.

Brass Monkey wrote:Swann was abominable. The amount of full tosses served up were astounding. But no, Finn completely deserves the disdain - at least Swann could keep it tight.

Finn is a young bloke with not a lot of experience and plenty of potential. And every Test he plays is one that Bresnan doesn't play. Which is why I think you need to reconsider your disdain. Personally, I'd go with Onions over either of them. And Tremlett over all three of those.

Well, he's a 24 year old bloke who has played 23 Tests, but I get your point. Although I'd have fancied almost anyone to bowl better than he did today. Or first up yesterday. Or anything bar his first spell in the first innings. I wouldn't have him in my side at Lord's unless it looks particularly quick and bouncy.

Brass Monkey wrote:Well, he's a 24 year old bloke who has played 23 Tests, but I get your point. Although I'd have fancied almost anyone to bowl better than he did today. Or first up yesterday. Or anything bar his first spell in the first innings. I wouldn't have him in my side at Lord's unless it looks particularly quick and bouncy.

It'll be flat and shit. I'd make him, Bresnan and Onions play rock, paper, scissors for the last place. It will be as scientific as any reason England might conceive of to pick their third seamer.

Yeah, it's likely to be flat and shit. Very likely. In which case, I'd have to **sharp intake of breath** go for Bresnan. I'm not sure a dobby Onions would bring enough more in his bowling to warrant leaving out Brezzy Lad's batting. There may be some thoughtless cliché about 'reverse swing' to insert here.

Finn is a strike bowler, but he still bowls too many bad balls. His two overs today weren't as awful as 25 runs suggest, but his first over to Haddin was too full. They were actually very good shots but after the first he should have gone back of a length.

Then he bowled two very bad deliveries, short and wide to the leftie Pattinson. His last 3 balls were actually decent, and his fifth a jaffa.

In such a tight situation you can't afford two bad balls an over, but pick Bresnan and you lose a bowler with the ability to bowl such jaffas.

He got canned in most of his spells, whichever microcosms you want to highlight it's just not good enough. He's been expensive throughout his career, but he's been worth a shot in the hope he'll sort his consistency out.

Here, on a pitch that most seamers were going at well under 3s he was going at over 4s, yet he provided the least wicket taking threat.

I've heard someone say it's a mental issue and not a technical issue. I disagree. He's pretty limp going through the crease and he's not keeping tall in the slightest. He's falling away like a dyspraxic tranny with labyrinthitis.

Well I'm glad I didn't watch any of that.

Unlucky, Aussies - you had the better all round attack and better lower order. If only your batsmen turned up, it would've been a comfortable win.

England indebted to two men, Anderson and Bell. One man and a pixie eunuch anyway. Not a shit load else to pat themselves on the back over.

F*ck me, it's hot today.

Gary 111 wrote:Finn is a strike bowler, but he still bowls too many bad balls. His two overs today weren't as awful as 25 runs suggest, but his first over to Haddin was too full. They were actually very good shots but after the first he should have gone back of a length.

Then he bowled two very bad deliveries, short and wide to the leftie Pattinson. His last 3 balls were actually decent, and his fifth a jaffa.

In such a tight situation you can't afford two bad balls an over, but pick Bresnan and you lose a bowler with the ability to bowl such jaffas.

It's a rough position England find themselves in. Finn's all over the shop - low on confidence, regressing as a cricketer, the captain's not sure about him and the opposition don't rate him.

But Bresnan's got nothing. He's no wicket threat. He doesn't bowl tight. He bats all right. But where are England going to find 20 wickets from, given that Anderson can't carry the attack forever? I thought Broad bowled all right, generally. If he can stay fit, I think he's got a couple of big spells in him in this series. Swann was really poor.

What else is in the cupboard, though?

Dello wrote:Well I'm glad I didn't watch any of that.

I just had to watch it. I was 'charity rowing' though. So I faked a shoulder injury and focked off to the 'tent' wherein I nearly shat myself watching us ramshackle it to victory. After nearly dying of a heart attack, I took up the charity shit with aplomb. By 'aplomb' I mean that I thought fock this after 10 minutes and faked the shoulder injury again.