Australia v England, 2nd Test, Adelaide, 5-9 December, 2013

I reckon Trott should be removed from the firing line but they won't do it. Rankin/Finn for Tremlett will be the only change. KP averages something like 120 at Adelaide. We'll need his customary Adelaide hundred badly this time.

skully wrote:

Blackadder wrote:Reported this morning, a unchanged Aus side has been named for the Second test.

Cheers G. Hopefully they put Rhino's knee and Cot's back on ice so they are fighting fit for the Adelaide Hwy. They may get some work.

With 11 days between tests, should be sufficient time to rest up and with proper treatment can't see them having any problems for the Adelaide Autobahn

Blackadder wrote:

skully wrote:

Blackadder wrote:Reported this morning, a unchanged Aus side has been named for the Second test.

Cheers G. Hopefully they put Rhino's knee and Cot's back on ice so they are fighting fit for the Adelaide Hwy. They may get some work.

With 11 days between tests, should be sufficient time to rest up and with proper treatment can't see them having any problems for the Adelaide Autobahn

stupid kountouris

So with Trott gone, it's between Bairstow, Ballance, and Stokes to come in at six, with Bell likely to move up to number three. I'd go with Stokes. He might not be ready, but he's got stacks of potential, and is bowling quicker than Anderson and Tremlett these days. This attack needs a fifth bowler at the moment. They'll probably bring in Rankin as well. With Stokes as a 5th bowler, they can bowl the big Irishman in short, sharp bursts.

Cook(c)
Carberry
Bell
Pietersen
Root
Stokes
Prior+
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Rankin

Essentially, the bowling wasn't the problem. Who knows how they'd have done with 1) a better third seamer and b) more than three hours rest between bowling innings. To 'bolster' our bowling line-up is a little strange, IMO - last I checked they'd been taking 20 wickets enough. It's the gutless/techniqueless wonders from 1-7 that need looking at. And Swann being switched down to a position where not giving a f*ck is the norm - #11 or something.

Brass Monkey wrote:Essentially, the bowling wasn't the problem. Who knows how they'd have done with 1) a better third seamer and b) more than three hours rest between bowling innings. To 'bolster' our bowling line-up is a little strange, IMO - last I checked they'd been taking 20 wickets enough. It's the gutless/techniqueless wonders from 1-7 that need looking at. And Swann being switched down to a position where not giving a f*ck is the norm - #11 or something.

But batting-wise we don't have anyone else. Although Ballance may be worth a punt.

Brass Monkey wrote:Essentially, the bowling wasn't the problem. Who knows how they'd have done with 1) a better third seamer and b) more than three hours rest between bowling innings. To 'bolster' our bowling line-up is a little strange, IMO - last I checked they'd been taking 20 wickets enough. It's the gutless/techniqueless wonders from 1-7 that need looking at. And Swann being switched down to a position where not giving a f*ck is the norm - #11 or something.

The problem with the bowling is that a four man attack is up slack alley if two of the men are no wicket threat whatsoever (Swann, Tremlett).

And Australia have wised up to how precarious the balance is - if they smash Swann around (which is apparently a piece of piss to do these days), the whole eco-system comes crashing down as Cook has no other options to turn to that can A) takes wickets or B) keep it tight while the main spearheads rest up.

Obviously the batting was the weak suit, but that doesn't mean all is peachy in the garden of bowling.

I'd pick Stokes at 6, Bairstow with the gloves at 7, Broad 8, Swann 9 - is that any worse a lower middle order than played in the first Test?

Then you've got the fourth seamer option with Stokes who can not only bowl 15 overs a day, but 15 overs of decent pace and a wicket threat. Takes the pressure off Anderson and Broad and also Swann to a degree. I sort of fancy he'll bat well on a drop in at Adelaide. He's got the whiff of a flat-track batsman about him (something he never sees on Durham's juicy greentops).

I agree with all that Dello says above (weirdly enough).

Monkey has brought up the point that it wasn't actually the bowlers who failed (well, they did start to flag in the Aus second innings, but that's hardly surprising - and again, was not helped by Cook's single-gifting captaincy).

That's the logical viewpoint, and one I was quick to make when it started to go pearshaped during the match: when peeps bizarrely started to jump on Tremlett's back like he was Slow Satan who was failing to get the party started.


However, cricket is perversely counter-intuitive sometimes.

And given the (only increasing) level of embarrassment as the match went on, and the likely further deterioration of the morale situation with the departure of Jonathan Trott, you can say that, at this point, to have 6 or 7 batters who are not batting much doesn't necessarily help the batting to improve.

Give a man a bat and lots of other pals with bats, and he can make a fool of himself.

Give a man a bat, and a responsibility to bat well, and you may start to sort out the batting sheep from the batting goats. Or the racehorses and workhorses from the nags, at least.

I mentioned Anderson already. His best batting has always been as a nightwatchman. He tends to bat at 11 like a Number 12. This may be a banal, tailender example, but it seems to have some force further up the order too.


In a similar way, to say: "You can't bloody bring in Stokes (or Ballance) - that's way too little experience at this level!!!!", is obviously true, but less obviously also false.

Certain types of experience are not always helpful, whereas less fettered skill and resolution may be. (Provided there is some decent technical fine-tuning, perhaps.)

( In any case, there's no other old batting salt selected for this tour, and David Sales, Bob Key and Colly are presently in hibernation! )

Point being that one change to the bowling attack may make all the difference, whereas sticking a bloke in at #7 who underperformed with the bat all season is something more of a gamble IMO..

Might need both, unless someone can look into Matt Prior's eyes and see anything but shellshock.

He's toast as well. Abject dismissals IMO. Possibly a third worst set, behind KP and Trott.

Prior really has to step down and give the Ginga a chance.
At least he (Ginga) has scored a few runs on this tour already and he's fairly neat with his glovework.

Nothing to lose IMO - everything to gain.

I really am not sure at all about exposing Bell so early in the piece . . . Root at 3 for me with Bell at 5.

He'll have plenty of batting under him with Ballance, Ginga, Bressie, Broad, Swanny and Jimmeh.

Still only 4 front line bowlers though . . . could do with 5.

We've messed Root around enough I think, always up and down the order, he needs to settle at 5/6 rather than a different position each match. Bell is at the stage where it's right for him to take responsibility and move up the order. He's tried it before but wasn't the mature cricketer he is now.

Merls - I count at least 4.5 bowlers in both of the suggestions quoted below. Don't you?

Henry wrote:So with Trott gone, it's between Bairstow, Ballance, and Stokes to come in at six, with Bell likely to move up to number three. I'd go with Stokes. He might not be ready, but he's got stacks of potential, and is bowling quicker than Anderson and Tremlett these days. This attack needs a fifth bowler at the moment. They'll probably bring in Rankin as well. With Stokes as a 5th bowler, they can bowl the big Irishman in short, sharp bursts.

Cook(c)
Carberry
Bell
Pietersen
Root
Stokes
Prior+
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Rankin

PeterCS wrote:
Cook
Carberry
Bell
Pietersen
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Broad
Anderson
Tremlett or Rankin
Swann

And indoctrinate them in the habit of letting their play do the talking.

And meanwhile, get hold of Thorpey and get them all in the nets 10 hours a day until they have connected the dots between "cricket" and "gumption".

And tell them to carry a wire.

beamer wrote:We've messed Root around enough I think, always up and down the order, he needs to settle at 5/6 rather than a different position each match. Bell is at the stage where it's right for him to take responsibility and move up the order. He's tried it before but wasn't the mature cricketer he is now.

I agree with that (as my comments imply). But you could also ask them for their views. That should not make the decision, but might inform it usefully.

It's more likely that Root will move up the order to three with Bairstow coming in at six, in an ideal world, we would pick Stokes but I'm not convinced that he's a number seven yet - never mind a number six.

Not sure Bairstow looked good enough to be a number 7, in the summer! It's probably only his ability to cover the backup keeper spot that got him on the plane.

I know Ballance didn't get any runs in the warm-up games but I'd like to see him get a go, someone without any baggage from the failings of the batting unit over the last couple of years.

I agree that it's time to let Root settle in one position. Keep him in the middle order.

From a hard-nosed Aus supporter perspective, the best outcome for us at this point would be for Belf to be elevated to 3 then have to march to the wicket early in most innings because Carbs can't come to grips with the Aussie bounce and Chef continues to be the shadow of his 2010-12 self. That way Aus would maximise their chances against England's best (technically) batsman.

Well, it's a question of whether we want him coming in at 10/1, 20/2 or 30/3...

Basil wrote:It's more likely that Root will move up the order to three with Bairstow coming in at six, in an ideal world, we would pick Stokes but I'm not convinced that he's a number seven yet - never mind a number six.

Precisely my thinking.
Root is an opener.
Dinga has settled well (and scored runs) at 5.

Stokes ain't ready yet - so Trev (with all due respect) - removing your selection (and that of Petey's) of Stokes and re-inserting a recognised batsman - like say Ballance - reverts back to my original thought process.

Only 4 bowlers . . . Jimmy, Broadly, Swanny and Bressie.

So do English supporters believe Carbs will perform? Or will the opening partnership become Cook and Root?

skully wrote:From a hard-nosed Aus supporter perspective, the best outcome for us at this point would be for Belf to be elevated to 3 then have to march to the wicket early in most innings because Carbs can't come to grips with the Aussie bounce and Chef continues to be the shadow of his 2010-12 self. That way Aus would maximise their chances against England's best (technically) batsman.

Most number threes prefer coming to the wicket early, rather than at 150-1.

skully wrote:So do English supporters believe Carbs will perform? Or will the opening partnership become Cook and Root?

Carberry did ok in the first innings at Brisbane. He needs to strike more of a balance between attack and defence, though. He's actually an aggressive player in County cricket. He should play his natural game more. With Cook at the other end we don't need him to be a stodgy blocker.

skully wrote:So do English supporters believe Carbs will perform? Or will the opening partnership become Cook and Root?

The jury's still out on Carberry. . . . though I'd like to think he could be Chef's #2 for a couple of years.
Providing Carbs is allowed to go out there and play his natural aggressive game.
He is, however, 32, and the clock ain't slowing down!