England v Australia, 2nd Test, Lords, 16-20 July 2015

A Test debut for Nevill, then; and Ashes debut for Mitch Marsh.

Siddle probably in for an injured Starc, who should probably be rested even if the injury is not too bad.

No changes for England.

Big game for Cook at HQ.

Important to counteract the inevitable Aussie "bouncebackability". I don't have the confidence in Ballance or Bell to shore things up in the middle order, especially if Root falls early.

I think the First Test confirmed to English fans what most Australian fans knew ... that our attack was very heavily reliant on Harris, with the others bowling well 'around' his hostility, wicket balls, and pressure.

I'm just hoping Hazlewood can step up a little, Siddle can bowl tightly, and Johnson regains his MoJo; otherwise my 2-1 or 3-1 predicted scoreline England's way looks optimistic.

Rogers will do a serviceable job without ever being brilliant, but Warner remains a loose cannon / worry.

can we win a Test in the series? There's a reason why our away record is so terrible

If Johnson has a good game with the ball, and does not have a totally miserable game with the bat, he stands a reasonable chance of achieving the double of 200 runs (currently 1984) and 300 wickets (currently 293) at 'HQ' next week.

I genuinely thought Johnson bowled okay. He didn't get the figures, but wasn't a total catastrophe.

In my opinion, the bowling attack in general wasn't too bad. It was the batsmen and Haddin's iron gloves that lost the game.

Watson is a cert to be dropped but although Haddin should also be dropped i would'nt be suprised to see him retained...such is the mindset of our selectors.

Australia bowled well, we didn't post a monster total in either innings and didn't declare.

And I don't think we are that much better with the bat to be honest, Lyth and Ballance are a real worry, Bell looked great but he always does, Cook hit form against the Windies and NZ but that looks to be fading away. Without Root's century I think we would have lost, and that could so easily have been a duck.

Before the series I thought Australia were way ahead of us (possible mental scarring from years of abuse and the last gang rape of a series). I still think they are ahead of us in the bowling department and Mitchell Johnson will win them at least one test, maybe more. He's never failed to fire for at least one test, he just happened to fire for every test in Australia last time round.

It's going to be closer than I thought already, we showed great fight and I hope it continues but I worry that heads will drop if we lose the next test at Lords.

Australia definitely have nothing like the team they had in 1997 but if Warner, Smith and Voges fire and the tail add some runs (Johnson found form and the others have great averages for lower order batsmen) then they are capable of at least a couple of test wins which could be all they need.

I know we wouldn't win back the Ashes but I'm more bothered about keeping our unbeaten record at home as I still fancy Aus to win the Ashes so I would take a draw still at this point.

The next test will define whether we have a 2005/2009 type series or every other Ashes series in my living memory (one sided snoozefests).

I walk past Lords on the way home, obviously won't be able to get a ticket but will try to soak up the atmosphere a little bit outside .

Might as well get it in early. 

Well done England.  2-0, the Ashes are yours.

Dello wrote:In my opinion, the bowling attack in general wasn't too bad. It was the batsmen and Haddin's iron gloves that lost the game.

haddin and watson have to go. clarke should be on notice but hes our equivalent of cook at the moment

Went out for a cycle earlier and it's battering it down out there.

England did well to finish things off when they did.

Just imagine if Australia had held firm, you'd probably not get much play today, if any.

The Australians bowled pretty well overall. We didn't run away with it at all. Our batting line up is still shaky, we're just lucky that Root came to the party, he was the difference.

I do think that Aus underestimated our bowling attack, so loose were many of their dismissals... They'll be angry now, they'll take us seriously.

DJ_Smerk wrote:Went out for a cycle earlier and it's battering it down out there.

England did well to finish things off when they did.

Just imagine if Australia had held firm, you'd probably not get much play today, if any.

Yeah they said that the forecast was shite.. .Thank the stars we got them out

Brass Monkey wrote:

DJ_Smerk wrote:Went out for a cycle earlier and it's battering it down out there.

England did well to finish things off when they did.

Just imagine if Australia had held firm, you'd probably not get much play today, if any.

Yeah they said that the forecast was shite.. .Thank the stars we got them out

Which is why it was just as well England were bowled out. If it had been left to Cook he would still have been dithering about a declaration at lunchtime yesterday.

Yeah defo, we lucked out in that regard. There was no way he was declaring early - we don't look at the weather, so we say.

At least it no longer seems to be "we don't care that rain is forecast tomorrow, we're going to treat the crowd to a two-hour blocking net session" like that NZ Test a couple of years ago...

Think Voges is another who will have to perform quickly otherwise his test career will be shortlived. He deserved a go because of domestic form, but our SS is very much diluted now because of international commitments to the main players. It shows again though how badly we lack batting depth.

Watson has to go because the selectors now have absolutely no reasons to retain him. His place is beyond argument.

The call on Haddit could have been made earlier. In some ways England has been able to rebuild because of retirements and the KP capers while our faux success (to some extent) has masked cracks.

JGK wrote:Might as well get it in early. 

Well done England.  2-0, the Ashes are yours.

I would think Zim has hacked JGK's account - except there are dark subterranean force at work here.

DJ_Smerk wrote:Went out for a cycle earlier and it's battering it down out there.

England did well to finish things off when they did.

Just imagine if Australia had held firm, you'd probably not get much play today, if any.

Just ordered a lorryload of salt in when you posted that, Smerky?

Re: England, personally, I'd look to keep up the bold new initiative and get Rashid in, if there's anything to encourage his fizz in the pitch. Yes, a risk.

Except: all bar arguably one opener and perhaps the keeper contributed something of definite value in the First Test (and of those, the keeper kept decently, though underperforming with the bat). so I'm not sure where Rashid would go, at present. Even the Bellends Twins pulled themselves together a bit.

So ok, another slowish pitch developing a bit of pace and slight inconsistency, and - vital - winning the toss again (!), with the same XI I suppose.

PeterCS wrote:For England, Personally, I would seriously look to keep up the bold initiative and get Rashid in, if there's anything to encourage his fizz in the pitch. Yes, a risk.

Except all bar perhaps one of the openers and perhaps the keeper contributed something of definite value in the First Test (and of those, the keeper kept decently though near-useless with the bat), so I'm not sure where he would go, at present. Even the Bellends Twins pulled themselves together a bit.

So okay, another slowish pitch picking up a bit of pace and slight inconsistency day by day, and - vital - winning the toss again (!), with the same XI I suppose.

Who would you drop for Rashid? Presumably not Mo after the game he had? Guess it could only really be Ballance and shift everyone else up a slot, but that would change the, well, balance of the side...

beamer wrote:

PeterCS wrote:For England, Personally, I would seriously look to keep up the bold initiative and get Rashid in, if there's anything to encourage his fizz in the pitch. Yes, a risk.

Except all bar perhaps one of the openers and perhaps the keeper contributed something of definite value in the First Test (and of those, the keeper kept decently though near-useless with the bat), so I'm not sure where he would go, at present. Even the Bellends Twins pulled themselves together a bit.

So okay, another slowish pitch picking up a bit of pace and slight inconsistency day by day, and - vital - winning the toss again (!), with the same XI I suppose.

Who would you drop for Rashid? Presumably not Mo after the game he had? Guess it could only really be Ballance and shift everyone else up a slot, but that would change the, well, balance of the side...

That was the qualification I mentioned!

My thinking (FWIW - admittedly just a view) before the First Test was that Mo would be better at 5 (Root then to 4 where he perhaps belongs, long-term), and used as second spinner, complementary to Rashid's leggie attack (Root as a fall-back option), and Rashid in at 8. But after another grisly show in the First Innings, The Bellifluous One redeemed himself, at least in part, with decent catching and the half.

Hence my "provisional conclusion" in the previosu post.

No way in the world that the team will be changed. I'd also think that the selectors would find it excessive to have 6 genuine bowling options. I get your point, I sort of agree with it, but it could only happen if one of the fast bowlers pulled up lame. And even then, they'd most likely choose Finn.

Starc improving

"Australia are growing in confidence that Mitchell Starc will be fit to bowl in the second Test starting Thursday at Lord's.

Starc left the field on the first afternoon with what was confirmed to be an ankle problem and was clearly in pain bowling on the third day during England's second innings.
...
Bupa Support Team physiotherapist Alex Kountouris said Starc's condition was improving and the team was "hopeful" he would be fit for selection.

"Mitchell experienced some pain in the back of his right ankle during the Test match which is common with fast-bowlers," said Kountouris.

"He was in discomfort while bowling but since then has improved significantly. "

------------------------------

Fingers crossed. Amazing how quickly we went from an oversupply of quicks to not enough.

Brass Monkey wrote:No way in the world that the team will be changed. I'd also think that the selectors would find it excessive to have 6 genuine bowling options. I get your point, I sort of agree with it, but it could only happen if one of the fast bowlers pulled up lame. And even then, they'd most likely choose Finn.

I thought they might consider bringing Finn in for Wood as A) it's his home patch and B) Wood needs to be managed a bit. He's got a poor fitness record, complained that he found playing back-to-back Tests against NZ physically tough. And he was a little down on pace in the second dig at Cardiff.

Not saying he should be replaced, just that it's something I think England may weigh up.

Rashid's no chance. Lord's is hopeless for spinners at the best of times. One is plenty.