Australia v England, 2nd Test, Adelaide, 2-6 December, 2017

The Seasick One looked even less disposed than usual at the after-match gab sesh.....his face was the same color as the ball, which he could easily have fitted in the bags under his eyes.

Fred Nerk wrote:The Seasick One looked even less disposed than usual at the after-match gab sesh.....his face was the same color as the ball, which he could easily have fitted in the bags under his eyes.

Didn't see it. But I am not surprised. This was not his best performance as a captain. He would be grateful the Poms turned their toes up today.

I hope he learns from this experience.

lardbucket wrote:Maxwell and Burns are the only players they MIGHT bring in. Neither of them offer a viable bowling option in Perth.

There's always Mitch Marsh, I guess. He might have made enough runs to convince today. Just watch as he is named in a 13 man squad, then squeaks into the XI.

(ducks)

... as predicted, or halfway there at least

Think others expressed the same fear

It is a diabolical treasonable decision.

On a separate matter, it is now apparent Seasick did not discuss the follow on or bat question with his bowlers or anyone else.

Yeah - that was made clear by Starc soon after the start of Australia's second innings, when he was asked.

I'm not too unhappy about him not enforcing the follow-on ... more regretful about the second innings batting effort, which was uniformly poor.

lardbucket wrote:I'm not too unhappy about him not enforcing the follow-on ... more regretful about the second innings batting effort, which was uniformly poor.

Yes, our brittleness with the bat when the pitch is anything but benign remains an ongoing issue.

Nath wrote:

Big Dog wrote:FFS!!!...they've done it. Mitch Marsh has been brought into the squad at the expense of Sayers. How many times does this guy have to fail before the idiot NSP realise he just can't hack it at test level.

enough to catch up to his brother

So we can resume that countdown now.

Also interesting that Jimbo bowled an 11 over spell during that phase of the game, and (doubtless amazingly to our sports science gurus) stayed alive afterwards....

Just call it 5-0 now and move on to thinking about the footie world cup ffs. We might get last 8 there with some luck. If we had had KP and Stokesy and Rooty using his head and batting first, we win that Oval match. No Stokes, no KP and the weakest England top 6 for 30 years means another whitewash. Total crap, from the players, to the management, the selectors and especially to ''we're too posh for KP'' Straussy and that useless head coach who seemed almost happy the Aussies had won. Fair play to the Aussies anyway, you showed our top 6 for that they are, weak and unreliable. Then exposed our bowlers for what they are. Bowler-friendly conditions bullies. Flat tracks anywhere in the world and we may as stay at home.

Cmon it is not that bad. Both batting line ups are thin. Cook has certainly seen better days, but Root, Stoneman and Malan all offered something. Jimmy too is past it unless conditions suit.

ratings of players in the 2nd Test

horrie: health warning


http://www.cricket.com.au/news/second-ashes-test-michael-hussey-michael-vaughan-australia-england-player-ratings-adelaide/2017-12-06

Overton 8.5

too many puffs on the positive pipe for Mr Vaughan

Lol at Vaughan.

Generous.

didn't like Vince though

lardbucket wrote:didn't like Vince though

Vaughan does not want any Pom batsman whose surname starts with"V".

lardbucket wrote:I'm not too unhappy about him not enforcing the follow-on ... more regretful about the second innings batting effort, which was uniformly poor.

Unlucky to an extent - with that evening session under lights and a swinging ball, the Poms finally shook themselves and put the mockers on. That morale boost, tails-up attitude, or whatever you call it, lasted on a while into the next day, against the Aussie lower order (for once)..

Well played the Australian team, and staff.

Better team selection (even if partly better guesswork?), more with-it and on-it attitude from more players, more application from same players when it counted. Marsh, Paine proved their (and the selection panel's) detractors wrong. Sort of the opposite of the case with their counterparts.

Whereas Vince - after one decent knock, three lousy, unapplied ones. Nobody saw that coming. The search for a #3 goes on. (What's the betting they shift the deckchairs around and bring back Ballance?)

Malan - meh. They might as well go for broke and stick him in at 3 at this stage. And con him into believing it's a T20, where he generally plays with application and sound technique.

Woakes finally starting to get into it a bit - what was holding him back I don't know, nerves?

Mo should probably not have played, if his finger really was crocked. Crane is obviously singled out as a drinks specialist.

Visitors don't have a fast bowler. Plunkett for one is faster than any of these - nobody advocated his selection for the tour. At least, not among the England selectors.

Cook - as soon as Hameed (or AN Other) gets his mojo back, Cook should be thanked and put out to grass. Well, maybe he still has a couple of innings on home soils.

Another brilliant move by the selectors to bring only two openers. When the sound ploy in such circumstances is to play three openers. Not necessarily blockers, but batsmen with some notion of what to do with a piece of wood and a brand new ball.

I'd bring Foakes in to keep (and at 7), and get Bairstow to practise his batting exclusively, to go to 5. He's a better outfielder than Vince, too ... Throw Malan in at 3 and practising boundaries or bust.

Overton wasn't bad, but the usual signs of a tyro.

3-1 might have been optimistic. Perth is unlikely to mark the start of a fightback ....

lardbucket wrote:didn't like Vince though

Neither did I.

PS: Stokes really was the linchpin, it seems. Not only exact middle of the batting order. But the effort that pulled all the rest together as a unit. Without that linchpin, a series of parts - some better than others.

horace wrote:

lardbucket wrote:didn't like Vince though

Vaughan does not want any Pom batsman whose surname starts with"V".

Vince Vaughan (sic) might be a better option.

Ideal/theoretical line up. Cook, Stoneman, Root, KP, Bairstow, Stokes, Ali, Woakes, Broad, Wood, Anderson. Yes i know it's not happening but it's way better than who will be out there i m h o. Three batsmen to dig in, 3 to go after good or bad bowling, batting all-rounder, bowling all-rounder, 3 seamers. Replace one from the last 4 for a spinning pitch and give a young spinner another go.

KP would liven up the dressing room. He's been doing some commentary here and seems a great bloke. I do not get the animosity with Cook, Anderson and Malfoy

Stokes of course should be doing time.