England v Australia, 3rd Test, Old Trafford, 1-5 August, 2013

Ultra negative from England under pressure. Chicken shits as usual.

On the positive side, I think my fanatsy team's had a pearling few days.

taipan wrote:So Root got 8 off 57. Remind me why Compton was dropped?

Because he wasn't very good.

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:So Root got 8 off 57. Remind me why Compton was dropped?

Because he wasn't very good.

Or maybe he had a grandfather not an uncle.

In the flesh (well, clothed, thankfully), Siddle looks even more impressive than your standard vision. The hustle and bustle of his teeth-baring approach and his menacing presence from the batsman's view put him the top of the Aussie pile, despite arguably modest base talents and no huge speed. His swerving run is also very useful in pressure situations is very valuable too - the batsmen have only once to make a mistake of the tricky line.

I think it's a bit unfair pillory Root for seeking to do a dour Yorkshire job (a la Boycott) in the given sitauation. His misjudgment was disappointing, sure - he stll has some guile to learn. But the big problem was the situation he faced ~ as so accurately and wisely predicted by Merlo.

Bresnan - lousy bowling today (worst of England's bowlers, despite the odd maiden he served up a load of old buffet bowling. Declaration bowling, quality-wise. England really let things slide away after Siddle went, persevering with a tired old Swann and a worse Bresnan for far too long. Root and Anderson should have been on an hour earlier. .... Bresnan - also a palpably lousy decision to send him in (he's not competent enough a defensive batsman to serve as a NW), and of course the farcical dismissal to follow!

I wouldn't rubbish England on the basis of these two days - but a bit of thinking and detailed self-criticism is, as Monkey keeps saying, long overdue.

England have been playing for a draw since day 1. Surely the safest way to do this is to get to 328. No one is suggesting they do that T20 style but 8 of 57 is I acceptable towards that goal. And IIRC 4 of those came a couple of balls before he chucked it.

Swann moves up to 3rd in England's list of Test 5 wicket hauls, and 23rd on the overall Test list:

1. IT Botham - 27 (102 matches)
2. SF Barnes - 24 (27 matches)
3. GP Swann - 17 (55 matches)
4. FS Trueman - 17 (67 matches)
5. DL Underwood - 17 (86 matches)
6. RGD Willis - 16 (90 matches)
7. AV Bedser - 15 (51 matches)
8. JM Anderson - 15 (85 matches)
9. ARC Fraser - 13 (46 matches)
10. AR Caddick - 13 (62 matches)
11. MS Panesar - 12 (48 matches)

That SF Barnes did alright, didn't he?

That's why he was in my fantasy team.

taipan wrote:England have been playing for a draw since day 1. Surely the safest way to do this is to get to 328. No one is suggesting they do that T20 style but 8 of 57 is I acceptable towards that goal. And IIRC 4 of those came a couple of balls before he chucked it.

They were batting for the close. Was always going to be a tricky spell to bat - hopefully with only one specialist batsman lost and walking injury Harris already hobbling we can grind them down tomorrow.

An interesting aspect of being there with two commentaries in me ear'ole (I had to take long breaks from both, tbh) is the large number of errors most of the commentators get away with - from field position namings to player identifications to predictions. I think it was Naz who said "that man at square leg for example is completely unneeded" - guess where the next shot went straight to? (one example, I could give loads of others).

Comparing parallel SKY and TMS callings, it struck me how SKY sort of insults its giant conclave of ex-England batsmen-skippers (plus the odd foreigner thrown in, like the mighty Mikey) with its melodramatically ramped-up stump and effects mikes. Cheaping.

On the other hand, TMS has a few duds, but weirdly takes the cricket more seriously.

Comparing Strauss with all the others, I was impressed how often he falls back on vapid comments - he uses his experience, but says very little. Damien Martyn, Bumble, Gower, Naz (with the odd clip round the ear), Boyks, Mikey, Vic Marks, ... Pidge (where's he gone?) and Warne in minimal quantities would make a good composite cteam.

Botham has turned into a bloody-minded meathead parody of himself.

taipan wrote:That's why he was in my fantasy team.

SF Barnes? Brave pick but I fear England won't call him up now.

Henry wrote:They keep taking about Bairstow like he's Jonty Rhodes II in the field. He runs like a twat and hasn't got a great arm. Average fielder, really. Not great, not poor, just average.

He's no Rhodes (only a handful have ever been), otherwise I couldn't agree less. He scuttles across the ground in odd beetle-like fashion, but if you see the big picture (e,g, by being at the ground ), he covers a huge amount of ground, his anticipation is excellent, his slide-and-throw is well-trained and generally both fast and accurate. and his efforts assist the morale of a tiring team, where others get slipshod, weary, petulant (admittedly, it hasn't been enough to turn a game at OT!).

I'd gladly have him fielding in the outfield in my team.

The PROBLEM is rather the jitteriness of his batting at Test level!! Maybe he will settle, but not at all sure of this.

Gary 111 wrote:

taipan wrote:That's why he was in my fantasy team.

SF Barnes? Brave pick but I fear England won't call him up now.

He might still outbowl a couple of the present crop.

Gary 111 wrote:

taipan wrote:England have been playing for a draw since day 1. Surely the safest way to do this is to get to 328. No one is suggesting they do that T20 style but 8 of 57 is I acceptable towards that goal. And IIRC 4 of those came a couple of balls before he chucked it.

They were batting for the close. Was always going to be a tricky spell to bat - hopefully with only one specialist batsman lost and walking injury Harris already hobbling we can grind them down tomorrow.

30 overs to the close Gaz? A third of the days play?

As I said no one expected him to blaze away but an extra 30 on the scoreboard would be handy.

And speaking of tactics, what was the point of batting for 4 overs after tea?

Root's thinking was clearly to see out the day with Tyke doughtiness, take advantage of any poor deliveries (which hardly came), and live to accumulate another day.

Cook didn't seem much interested in the traditional Yorkie virtue of the cheeky single.

In retrospect, Root's policy was a plod followed by a flop.

However, until Siddle popped up with more meaning and menace than the other four put together, Root had competently dealt with all challenges at the outset of what he wished to become a long innings.

I've already mentioned what Sid brings to Australia's attack (I didn't say gargoyle-gorgon effect). His swerve and skid were crucial for Australia's push, and Root made his one, fatal, error.

He has still quite a bit to learn.

PeterCS wrote:Root's thinking was clearly to see out the day with Tyke doughtiness, take advantage of any poor deliveries (which hardly came), and live to accumulate another day.

Cook didn't seem much interested in the traditional Yorkie virtue of the cheeky single.

In retrospect, Root's policy was a plod followed by a flop.

However, until Siddle popped up with more meaning and menace than the other four put together, Root had competently dealt with all challenges at the outset of what he wished to become a long innings.

I've already mentioned what Sid brings to Australia's attack (I didn't say gargoyle-gorgon effect). His swerve and skid were crucial for Australia's push, and Root made his one, fatal, error.

He has still quite a bit to learn.

Poor, brain dead cricket then. Fair enough.

taipan wrote:And speaking of tactics, what was the point of batting for 4 overs after tea?

Clarke seemed to want a bit more than 500 - maybe he changed his mind how much more he needed.

Maybe Lehmann bent his ear.

Maybe he just wanted to put England's fielders that bit more through the hot wringer, to keep them out in the heat that bit longer, and keep them guessing ....

there could be various good or bad explanations, I suppose.

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Root's thinking was clearly to see out the day with Tyke doughtiness, take advantage of any poor deliveries (which hardly came), and live to accumulate another day.

Cook didn't seem much interested in the traditional Yorkie virtue of the cheeky single.

In retrospect, Root's policy was a plod followed by a flop.

However, until Siddle popped up with more meaning and menace than the other four put together, Root had competently dealt with all challenges at the outset of what he wished to become a long innings.

I've already mentioned what Sid brings to Australia's attack (I didn't say gargoyle-gorgon effect). His swerve and skid were crucial for Australia's push, and Root made his one, fatal, error.

He has still quite a bit to learn.

Poor, brain dead cricket then. Fair enough.

Boycott cricket, for better or worse. Yorksher creeckeet.

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:And speaking of tactics, what was the point of batting for 4 overs after tea?

Clarke seemed to want a bit more than 500 - maybe he changed his mind how much more he needed.

Maybe Lehmann bent his ear.

Maybe he just wanted to put England's fielders that bit more through the hot wringer, to keep them out in the heat that bit longer, and keep them guessing ....  

there could be various good or bad explanations, I suppose.

Clarke was in his whites immediately after tea. Two batsmen going well, give them.licence. An extra 50 and still have 20 overs before the close. Poor tactics.

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Root's thinking was clearly to see out the day with Tyke doughtiness, take advantage of any poor deliveries (which hardly came), and live to accumulate another day.

Cook didn't seem much interested in the traditional Yorkie virtue of the cheeky single.

In retrospect, Root's policy was a plod followed by a flop.

However, until Siddle popped up with more meaning and menace than the other four put together, Root had competently dealt with all challenges at the outset of what he wished to become a long innings.

I've already mentioned what Sid brings to Australia's attack (I didn't say gargoyle-gorgon effect). His swerve and skid were crucial for Australia's push, and Root made his one, fatal, error.

He has still quite a bit to learn.

Poor, brain dead cricket then. Fair enough.

Boycott cricket, for better or worse. Yorksher creeckeet.

Pete, were you on TMS when they mentioned Boycs once went 590 balls on a tour of Aus without hitting a boundary! That's proper batting #digin

He was in his golden prime that 79/80 tour of Oz:

13 (67)
16 (82)
77 (337)
23 (103)
1 (13)
38 (155)
8 (40)
0 (1)
6 (21)
49 (212)
19 (80)
13 (52)

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:And speaking of tactics, what was the point of batting for 4 overs after tea?

Clarke seemed to want a bit more than 500 - maybe he changed his mind how much more he needed.

Maybe Lehmann bent his ear.

Maybe he just wanted to put England's fielders that bit more through the hot wringer, to keep them out in the heat that bit longer, and keep them guessing ....  

there could be various good or bad explanations, I suppose.

Clarke was in his whites immediately after tea. Two batsmen going well, give them.licence. An extra 50 and still have 20 overs before the close. Poor tactics.

After 20 overs England were 37/0

Gary 111 wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Root's thinking was clearly to see out the day with Tyke doughtiness, take advantage of any poor deliveries (which hardly came), and live to accumulate another day.

Cook didn't seem much interested in the traditional Yorkie virtue of the cheeky single.

In retrospect, Root's policy was a plod followed by a flop.

However, until Siddle popped up with more meaning and menace than the other four put together, Root had competently dealt with all challenges at the outset of what he wished to become a long innings.

I've already mentioned what Sid brings to Australia's attack (I didn't say gargoyle-gorgon effect). His swerve and skid were crucial for Australia's push, and Root made his one, fatal, error.

He has still quite a bit to learn.

Poor, brain dead cricket then. Fair enough.

Boycott cricket, for better or worse. Yorksher creeckeet.

Pete, were you on TMS when they mentioned Boycs once went 590 balls on a tour of Aus without hitting a boundary! That's proper batting #digin

He was in his golden prime that 79/80 tour of Oz:

13 (67)
16 (82)
77 (337)
23 (103)
1 (13)
38 (155)
8 (40)
0 (1)
6 (21)
49 (212)
19 (80)
13 (52)

Boycott. The main reason for T20.

Gary 111 wrote:

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:And speaking of tactics, what was the point of batting for 4 overs after tea?

Clarke seemed to want a bit more than 500 - maybe he changed his mind how much more he needed.

Maybe Lehmann bent his ear.

Maybe he just wanted to put England's fielders that bit more through the hot wringer, to keep them out in the heat that bit longer, and keep them guessing ....  

there could be various good or bad explanations, I suppose.

Clarke was in his whites immediately after tea. Two batsmen going well, give them.licence. An extra 50 and still have 20 overs before the close. Poor tactics.

After 20 overs England were 37/0

The point is? Root had 4 of them?

I am pretty sure Clarke declared when he did just to catch the English batsmen on the hop. They would have expected him to declare at tea, or 60-90 mins after tea. The last thing England would have expected was to come out and bowl just 2-3 overs, then have an innings changeover. Root was forced to change his thinking from bowling to batting quickly. I think it was a tactical move and not a bad one. It didn't give Australia an early wicket, but it might have.

A most enjoyable day at the ground. Light rain fell before play and then was not remotely threatened thereafter. Starc's batting was particularly enjoyable, with his classy driving alternating with a few biffing leg side heaves.

lardbucket wrote:I am pretty sure Clarke declared when he did just to catch the English batsmen on the hop. They would have expected him to declare at tea, or 60-90 mins after tea. The last thing England would have expected was to come out and bowl just 2-3 overs, then have an innings changeover. Root was forced to change his thinking from bowling to batting quickly. I think it was a tactical move and not a bad one. It didn't give Australia an early wicket, but it might have.

A most enjoyable day at the ground. Light rain fell before play and then was not remotely threatened thereafter. Starc's batting was particularly enjoyable, with his classy driving alternating with a few biffing leg side heaves.

Sorry but don't buy that one. Even if that was his plan, siting on the balcony in this whites gave the plan away. Poor tactics IMHO.