England v NZ & Aust 2015

[Pfitzy]

Root will be the only disappointed batsman in that session - Johnson had Bairstow and Stokes shitting themselves to death.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Game just about gone in the space of three overs.

 

[light]

England all out and we trail by 145.

First partnership is going to make or break this game. IF Warner and Rogers can get going and see off the new ball, we have a chance.

This pitch is only day 2 and still looks pretty good. Ali and Broad showed its still possible to score, and quickly.

Get through the new ball and aim for a lead of 200.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

We're in this game but Jesus only just.

 

[Bairdy]

This is such depressing viewing. Another insipid batting collapse by our boys.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

So in the space of a couple of hours we've lost the Ashes. Firstly some fairly ordinary bowling from a couple of blokes for Ali and Broad to skip away and then some terrible batting. How quickly things change in this series. I think we've learned now that England take wickets on seaming tracks and we can't bat on them.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So in the space of a couple of hours we've lost the Ashes. Firstly some fairly ordinary bowling from a couple of blokes for Ali and Broad to skip away and then some terrible batting. How quickly things change in this series. I think we've learned now that England take wickets on seaming tracks and we can't bat on them.

I think we all knew that already (see every seaming/swinging/spinning test match we've played for the last decade), which just makes that Lords test wicket all the more ridiculous....

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Indeed. What were the Poms thinking?

 

[light]

IMO it speaks volumes about the English bowling attack that they can only take wickets on pitches that 100% suit them.

Conversely, our batsman can't play swing. Clarke will rue the decision to bat first but I reckon it has more to do with our approach to batting rather than quality bowling.

Even if we go down 2-1 (which we inevitably will unless we get 3 days of rain) I reckon we're still a good chance of levelling the series at Trent Bridge.

Problem is that nearly all would have agreed prior to this test that we are playing our best XI. The only option we have now is to drop guys for blokes who have already been dropped for under-performing.

It's going to be really tough to mentally recover from this test. I certainly don't envy the selectors.

The only positive to come out of this third test is that Jimmy Anderson appears to have picked up an injury (that said, his track record indicates he will follow this test with a few quiet ones). Aside from that, selectors decision to pick Nevill appears justified but we've got to sort out batting positions 4 through 6.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I know he's had a lean series but how does anybody justify discussions (read a few articles) that Clarke is under pressure.

The lack of quality in the articles is seen when none of them offer the name of a potential replacement.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I know he's had a lean series but how does anybody justify discussions (read a few articles) that Clarke is under pressure.

The lack of quality in the articles is seen when none of them offer the name of a potential replacement.

He's going to have to retire but he should be thinking about it. When you start missing the length and get bowled by medium pace yorkers, (ala Ponting v Kallis in Adelaide) it's only a matter of (a short) time.

As for a replacement? No idea. Burns record for Middlesex indicates he has just as much of a problem as everyone else with the moving ball. S Marsh is who will be picked but has his own consistency issues.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Surely Smith has to bat 4? In which case does Clarke revert to 5 (where he averages 60+ c.f. 30ish at 4) or take the Poms head-on & bat 3? I know what Steve Waugh would do...................

 

[Quick Hands]

I know he's had a lean series but how does anybody justify discussions (read a few articles) that Clarke is under pressure.

The lack of quality in the articles is seen when none of them offer the name of a potential replacement.

I don't have a problem perservering with Clarke, at least for this series.

 

[Quick Hands]

I actually find it quite amusing, bordering on the bizarre that some people are happy to question Clarke's position in the team, but continue to defend the Voges selection.

My view is well known on that piece of selection handiwork. And the only alternatives in the squad? Shane Watson, whose shortcomings are well know and Shaun Marsh who has never shown that he is a test quality batsmen.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Just saw a pretty incredible stat. Since Pidge rolled his ankle in 2005 our record away in England and India is 2 wins from 27 games.

Seems to indicate a fundamental problem with how we are preparing our players

 

[Quick Hands]

Just saw a pretty incredible stat. Since Pidge rolled his ankle in 2005 our record away in England and India is 2 wins from 27 games.

Seems to indicate a fundamental problem with how we are preparing our players

Exactly what I've been banging on about for a while. The squad selected is clearly too old - this means that the selectors are being overly conservative or there are no middle order batsmen in Sheffield Shield cricket under the age of 30 who are capable of playing test cricket or both.

One of the things which make a good selector - particularly in a game like cricket - is the ability to spot young talent and bring them on. The vast majority of our champion players have debuted in their early 20s - S & M Waugh, McGrath, Warne, Clarke, Ponting, Gilchrist, M Taylor, Healy, Slater on on and on I could go, but the current panel seem obsessed with picking players in their early to mid-30s.

 

[Strewthcobber]

One of the things which make a good selector - particularly in a game like cricket - is the ability to spot young talent and bring them on. The vast majority of our champion players have debuted in their early 20s - S & M Waugh, McGrath, Warne, Clarke, Ponting, Gilchrist, M Taylor, Healy, Slater on on and on I could go, but the current panel seem obsessed with picking players in their early to mid-30s.

To be fair they tried that to some extent last Ashes though QH - and got absolutely flogged. Agar, Bird, Faulkner, Hughes, Khwaja, Lyon, Pattinson, Smith, Starc, Warner, Wade were all in their early to mid-twenties and in the last squad. You can see why they wanted to try something a bit different.

 

[Strewthcobber]

In any case, I think it's a more fundamental problem than that. If Joe Burns was there instead of Voges would the result in this test be any different? His record for Middlesex (11 innings at 29) suggests he has the same problem with these unfamiliar conditions as all of our other batsmen.

 

[The Red Baron]

Neville and Starc hanging in there. England don't have any reviews left either.

 

[Quick Hands]

To be fair they tried that to some extent last Ashes though QH - and got absolutely flogged. Agar, Bird, Faulkner, Hughes, Khwaja, Lyon, Pattinson, Smith, Starc, Warner, Wade were all in their early to mid-twenties and in the last squad. You can see why they wanted to try something a bit different.

Although in fairness some of those were injury related. I thought that Burns was worth another chance - particularly when the replacement was 35.