2nd test Adelaide

First topic message reminder :

all the reprots coming out indicate that this will be a "typical English pitch "
batting friendly, dry, offering reverse and a lot of turn in 2nd inning Alan Border thinks.
 
that wouldn't be what Aus would have liked..and would like to alter whatever bit they can in the end......althouhg I understand it is harder to alter a drop in pitch.
 
Teams:
 
I would like to make a fairly early call on what the team changes might be....not based on what I would like to see but rather..reading into the mind  of the two coaches.
 
--Eng might  bring in Stokes and Bresnan for Trott and Tremlett.
Bresnan is a favorite of Flower mentality.......a batsman and a bowler packed into one.....how much he can hold against the Aussie pace as a batter will be tested....bowling....well he picked 4-fer in some junior game yesterday...in the best of times he struggles to be consistently above 132kph and now coming back from injury...dunno how how fast he can be but certainly can't do worse than Tremlett's 122kph.
 
Stokes I know not much about other than career stats on CI....but he might be picked on the rationale that he is not much less of a batsman than Ballance and Bairstow and can bowl also...spreading the workload over 5 bowlers and cushioning the undercooked Bresnan.
 
--Aus might bring in Faulkner for Bailey.....as he can reverse the ball, was in no less a blistering form with the bat in India then Bailey.....and is a proper brisk fast medium bowler who will cushion the work-load on their genuine pacers preserving them for rocket fast WACA the next test.
This is where Watson's inability to bowl 15 overs a day is putting more pressure on him.....and should Faulkner have a good game and Watson not......he is at risk of being edged out....not immediately but sooner than later.

Gooch has confirmed either Bell or Root will bat three in the second test

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
Decided at least on the first three things to do: 1. win the toss; 2. bat; 3. bat long.

...

There is a school of thought amongst us up and coming coaches that this [bowling first] is possibly a good method for winning tests nowadays in general ...

None of this precludes England's batsmen, Bell, Cook and KP chiefly amongst them, finally getting their act sorted, or Australia's batsmen reverting to their complete collapsing ways; things can still change very quickly. But there is an alarmingly high number of question marks over this England side: can Carberry cut it? who to bat 3? 6 (a crucial position, marshalling the tail, particularly with Prior in his slump)? what's going on with Prior? 3rd seamer/2nd spinner? what if the Aussies continue to get after Swann?

Mike - thanks for not starting that first sentence, ''Unlike certain geriatric posters, there is a school of thought amongst us up and coming coaches etc''.  

I do follow your thinking. I still though generally prefer the traditional approach of backing your batsmen to create scoreboard pressure and then seeking to have your bowlers cash in, especially on the last day. If I understood Raf's post correctly, he was saying recent history at Adelaide particularly showed day 5 favouring the spinners which reinforces my normal view for this Test.

Regardless of that difference of view (and, yes, it is largely a generational thing), I thought your post was extremely comprehensive and relevant. Most concerningly of all are the many questions facing England as we go into this Test. On the eve of the first Test there were just two questions facing England; the straightforward one as to whether Prior would would be fit and the more tricky one of who would be the third seamer. You have well shown that we have a lot more questions waiting to be answered now.

Yes I tend to agree that the bowl first option can often be effective ...and also that given batting frailties neither of these teams is likely to embrace it by choice at this point. (As an aside I would definitely not take it in Perth , where I feel the pitch usually gives plenty to the bowlers for at least the first couple of days , which tends to make the third innings decisive , and the one you want to be batting in)

We can't know exactly how this pitch will behave , but there have been plenty of results in Adelaide recently so I am not about to assume a draw.
England need to get selection right at one -down : which doesn't in my book mean taking a punt on a radically revamped lineup. Replace Trott , with either Bell or Root moving up - there are arguments either way - and Bairstow or Ballance at six. I think perhaps leave the bowling unchanged , as Bresnan my not be quite ready , though if they pick him I have no problem with the decision ; he may bowl quite well here. I don't fancy two spinners : it won't be anything like an Indian pitch whatever it is , and if , as Ashley Mallet says , Panesar would take more wickets than Bresnan , he might well just take those that Swann doesn't , if you see what I mean...I do take Mike's point about control : but it means only two seamers - or horribly weakened batting - and I wouldn't be happy with either.

Questions , guildford ? Indeed there are ; which rather helps make the prospect of this match more enticing , no ?

If I won the toss at Adelaide, I'd bat first 9/10. I fully appreciate Mike's theory, about bowling first, but maybe it's because I'm a generation later (by the way, I got my level 2 accreditation a few weeks ago ), but I fully endorse the idea of batting first, batting big and letting the pitch do the heavy lifting on day 5. South Africa's best wins have come batting second, but that's because we have an attack capable of blasting teams to hell, I don't think either team has designs of restricting the other to 45. Must be said, though, that I'm a very stubborn cricket brain, I just don't see the logic in bowling first because your team might fail to take advantage of sinfully flat conditions... Or rather, I see the logic, I just don't think it pertinent. But then again, as a captain, I once refused to give a wayward bowler a fine leg and a third man because I refused to waste a fielder on account of his nonsense.

I've heard that this is a drop-in pitch, but I must be honest, I haven't seen a zippy drop-in pitch in my life. I may be wrong, and maybe it's just the games I watch, but the drop-ins they've been using this season haven't done much for the bowlers, I can't see that changing.

Olly wrote:Gooch has confirmed either Bell or Root will bat three in the second test

Earth shattering revelation  

a more appropriate information sharing would be .....who bats at No.6...Stokes or Ballance ?

KP_fan wrote:

Olly wrote:Gooch has confirmed either Bell or Root will bat three in the second test

Earth shattering revelation  

a more appropriate information sharing would be .....who bats at No.6...Stokes or Ballance ?

Or Bairstow. Or Root.

Can't give the game away to Australia too early now!

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Olly wrote:Gooch has confirmed either Bell or Root will bat three in the second test

Earth shattering revelation  

a more appropriate information sharing would be .....who bats at No.6...Stokes or Ballance ?

Or Bairstow. Or Root.

Can't give the game away to Australia too early now!

what is being given away ??

Instead having a firm side shows confidence

Raf, congratulations on the level 2! Have a  on me.

I was of course being a little bit mischievous with my opening line (albeit somewhat truthful - this very topic has come up at a number of conferences I have attended). I am not sure though that it stems from the negative thinking that Raf says it does. It is more a case that most pitches nowadays offer a bit of latteral movement in the 1st hour/session before flattening out and staying relatively flat then throughout, maybe crumbling on days 4 and 5. It is pretty much accepted that the best time to bat is days 2 and 3, so by bowling first you are exploiting any early moisture (hopefully) and then ensuring that the bulk of your innings should be when conditions are at their best for batting. You hope that by taking some early wickets on day 1 your opponents will be playing catch-up, and that when conditions ease up they will be a few wickets down so unlikely to make a huge huge score.

The thinking is not entirely new either. Steve Waugh used to apply it fairly regularly. But more recently it seems to me that the sort of scenario I was talking about has happened increasingly often. It also happens a lot in the county game, where pitches tend to be a bit greener to start with, and also the fact that you only have 4 days to force a result means that batting first you are relying on your opponents collapsing at least once, whereas batting 2nd they can score 300 in each innings but you can still win.

To make this kind of strategy work though, you need 2 things:
- a bowling attack good enough that first of all you get those early wickets, and then your bowlers are good enough that once conditions flatten out they will still pick up the odd wicket, so won't allow the side batting first to recover to 350+. For example the last time India were in Aus, they also had Aus in trouble on the 1st morning at Adelaide, but then Ponting and Clarke smashed their lesser bowlers to all parts.
- batsmen who can bat time and score big. The tactic can only work if in your first innings, you really pile on the runs (200 lead a minimum) and take time out of the game (batting by the end of day 3), so that when your opponents bat again the pitch is starting to deteriorate and they are facing massive scoreboard pressure. In other words turn the 3rd innings into what are the "normal" 4th innings conditions.

I would say that in recent times, England had the personnel to do this around 2010-2012; their bowling was certainly good enough, and the likes of Cook, Trott, KP, Bell even could bat long and big. South Africa obviously have the ability: their bowling is awesome, and with the bat of course you have Smith, Amla, Kallis, AB.

This current England side almost certainly doesn't have the batting, and quite possibly not the bowling either (3rd seamer and Swann on Aus pitches are an issue). This Aus side may have the bowling, but not the batting - apart from Clarke there is no one there who you think could bat long (Watson or Warner could bat big, but that is separate).

For that reason I don't expect either side to do anything else but breathe a sigh of relief and bat first without hesitation should they win the toss in Adelaide. I would also bat first with these teams. If I was South African though, I would certainly consider bowling first.

BTW I agree entirely with Raf about not setting fields for wayward bowling. Set your field for a good ball, because against good players the bad ball mostly goes for 4 no matter where you place your fielders, so there is no point wasting a precious fielder.

they will be targetting Bell now...says Harris

Harris, who zeroed in on Ian Bell as one of his targets, felt Trott’s absence was a blow to Alastair Cook’s side. “It’s a great loss with Trotty not there, it’s going to be interesting to see who they put in there,” he said. “Hopefully it’s Bell, because we get an earlier chance to get him out, that is what I’m thinking. I want to get him in there early.

Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Why is it in their own interest? Naming their side days before the mstch or an hour before play starts makes no difference whatsoever. It seems most prudent to wait to have a closer look at the pitch especially when you consider it is a drop-in pitch. Besides did Clarke not gloat or at least not feel happy in the knowledge that he knew what England's side would be prior to the First Test? Well he won't have the same satisfaction this time.

He's named his team, Craig.  
(courtesy of Inside Cricket tonight)

Cook
Carberry
Root
KP
Bell
Ballance
Prior
Broad
Bresnan
Swan
Anderson

At the moment Linebreaker that is mere supposition. Nothing at all about the side being announced in the British media who I am sure would be firstvout with the news. Your supposition could be correct of course but lets just wait and see.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Why is it in their own interest?

Exudes Confidence
Wins Psychological points
that is all that separates the two sides right now.

Nothing's gonna change on the Aussie side in terms of compsition of their side or whether they chose to bat first or second if they knew now.......that Eng would have Stokes and not Ballance.......Bresnan and not Finn........Root will be at 3 and not 5

and Eng would get the message across.....we are not worried but in control and confident

That's the taam I said they would pick

Not my team, but it's not bad and no surprises at all.

Kp you are just waffling mate,

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Why is it in their own interest?    

Exudes Confidence
Wins Psychological points
that is all that separates the two sides right now.

Nothing's gonna change on the Aussie side in terms of compsition of their side or whether they chose to bat first or second if they knew now.......that Eng would have Stokes and not Ballance.......Bresnan and not Finn........Root will be at 3 and not 5

and Eng would get the message across.....we are not worried but in control and confident

Maybe Cook doesn't know the side?

mystiroakey wrote:Kp you are just waffling mate,

If Warne would to hear you......he would say...BINGO..this is why England would never become a top side  

"They don't undertsand and value, Postive/ Psychological/Confidence thing"...to them it sounds waffling

Stella wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Why is it in their own interest?    

Exudes Confidence
Wins Psychological points
that is all that separates the two sides right now.

Nothing's gonna change on the Aussie side in terms of compsition of their side or whether they chose to bat first or second if they knew now.......that Eng would have Stokes and not Ballance.......Bresnan and not Finn........Root will be at 3 and not 5

and Eng would get the message across.....we are not worried but in control and confident

Maybe Cook doesn't know the side?

Possible
Grapevine suggested that that was the case with Dravid when Chappell was the coach

more waffle.

We clearly havent picked our team yet- because we dont know it.

Yes we are under the cosh mentally- we know that

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Why is it in their own interest?    

Exudes Confidence
Wins Psychological points
that is all that separates the two sides right now.

Nothing's gonna change on the Aussie side in terms of compsition of their side or whether they chose to bat first or second if they knew now.......that Eng would have Stokes and not Ballance.......Bresnan and not Finn........Root will be at 3 and not 5

and Eng would get the message across.....we are not worried but in control and confident

Tosh.

At the moment there are far too many variables for England to go crashing in naming a side a day before the test starts.

Variables such as a need to rearrange the batting line-up since the loss of Trott, a need to assess the drop in pitch and assess the best suited bowling attack to go with. England have options to consider such as do they drop Tremlett and bring in Bresnan or even Parnesar. Depends on what the pitch tells them. Australia do not have those variables just now as they have a winning side V England for the first time in ten tests so they will stick with that. Besides I doubt they have real options shpuld things start to go jubblies up for them.

England will play Bresnan, and it'll be Joe Root in at 3. Garry Ballance should make his test debut as well. The Bresnan move will be a very, very risky one, considering he is just returning to international cricket after a longish layoff. I know some of us think the England management can do no wrong, but.......

All management does wrong sometimes.

The English management has done a pretty decent job over the past 5 or so years so we cant really blame them over all- We all disagree sometimes with small decisions..

But they are doing an ok job at the moment. He have to back t hem really MSP.

The way they handled KP was good, the overall record is good.

Not sure about the moving of Root back to 6- that defied logic for me- but ok, now that trott has gone for a bit , Carbs at 2 and root at 3 is probably better than root at 2 and bell at 3 (adding balance and Barstow ldown the order over just ballance)

mystiroakey wrote:All management does wrong sometimes.

The English management has done a pretty decent job over the past 5 or so years so we cant really blame them over all- We all disagree sometimes with small decisions..

But they are doing an ok job at the moment. He have to back t hem really MSP.

The way they handled KP was good, the overall record is good.

Not sure about the moving of Root back to 6- that defied logic for me- but ok, now that trott has gone for a bit , Carbs at 2 and root at 3 is probably better than root at 2 and bell at 3 (adding balance and Barstow ldown the order over just ballance)

The way they let the KP situation develop to what it eventually became was pretty poor management. Credit to Cook and Prior though for taking the initiative in finding a solution. I agree the management has done a decent job over the last few years and that is creditable. I didn't say they have been doing a horrible job.
A story from long time back. England toured India in 1993 under the captaincy of Graeme Gooch. On a spinning track in Kolkata, they went in with 4 seamers as they had watched India struggle against seam and bounce in South Africa!!!. The result was!!??? But even in such a situation, some of us would, in all likelihood, said that the management would have seen something that we didn't and they shouldn't be questioned on that.......

Kp is just Kp.. Not much you can do with him. He is an individual. You have to just leave those types to it.. Impossible to be managed in a normal way

But there were things beyond IPL that pushed KP to the edge, the selective leaks, the fake twitter account, most of us have gone over it for long last year, the management certainly didn't emerge with credit in that entire saga....... Anyways all that is behind them now so not quite revisiting those, but saying that the team management doesn't always get all their selections right, that happens with any managements, but a case like that of Bresnan or Tremlett, the management backed them or backing them despite a lot of questionmarks on their fitness, and while they can take credit if it comes off, they certainly have to take the blame if it doesn't.......

They sorted it out and he came back playing well.

Perfectly dealt with for me.

Kp was the only one at fault

Many fans like to say "look i was right" about players that have been picked but may not have perfomred- but they forget about the long game and that in actual fact the selectors were right all along.

England do things slightly deferently.

If you look at players like bell - playing him constantly has worked for england. I hold my hands up and say i was wrong to question him.

Everyone on the old 606 was screaming for broads head when he first started(bar me)- but we played him fa s the project player, same thing happend to jimmy and Flinty.

Its not allways about playing th best team- you have to have one eye on the future always!

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Some people have been impatient for team news, almost since the beginning of Test cricket and often for their own selfish interests.

Just been reading again about the 'Bodyline' tour of more than eighty years ago. At an early press conference Jardine was asked ''to supply the team selections in good time as the evening papers in Sydney and Melbourne go to press at midday''. Jardine replied, ''Do you think we've come all this way to provide scoops for your bloody newspaper?''.

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Some people have been impatient for team news, almost since the beginning of Test cricket and often for their own selfish interests.

Just been reading again about the 'Bodyline' tour of more than eighty years ago. At an early press conference Jardine was asked ''to supply the team selections in good time as the evening papers in Sydney and Melbourne go to press at midday''. Jardine replied, ''Do you think we've come all this way to provide scoops for your bloody newspaper?''.

This excellent relation with the media would be one of the chief reasons as to why Jardine was so popular and much loved in Australia!!.

msp83 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Some people have been impatient for team news, almost since the beginning of Test cricket and often for their own selfish interests.

Just been reading again about the 'Bodyline' tour of more than eighty years ago. At an early press conference Jardine was asked ''to supply the team selections in good time as the evening papers in Sydney and Melbourne go to press at midday''. Jardine replied, ''Do you think we've come all this way to provide scoops for your bloody newspaper?''.

This excellent relation with the media would be one of the chief reasons as to why Jardine was so popular and much loved in Australia!!.

Indeed.

However, still preferable as far as I'm concerned to the waffly ''all things to all people'' soundbites that we're too often forcefed in all walks of life.

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Aus names same side....and decide against playing Faulkner....a good 24 hour before the match

With Eng as ususual  every thing seems possible.....Bresnan, Ballance, Bairstow, Finn, Stokes and now even Monty all seem posisble .......in their own interest they should name the side by now

Some people have been impatient for team news, almost since the beginning of Test cricket and often for their own selfish interests.

Just been reading again about the 'Bodyline' tour of more than eighty years ago. At an early press conference Jardine was asked ''to supply the team selections in good time as the evening papers in Sydney and Melbourne go to press at midday''. Jardine replied, ''Do you think we've come all this way to provide scoops for your bloody newspaper?''.

This excellent relation with the media would be one of the chief reasons as to why Jardine was so popular and much loved in Australia!!.

Indeed.

However, still preferable as far as I'm concerned to the waffly ''all things to all people'' soundbites that we're too often forcefed in all walks of life.

Some originality certainly makes for a much better reading experience.

I bet that comment sold a few papers any way

From what Cook was saying in his press conference about the pitch and the balance etc, i wouldnt be suprised if this side was named:

1.Cook (c)
2.Carbs
3.Root
4.KP
5.Bell
6.Stokes
7.Prior (wk)
8.Broad
9.Swann
10.Anderson
11.Monty

Going for Monty and stokes.

A bit lite on the batting CF?

The only thing most pundits seem agreed on is that Tremlett ain't playing! Slightly surprising as he came through the first Test better than many of us (certainly me) feared.

His figures were not embarrassing at all.

Bresnan is the go to player,

mystiroakey wrote:Going for Monty and stokes.

A bit lite on the batting CF?

i never said that would be my side, i said i think thats the side that will play based on Cook's press conference, also is a top order batsman for Durham

I think ballance will get it.

But I would go for stokes if we played the extra spinner

mystiroakey wrote:His figures were not embarrassing at all.

Bresnan is the go to player,

This sums up why I am certain England have a better attack than Australia. Tremlett never let anyone down, Bresnan is proven at Test level, there are some that feel Finn merits a place in the side and Monty stands by should this be a spinning wicket. Who do Australia have waiting in the wings should Johnson lose form or a bowler is injured? We know from last summer their options are limited.

Tremlett should never have gone out there, he's played f/c cricket all summer... and craig im sorry but australia have a long line of fast  bowler, they have a lot of them injured, but when they're fit, they have a much longer line of quicks than we do..

Harris,Siddle,Johnson,Pattinson,Starc,Hilfenhaus,Copeland,Coulter-Nile,Bollinger,Cummins....there's more as well.

Root at 3, Ballance at 6, and reliable Tim in for Tremlett - is my preferred option.

Wouldn't be too surprised though if Stokes came in at 6, or even Bairstow for that matter, but my jaw would drop a little bit if Panesar played.

There's no doubting England's ability to bounce back, but is the pitch too flat to force a result?

CF wrote:Tremlett should never have gone out there, he's played f/c cricket all summer... and craig im sorry but australia have a long line of fast  bowler, they have a lot of them injured, but when they're fit, they have a much longer line of quicks than we do..

Harris,Siddle,Johnson,Pattinson,Starc,Hilfenhaus,Copeland,Coulter-Nile,Bollinger,Cummins....there's more as well.

Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Tremlett, Finn, Onions, Rankin, Dernbach, Shahzad, Mills

Our bowling can force a result, so can there's..

I can't see either batting side holding on in any conditions.

Duty281 wrote:Root at 3, Ballance at 6, and reliable Tim in for Tremlett - is my preferred option.

Wouldn't be too surprised though if Stokes came in at 6, or even Bairstow for that matter, but my jaw would drop a little bit if Panesar played.

There's no doubting England's ability to bounce back, but is the pitch too flat to force a result?

the word is, the pitch is very dry and will spin.

Win the toss.

Bat first

Game won.

Big game for prior, im a big fan of his and think he will come good, but places where you go, there are just whispers of people losing faith in Prior and thinking Bairstow may not be far away from taking his place...come on Matty Prior!!!!!

mystiroakey wrote:Win the toss.

Bat first

Game won.

Or lose the toss, bowl first and have Australia 0/2 after the first over!

That's not like you duty.

Surely you mean 0/7 after the first over.. (Including one Double run out)

Duty281 wrote:

CF wrote:Tremlett should never have gone out there, he's played f/c cricket all summer... and craig im sorry but australia have a long line of fast  bowler, they have a lot of them injured, but when they're fit, they have a much longer line of quicks than we do..

Harris,Siddle,Johnson,Pattinson,Starc,Hilfenhaus,Copeland,Coulter-Nile,Bollinger,Cummins....there's more as well.

Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Tremlett, Finn, Onions, Rankin, Dernbach, Shahzad, Mills

Dernbach? Seriously!??