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.

I think you should always have a spinner in the side. The pitch will offer bounce and the spinner can be helped in that respect. Also if the quicks are getting hit everywhere then bringing a spinner on can quieten things down a bit and offer a bit of variation. After facing quicks all day a spinner can be tricky early on.

Finn the only change for me for extra pace. Bresnan doesn't justify getting selected because for me, Stokes can do just as good a job as the 4th seamer and offers more with the bat.

KP??? Let's just take a moment to remember he didn't even make the Natal 2XI as a spinner.... and that was when South Africa quite literally had 0 spinners (just slow right/left arm)

Root is a part-time bowler who I don't think has even bowled in this series so can't be expected to carry a spin attack. I would sooner have Swann or Panesar in there in place of Bresnan or Finn as you already have pace of Anderson, Broad and Stokes.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
Yes, I think I would agree with that subject to the obvious and important caveat that the selectors are comfortable with Finn's bowling in the nets (a shame there are no more practice games) and general frame of mind. If Finn is picked, it needs to be for what he is now and not for what he was and what we would wish him to be; that really sums up why I wouldn't have chosen Tremlett for the first Test.

I think Guildford makes the point I have put in bold rather neatly. It would be reasonable I think to widen that point and also relate it to Tremlett's selection for the tour in the first place.  This may well be seen as indicative of something faulty in England's mind set.  On how many occasions during last season did Tremlett actually look like a player well on the way returning to international class after a long layoff?  

Thanks, Corporal. I trust your question was intended to be rhetorical.   

my test match ratings

AUSTRALIA

David Warner - 8
Chris Rogers- 7
Shane Watson - 7
Michael Clarke - 8
Steve Smith - 4
George Bailey - 5
Brad Haddin - 9
Mitchell Johnson - 10 (7-40 outstanding!)
Peter Siddle - 7
Ryan Harris - 8
Nathan Lyon - 6

ENGLAND: 

Alistair Cook - 4
Michael Carberry - 6
Joe Root - 7
Kevin Piertesen - 7
Ian Bell - 7
Ben Stokes - 6
Matt Prior - 6
Stuart Broad - 5
Graeme Swann - 4
James Anderson - 6
Monty Panesar - 6

No way does Kp get the same mark as root.

Root faced 330 balls or so.

The only player that was ok..

Root 7
Kp bell and carbs 6

The rest between 4 and 0

CF wrote:my test match ratings

AUSTRALIA

David Warner - 8
Chris Rogers- 7
Shane Watson - 7
Michael Clarke - 8
Steve Smith - 4
George Bailey - 5
Brad Haddin - 9
Mitchell Johnson - 10 (7-40 outstanding!)
Peter Siddle - 7
Ryan Harris - 8
Nathan Lyon - 6

ENGLAND: 

Alistair Cook - 4
Michael Carberry - 6
Joe Root - 7
Kevin Piertesen - 7
Ian Bell - 7
Ben Stokes - 6
Matt Prior - 6
Stuart Broad - 5
Graeme Swann - 4
James Anderson - 6
Monty Panesar - 6

can you start with 0 as the lowest and re-rank instead of 4.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Yes I can see your readoning Olly but Perth does have a habit of taking spin late on. No spinners at all is too big a risk for me. Besides spinners have the other purpose - they can take the workload off seamers for extended spells.

I just feel the Aussies have swann on the rack a bit, and Monty for me wouldn't justify being in ahead of bresilad or finn

Cook - 0
Carberry - 5
Root - 7
KP - 5
Bell - 6
Stokes - 6 (decent second innings knock and good with the ball)
Prior - 5
Broad - 3
Swann - 2
Anderson - 3
Panesar - 3

Maybe but you cant go to Perth without a specialist spinner. Australia certainly won't so England have to cover all eventualities. There is still room in the attack for Anderson, Broad, Stokes and Finn (or Bresnan) so there is enough pace options there and the added variety of spin is maintained.

Liam wrote:Cook - 0
Carberry - 5
Root - 7
KP - 5
Bell - 6
Stokes - 6 (decent second innings knock and good with the ball)
Prior - 5
Broad - 3
Swann - 2
Anderson - 3
Panesar - 3

more realistic

Liam wrote:Cook - 0
Carberry - 5
Root - 7
KP - 5
Bell - 6
Stokes - 6 (decent second innings knock and good with the ball)
Prior - 5
Broad - 3
Swann - 2
Anderson - 3
Panesar - 3

Think Prior probably deserves a 6 - didn't make any errors behind the stumps and a 50+ and a failure is acceptable for a keeper batsman. Root down to 6 and Carberry up to 6 and the rest are about right.

Not sure why everyone's so keen on rating Warner above Rogers TBH. Sure Warner got a fancy 80odd 2nd time around, but the game was surely already won by then pretty much, whereas Rogers top scored on day 1, probably in the less easy batting conditions of the match, and helped set the game up. I would rank Rogers's batting as more important, and although I accept that Warner may get a bonus mark for his catch, that to my mind puts him even at best (it should be noted also that Rogers took a couple of smart catches).

I would go something like:
Warner 7
Rogers 7
Watson 7 (gains a mark for his bowling, which was important)
Clarke 9 (gains a mark for his catching and captaincy)
Smith 4
Bailey 6
Haddin 8
Johnson 9
Harris 8 (gains a mark over Siddle for his bright 50, and excellent catching in the deep)
Siddle 7
Lyon 6

Cook 1 (I don't tend to give 0s, but this was close - nothing against the guy but he had a shocking test)
Carberry 5 (loses mark for fielding; in fact could lose more than a mark, but it seems harsh to rate him below a 5)
Root 7
KP 4 (sorry but runs in the 2nd innings cannot get rid of that terrible terrible shot in the first; and I'm usually a fan)
Bell 6.5 (Twas a very good first innings knock)
Stokes 6
Prior 6.5 (kept well also; out to a superb piece of bowling 1st innings so gets an extenuating circumstance for that)
Broad 4 (loses a mark for dreadful 2nd innings shot)
Swann 2
Anderson 5 (the pick of the England bowlers after Stokes, which isn't saying much)
Panesar 4 (gains a mark for gutsy batting but loses it for still being rubbish in the field)