Can Australia turn this around?

Like the title says, can Australia fight back?

So far in the series.

Siddle first test 8/135
Siddle second test 3/141

Starc first test 5/135
Second test dropped

Pattinson first test 5/170
Pattinson second test 2/137

Agar first test 2/106
Agar second test 0/142.

Watson first test 0/18
Watson second test 1/70

Harris second test 7/105

Batting top 6.
Watson 109 runs, average 27.25
Rogers 89 runs, average 22.25, 1 fifty.
Khawaja 68 runs, average 34, 1 fifty
Hughes 83 runs, average 27.66, 1 fifty
Clarke 102 runs, average 25.50, 1 fifty
Smith 73 runs, average 18.25, 1 fifty
Haddin 86 runs, average 21.50, 1 fifty

It seems nobody is in form, Clarke who was on fire not so long ago and who has carried the Australian batting dinglehandedly against SA is nowhere near his best, Watson still doesn't seem to me at least to be able to consistently perform in the test arena, and the batting in general still seems very vulnerable.

You surely can't blame it on foreign conditions, Anderson with 13 wickets for 238 runs, Swann with 13 wickets for 288 runs, with some contributions from the rest of their bowlers seem to have Australia's number.

I am just wondering how much Lehman can really change in such a short preparation time before the Ashes, and would it not have been more prudent to retain Mickey Arthur until at least the end of the Ashes series in England with Lehman being there in the background to assess matters from a team relation and individual mindset before taking over.

Cricket players don't all of a sudden get into bad form all at the sme time. In my view it seems there are underlying problems and I don't think you need to look further than the mood in th camp or the mental state these players are in.

What do you guys think?

My opinion - if you look at the South Africa series, take away Michael Clarke and Hussey, and we would have wiped them. Test 1, Clarke came in about 40/3, Test 2, 55/3, Test three he failed and we wiped the floor with them. Now, Clarke is out of form, and Hussey is retired. The batting line-up is being exposed for wha they really are. My unqualified diagnosis, player for player.

Watson - Shane Watson is a rare breed. His average is actually a very good indicator of what you can expect from him. This is rarely the case, but Watson, will consistently get 30-40, and get out. In my honest opinion, he isnt an opener. I know stats will be bandied out Re: his average opening vs not opening, but since he came back into the test team as a batsman who can bowl, rather than a bowler who is really good at batting, he has had, what five tests outside opening? Not a big enough pool to decide for sure. He plays around the pad, in England, and vs South Africa, with Steyns swing and Philander's movement, he is going to miss one eventually if the ball is new. Hide him from the new ball, so that when it does come his eye is in enough to overcome the quite obvious technical deficiency (hopefully). I suspect Clarke sees it the same way. But a player cant succeed unless he believes he can, and I dont think Watto believes he can suceed middle order.

Rogers - Rogers is an old-school opener. My initial feelings about him is that he will come good. Has made a few stupid mistakes to get himself out (Most u/14s would be ashamed of the Swann dismissal), but having waited so long to prove himself, I think he is too desperate to succeed, as a result he is over thinking an already complicated art. Needs to somehow get himself to believe this is just another County match. Imo he is good enough

Cowan - It is only by the grace of God that this guy has gotten himself a fistful of Australian Test caps. Hopelessly out of depth... Intelligent guy though, wrote a book, is a financial analyst. Pretty good at his secondary skill.

Khawaja - Failed in the first innings, but gutsed it out in the second, I think he is ultimately good enough to play Test Cricket for Australia. Not likely to be the next Ponting, but definitely a good batsman. Needs to improve quickly against spin. Looked lost vs Swann, and couldnt pick the googly vs Imran Tahir.

Hughes - I dont know what to think of Hughes, he simply isnt 'there' yet. Definitely has the tools to play with the big boys, but his mind seems to go walkabout mid-innings. Needs to graft harder.

Clarkus - In 2012, Michael Clarke averaged over 100, scored four double tons, two against the best team in the world, and a triple ton. Whats happened since? Well, he hasnt been out of form for long, so I hope its just a blimp. Scored a ton and a ninety in India. I think the weight is beginning to get too heavy for him. It must be incredibly difficult to know that if you fail, your team will likely fold like a cheap deck of Cards. Mentally, I think he is tiring. A year ago, he wasnt going to guide a ball to Leg-slip The long break will hopefully do him some good.

Smith - Theres a term for players like Smith, "A bit of both, not much of either" Needs to put in some shifts as a #6 bat.

Haddin - Continues to do a shockingly poor impersonation of a batting wicket-keeper. Ive preferred Matthew Wade from the beginning.

Agar - Tough to critique his bowling, had a cut on his bowling finger T1, and a hip complaint T2. But he does seem to have serious potential as a batsman. Needs to get som Shield runs to his name this summer

Siddle - Been the Australians Best player here, 100% All day every day. One of the top five seamers today

Pattinson - Okay, he has had a iffy tour with the ball, but so did Steyn on his first England tour. Definitely the centre piece for the future. Dissapointed with the unwarranted criticsm coming from the English. He wasnt threatening T2, but he bowled on day 3 at Lord's, might as well be throwing balloons at the batters.

Harris - fantastic comeback, but can the body keep going?

Starc - Is obviously good, but he hasnt played enough Test cricket to pick his moments.

Overall I would say the batters are hopelessly out of depth, and the bowlers cant do anything until then. If Clarke doesnt find Clarke Kent soon, or Watson finally realise his talent, This will get ugly!

I think, as Kingraf has pointed out, Australia's batting simply isn't up to it on a consistent basis. They are so reliant on Clarke for centuries that, if he doesn't get one, 9 times out of ten they fail to get a competative score.
Of course, that could change (though it will be extremely difficult for Australia's other batsmen to turn around their poor form so far), or Clarke could come good. But he'd have to come REALLY good and, even then, England are still likely to be able to at least match his efforts.
Trouble is for Oz, that, while there bowling is, probably, just about on a par with England's (in terms of seam bowling anyway), that is largely irrelevant due to the frailty of their batting.

It was an exceptionally sunny weekend in my part of Europe so I took my little girl for outdoor things.

and happily missed the Nadal bashing a 300 ranked qualifier 6-0, 6-1 equivalent of a cricket game.

well done Eng.....unless Aus do something drastic and top 7 get some big hundreds....this series that started with so much promise is going down the white-wash drain.
Great for England fans...and well deserved.

PS*
"Agar..the horrible-DRS-approved dissmisal to follow with Smith's catch overruling.
Technology is giving a consistent one bad decision every inning...thats a whopping 10% inspite of all mumb-jumbo stats that ICC churns out.

DRS is dying a fast death and won't be there in the current form in the next ashes series.....mark my words.

Australia are simply inferior in every department. Not much you can do about that really. England absolutely humiliated Australia in this test, and England were only 7 out of 10 on the performance stakes. Says it all really.

KP_fan wrote:It was an exceptionally sunny weekend in my part of Europe so I took my little girl for outdoor things.

and happily missed the Nadal bashing a 300 ranked qualifier 6-0, 6-1 equivalent of a cricket game.

well done Eng.....unless Aus do something drastic and top 7 get some big hundreds....this series that started with so much promise is going down the white-wash drain.
Great for England fans...and well deserved.

PS*
"Agar..the horrible-DRS-approved dissmisal to follow with Smith's catch overruling.
Technology is giving a consistent one bad decision every inning...thats a whopping 10% inspite of all mumb-jumbo stats that ICC churns out.

DRS is dying a fast death and won't be there in the current form in the next ashes series.....mark my words.

Wasn't technology that gave it out, 'twas the 3rd umpire. Besides I thought it was out anyway, so not too sure what all the fuss was about. Agar had a guilty look, there was a clear noise, and snicko confirmed it later on. I would get rid of hotspot though for the time being; it only creates confusion after all.

Agar was out because he had a guilty look??

No wonder the ump didnt give Broad.. Looks > actual evidence...



Seriously though, guys please dont ruin a perfectly decent thread with another technology argument... There are like five of them on the first page of the link. Bring them back, and let this remain a thread re: Australia and their current standing

kingraf wrote:Agar was out because he had a guilty look??

No wonder the ump didnt give Broad.. Looks > actual evidence...



Seriously though, guys please dont ruin a perfectly decent thread with another technology argument... There are like five of them on the first page of the link. Bring them back, and let this remain a thread re: Australia and their current standing

As funny as it sounds, that often gives the game away. I knew Haddin was out last Sunday as soon as England referred and the camera sjot straight to Haddin's rather guilty face.

 

Agar had a guilty look

that in itself is a big nail in the coffin of DRS

what could Australia do better?

--Rogers and Hughes have gotta go...determination and will power alone won't suffice.....need more skill.
Bring back Warner for T3
Pick Katich or Hussey or someone else who can bat better than these two

--Watson and Clarke have to convert inot big hundreds...especially Watson...his game isn't suited for opening when the ball is moving around....if he so desperately wants to open......then he's gotta deliver...or move down.

--who opens?...warner at one end and dunno who else ?

--Khawaja has a great opportunity to establish himsefl......and smith needs to bat more freely.

Honestly Australi looks two quality batsman short atleast and otehr than playing Warner in T3 I dunno what else they can do diffrently.......

Evening all.

Apologies for my absence over the last few days - work has taken a front seat, and my body clock is so messed up that when I'm not working or eating I'm sleeping...

It's been a disastrous test for Australia certainly. I think over the last couple of years there has been too much chopping and changing, and playing people in different positions, and more chopping and changing. Australia need to decide which of the current bunch of youngsters they can work with, which ones they should forget about, and give them a couple of years to gel into a team. Sure, the results may be terrible to start with, but to keep trying to find short-term solutions (as they have done since the last ashes) will only lead to continued failure (although less disastrously perhaps). You off-set your youngsters with maybe 3 more experienced players to help them along.

With that in mind, let's look at the current bunch. I agree with much of what Kingraf has said.

Rogers: I feel he could be a good guy to have around the team. Hard-working, gives his all, and knows his game. He has done ok so far, and provided some solidity at the top of the order. He has done great with the youngsters at Middlesex, and I think Australia should use him as a bit of a mentoring figure also.

Watson: having long said he should open, I am no longer so sure for the reasons others have given. In fact I am not sure he warrants all the hype he is given, and wonder about his influence on the team. there are mutterings that he is lazy and not a team player - that is fine provided you are performing, and not being a negative on the other guys. At the moment Watson is not performing. I would personally move him down the order to 4, but tell him if he bats there he's expected to score hundreds. If he can't do this within the next 6-8 test matches then it's time to look elsewhere.

Khawaja: deserves a run in the side over the next couple of years, at 3 (which is his natural position) and to be told to back himself (well though he played yesterday, it wasn't the fluent Khawaja at his best). He has genuine quality, and Australia need to tell him he is their main man, and they will build their batting around him.

Cowan: as covered by kingraf, not good enough at this level. He could have a role as an opener who sees off the new ball, but Rogers will do better I feel, and is a better guy to have around the dressing room.

Hughes: probably time to say goodbye soon. He has a lot of qualities (especially his willingness to learn and work hard) but too many defects. Give him a few years out in the first class game, and see whether he can come back a better player, but I think it's doubtful. Should still play a role in the ODI side, because the ball doesn't move around, and the spinners don't bowl with men around the bat.

Clarke: looks better at 5 than at 4. Good skipper, and needs to be around the side to help the youngsters come through.

Smith: talented as hell, and needs to be given a run at 6. Seems technically competent, but another one who needs to back himself more. Australia simply can't afford to not pick someone with his ability, and there are no better options.

Other batting options:

Warner: probably needs to be brought back, and should open. Again should be told he has a place for a while, and play the Shewag type of role - it won't succeed everywhere, but he has that ability to take the game away from the opposition. A player as aggressive as him should open, because there are more gaps at the start of the innings, so his miscues are less likely to get him into trouble.

Bailey: looks good in ODIs, and although his first class record isn't the best, he could make the step up and prove a useful stop-gap. To be considered should Watson not perform at 4.

Voges: similar to Bailey, he's been around for a while, and could be a useful stop-gap.

Shaun Marsh: the forgotten man of Aussie cricket. Looked really good at the start of his test career, suffered that horrible series against India, and not heard of since. He has undoubted quality, and could be an option either at 4 or as an opener replacing Rogers if the latter doesn't perform. Doubts over his work ethic though which is a worry.

Doolan: rated highly by some, I haven't seen him play so can't really judge. However I believe Australia need to back their current youngsters, so Doolan's chance should only come in 18 months or 2 years if Khawaja/Smith/Warner don't perform.

Keepers: Wade and Paine are the future, and at least after this series need to be given their chance. I like what I've seen of Wade, he is far from the finished article, but has a compact technique, and can hit the ball if necessary. I'd pick him, and back him.

The key though has to be to give the youngsters an extended opportunity. It is not good to give them a few tests, drop them or shuffle them, then give them another few tests. IMO Warner, Khawaja and Smith all have the ability to succeed at test level: they need to be backed and told to go out there and play their natural games, without fear that a couple of bad innings will see them chopped. Clarke obviously commands a place, which leaves 2 more places in the line-up, which I would leave with more experienced players: at the moment Rogers and Watson, but if these two don't perform then the likes of those given above should come in. The experienced players are given less leeway than the youngsters.

Onto the bowling.

Agar: I like as a cricketer. Australia have done so much chopping of their spinner in recent times it is unreal. As with the batting, someone needs to be given an extended run, and Agar looks like he can at least keep things tight and score runs. In time I think he could develop into a good spinner, and Australia need to give him that time. there is a lot of talk of Fawad Ahmed, who I haven't seen so can't comment on.

Siddle: needs to be the experienced guy in the team to help the youngsters on. Should take on more responsibility as a leader, which he is starting to do.

Then the likes of Pattinson, Starc, Cummins, Hazzlewood: Australia are well endowed here. Pattinson hasn't bowled well this tour, but I still think could be special. Starc not sure in a 4-man attack (a bit of a Harmison type in that he's either unplayable or unbowlable). Maybe back the other 2.

There is quality and potential there, but it needs to be better managed. Hopefully Lehmann is the man to do it.

MIke

Some interesting thoughts. If I am reading you correctly, you are suggesting at least in the short term a batting line-up of:

Warner
Rogers
Khawaja
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Wade

So only a couple of changes, and even then Warner would probably have been in the lineup bar his indiscretions in the early part of the tour. Obviously he's a high risk player to have opening - if he bats for a session he'll give you a flying start, but it won't work every time especially in England with the ball moving and not necessarily coming through very well.

Some good points made about Watson -he has a decentish record as a test batsman in terms of average (jus shy of 35) but only 2 hundreds (with 19 50s). He's good at getting started but just doesn't push on often enough. The other question then is whether he bowls enough to justify his place as an all-rounder (again, his average of just below 31 is certainly competent, but he only averages 1 wicket per innings bowled or 1.5 wickets a match). The vulnerability to the inswinging ball means his position as an opener has to be questioned, but will he do any better at 4-5-6 especially if the ball starts to reverse?

As for Agar, I think he is clearly a player with a future, but I'm not convinced the future is now - probably needs a season or two of Shield cricket to just develop a bit more of the 'smarts' needed to be an effective attacking finger spinner and to hone the batting talent into a more dependable technique. By the next Ashes tour to England he could be a very fine player, but I think Lyons probably should come back in for the rest of this series.

And then the seam bowling - the consensus was that this was a strength for the Aussie team, abut while it's clearly not as weak as their batting I'm not convinced it is all that great. Siddle is a whole-hearted trier and makes the most of what he has, but he's at the level I would describe as a good Test player rather than an outstanding one.
Harris has an outstanding record, but is so fragile that he has only played 13 Tests coming up to his 34th birthday. Not someone you can have as the foundation of a bowling attack.
Pattinson is clearly a talented young player but isn't quite getting it right yet this tour.
Starc - Agree with Mike's assessment of sometimes unplayable, sometimes unbowlaable. That can only be accommodated if you have a 4th seamer who can carry the load on his bad days, and I'm not sure Watson has the capacity to bowl sufficiently to allow that.

Gilchrist on TMS yesterday was discussing the problem of the 'missed' generation - because the Aussies were so good for so long, the generation of players including Punter, Hussey, McGrath and Warne stayed in the side for a long time and there were few experienced players on hand (other than Clarke) that the next team could be built around. It's a bit like what happened with the England rugby team after 2003 - a great team but little by way of a succession plan.

Just as a follow-up, I've had a quick look at the partnership stats for Australia's batting. Can't be many series where after 4 innings a team's 10th wicket has the highest partnership average and has contributed the highest partnership in one innings and the second highest in every other.

Wicket Average Best
1st 42.25 84
2nd 10.75 27
3rd 5.75 13
4th 45.5 98
5th 18.25 55
6th 3.5 5
7th 16.75 43
8th 5 8
9th 13.25 30
10th 73.75 163

Shows the issue that the commentators raised yesterday - once a wicket or two start to go, this lineup tends to lose wickets in clusters and rarely seems able to halt the slide.

I think with Watson you can't bat him at 5 or 6 because he gets bogged down a bit too easily particularly against spin (4 or nothing...). He should however be one of Australia's main batsmen - coming in at 3 or 4, once the ball isn't new anymore, but before it starts reversing, and scoring proper hundreds. That's what I'm suggesting with him, but I emphasise that he needs to be told that 30s and 40s aren't good enough from him.

With regards to the rest of the line-up, I just think Australia have reached such a low point, that it is time to rebuild properly. IMO that means investing in some of their youngsters, so giving them time and playing them in their proper positions. For me, Hughes is not the answer (and I have long been a Hughes fan) - there are simply too many faults in his game. There are faults in Warner, Khawaja and Smith of course, but I see more in them, and feel that given time and a sufficient run in the side they could become good test cricketers.

There will be failures along the way of course, and some even more drastic than the one just gone by, but it's crucial that the selectors be brave and stay their course (and ignore the press who will have a field day when this happens). As I said, a lot of the recent problems come down to the fact that there has been no stability, and the environment is not conductive in any way to young players performing.

Agar will learn more by playing test cricket than shield cricket over the next 2 years IMO. If he has the right character to be a successful test spinner then he won't be put off by struggling for a couple of years whilst his game comes on. The difference between him and Lyon (currently) is not so great that this will harm Australia significantly, and even if he did, we are talking long term strategy and that is more important. The only question is whether at this stage in his development playing him in test matches will do more harm than good - I believe not, because I think his temparament is sound, and moreover if that were the case then I don't believe he has what it takes to be an international spin bowler.

Try it, give it time and stay the course. There will be some crushing defeats (even more so than the previous game) but ultimately Australian cricket will be stronger for it.

dummy_half wrote:
Shows the issue that the commentators raised yesterday - once a wicket or two start to go, this lineup tends to lose wickets in clusters and rarely seems able to halt the slide.

I think a lot of this is down to mindset, and a lot of that can be traced to instability of the team. The thought process of the new batsmen (and indeed the remaining not out batsman) always seems to be "must not get out, must not get out" - as a consequence they go into their shell, forget that the purpose of batting in test cricket is still to score runs, and of course... get out. A particularly illustrative example was Hughes and Smith in the previous innings - both normally strokemakers, yet neither dared to play a shot in anger.

Similar to the one-day match against England in the CT when they didn't dare play a shot mostly.

Some, maybe a lot of Australia's problems could be resolved by creating an environment in which it is not only OK but encouraged to take risks, where people are encouraged to think positively.

Mike Selig wrote:...
I think a lot of this is down to mindset, and a lot of that can be traced to instability of the team. The thought process of the new batsmen (and indeed the remaining not out batsman) always seems to be "must not get out, must not get out" - as a consequence they go into their shell, forget that the purpose of batting in test cricket is still to score runs, and of course... get out.
...

I've heard similar said about playing golf - try to avoid emphasising the negative (must not drive out of bounds, into the lake/bunker), as once you have that thought process, the inevitable happens and you do the exact thing you are focussing on avoiding.

There is research out there which says that by saying something like "don't bowl a wide" you make it more likely that the bowler will do so - simply by uttering the word "wide" you have put the notion into his head. Personally I don't know nearly enough about psychology, but if that's what science tells you...

The point about batting positively as opposed to just protecting your wicket is more tangible though: by going into a trench mentality you let the bowler dictate terms and settle into a groove, which makes it more likely for him to work you over, or bowl that unplayable ball. Taking the fight to the bowler (this doesn't mean trying to slog him into the stands, but simply using your feet and knocking it short of mid-on for a single) puts you more in charge, and gives him a problem which he has to solve.

Can Australia turn this around?


No  

Agree with a lot of what Mike has said. But I totally disagree on Agar. His main job is to be the spinner in a 4 man +Watson attack. His bowling hasn't really looked anywhere near good enough to take on that responsibility at this stage of his career. Nathan Lyon is not Shane Warne. But of all the spinners that Australia tried out after Warne and MacGill, he has certainly been the best. The India tour was quite a learning experience for Lyon, and by the end of it, he came out a better player. It was unfair to drop him for the first, though it was reasonable to give young Agar another test after his efforts with the bat in the first game. Agar might even make a better bat than say Phillip Hughes at this stage of his career, but Australia should bring Nathan Lyon back in for the next game. He's unlikely to spin England to defeat in the next game, but the attack should have a bit more balance with him in there.
As for the batting, Phillip Hughes' first innings of the tour in fact played into England's hands. He's not consistent enough or technically good enough to be a test batsman for Australia at this stage. Might get some runs on a really flat track against a not so focused bowling attack, or might successfully slog his way to a few, but clearly not good enough at this stage. A highest score of 81 not out, yet he averages 27 after 4 innings. Tells you everything you need to know. If you need further details, check the scorecards of the 4-0 series in India.
And despite all his troubles, David Warner should come back in to the side, he's better than most available options they have. But as they've send him to Zimbabwe, it looks unlikely that he'll be playing the 3rd test at least. I'd stick with Watson for now at the top along with Rogers for a couple of tests at least. Warner did well in the middle order for his IPL team. While performances in a domestic T-20 league in India is a far cry from a test match in English conditions, I did like the look of Warner in the middle order. And before his latest offfield issues, his batting form wasn't great either. But if Watson doesn't get it all back together at the top soon, I would have him and Warner interchanging their positions. The rather shocking reality is that Shane Watson has been Australia's top scorer in the series so far!.
Rogers
Watson
Khawaja
Warner
Clarke
Smith
Wade
Harris
Siddle
Pattinson
Lyon

And Lyon too is a young man, but unlike Agar, he has decent test and first class experience, and that seems to have improved him as a bowler. So no point wasting all that away at this stage.

I am not too fussed TBH between Agar and Lyon - it's just that I like what I've seen of Agar so far as a cricketer, person and bowler. I see a lot of potential there, and Warnie agrees with me.

I just feel Australia need to invest in a spinner rather than continuously chop and change at the first sign of trouble. I'd go for Agar, but if Australia feel Lyon is significantly the better bowler then go for him, and stick with it.

msp83 wrote:And Lyon too is a young man, but unlike Agar, he has decent test and first class experience, and that seems to have improved him as a bowler. So no point wasting all that away at this stage.

Maybe Lyon could come in at OT.
Clarke doesn't seem averse to using Watson as one of his main bowlers. Could OZ go in with two spinners, Siddle, Harris/Pattinson + Watson in Manchester? Or would that be a little light on the seamer front?

Lyon has to play at Old Trafford. County Championship matches recently suggest that the ball will turn and bounce.

If Pietersen is unfit, there was even suggestion of calling up Monty rather than a batsman. Cannot see the current management deviating from their 6 batsmen policy though.

LondonTiger wrote:Lyon has to play at Old Trafford. County Championship matches recently suggest that the ball will turn and bounce.

If Pietersen is unfit, there was even suggestion of calling up Monty rather than a batsman. Cannot see the current management deviating from their 6 batsmen policy though.

Not with Root as our second spinner!!
Do you think the Aussies would bring in Lyon for a seamer though, and go with two spinners, two seamers + Watson?

LondonTiger wrote:Lyon has to play at Old Trafford. County Championship matches recently suggest that the ball will turn and bounce.

If Pietersen is unfit, there was even suggestion of calling up Monty rather than a batsman. Cannot see the current management deviating from their 6 batsmen policy though.

Regarding selecting Monty instrad of KP - if that happens I'll be checking for airborne pigs...

If England want to go down the route of having a second spin option who turns the ball the opposite direction to Swann, then it's more likely to be an all-rounder like Rashid or Patel, so that the batting isn't so undermined - while Prior (if he finds some form) is good enough to bat at 6, I don't see Bresnan as a strong enough bat to play 7, especially when the top order has been a bit hit and miss so far. Other option could be to drop Bresnan for Monty and bring in a stronger batsman who can be the third seamer (Woakes?). Don't see either as that likely though, as I think Swann + Root as an occasional spinner is sufficient in that department.

Lyon is far more likely to take wickets, and keep things tight - rather than Agar. Agar was really poor on Saturday.

I would really like to see taylor come in for KP(i hope he isnt fit)

LondonTiger wrote:Lyon is far more likely to take wickets, and keep things tight - rather than Agar. Agar was really poor on Saturday.

I've got a feeling they'll persevere with Agar though, and with Watson opening. Both were statements of intent by Lehmann, would it not look a bit 'weak' to change those decisions so quickly? Or would it be seen as being adaptable?

why have smith and agar in the team?

what sense does this make.

its like england having ravi and patel in ours..(ok ravi isnt a spinner but its close to the same thing

no sense to it, they allready have one allrounder in watson that isnt fireing properly and probally shouldnt play in the opening spot..

Aus need to play to there strengths- That is bolwing at the moment. They have to just hope for the best with that, pick there best bolwers and pray that clarke and co will get a few runs

mystiroakey wrote:why have smith and agar in the team?

Not saying I agree with picking Agar, or with having Watson open. I just think that both decisions were statements of intent by Lehmann and the Aussie selectors and they may be a bit loathe to reverse those decisions after only two tests.
I could be completely wrong, of course, but we'll see.

I see none of you have yet addressed my question in regards to Lehman and whether he should have only been observing whilst Arthur took charge of this Ashes series.

I firmly believe half the problems lie within the team environment and not the skill levels of the players.

Biltong wrote:

I firmly believe half the problems lie within the team environment and not the skill levels of the players.

Definitely team environment might well be a contributing factor. Many of the Aussies commenting on the Age or Sydney Morning Herald websites, see Clarke as a poor man-manager, and Watson as selfish and arrogant.
I can sort of understand CA's decision to get rid of Arthur if they thought he had failed to address problems in the dressing room. After all, it's easier to get rid of the coach than your captain and best player, in the hope that a new coach might be able to get the team back together. And would Lehmann have needed a period to observe the team? He would have been quite close anyway, being A team coach, so I'm sure he'd have known about any problems that existed in the dressing room when he took the job on.

Biltong wrote:I see none of you have yet addressed my question in regards to Lehman and whether he should have only been observing whilst Arthur took charge of this Ashes series.

I firmly believe half the problems lie within the team environment and not the skill levels of the players.

The batsmen do not possess the skills needed to thrive in this form of the game - certainly not based on their Domestic performances, but they are probably the best available. The seam bowlers are good though.


the team environment is a major issue - hence really why Arthur had to go immediately. The man who has presided over the team becoming such a toxic bunch coudl not be allowed to stay.

They can't turn it round this tour as England are far superior in these conditions. They should more or less stick with the players they have got as they would appear to be the best available, a lot of them are quite young and you would think 4 or 5 will come through. Then start building for the future.

Clarke may be a poor man-manager I wouldnt know, Im not in the team),but since he isnt a selector anymore (a decision, which I think might have been wrong, he had 50% success rate while selecting his team) it really shouldnt matter. The problem is that there is no stability in CA. Arthur had to go. Aus lost a series 4-0, and failed to make it to the KO of CT. Simply not good enough.

In my mind, there are a few problems which combined to create a perfect storm for ineptude.

1) The "missing generation" Its probably true..
2) Bad selection - A guy like Phil Jacques retired from international cricket averaging 48 after 11 tests.. Simon Katich is a difficult call, as I assume CA realised it was a "pick one" between him and Clarke... And they went for Clarke, same thing happened with Smith and Klusenar when Smith started his captaincy.
3) Big Bash League ( and IPL) - Not so much BBL itself, as The money its far more lucrative then four dayers, and this has created a wormhole effect.
4) An ever changing CA - There is no stability, at all
5) Poor talent identification - How many players currently in the Aus team went through the age ranks?

I didn't think putting all the blame on Mickey Arthur was fair. Michael Clarke had to take equal responsibility as well. He looks like a decent taction, and is an attacking captain who takes a few chances in looking for wickets. But he doesn't seem a good man manager and appears to be rather highhanded in his dealings with the players. Clarke might look back to the moment he used his powers to ensure Simon Katich axed from the national side in a new light after thee difficult times over the last 6 months or so. Even Mike Hussey mentioned that he wasn't sure of being to go out on his own terms if he had extended his playing career, and even hinted that he never announced his retirement well in advance because of some feelings of insecurity. The likes of Hughes who are perceived by many as Clarke's chums are not up to test standards, and the probable feelings that Clarke's role as selector wasn't been fair on some players might have acted against him within the team.
Of course stories of rift almost always follow a losing team, and there is not as much to read into the perceived rift between Clarke and Watson as is projected by the media. However it does seem that Clarke's mismanagement of the all-rounder has created a difficult situation for captain Clarke himself and the team.
Should Australia also look for a new leader after this series if things continue to go south for the team?

I think the feeling with Arthur was that he'd so completely lost the dressing room that a change was needed urgently. If that's true, then I believe CA got the call right and were being proactive. Keeping on Arthur with Lehmann staring over his shoulder would have created even more tension, and merely been a fudge - I don't see what good could possibly have come of such an approach.

I actually think the "rift" between Clarke and Watson has been very much exaggerated. According to someone I know, it was a case of Clarke blowing up at a training session because he felt Watson wasn't pulling his weight, and things cascaded from there. Not much in it.

However there is this perception that Clarke's man-management skills aren't the best. Without being close to the team, it's not something we can necessarily judge, and needn't be terminal, if there are other guys who can take on the man-management role. The problem is Watson isn't, Rogers is finding his feet in test cricket, and Haddin is struggling enough with his own issues. In my view, someone like Siddle or Harris (if he's fit) need to take on more responsability with this aspect as the more experienced members of the side.

I think it is safe to say Clarke's man management abilities are not as sound as his tactical abilities on the field. In a struggling time like Australia at the moment, I believe the captain's player management abilities off the field matter a great deal more than a very successful outfit. Both kind of sides need man management, but the demands might a bit different. MS Dhoni's India under Garry Kirsten included a lot of senior players who were performing well, and the captain and coach needed to give them enough space to express themselves. But an upcoming side like the present India one would need a more hands on approach without being too rigid on the players. I wonder whether Clarke got the balance right with Kattich, Watson and Warner?

I think Agar has to go really, especially for OT.

Joe Root and Steve Smith managed to bowl threatening spells at Lords, he looked harmless. You do feel his test debut has come a few years too soon.

Batsmen just aren't good enough ultimately. State of it is to persevere with the likes of Hughes and Smith and hope something clicks in time.

Good crop of seamers though.

Pattinson's out for the rest of the series through injury.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse....

Changing captains is not a smart idea, imo. Clarke has proven himself to be one of the best captains in the world. You fire him and go to who? Watson?

Like I said re: Katich and Clarke one had to go. I think Australia picked the right guy. Katich was/is/remains old, and its not the first time a team had to make a choice.

Simply put, no they can't. To beat us in just one test they would have to play phenomenally well or for us to play really poorly. You have to consider that barring Bell and Root our batsman are having quite a poor series and if they can find some form then the margin of victory for us may be even bigger.

Also with the loss of James Pattinson they have lost a player who 'could' win a match for them. England tactic of wearing teams down seems to be working already.

Duty281 wrote:Pattinson's out for the rest of the series through injury.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse....

Well he has been rather injury prone. Ryan Harris fitness problems mean he is unlikely to play more than one more test in this series as well.

So yet another stress fracture for an Australian bowler. What's that now? 6 or 7 in the last year. A stress fracture is generally an indication of workloads not being managed properly so that side of the Australian team needs to be questioned.

I also see Peter Bruckner is the team doctor. He was at Liverpool FC in 11/12 before being let go. We had plenty of injuries during that season, most notably players would return from injury only to get reinjured shortly afterward - Gerrard in particular played very little part yet was able to play a full 35 PL games last season.

Vaughan made a good point.

A lot of Aus players will be carrying the mental baggage of lost Ashes series.

Clarkes 4/5; Haddin, Siddle, Hughes, Watson 3/3

I doubt they can "turn it around" in the sense of winning the series. I think , as I did before the start , that England are a significantly stronger team.
However I would not dismiss their chances of rebounding to be much more competitive at Old Trafford - conceivably even getting a win should England let their guard down , though I think that a little unlikely. The gap between teams often appears wider than it really is when one side gets on top early in a match (especially when their advantage is obtained quickly and dramatically after the game seemed to have been going quite well for the eventual loser , as was the case at Lord's )
Remember Australia came within a handful of runs of stealing a victory in the first match - though in truth it would have been a slightly freakish piece of larceny had they pulled it off.

First problem they have is settling on a team. Only Clarke , Siddle , and Khawaja (for now) have really assured their places on form and past record. And Harris of course ,if his fragile body is deemed safe to be sent out on what may be a tough pitch for the seamers.
Smith has done well enough one way or another , Watson for all his faults offers something with both bat and ball , and Rogers is unlikely to be ditched at this time ,though I doubt he will be playing many more Test Matches. Agar has disappointed with the ball , but could survive on his allrounder promise , perhaps as a spin partner for Lyon? Two spinners at Old Trafford might be worth trying...Alternatively Bird could come in for Pattinson : his accuracy could be handy. Bowling places may come down to performances in the Sussex game , with Faulkner also in
contention.
Which would leave a choice of Haddin or Wade for keeper , and Warner
or Hughes for the last batting spot. Not sure there is all that much between what is a rather undistinguished squad of batsmen , so it must come down to attitude , and Lehmann will be well placed to make that call.

Will Warner be made available for the 3rd test though? I said it at the beginning of the series, Australia going in with 4 bowlers and the all-rounder Faulkner may not be a bad idea at all. Faulkner is not less likely to score as much as the likes of Hughes does. With the availability of 5 bowlers and Watson, the frontline seamers would have a bit less of a workload. The horrendous batting inflicted extra workload has already played a part in cutting Pattinson's tour down. A 5th bowler won't be a bad idea at all. In that context, they can even consider going in with both Lyon and Agar if the track is set to really spin without compromising on the seam bowling depth.

Agar is in the Australia "A" squad (see my thread), so I dont think he is playing in Manchester. Warner was not on the team sheet, so he might be playing

kingraf wrote:Agar is in the Australia "A" squad (see my thread), so I dont think he is playing in Manchester. Warner was not on the team sheet, so he might be playing

So Lyon in for Agar?
Warner in for?

Might be Warner for Pattinson.

My Aus team would prob look like

Watson
Rogers
Khawaja
Clarke
Hughes
Smith
Wade
Siddle
Harris
Lyon
Ahmed