3rd Ashes Test, Perth

First topic message reminder :

Western Australia next, which means staying up even later to watch the start of the third test.

You would think Perth is one place the Aussies should win, so what do we do?

Panic, and drop Swann, but leave Monty in? Or perhaps play four or five seamers? Has Stokes done enough? He showed plenty of attitude, so yes, he probably has.

Has Prior done enough to see him promoted to six, as Stokes isn't one..............yet? Maybe not but we have to try and win, and playing him at six, would enable us to play five bowlers again, with Monty dropping out.

Who comes in? Finn, the 90mph quickie, with a strike rate around 50? Reliable Tim? Just coming back from injury but will give 100%, won't get smacked around, and can bat a bit. Or rankin? This would be the biggest gamble imo, as he has no test experience.

My team:

Cook
Carberry
Root
Pietersen
Bell
Prior
Stokes
Broad
Swann
Finn
Anderson

msp83,

Finn does have a very good strike rate, agreed. What he also has, he has the ability to give opposition batsmen confidence and the ability to remove any pressure that may have been built by other bowlers in a very short space of time.

I like him as a bowler but his erratic style can be just as big a bourdon as his wicket taking potential.

Just my opinion though

Name changed back?

Me thinks Linebreaker is playing with our minds early this morning. Damn Aussies and their mind games

I missed that economy rate hyping up bit, msp.

Well the control freaks are overlooking some important facts then. The horse has already bolted (re: the tour economy rates). As the captain and Prior have been saying - it's all about doing it on the field now (i.e. strike rates for batting and bowling)

Imagine if you see a house burning down and the owner standing out the front saying - oh, but thank goodness I have good fire alarm security!

I do remember Finn's very impressive strike rate last series. The question is not whether I remember... do the Blazers (they'll be wearing polo shirts in Perth no doubt) have the balls to make the right selection? It's not easy.

They will opt for Bresnan I feel - and he might be the assistance Broad needs. Then Jimmy might start to fire. It should be an intriguing match to watch.

As I said Finn would be too massive a gamble for the folkowing reasons:-

1. He is currently in turmoil with his run up. He prefers his way - the long run up which takes pace off his bowling and decreases accuracy. Whereas he looked far better with the shorter run up the England set up encouraged him to use which increased his bowling pace and accuracy. Sadly, he chose to abandon this for reasons only he can explain.

2. His form on this tour certainly doesn't do him any favours - he has been less impressive than the other bowlers in the squad.

3. Pre-tour form and he wasn't ripping up any trees either.

In short he needs to address issues with his game and implement the necessary changes if he wants another run in the England team.

Among Tremlett, Rankin and himself, its only Finn who managed a 5for in a tour game. Doubt anyone other than Broad managed it so far for England in the tour. He took 8 wickets in that match.

On the plus side, Prior and KP got runs in the second innings in Adelaide so hopefully that will have given both a little confidence. England, first and foremost, need to have one very good batting innings to also give the bowlers some confidence.

Mitchell Johnston is excellent at the WACA normally but I am still awaiting his implosion this series, actually I am more hoping for it. Sorry Linebreaker

Nachos Jones wrote:Name changed back?

Me thinks Linebreaker is playing with our minds early this morning. Damn Aussies and their mind games

Sorry, I think it was me.
The fan on my laptop struggling with the heat... I went to type in the reply box and the cursor somehow jumped up into the title box.

I promise no more mind games.  

I would love to believe you Linebreaker, I really would but you are an Aussie so mind games come automatically to you

No chance of Faulkner playing in any of the remaining matches. He suffered a broken finger in the nets this afternoon.

Panesar apparently didn't bowl in the nets yesterday due to a stiff side.

That might make him being left out an easier decision.

Meanwhile, I see that msp's old friend Tony Hill is the tv umpire for the Perth Test. Out in the middle we have Marais Erasmus and the ghastly, attention seeking Bowden.

guildfordbat wrote:Panesar apparently didn't bowl in the nets yesterday due to a stiff side.

That might make him being left out an easier decision.

Meanwhile, I see that msp's old friend Tony Hill is the tv umpire for the Perth Test. Out in the middle we have Marais Erasmus and the ghastly, attention seeking Bowden.

Poor old DRS wasn't getting much attention in the midst of Johnson's carnage and England's implosion. All that is set to change in this game!.

More news: Warner nearly decapitated by Ryan Harris in the nets. Harris was heavily strapped up around the knee and only bowled for about 15 minutes.

If he doesn't pull up well tomorrow morning there is talk of Nathan Coulter-Nile being named as a possible replacement over Doug Bollinger... who is in fine form domestically and raring to have a dash at the England batting line-up. I'm sort of worried about Harris. They all seem desperate for him to play but it is quite a big risk if he's not 100% (or in his case; slightly less than 100%)

James Pattinson is apparently about to make his return to Shield cricket soon (he looks so fit doing resistance work in the swimming pool) and young Pat Cummins will take the field in a few weeks for the BB.

I think too much emphasis has been placed on Finn's run-up as the reason of all his problems. I saw the 3rd man analysis which compared his form in New Zealand with his form against Australia, and the thing that struck me beyond his run-up was his wrist was all floppy and not cocked against Aus, so he was floating the ball (rather than bowling it) and losing control far too easily (often pushing the ball towards leg-stump).

Why his wrist position seems to have changed so much we can only guess, short of doing serious video analysis. That 3rd man segment was not, it was simply a comparative statement which claimed that the obvious difference in approach - namely the change of run-up - was clearly the reason for the change of result - namely decreased pace and accuracy. This is not necessarily the case, although it could be: it could be that the change in run-up means he is arriving at the crease in a different body shape, and naturally compensating by modifying his wrist position; it could also be that when his run-up was short he was concentrating purely on the run-up (because it felt unnatural) and the rest took care of itself (it is often easier to get things right if you don't have to think about it) whereas now he is concentrating on his wrist position, and that is leading to issues.

It looks to my relatively untrained eye that he is trying to swing the ball away from the right-hander, and getting it completely wrong, but again, this could be a cause or a consequence, and this is purely from observation of a few balls; I'm not watching Finn in the nets, or analysing his action in any great detail.

However I think fans and media are far too fixated on the run-up issue.

Mike Selig wrote:I think too much emphasis has been placed on Finn's run-up as the reason of all his problems. I saw the 3rd man analysis which compared his form in New Zealand with his form against Australia, and the thing that struck me beyond his run-up was his wrist was all floppy and not cocked against Aus, so he was floating the ball (rather than bowling it) and losing control far too easily (often pushing the ball towards leg-stump).

Why his wrist position seems to have changed so much we can only guess, short of doing serious video analysis. That 3rd man segment was not, it was simply a comparative statement which claimed that the obvious difference in approach - namely the change of run-up - was clearly the reason for the change of result - namely decreased pace and accuracy. This is not necessarily the case, although it could be: it could be that the change in run-up means he is arriving at the crease in a different body shape, and naturally compensating by modifying his wrist position; it could also be that when his run-up was short he was concentrating purely on the run-up (because it felt unnatural) and the rest took care of itself (it is often easier to get things right if you don't have to think about it) whereas now he is concentrating on his wrist position, and that is leading to issues.

It looks to my relatively untrained eye that he is trying to swing the ball away from the right-hander, and getting it completely wrong, but again, this could be a cause or a consequence, and this is purely from observation of a few balls; I'm not watching Finn in the nets, or analysing his action in any great detail.

However I think fans and media are far too fixated on the run-up issue.

Besides, Finn had generated all that pace with the longish run-up earlier. When he became England's standout ODI bowler, and bowled well in test matches against South Africa and India.......

What seems to have happened now is that he doesn't feel comfortable in the shorter run-up, and he hasn't been able to replicate his usual performances with the longish one either. He has been badly coached and completely messed around. Perhaps not playing him in international cricket till next summer won't be a bad call if they let him work with Fraser that is during that time, and not bowling in the ODIs.

Mike
 
I think I seen that 3rd man analysis, was it Botham? However I thought they were saying the same as you - that the run-up is not to blame as he was using the shorter version in New Zealand and against Australia. They also said that Finn initiated the change in run-up and was content with it so blaming England management was not particulary fair. Maybe I wasn't watching properly though, I don't know.
 
Mike Atherton also said he spoke to Finn recently and he claimed he was in good humour and was a fraction away from getting back to his best and back in England 11.

Finn has had a few issues with his action generally. When he first played for England he kept falling over after delivery ...later he kept knocking off the bails , causing an amendment to the laws. He has altered his run up length and as Mike says has recently had issues with wrist position...
Who knows how much of this is down to over coaching and what is due to his own ideas ? He isn't the only bowler who has started his career well and then become a bit erratic. (M Johnson , for example ?)

Rhythm and confidence can disappear...and it can come back. I am less concerned with historical economy and strike rates and more with what he is doing in practice. If he is looking back in the right shape he may well be a chance for Perth. Pretty clear he wasn't earlier in the tour since he was overlooked despite Tremlett not being at his sharpest before Brsbane. ( I tend to give Saker the benefit of assuming he knows what he is doing , given his past record    Doesn't meeanit is always going to work perfectly...)

Lot of fuss about the bowlers : I actually suspect Anderson , Broad + any two pace bowlers will do a job in Perth ; but unless the batting gets it right it won't be enough , so my concerns are based on having a long strong batting lineup. ie a batsman at six , then Prior and if Stokes plays it should be as a fourth seamer. Wouldn't even consider Panesar , who has not bothered the Australians at all since the first innings he had against them , where I think they rather overdid the attempt to put the new boy in his place , and he took five wickets. Since then he has some eight in four and a half Tests , at over 50 and an economy rate over four. Which doesn't make him a bad bowler : if the Aussies would agree to play England in Mumbai I would happily pick him... but in Australia finger spinners are just bit part players , and you don't want a non-batting , poor fielder in that role. I wouldn't pick Swann for this one either.
But a I said earlier , it is really up to the batsmen to turn up for this one. Hope they do - the Melbourne Test would be a bit of a damp squib if the series is already over . Though I'm sure M Clarke & co wouldn't mind   

Alfie or LB, can anyone of you tell us how the spinners have gone about in the 3rd and 4th innings in comparison to the first 2 at Perth in recent times in domestic cricket? Matthew Hayden scored his 380 there, Cook and Bell made runs there in 2006, Simonds did so in the same game, and Monty took 5 wickets.
When India won the historic Perth test in 2008, Anil Kumble picked up 4 wickets across the 2 innings, and Virender Sehwag was getting the ball to turn and bounce and picked up 2 very crucial wickets that led them towards the win.
When South Africa played there last year, Nathan Lyon took 3 wickets in the first innings, on the first day itself. Robin Peterson took 6 in the match.

Robbie P took six wickets in that Test, but it was Steyn with twin four-fers who did the heavy lifting. Perth is also the scene of Johnson's greatest hour... when he took five for two in twenty balls against S.A.

That said all this talk of Perth being a batsmans grave seems exaggerated, or at least, outdated. Perth is the venue South Africa chased 414 for the loss of four wickets. We were bundled out for 220-ish first innings there last year, but we scored 569 second knock.... Runs can be had there.

The WACA is by no means a batsmen's graveyard but more a bowlers ground in my opinion. Quick runs can be had there for a very attacking batting line up.

There should be runs to be made on any pitch that offers even bounce. I'd expect Cook, and Pietersen  to score runs, if they get in. Another thing. Can Johnson bowl well for three matches on the trot? This is not a dig, as many a fine bowler has struggled to be that good over more than a couple of games. My hope, and expectation is that MJ will throw down a couple of wides ones, in the quest of bowling to quick.

Stella - while you're making a valid argument re: Johnson's consistency. Anywhere else, and I'd think he's due a bad game, but the man practically owns the WACA. Even when he isn't bowling well he can tear it up in Perth. I simply can't see him having a poor match at the WACA in this form.

kingraf wrote:Stella - while you're making a valid argument re: Johnson's consistency. Anywhere else, and I'd think he's due a bad game, but the man practically owns the WACA. Even when he isn't bowling well he can tear it up in Perth. I simply can't see him having a poor match at the WACA in this form.

I'm aware of his record. My hope is, he'll think all he has to do is turn up. I doubt a pro will think like this but his ego may see him have too much confidence. He's due a bad game, and I get the feeling this may be it.

As an England batsmen, what approach do you think we should be taking? Do we:

a) Try and take it to the Aussie bowlers, impose ourselves and be aggressive and try and score quick runs in the hope we break Johnson's bubble and attack Lyon. Obviously the risk is being bowled out very cheaply.

b) duck, dodge, dip, dive and duck? as the great patches o'hoolahan in dodgeball once said. Maybe its the way to go, leave anything going chest height and let the bowlers bowl to you?

c) Ideally a mixture of the two?

Liam

C, I suppose?

To many careless shots have been our downfall but on the other hand, you have to be positive.

Liam Main?

I would certainly choose option A.

I think i'd edge for A as I feel we need to show a bit of fight and try and put the Aussie bowlers off and make them feel a bit of pressure. However, even though there were some positive signs in the last innings, I feel we need to play it safe first innings and just play each ball on merit and be a little more pragmatic. I feel we need to rotate the strike more also, it seems its try and hit a 4 or out. A couple of singles here and there can just as easily put a bowler off their rhythm as much as a 4 imo.

A)

But I fear its already too late.

Show some bottle England and take them on.

I just wonder if Johnson is putting himself under a lot of pressure not to fail. I think that it could be the perfect time in which to go after him so I would like to see England's batsmen give him a little stick and try to break his confidence.

Lets face it, he has been pretty much the only dangerous bowler for England this series so to take him out may just lead to England making a big score.

msp, I am not sure Finn has been poorly coached. He had to change his run-up, because he kept running into the stumps, and the shorter run-up which him and the coaching staff came up with seemed to work to an extent, but he himself said he wasn't comfortable with it. I'm not sure that's poor coaching, that's finding a solution to a (real) problem which doesn't turn out to be optimal. Coaching isn't an exact science.

On the other hand he has been poorly managed, which is a different thing. Having been England's main man in ODIs (to allow Anderson and Broad the odd rest) for a while, England inexplicably dropped him (for the supposedly more economic Bresnan, despite his higher eco rate) for the champions trophy, and for me, a lot of the issues can be traced back to that. The issue with Finn seems to be one of confidence as much as technique, and for that the England management have to take a good share of the blame: when you have someone as talented as he is, chopping him every other game is obviously not the way to go.

Anderson back in 2003 was an example of poor coaching: England identified a false problem (by which I mean his action wasn't classical, but there was nothing there which was a hindrance), and in trying to correct it actually made Anderson lose his most valuable asset - namely his ability to swing the ball. With Finn that was not the case: the problem was real (had nothing been done he'd have bowled a hell of a lot of no-balls) and the solution seemed reasonable.

To answer Liam's question, it is not so much a dichotomy as a question of intent. You can show positive intent without being reckless - too often England have gone from the extreme of no intent to playing daft shots, in part because of the pressure created (I have expanded in the past about the need to take a risk "on your terms" and not "because you feel you have to take a risk").

In particular I would like to see intent shown against Lyon (down the ground at Perth please - bounce makes the sweep a risky option) and Watson, who is a key part of this Aussie attack - Clarke regularly gives Watson a bowl when his seamers are tired and he wants to reign the run-rate in, so England should look to counter that.

Intent includes knocking the ball into gaps and running hard, or even just using your feet to put off the bowler without necessarily going through with the shot. It includes the odd risk being taken on your terms, and playing the percentages: by all means hook if you play the shot well, the ball is there, and there's only one guy out; if however the ball gets big on you, pull out of the shot - wear it is necessary. Too often England have played shots which weren't on - KP's 1st innings dismissal at Adelaide being a particularly relevant example.

The Watson point is an interesting one. He's Clarke's go to man if he needs to quieten things down. And often England allow that to happen. Yes he does bowl stump to stump and keeps it tight but we need to be looking to take plenty of singles off him, rotate the strike and keep the scoreboard ticking over.

Too often, we just block him and allows the pressure to increase through maidens and produce the loose shot and Watson has done his job. England have never really been good at taking the singles and keeping the socreboard ticking over, very apparent in ODI cricket, often its where we lose to teams like India who are very good at it in the middle overs.

The last thing you want is to try and tell Carberry to take quick singles   

Watson went at 2.09 over the summer too, it's clear that England decided just to see him off (ave = 89.50) and play him the same way as the other bowlers. Whilst that worked over the summer (Well, we won) something does need to change. Clarke has made a big deal about how he thinks Johnson is bowling so well because he is being allowed to bowl him in short, sharp spells. Get after Watson and Lyon and this takes away this option to a certain extent, although Siddle would probably bowl all day if it was needed. Or just hope for Harris to break down!

Think if I were picking the side I would go with:

Cook
Carberry
Root
KP
Bell
Ballance
Prior
Stokes
Broad
Swann
Anderson

Few issues, Stokes may not be a thrid seamer yet but he showed some potential in the previous test and the form of Rankin, Tremlett and Finn along with the unproven fitness of Bresnan would make me want to take a punt on him. If he goes though, its could be trouble so I expect to see Bressy play; not sure whether Stokes or Ballance would bat 6 in that case though, probably Ballance I would imagine.

Probably the side i'd go with as well. Tough one for Ballance on debut on this pitch and if Johnson is on a roll again. Has he got any runs recently? Stokes can do a good job with the ball, good pace he should be a decent threat on this pitch also. Showed promise with the bat last innings also.

Mike Selig wrote:msp, I am not sure Finn has been poorly coached. He had to change his run-up, because he kept running into the stumps, and the shorter run-up which him and the coaching staff came up with seemed to work to an extent, but he himself said he wasn't comfortable with it. I'm not sure that's poor coaching, that's finding a solution to a (real) problem which doesn't turn out to be optimal. Coaching isn't an exact science.

On the other hand he has been poorly managed, which is a different thing. Having been England's main man in ODIs (to allow Anderson and Broad the odd rest) for a while, England inexplicably dropped him (for the supposedly more economic Bresnan, despite his higher eco rate) for the champions trophy, and for me, a lot of the issues can be traced back to that. The issue with Finn seems to be one of confidence as much as technique, and for that the England management have to take a good share of the blame: when you have someone as talented as he is, chopping him every other game is obviously not the way to go.

Anderson back in 2003 was an example of poor coaching: England identified a false problem (by which I mean his action wasn't classical, but there was nothing there which was a hindrance), and in trying to correct it actually made Anderson lose his most valuable asset - namely his ability to swing the ball. With Finn that was not the case: the problem was real (had nothing been done he'd have bowled a hell of a lot of no-balls) and the solution seemed reasonable.

To answer Liam's question, it is not so much a dichotomy as a question of intent. You can show positive intent without being reckless - too often England have gone from the extreme of no intent to playing daft shots, in part because of the pressure created (I have expanded in the past about the need to take a risk "on your terms" and not "because you feel you have to take a risk").

In particular I would like to see intent shown against Lyon (down the ground at Perth please - bounce makes the sweep a risky option) and Watson, who is a key part of this Aussie attack - Clarke regularly gives Watson a bowl when his seamers are tired and he wants to reign the run-rate in, so England should look to counter that.

Intent includes knocking the ball into gaps and running hard, or even just using your feet to put off the bowler without necessarily going through with the shot. It includes the odd risk being taken on your terms, and playing the percentages: by all means hook if you play the shot well, the ball is there, and there's only one guy out; if however the ball gets big on you, pull out of the shot - wear it is necessary. Too often England have played shots which weren't on - KP's 1st innings dismissal at Adelaide being a particularly relevant example.

Thanks Mike.
Finn obviously had a problem with kneeing the stumps. But did the coaching staff hit up on the right solution? I remember Fraser saying that Finn being a big lad, would be more suited to a run-up that longish. As you rightly said, the coaching staff had to do something to address the issue, but I doubt whether they worked out the right solution? Again as you said, coaching isn't an exact science, but then you have to back the players when you change things around and make him feel comfortable or work with him to find an alternative solution. Coaching is not just about technique, it is also about managing the processes. The England coaching staff couldn't find the right solution to the first part, and they utterly messed up the 2nd aspect. The first is somewhat excusable, but not so with the 2nd.

As bad as the English team's batting has been I'd say the fielding has trumped it. Once a strength of this current England side it now appears the Australians are vastly superior in this department. No truly weak links and in Smith and Warner they have probably the best duo ever to appear in the same international team.

Not sure about the first test but the dropped catches definitely let Australia get away in the second and increased the pressure on the batsmen.

I personally couldn't pick Monty in a struggling team as you can see the bowler's shoulders drop with every misfield. Not sure why but his mistakes always appear to have an even more deflating effect on team moral.

Cook
Carberry (only due to no alternative)
Root
KP
Bell
Bairstow
Prior
Bresnan
Broad
Swann/Stokes (depending on what those in the know see in the pitch)
Anderson

Hibbz wrote:
Carberry (only due to no alternative)

Root could open and Bell move to 3.

Leaves me picking ballance who I know naff all about. Or...........we could send out the bat signal...............ohhhhh ravi bopara oh ravi bopara

ballanace is fine now that we have stokes in there as an all rounder.

no need for ravi again.

I take it we haven't announced the team yet?

To much respect from the punters and bookies for an England win.
I can see us turning the tide, maybe aus will be to close to thinking they have won the series and come down a notch and maybe England will play with no fear but at 2.5/1 not worth the money.

Australia win the toss again and will bat.

Team news:- Australia unchanged whilst England bring Tim Bresnan in for Monty Panesar.

So the supposition about Swann being dropped was wrong (unless Panesar's injury played a part) but the general concensus was that Bresnan would be brought in. Thoughts on the pitch by those in the know are there might be some help in the pitch early on but is a bat first wicket.

So Bresnan's back as expected. In my view, England have rightly stuck with the spinner. Graeme Swann is a class act, and its time for Swanny to produce the goods at last in this tour. Monty's injury concerns would have made the decision on whom to replace a bit easier, and they've stuck with Ben Stokes, and I hope Cook makes better use of him the bowler.

I think in these sweltering conditions Cook will have no choice but to use Stokes more.

Blimey a run out. Rogers goes to a super slick piece of fielding from Anderson. Australia 13 for 1.

Australia 1 down. Chris Rogers run-out for 11. Australia 13-1 after 2 overs.

Anderson looking far livelier both in the field and in bowling but you feel England need another two or three wickets in this morning session. Australia 23 for 1 after 5 overs.

On the other hand Broad not got his line and length sorted yet and allowing batsmen to settle. Australia 31 for 1 after 6 overs.

Flying start for Australia. 52-1 after 10 overs, they are playing it like an ODI.

Broad's back on and he gets Watson.