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

I thought you may be living in exile (like certain other highly respected members), Craig but yes I can see you are based in Edinburgh.

Warner has brought up his 50, the mistake from Prior proving very costly indeed for England. This has been a very good series for Warner. He has made runs in all the 3 games. Hundred at GABA, 83 not out at Adelaide and twin half-centuries here and the 2nd innings isn't over yet.

He's aiming to be "our Sehwag" but with an emphasis on improving his footwork, msp. A long way to go to match Viru's feats though!

Let's face it. The guy is a bully on the field.

I'm still shocked over his nasty behaviour towards Root though... even though a little light has gone on in his head since and he has apologised for what he did in that nightclub. Hopefully he will send him a Christmas card wishing him a successful 2014.

The day is going from bad to downright terrible for England. Captain Cook has put down a dolly of Anderson, and Rogers gets a life on 26. England are already paying for letting off Warner.

Linebreaker wrote:He's aiming to be "our Sehwag" but with an emphasis on improving his footwork, msp. A long way to go to match Viru's feats though!

Let's face it. The guy is a bully on the field.

I'm still shocked over his nasty behaviour towards Root though... even though a little light has gone on in his head since and he has apologised for what he did in that nightclub. Hopefully he will send him a Christmas card wishing him a successful 2014.

The glory days are sadly over for Sehwag, but he has been a major inspiration for Warner as far as his cricket and approach to test batting is concerned. It was in fact Sehwag who told Warner that he could turn himself into a better test player than a limited overs one.

Transition time for England indeed. Trouble is with virtually everyone struggling it is hard to know who needs to be transitioned outwards...

Cook is battling , but obviously safe. He needs an opening partner , and I am not certain Carberry is one for the future , though he may serve for a year or so as a stopgap (a bit like Rogers) . Root shows promise at three : so is the implication that Pietersen should be jettisoned after an underwhelming home Ashes and three poor matches here ? Bell is only three matches after a fantastic series...and number six has been raffled for three years.
As for the bowling , no-one who has been tried outside the regular four or five has presented much of a case...even the ODI tryouts haven't suggested great hope. Rankin - stll untried - is no spring chicken.
Recasting the team after a heavy defeat sounds attractive ; but it has to be done thoughtfully , not just select and hope. Australia bought more trouble on themselves with the selection punts they took in India and England , and have actually stabilized mainly by settling on much the same players they employed three years ago ! Warner has replaced Hughes , and they have a better spinner in Lyon , but everyone else except Bailey and Rogers - who probably aren't better than Ponting and Hussey   - was part of the 1-3 defeat.

I guess what I am saying is basically : don't panic. The vacant number six spot is where new batsmen should be trialled , and until someone can be found to fill it , talk of revamping the batting lineup is just that.
And the bowling too.Swann and Anderson won't last forever , so again the third pace bowler spot needs looking at : Bresnan is the best current bet , but you would like to see a young bowler who looks a reasonable alternative...perhaps Finn needs time out ? And Swann has no apparent heir , so it isn't too easy to see where they go from here.

Australia 104 without loss. There is another 44 overs to be bowled in the day. The way things are going, the Australians should be leading by 400+ by stumps.

alfie wrote:Transition time for England indeed.  Trouble is with virtually everyone struggling it is hard to know who needs to be transitioned outwards...

Cook is battling , but obviously safe. He needs an opening partner , and I am not certain Carberry is one for the future , though he may serve for a year or so as a stopgap (a bit like Rogers) . Root shows promise at three : so is the implication that Pietersen should be jettisoned after an underwhelming home Ashes and three poor matches here ? Bell is only three matches after a fantastic series...and number six has been raffled for three years.
As for the bowling , no-one who has been tried outside the regular four or five has presented much of a case...even the ODI tryouts haven't suggested great hope. Rankin - stll untried - is no spring chicken.
Recasting the team after a heavy defeat sounds attractive ; but it has to be done thoughtfully , not just select and hope.  Australia bought more trouble on themselves with the selection punts they took in India and England  , and have actually stabilized mainly by settling on much the same players they employed three years ago ! Warner has replaced Hughes , and they have a better spinner in Lyon , but everyone else except Bailey and Rogers - who probably aren't better than Ponting and Hussey   - was part of the 1-3 defeat.

I guess what I am saying is basically : don't panic.  The vacant number six spot is where new batsmen should be trialled , and until someone can be found to fill it , talk of revamping the batting lineup is just that.
And the bowling too.Swann and Anderson won't last forever , so again the third pace bowler spot needs looking at : Bresnan is the best current bet , but you would like to see a young bowler who looks a reasonable alternative...perhaps Finn needs time out ?  And Swann has no apparent heir , so it isn't too easy to see where they go from here.

Alfie, I still think Root is more suited to that number 6 role. He was such a reassuring presence in that troubled spot before they moved him up. He might do a job at 3, but his game is ideal for that number 6 position in my view.
Stokes is very promising, and he should be managed well. I think he's in the league of Finn and Root, very exciting young tallents who can offer a lot to English cricket. The first 2 have been rather badly managed, hope they correct their approach with Stokes at least.

About right , msp

England bowlers have tried hard here , and created good chances ...but Prior is having his nightmare extended to his keeping now...

Warner must feel he is bulletproof right now ; so he can play with complete freedom. Which is a daunting prospect for any fielding team!

Has a certain awful fascination about it I suppose. But feels a bit like essentially the same Test match three times in a row now...

And yes , msp : like you , I was happy with Root at six. In retrospect it seems clear that England made a serious mistake in promoting him to open , because it destabilized two positions , just when it seemed he had solved one of them. Had they persisted with Compton , he would either have claimed the spot himself or been replaced (by Carberry anyway , I guess ) but perhaps the order may have settled down better ? Of course losing Trott unexpectedly hasn't helped.

Anyway , they can only start from where they are now : and I suspect that now means Root at three unless someone else puts his hand up.
England must surely play six batsmen in Melbourne so presumably Ballance will get his chance. (I am unhappy to see that Bairstow has apparently been discarded from consideration , as I thought he was worth a bit more of a chance. But I think I am in a minority)
I don't hold out much hope of a revival in this series : they look almost broken now , and the matches are just too close together. The home summer will allow us to have a look at how well they can rebuild.

As for Finn : I know you rate him highly , and are critical of the way he has been handled. I am not sure it is all down to poor management though...he has always been inclined to inconsistency , which has meant he has found it hard to command a regular place.
I am sure England would love to have him bowling at 90mph ; but last time I saw him he was nowhere near that , and his rhythm seemed completely shot. What the best way to get him back on track might be , I have no idea. But I am not confident pitching him into this current shambles would be ideal.

He is young enough to come again. Perhaps best not to be too impatient.

alfie wrote:Transition time for England indeed.  Trouble is with virtually everyone struggling it is hard to know who needs to be transitioned outwards...

.

Flower.
and not just transitoned....but fast-tracked.

with his defensive approach....batsmen are crawling and not expressing themselves

and a side that can put upto 3 really quick bowlers is using trundlers because of their batting capabilities.

If Flower stays.......mark my words...real ignominy awaits Eng in WI

Flower despite making some mistakes on the way, has been good for England. But it does appear that its time to move on, every coach has a shel life, think Flower has reached the end point.

Might have known KP fan would be on to stick a knife into Flower   

As msp says , he may have gone as far as he can with this team ; though it is only four and a half years ...

Don't think they will be too keen to toss him out , so I suspect his own keenness to continue - or not - may be a major factor.

alfie wrote:And yes , msp : like you , I was happy with Root at six.  In retrospect it seems clear that England made a serious mistake in promoting him to open , because it destabilized two positions  , just when it seemed he had solved one of them.  Had they persisted with Compton , he would either have claimed the spot himself or been replaced (by Carberry anyway , I guess ) but perhaps the order may have settled down better ?  Of course losing Trott unexpectedly hasn't helped.

Anyway , they can only start from where they are now : and I suspect that now means Root at three unless someone else puts his hand up.
England must surely play six batsmen in Melbourne so presumably Ballance will get his chance.  (I am unhappy to see that Bairstow has apparently been discarded from consideration , as I thought he was worth a bit more of a chance. But I think I am in a minority)
I don't hold out much hope of a revival in this series : they look almost broken now , and the matches are just too close together.  The home summer will allow us to have a look at how well they can rebuild.

How many tests are they going to play in the West Indies? Not too sure either the West Indies or India bowling will create a challenge anywhere near the the one they are facing now. So it won't be a bad tim to introduce some upcoming prospects.
Benn Stokes is one worth persisting with and I hope England use him in an all-rounder capasity. He has a fine temperament and they should work on his batting technique a bit. Finn might need time away from the squad. I know his problems are all not down to the management, but a large chunk is down to that particular aspect. But if Broad isn't able to take part in the next game, then I'll have Finn in.

I don't mind Flower and he has done a very good job with this England side. The fact is though, its been in decline now for some time and as I have mentioned on many occasions, England weren't worth the 3-0 scoreline in the last ashes series.

Some of the older, less consistent players need to move on and I don't think that Flower is willing to do that which is why it may be time to look at a new coach as well.

50 runs up for Rogers.    Nice to see him score a few more Test runs.

Yeah its a good 50 for him Linebreaker, opinions may differ as to whether its nice or not depending on which country you support here though

Morning folks - just joining play for the first time today. Purely from a quick glance at the scores, things appear to have gone as badly as they could with bat and ball.

Unfortunately, I did firmly believe that speculation about England taking a first innings lead was far too optimistic. With our top 4 already gone for less than half Australia's score and no tail to speak of, parity had looked a long way off at the end of day two.

I'll now catch up with your posts from earlier, thanks. Quick question while I do that - have we created any chances in the field or has the bowling been as disappointing as the scoreline suggests?

guildfordbat wrote:Quick question while I do that - have we created any chances in the field or has the bowling been as disappointing as the scoreline suggests?

A missed stumping of Warner off the bowling of Swann and for Rogers there was a dropped chance from Cook off Anderson.

guildfordbat wrote:Morning folks - just joining play for the first time today. Purely from a quick glance at the scores, things appear to have gone as badly as they could with bat and ball.

Unfortunately, I did firmly believe that speculation about England taking a first innings lead was far too optimistic. With our top 4 already gone for less than half Australia's score and no tail to speak of, parity had looked a long way off at the end of day two.

I'll now catch up with your posts from earlier, thanks. Quick question while I do that - have we created any chances in the field or has the bowling been as disappointing as the scoreline suggests?

As you'd have caught up by now, Prior fluffed a stumping of Swann that he should have effected in his sleep as Warner enjoyed some early luck in his innings, and Cook dropped an easy catch of Rogers when he was on 26, with James Anderson the bowler suffering.

Linebreaker wrote:Top of this page, Guildford. You accidently quote Mysti instead of msp. (unless you were referring to a previous comment from mysti?)

I can fix it if you like?

Thanks, Linebreaker. Now I see! Apologies to mysti and msp for the mistaken identies. Just wish that was the only problem England supportershave!   

Several chances , guildford. Prior has had an absolute shocker behind the stumps.
We are also Broadless , if you hadn't been informed.

There has been a couple of missed stumping chances and Cook has dropped a catch at slip guildford.

guildfordbat wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:Top of this page, Guildford. You accidently quote Mysti instead of msp. (unless you were referring to a previous comment from mysti?)

I can fix it if you like?

Thanks, Linebreaker. Now I see! Apologies to mysti and msp for the mistaken identies. Just wish that was the only problem England supportershave!   

Correction made.

Rogers out for 54. He can go get some ice on his ribs now...

what happened to Broad ?

His foot got crunched by a Johnson yorker, KP_f.

I think in hindsight both Warne and Botham have been correct about England's batting. They batted for aboutvthe same length of time as Australia yet scored 130+ fewer runs. They hung around but failed to attack enough. Only Bresnan had the right idea scoring his 21 for almost a run a ball. If he can manage it I am sure the specialist batsmen should be doing better. Point in fact were Carberry and Cook who were going along fine but went into their shells a bit and so the problems began.

Minor relief for England as Bresnan gets Rogers caught by Carberry.

Linebreaker wrote:His foot got crunched by a Johnson yorker, KP_f.

Oh Ok..thanks....unfortunate that's a small exposed part of boady with no padding.

Hope there is no fracture....in whihc case he will defnitely be OK by tomm

Without Broad, England were always going to toil with bowling.

alfie wrote:

... I guess one of the problems for visiting teams these days is that tours are so compact there is no time to regroup after a defeat , and no proper practice games in between Tests ; so it is difficult to make the right adjustments ...selections become rather guesswork.  And a bad game can quickly lead to a rout...

Alfie - very much agree with that. Have been making similar noises for a while. Easier said than done but I do feel there should be some sort of obligation and agreement from all countries that when they are hosting a Test series, they will endeavour to provide a reasonable standard of opposition in warm up games. I can understand why (and know it has always happened to an extent) but the sides put out to play tourists these days do appear to be increasingly weak. Not a dig at just Australia, it's the case in most countries.

Agree England went too much into their shells yesterday ; though the Australian bowlers deserve much credit for making it tough.
KP played too much against his his natural instinct : his job should have been to put Lyon to the sword , even at some risk , and put some pressure back on Clarke. In the end he just lost his patience and judgement and wasted all his grinding anyway...and then Bell did the same.
It is hard when you are losing all the time though : fear of what might go wrong starts to dominate instead of determined intent to do what you want ...and the resultant hesitancy never does any good.

Just a week ago they were all getting shredded for hooking their wickets away...

I more think that its the tactics that have cost England this series. Back in the day, England would counter attack when on the back foot (last series in OZ) but now they seem to be trying to contain the opposition batters with defensive bowling and more trying to protect their wickets which goes against the grain of some of the more flair playing team members that England have.

Nice 100 for Warner

kwinigolfer wrote:Let's hope we remember this series of England fiascos when we're debating Hall Of Fame Memberships in ten years' time.

This series won't do some of the future Aussie nominations any harm!

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:

... I guess one of the problems for visiting teams these days is that tours are so compact there is no time to regroup after a defeat , and no proper practice games in between Tests ; so it is difficult to make the right adjustments ...selections become rather guesswork.  And a bad game can quickly lead to a rout...

Alfie - very much agree with that. Have been making similar noises for a while. Easier said than done but I do feel there should be some sort of obligation and agreement from all countries that when they are hosting a Test series, they will endeavour to provide a reasonable standard of opposition in warm up games. I can understand why (and know it has always happened to an extent) but the sides put out to play tourists these days do appear to be increasingly weak. Not a dig at just Australia, it's the case in most countries.

Sadly , it is : which is generally good for the home teams. I am actually less bothered by the standard of opposition than by the complete absence of non Tests after the series start. Really gives a touring team no hope of getting back into a series after a bad start , and probably means it is pointless picking more than about 14 players for a tour ?
The other thing is , the TV influenced packing five Tests into a few weeks destroys the suspenseful buildup we used to enjoy during a series...it is all over almost before it starts , and somehow seems as disposable as last weeks ODI result...

Nachos Jones wrote:I more think that its the tactics that have cost England this series. Back in the day, England would counter attack when on the back foot (last series in OZ) but now they seem to be trying to contain the opposition batters with defensive bowling and more trying to protect their wickets which goes against the grain of some of the more flair playing team members that England have.

Don't know about that. They were virtually never on the back foot last time here (except in the Perth Test ). And a lot of the bowling plan in that series also revolved around pressuring the batsmen out with sustained tight bowling.
The trouble is , this time the top order batting is just failing , whereas last time round they were always 150/1.
Tactics are irrelevant when your best batsmen are all in the horrors.

alfie wrote:Agree England went too much into their shells yesterday ; though the Australian bowlers deserve much credit for making it tough.
KP played too much against his his natural instinct  : his job should have been to put Lyon to the sword , even at some risk , and put some pressure back on Clarke.  In the end he just lost his patience and judgement and wasted all his grinding anyway...and then Bell did the same.
It is hard when you are losing all the time though : fear of what might go wrong starts to dominate instead of determined intent to do what you want ...and the resultant hesitancy never does any good.

Just a week ago they were all getting shredded for hooking their wickets away...

But surely it is all about picking the right balls to attack. Bresnan managed pretty well getting 21 off 22 balls. On this pitch if you get good bat on ball more times than not it goes for a boundary. Dot balls just give a boost to the fielding team and allows them to throttle the batters so to speak. Australia effectively 317 for 2.

Linebreaker wrote:

... Also, as you and others have said - England's pre-Ashes preparation was probably not so good. Compare that to 2009/10 when they really did their homework and were on an upward trend in terms of performance and confidence. This time round; Australia's preparation has been better managed since the last series. It's in our nature to make sure we can bounce back from low points... but we just needed the right players in the right positions, harness some growing confidence, minimise past mistakes and of course a bit of luck. There are still some areas/players under question I feel but others have stepped up and performed well.
...

Linebreaker - that's an extremely good and valid point. It articulates some of my concerns about the ''3 talls'' I've been discussing with Alfie.

I don't generally agree that this is a scheduling issue myself. The warning signs were there last series. England weren't as good as they thought and Australia weren't as bad as originally thought.

Its this that was not addressed by the England management and coaches.

Australia have just played some wonderful cricket and have beaten this England side at a canter. They are the confident and form side right now and its showing in the results and style of play from them.

Swann did deserve that wicket. He has bowled manfully in very tough circumstances.

Warner offers up some catching practice. Reminiscent of that Don Bradman shot in that Shield game in 1934. Except Stokes caught that one first time.

Apparently Swann has broken the record for the worst return in a calender year in Test cricket. He's overtaken Geoff Lawson's 1227 runs v West Indies in 1984. I remember that well (thanks for reminding me espncricinfo!). I can still see the look of distress on Henry's face as he was being plastered to all parts. They were awful times for Australian cricket.

alfie wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I more think that its the tactics that have cost England this series. Back in the day, England would counter attack when on the back foot (last series in OZ) but now they seem to be trying to contain the opposition batters with defensive bowling and more trying to protect their wickets which goes against the grain of some of the more flair playing team members that England have.

Don't know about that.  They were virtually never on the back foot last time here (except in the Perth Test ). And a lot of the bowling plan in that series also revolved around pressuring the batsmen out with sustained tight bowling.
The trouble is , this time the top order batting is just failing , whereas last time round they were always 150/1.
Tactics are irrelevant when your best batsmen are all in the horrors.

I remember that they were on the backfoot a couple of times but produced wonderful counter attacking cricket. Session cricket that won them tests. They have not done this, this series and I do believe that comes from the negative tactics deployed. I could, of course, be way off the mark but that's what it appears to be to me.

Warner gone at last for an aggressive century. Some fine hitting : but I don't think nearly as significant for his team than the fast starts he has given them in first innings efforts , even though he never went on that far.
Sorry if it seems a bit mean spirited ; but while I salute his selfless aggression in the cause of moving the game forward , I reckon second innings runs in this situation are a bit "soft" . And he had some large slices of luck.
Great to watch , though.

If you look over the last couple of years England's touring form has been very patchy. Heavyvloss against Pakistan in UAE, great series win in India, poor in New Zealand and here well the least said the better.

It says that the warning signs have been there for some time but perhaps their Ashes successes madked them.

So today literally couldn't have gone any worse then...

Agree CC, the warning signs have been there for some time and have yet to have been addressed by the England management and coaching set-up. This is a major concern.

alfie wrote:Warner gone at last for an aggressive century.  Some fine hitting : but I don't think nearly as significant for his team than the fast starts he has given them in first innings efforts , even though he never went on that far.
Sorry if it seems a bit mean spirited ; but while I salute his selfless aggression in the cause of moving the game forward , I reckon second innings runs in this situation are a bit "soft" . And he had some large slices of luck.
Great to watch , though.

Oh come on Alfie.
How would you like a knock on your door from Candice Falzon asking you to elaborate on your comment on Davie's behalf?   

Nachos Jones wrote:

alfie wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I more think that its the tactics that have cost England this series. Back in the day, England would counter attack when on the back foot (last series in OZ) but now they seem to be trying to contain the opposition batters with defensive bowling and more trying to protect their wickets which goes against the grain of some of the more flair playing team members that England have.

Don't know about that.  They were virtually never on the back foot last time here (except in the Perth Test ). And a lot of the bowling plan in that series also revolved around pressuring the batsmen out with sustained tight bowling.
The trouble is , this time the top order batting is just failing , whereas last time round they were always 150/1.
Tactics are irrelevant when your best batsmen are all in the horrors.

I remember that they were on the backfoot a couple of times but produced wonderful counter attacking cricket. Session cricket that won them tests. They have not done this, this series and I do believe that comes from the negative tactics deployed. I could, of course, be way off the mark but that's what it appears to be to me.

Nitpicking perhaps , but with a little research :Adelaide: Aust 245 , England lost Strauss early but the second wicket didn't fall until 176 , and the third at 351.  Melbourne Aust 98 , England opening stand of 159 ...Perhaps in Sydney , where England lost five in overhauling the Australian280 ? But the Aussies were pretty well cooked by then...I don't think there was too much back foot there.
The key innings was probably the second in Brisbane : but again , it was a big opening stand that set that up.
I really think the main difference is the England 1-2-3. All else has followed from that.
[/quote]

alfie wrote:

...  (I am unhappy to see that Bairstow has apparently been discarded from consideration , as I thought he was worth a bit more of a chance. But I think I am in a minority)
...

Alfie - I'm sympathetic to your view there and, even more, Bairstow's situation. At risk of sounding increasingly like FST, I would say (of the selectors): ''I just don't understand what's goin' on out there.''

I get the impression that Bairstow is on this tour mainly as the reserve keeper and his batting is not much coming into consideration. If what the selectors really wanted was a reserve keeper, there's no way they should have chosen Bairstow for the tour party. There are many better keepers than him in the current county game.