NWR Cricket

Ian, I think the English (correctly) have detected a weakness the Aussies have with pace bowling. The best in the World, Bumrah, took them apart over the Aussie summer, so it is easy to understand the logic in selecting Overton. Archer was comfortably dealt with by a large number of Aussie batsmen over summer in the 20-20, but there is no doubt he is bowling two yards quicker in England, good luck Steve Smith.
Smith in for Kawaja makes the Aussie side infinitely better, but there remains a very long tail commencing with Paine, who should bat at number 10, but is actually seven in the weak Aussie line-up.
The other huge problem not addressed by the Aussie selectors is the team contains only four bowlers, and the 4th innings of the Third Test surely proved this simply isn't enough.

Honestly, if the real England turns up, they should win this match without breaking out of a trot. IMO, it was there for all to see.... that mistake-riddled final 45 minutes of the last Test has cost the Aussies the Ashes.
 
Nigel I had written a completely different post but must respond to yours.

Over the Headingley test as a whole one has to say that the Australians should have won; it took a magical innings from Stokes to overturn that.

Smith has been the difference between the two batting sides and, assuming he is actually fit to play, should allow Australia to win. I don't see how England are going to be able to win without breaking sweat as you imply. I'd love that, but I can't see it happening!
 
Nigel Wilton said:
Ian, I think the English (correctly) have detected a weakness the Aussies have with pace bowling. The best in the World, Bumrah, took them apart over the Aussie summer, so it is easy to understand the logic in selecting Overton. Archer was comfortably dealt with by a large number of Aussie batsmen over summer in the 20-20, but there is no doubt he is bowling two yards quicker in England, good luck Steve Smith.
Smith in for Kawaja makes the Aussie side infinitely better, but there remains a very long tail commencing with Paine, who should bat at number 10, but is actually seven in the weak Aussie line-up.
The other huge problem not addressed by the Aussie selectors is the team contains only four bowlers, and the 4th innings of the Third Test surely proved this simply isn't enough.

Honestly, if the real England turns up, they should win this match without breaking out of a trot. IMO, it was there for all to see.... that mistake-riddled final 45 minutes of the last Test has cost the Aussies the Ashes.
Click to expand...

Hi Nigel
Yes Archer does seem able to put the wind up a few batsmen. I'm not sure Overton is particularly fast but from memory he's more equipped to bowl bouncers than Woakes (for whom it should only be an occasional option - he is not a bang it in bowler).

It was interesting to speculate on the warm up game, with Khawaja given captaincy and promoted to opener. Was this an endorsement of him with the opportunity to claim a spot alongside Warner, with the potential even to be an option to captain if they dropped Paine... or was the captaincy a sweetener for being dropped for the next game? It appears to be the latter.

We're in agreement that dropping Paine offers more, as long as there was a suitable candidate to captain (or puppet captain if Smith is indeed calling the shots in the way Warne used to do for Ponting). However as they weren't prepared to do this, it seemed to come down to Khawaja or Wade. Khawaja does offer a nice steady approach (vs. more attacking batsmen in the lineup), but he does feel like he's drifting out of form. The Aussie selectors seemed very reluctant to select Wade despite fine state cricket form, so I had a funny feeling they'd dump him.

Starc is a little bit of a surprise. In the between test game against a very weak Derbyshire, he wasn't effective up top, but was against the tail, so his figures flatter him. Neser much more successful against the top order, and Siddle also effective - and them bowling him very lightly made me think it was him who would be selected.

I remain in firm agreement with you on the 4 bowlers gamble, especially as Lyon picked up a minor ankle strain. One in-game injury and they could be in desparate trouble. It worked with Warne and McGrath because both could bowl long attacking spells and McGrath would also keep it very tight. The other two bowlers were always a support act to those two, so just four bowlers (plus someone else to turn their arm over) worked. Lyon has done a great job since they stopped treating him as a stopgap until they found the next great leggie, and he is critical to making the 4 bowler approcah work. However whichever 3 quicks selected can (IMO) be nullfied by keeping them bowling for 100+ overs an innings. Luckily for Australia, England have been reluctant to think like this, but maybe the last test gave them a clue?

I expect Australia to win - they were the better of the two teams in the last test. I hope I'm wrong.

Regards
Ian
 
Thoughts after 2 days?

I'm not surprised - again Labuschagne batting well and Smith even better, even if he looks less like a genuine cricketer every year. The shot he played to point for his 50, reaching across having virtually fallen over was reckless, but he has phenomenal hand/eye co-ordination. Paine got runs when England were already broken, but those were good runs nonetheless. Jason Roy may well regret dropping him. Not much from the rest (again not surprising).

The result might well be compromised by rain, but I've seen enough to still hold firm in my view the England management team needs a regime change and a completely new outlook. If failing to win the Ashes is what's needed to shake some sense into the leadership, then come on Australia!
 
At OT tomorrow for the rain and the fear of England’s regular impersonation of a collapsible deckchair. Suspect my brother and I will be huddled under the stand next to the beer queue for much of the day.
 
Peter Webb said:
At OT tomorrow for the rain and the fear of England’s regular impersonation of a collapsible deckchair. Suspect my brother and I will be huddled under the stand next to the beer queue for much of the day.
Click to expand...
Well that was a good day’s cricket. I’m an admirer of Steve Smith but today his innings was error strewn. England gave him to lives. My comment about Leach’s no ball best not be repeated.
As for Roy’s drop - well he shouldn’t been in the team.
Australia will bowl better tomorrow.
Forecast tomorrow is rubbish for the morning, but weather won’t save us. And let’s hope they don’t run out of J W Lees MPA, unlike today.
 
Not sure about that, Mark. I think the weather might well be the deciding factor in this Test. Not sure how much cricket we'll see tomorrow, but probably no more than on the first day.
The Aussies have only four bowlers, on a flat and slow track that won't be enough to take the remaining 19 wickets, particularly with Lyon continuing his middling form.
How the selectors must wish they picked Mitch Marsh for this match, given Warner, Harris, Head have been completely ineffectual this series, and Wade equally poor since the first Test, they had plenty of choices to make the change!!
I think getting a (very determined) Root and Stokes out twice will be incredibly difficult, and you can't help but feel that Jason Roy and Buttler are due some runs.
Still, a drawn match will ensure an exciting finale at the Oval. Bring it on!!!
 
MPA finished around 1 pm and then suffered theft of recyclable plastic glasses - clearly the scallies were out to either avoid the £1 deposit or claim i back. Cricket most absorbing but winning both sessions apart from last 40 minutes has probably cost us the match. Much to enjoy before then with Burns and Root at the crease though I guess the bowling discipline from Cummins and Hazlewood was an object lesson for our team. The Lyon baiting by the Barmies was most entertaining!
 
bob parsons said:
Malinga 4 wickets in 4 balls versus NZ. Still think his bowling action is suspect.
Click to expand...
Hi Bob
A remarkable achievement. All the more remarkable because conventional wisdom is that a side arm action is incredibly difficult to control direction with - yet here he is, delivering 4 fast (and presumably swinging) yorkers, all on the stumps and all with enough movement to beat each batsman (and these were genuine batsmen, not the tail).

FWIW the arm is straight, straighter than most I reckon, and the hand remains above the horizontal, so legal. I can never see the side arm delivery being outlawed, mostly because it is almost impossible to be accurate - even Mitch Johnson struggled for accuracy. I can't think of another side arm bowler who has been effective at test level in the last 30-40 years.
 
Warner dropped for Bancroft?
Possible, but then what do you do about Harris and Head, equally disappointing. The dismal Aussie batting was as expected pre-series, including Warner. Dear Davey's Test batting had been in pretty steep decline prior to his ban, and that downward spiral unsurprisingly continued. Reading between the lines of the attending Aussie journalists, it would appear he is not held in much esteem within the dressing room, which will further add to his case for dismissal.
If not for the heroics of Smith, and the discovery of Labuschagne, sub-150 scores for Australia would have been the norm this series.
For me, the real surprise has been the weakness of the English batting. Exceptionally poor.
I suspect this match will end in a draw, as i said before, Lyon's middling form and the presence of only four bowlers makes the task nigh-on impossible for Australia, and it's hard to see England scoring the 320+ they will need in 2.5 sessions on the final day.
 
I'm in worrying agreement with Michael Vaughan :eek:
England have somehow got to find the inner strength to go out there on Thursday. This Test team needs some TLC. I don't think three days is long enough to get to the drawing board and start afresh and I don't think it's right to throw in new players at The Oval. I think it's time to have an assessment of the Test team, work out the direction it wants to go, under what leadership and coaching, the style of cricket they want to produce, and I'm sure over the winter months we'll see a different look to the Test team.

England have to look at the preparation, the selection, everything around this team leading into the summer. It hasn't been right, it's been a bit haphazard. I didn't like that they dropped a senior pro in Chris Woakes here. It was wrong. I don't think England have got it right, but full credit to Australia.
Click to expand...

Much as I think this is a poorly selected team, poorly coached and with poor capataincy in the field, what would be the point of changing the team with 3 days to the next game and everyone else playing tip & giggle cricket. If the bowlers are fit, then they might as well select the same side and go down sticking to their (misguided) belief of how test cricket should be played (or should that be their brand of cricket :mad: )

Once that's done, I'm hoping the test side will look very different for overseas tour. Something like
Burns, Sibley
Denly, Root, Pope/Northeast
Stokes, Foakes, Woakes
Archer, Broad, Leach

with (if fit etc.) Moeen, Anderson, Curran, Stone, Buttler/Bairstow making up a touring party of 16. EDIT: FWIW I'd lean towards a 21 year old Pope over 29 year old Northeast, the latter in great current form, but much better than his record to date.

FWIW I still don't think Denly is good enough, but alongside his colleagues in this series he has fought hard and applied himself. Thus he gets a proper chance to make his place at 3. Root and Stokes drop down a place each to where they'd ideally be.

Congratulations to Australia. They bowled and fielded much better than England and had Steve Smith. Anything other than victory in the series would misrepresent the gap between the sides, though they themselves have more problems than answers and need to address the batting frailties
 
Last edited:
The DRS final-nail-in-the-coffin moment.
19AB66B4-B709-4E44-9CEF-A57356AFE9E3.jpeg
A thoroughly enjoyable five days, but just when some dodgy Manchester weather was needed, fortune let us down.
I’m not one for glory in defeat. Plus point was the application shown in the second innings. This begs the question as to why this has been regularly absent earlier in the series. Roy’s dismissal today provided sufficient evidence he is not a Test batsman. Bairstow averages 29 since the beginning of 2017. Root’s captaincy is inadequate.
Australia well deserved to retain The Ashes despite being a flawed team.
 
Last edited:
Yes, three day turn around makes it difficult for both sides to make changes.
Clearly, Warner should be dismissed, probably forever, but there is simply no-one to replace him!!! Bancroft is a long way from a decent Test opener, and Harris just doesn't seem to value his wicket. I guess it may be feasible to open with Kawaja, but that is just switching deck chairs on the Titanic. The only other option is to open with Wade, and put Mitch Marsh in at six.
The Aussies may be tempted to rest Cummins, but I hope not. Keeping the three quicks from the Old Trafford may force the Aussies to pick Marsh.
The elephant in the room is Nathan Lyon, bowling very average and with a split spinning finger. Incredibly, he was the only specialist spinner in the squad, so not sure what the selectors will do if he is ruled unfit for the Oval.

For the English, Roy and Buttler are simply not good enough at this level, the English selectors seem to struggle to accept there is a difference between 50 over and Test cricket. With Bairstow struggling, the batting line-up is almost as thin as the Aussies, but of course, they do not have a Smith to come in at four.
Broad has been stupendous, Archer really exciting, but too much on the shoulders of those two. I'd be flabbergasted if Woakes didn't come in at the Oval, Overton didn't look threatening at any stage at Old Trafford. Leach looks like he could be a beauty, I hope they persist with him.
 
Nigel Wilton said:
Yes, three day turn around makes it difficult for both sides to make changes.
Clearly, Warner should be dismissed, probably forever, but there is simply no-one to replace him!!! Bancroft is a long way from a decent Test opener, and Harris just doesn't seem to value his wicket. I guess it may be feasible to open with Kawaja, but that is just switching deck chairs on the Titanic. The only other option is to open with Wade, and put Mitch Marsh in at six.
The Aussies may be tempted to rest Cummins, but I hope not. Keeping the three quicks from the Old Trafford may force the Aussies to pick Marsh.
The elephant in the room is Nathan Lyon, bowling very average and with a split spinning finger. Incredibly, he was the only specialist spinner in the squad, so not sure what the selectors will do if he is ruled unfit for the Oval.

For the English, Roy and Buttler are simply not good enough at this level, the English selectors seem to struggle to accept there is a difference between 50 over and Test cricket. With Bairstow struggling, the batting line-up is almost as thin as the Aussies, but of course, they do not have a Smith to come in at four.
Broad has been stupendous, Archer really exciting, but too much on the shoulders of those two. I'd be flabbergasted if Woakes didn't come in at the Oval, Overton didn't look threatening at any stage at Old Trafford. Leach looks like he could be a beauty, I hope they persist with him.
Click to expand...

Hi Nigel
Well Khawaja did open in the between-tests county game, so I'm sure they are considering that as an option. Personally I think they would be better off simply choosing their two best prospects as openers, then committing to stick with them for 2 series, but instead we've seen chop & change for years, with Warner being the only permanent fixture (except for the ban).
I think Marsh makes sense, despite him having a pretty dreadful test record (25.4 with the bat & 43.9 with the ball). The combination of Lyon's injury and some tired seamers should make him a sensible compromise selection. If Lyon is unavailable, then I'd expect a call up for someone playing over here at the moment (but not in the squad).

I agree on your take on England, but would add that Root has not managed his bowlers well. Much as there are things to complain about with Paine's captaincy, for me he's managed his bowlers much better, except for when the pressure was on. If Root is to remain captain, I think he will have to lean on Stokes and his keeper to learn how to better manage his bowlers, matching bowlers to conditions and avoiding knackering his strike bowlers and underusing others to the point they lose confidence / get fed up. Unlike Mark, I'm rather glad that they didn't parachute someone else in (and if they did it probably would have been someone like Sam Billings "he can give it some thwack IIRC"). Fresh start with a new coaching team and selectors to adapt to what is requested or be jettisoned & replaced.

Regards
Ian
 
Last edited:
No it's not Max - not in English conditions. Superior perhaps - but not far superior. As I said, England has missed Anderson badly. A fit Anderson would have given England a combination of Broad, Anderson, Archer, Leach and Stokes. The 5 wickets that each of Pattinson and Siddle have taken is hardly stellar - and neither had to bowl to Smith. I grant that Cummins and Hazlewood are both superb but England were not routinely able to get enough miles into their legs. Leach has arguably out-bowled Lyon.

The bowling attacks have not materially been the difference between the teams - it is, above anything else, the runs scored by Smith that sees Australia take a lead to the Oval.
 
Hi Jonathan
England's 5 against Australia's 4, and I'd take England's 5.
However I think Australia's bowlers were managed better, have proved to be highly resilient and have on the whole bowled intelligently to the conditions. For me they've definitely been more effective, but England's bowlers ought to have been more than a match for them. IMO of course.
Regards
Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top