*Official* First Test at Swalec Stadium, Cardiff

[AaronK]

I hate high scoring test matches.. certainly a big tournment like Ashes needed more of Sri Lanka and Pak type of Start..

 

[Woodster]

Whilst I do think its too early to write him off, his technique is Yuvraj-esque. When driving, he drives airily away from his body although he does seem to be a better leaver of the ball than Yuvraj.

Yes I thought his patience was good today, forcing the bowlers to bowl to him and then working them around. Maybe there is a flaw there, but I don't think it was exposed too much today.

 

[tooextracool]

England looked to get after Hauritz. When it works, you'll have absolutely no hesitation in using it against the man and saying that he bowled crap and got smashed. But when it doesn't, you'll just turn round and say that it was England's batting that got him wickets and refuse to give him any credit.

It's a widely used double-standard that plenty of spinners (eg. Paul Harris) suffer from.

Theres a couple of things that are factually incorrect about your statement though.

KP and Collingwood firstly did not play aggressively against him. They looked to milk him around during their time at the crease and took singles against him. KP btw had a SR that was less than 50 which is saying something. By the time KP got out to Hauritz he was going at less than 3 an over. So the point that you make that England looked to play aggressively against him and thus lost a batsman in the process is factually wrong. Even the shot that KP played that led to his own dismissal wasn't an aggressive shot, it was supposed to be a little paddle sweep that would have got him at best 2 runs. Was it good bowling? Well he saw it early and tossed it wider than one would think he wanted to toss it, but still it was more of a brain explosion than anything else. Its not like he tried to slog sweep him for 6 and got out in the process. It was KP being as arrogant as he possibly could and going for a shot even though he knew that it wasn't on because he had no respect for the bowler.

As far as the other 2 are concerned, lets just remember that we are referring to the 2 worst batsmen in the England side here. One looked clueless, even against a bowler with no variations like Hauritz. Whilst the other, had made up his mind about jumping down the track before the ball even left Hauritz' hand (so its not like he was deceived in the flight as people on here have insinuated). Honestly, there were 3 very poor shots that resulted in 3 dismissals all courtesy of Hauritz. 2 of which came by the way when England already had 430 odd on the board so one has to question how Hauritz played such an instrumental role in restricting England.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm not becoming complacent regarding Australia's attack, and I know we have all heard enough about 'not the same without Warne and McGrath' etc, but, if we were in this kind of position a few years back and then had to contend with the two aforementioned players while being in deficit after the first innings, I would hold much less hope of us managing to secure a draw. However, and it is with no disrespect to the current Aussie attack that I say this, but I still feel confident enough that should Australia leave us with a day to bat and survive, I believe we will manage it. Now that might be mislaid confidence, but I think we have the batsmen, and Australia not quite the bowlers, yet, to see the job through.

Generally when I make such statements, it does backfire, normally quite horribly!

I agree with you because I dont think that there is enough in the pitch for this current crop of Aussie bowlers to exploit. Not without Warne at least. Of course that is IF England bat somewhat competently and that has never really been a given since the dizzy heights of around 2004-05. This game really is there for England to lose rather than for Australia to win IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

Normally I would agree, but on pitches like this, I think it is. Good areas aren't good areas with no movement, no pace and no bounce. Without McGrath-esque accuracy, you need that little bit extra, the really good ball that just forces a wicket. Hitting decent areas won't really cut it against batsmen of this standard I'm afraid.

Pressure does strange things, put enough balls in the right places and it does manufacture wickets. I think putting it down purely to the number of wicket-taking deliveries on a pitch like this is oversimplifying things in almost Richardesque fashion. There's no real text book definition of what a wicket-taking delivery is, is it just one that takes a wicket? you might claim that Strauss' wicket was a wicket taking delivery, yet it could really have bounced up and not landed straight on a in a fielder's lap and people would have forgotten it fairly easily. Similarly England bowled some deliveries that nearly got wickets but were forgotten because they didn't.

 

[tooextracool]

One of the comms called it with Bopara, it might've been Gower: for whatvever reason he was playing a shot a ball, even his defensive prods were making it out to the covers. It might've been the working over Siddle had given him before. In any rate he'd seemingly determined to hit his way out of trouble, Johnson probably saw this and slipped in a slower ball for him to drive which Ravi duly spooned to Hughes. Slower balls might not be a major weapon in tests, but Bopara wasn't playing a test innings.

You are right, it was thoughtful bowling and I dont deny that it was a good ball. But I don't agree with the fact that it was a 'wicket-taking' delivery. Its not like he bowled a booming inswinger or anything to get him out.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes I thought his patience was good today, forcing the bowlers to bowl to him and then working them around. Maybe there is a flaw there, but I don't think it was exposed too much today.

Oh it wasnt exposed today clearly cause hes still batting there. But on this pitch, a technical weakness is never really likely to be exposed, except perhaps with a hard and new ball.

 

[Burgey]

I haven't seen any major technical flaws to suggest that North doesn't have the kind of technique to score rnus at this level. I actually thought he looked organised, he has a style of play and scores accordingly, unless I'm missing something (and that is quite possible).

He played with a very open blade in SA. I'd think, if the ball moves around a lot, that might be a problem for him. It also strikes me as something he could correct with a bit of work.

 

[Woodster]

He played with a very open blade in SA. I'd think, if the ball moves around a lot, that might be a problem for him. It also strikes me as something he could correct with a bit of work.

Yes I watched a fair amount of that series, and at times he did not look as secure and as comfortable as he did today (maybe something to do with the respective attacks!) With having an open blade, as you say, with movement around the slips/gully fielders may well be in play. His judgement was good today, knew which shots to leave, which to play, he's a solid pro, don't think he'll rip up any trees in his career (Tests), but at the moment is a decent number 6 for Australia.

 

[morgieb]

North & Clarke (Y).

Gun to see a first innings lead.

 

[Uppercut]

Pressure does strange things, put enough balls in the right places and it does manufacture wickets. I think putting it down purely to the number of wicket-taking deliveries on a pitch like this is oversimplifying things in almost Richardesque fashion. There's no real text book definition of what a wicket-taking delivery is, is it just one that takes a wicket? you might claim that Strauss' wicket was a wicket taking delivery, yet it could really have bounced up and not landed straight on a in a fielder's lap and people would have forgotten it fairly easily. Similarly England bowled some deliveries that nearly got wickets but were forgotten because they didn't.

I may seem a bit too technical (or just like I'm talking bollocks) regarding the whole wicket-taking deliveries thing. Really all I meant was that while Australia weren't as consistent as England, and bowled fairly erratically at times, they certainly looked a lot more dangerous. And i think that applies to Johnson too.

Although given the love-in with swing at the moment, all we seem to be hearing is "didn't move it in the air therefore bowled badly".

 

[Matt79]

North & Clarke (Y).

Gun to see a first innings lead.

This.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Clarke throwing his wicket away towards the close of play?!

Surely you jest, he never does that!

 

[Jakester1288]

North & Clarke (Y).

Gun to see a first innings lead.

I have never seen such an overuse of the word gun.

Agree though. Was tired as feck last night so went to bed about 20 minutes into the second session, I thought we were going to fall apart although I had full confidence in Clarke to make a good score. I just wish he hung around till stumps.

So much for Hogg saying there would be no centuries in this match.

I hope we get a result. Is it looking likely?

 

[Uppercut]

Clarke throwing his wicket away towards the close of play?!

Surely you jest, he never does that!

It seems he can now sense when the weather is about to change and bring an end to the day's play, and time the throwing of his wicket away appropriately.

 

[Burgey]

Yes I watched a fair amount of that series, and at times he did not look as secure and as comfortable as he did today (maybe something to do with the respective attacks!) With having an open blade, as you say, with movement around the slips/gully fielders may well be in play. His judgement was good today, knew which shots to leave, which to play, he's a solid pro, don't think he'll rip up any trees in his career (Tests), but at the moment is a decent number 6 for Australia.

Yeah, sums him up pretty well I think atm.

 

[Pothas]

Have tipped him to do well in this series though, knows English conditions very well and can is good enough for this attack, for some reason I just feel that England are going to struggle with Australias lower middle order in this series, despite this test feel there will be times when Anderson and Flintoff will get through the top order but cannot see us ever getting through the whole order cheaply

 

[stephen]

Regarding Johnson, yes credit where it is due, he bowled a well disguised slower ball and outfoxed Bopara. However, last time I checked slower balls don't take wickets consistently in test match cricket and while it worked for him yesterday, its not something that can be relied on to take wickets for the rest of the series.

Interesting that you say this. I am not sure that I agree. The thing is that Johnson's slower ball is VERY good. It has also got him a number of wickets in test matches already. I would go as far as saying that it is the most deadly slower ball in international cricket at the moment as it is perfectly disguised and is only slower by just enough to throw off the batsmen's timing, without allowing enough time to adjust.

I think that both bowling attacks have been disappointing, though I do think that Australia's fast bowling was more threatening than England's fast bowling. I thought that Hauritz bowled about as well as both English spinners. The Aussie quicks did more with the ball than the English quicks.

Having said that I think that both bowling attacks are of better quality than they have showed thus far in this test match. I'd love to see Harmison to come in and replace Panessar in the next test though.

It will be most interesting to see how much of a lead Australia can get to.

 

[DaRick]

I'm fairly pleased with Australia's performance - I was a little worried when the score wa 4/331, as a collapse seemed to be in the offing (it's happened recently with Australia). However, Clarke and North applied themselves very well. Clarke was a little unlucky to get out; it was a misdirected bouncer which he could've guided down to the fine-leg boundary.

I felt that England were disappointing. Swann and Panesar rarely looked all that threatening (although Panesar did take a wicket), whilst Anderson seemed to lose his lustre as soon as the ball got old (fantastic delivery to dismiss Katich, though). Flintoff's age and recent injuries are evident, whilst Broad simply isn't a Test-class bowler as of yet. He doesn't move it enough and he too often bowls inappropriate lengths (and sometimes lines). Strauss didn't have a great day - the fields were overly defensive, allowing Clarke and North to rotate the strike more effectively than Pietersen and Collingwood did.

I feel that both bowling sides are below their best, but Australia's is potentially more dangerous than England's.

 

[Smudge]

Phillip Hughes is pretty gun on ICC '09 though... Played 3 ODI's, he got runout for 36, 91 off 55 and is currently on 114 off 73 balls...

Excellent - it's been proven over the years that video game form often translates to real life.