*Official* Third Test at the WACA

[GIMH]

Johnson at 8 and Harris 9 isn't that bad IMO.

Combined series average of 0 so far

Anyway, some interesting posts about the England attack. I cbf to argue with a lot of but Anderson certainly has bowled a few unplayable spells but the vintage 09 'blame ourselves' posting is starting to show again (only from some posters FTR). Don't get me wrong, Australia have batted like morons in parts, but Anderson would have taken wickets against anyone with his day one and five Adelaide spells.

Broad has bowled quite well but without results, Tremlett looked good against Aus A and I think he can take a few.

Even if our bowling does go to pot, I can't see Aus taking 20 wickets cheaply, I really can't.

 

[vicleggie]

Hussey averages 50 in tests and Clarke close enough

In terms of quality, those 2 plus Ponting are at least the equal (and Im being pretty generous to the Poms here) of any 3 English batsmen

The all too obvious problem is they havent clicked together for a few years

zactly. good players not playing as a team well.

hussey ponting watto clarke hughes can do damage.

 

[vicleggie]

Combined series average of 0 so far

Anyway, some interesting posts about the England attack. I cbf to argue with a lot of but Anderson certainly has bowled a few unplayable spells but the vintage 09 'blame ourselves' posting is starting to show again (only from some posters FTR). Don't get me wrong, Australia have batted like morons in parts, but Anderson would have taken wickets against anyone with his day one and five Adelaide spells.

Broad has bowled quite well but without results, Tremlett looked good against Aus A and I think he can take a few.

Even if our bowling does go to pot, I can't see Aus taking 20 wickets cheaply, I really can't.

i love anderson , but he was bowling on a featherbed on day one, and had his first few overs been negotiated, who knows what might have happened. 0-0 gives a batsman less of a heartache than 3-2including a runout

day 5- hussey played a pathetic shot (Was finn, but still created pressure). harris left a ball that although was a change in swing, should have been played at, haddin was under pressure. i wouldnt callit unplayable bowling, more just creation of pressure coupled with poor will power by aus. it could have been avoided

 

[pasag]

Combined series average of 0 so far

Anyway, some interesting posts about the England attack. I cbf to argue with a lot of but Anderson certainly has bowled a few unplayable spells but the vintage 09 'blame ourselves' posting is starting to show again (only from some posters FTR). Don't get me wrong, Australia have batted like morons in parts, but Anderson would have taken wickets against anyone with his day one and five Adelaide spells.

Broad has bowled quite well but without results, Tremlett looked good against Aus A and I think he can take a few.

Even if our bowling does go to pot, I can't see Aus taking 20 wickets cheaply, I really can't.

Depends on the pitches really, if they have a bit of life 20 wickets won't be a problem. Unlikely though.

 

[JBH001]

Such a high stakes Test match this.

I am cricket lover first and foremost and would love to see a thrilling denouement to this Series - we go to Melbourne locked at 1 Test apiece.

I think way too many people, not necessarily here, are writing off this Australian team. I'm picking a strong comeback in the next test and cue a whole lot of media articles about never underestimating an Australian team etc. This Australian team is under the gun and I think they'll play a lot better for it at Perth with the Ashes on the line.

 

[GIMH]

i love anderson , but he was bowling on a featherbed on day one, and had his first few overs been negotiated, who knows what might have happened. 0-0 gives a batsman less of a heartache than 3-2including a runout

day 5- hussey played a pathetic shot (Was finn, but still created pressure). harris left a ball that although was a change in swing, should have been played at, haddin was under pressure. i wouldnt callit unplayable bowling, more just creation of pressure coupled with poor will power by aus. it could have been avoided

Yeah but reason it was 2-3 not 0-0 was because Anderson bowled beauties to get Ponting and Clarke. And the one that got Haddin in particular on day five was special.

 

[Prince EWS]

Combined series average of 0 so far

Anyway, some interesting posts about the England attack. I cbf to argue with a lot of but Anderson certainly has bowled a few unplayable spells but the vintage 09 'blame ourselves' posting is starting to show again (only from some posters FTR). Don't get me wrong, Australia have batted like morons in parts, but Anderson would have taken wickets against anyone with his day one and five Adelaide spells.

Yeah, and this is why I find Australia losing everything even less bearable than Australia winning everything. Somehow it makes people want to be even more dismissive of every single opposition player in world cricket in their attempts to back up their whinging about how the selectors/coach/captain/old players/young players are holding Australia back from their rightful place at the top of the cricketing world. Anything less than that and it has be someone's fault - and it can't just be the opposition having better players. Heaven forbid.

 

[vicleggie]

Yeah but reason it was 2-3 not 0-0 was because Anderson bowled beauties to get Ponting and Clarke. And the one that got Haddin in particular on day five was special.

delivery to pootie tang was an unplayable gem. clarkes was shorter and he couldve played it better than going at it full blooded with hard hands when his team was 2-2

dont know if you could say the spell would have done any lineup in cricket. but hey, he bowled beautifully in brisbane without wickets, and people said hed bowl worse spells and get more wickets, and he did, so good on him. still think batting was poor on day 1, and pressure was not handled on day 5. just batting sensibly, not as if wed alrady lost, might have drawn the match with the downpour, but such was the stupidity and negativity of the aus team that that wasnt even talked about

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Depends on the pitches really, if they have a bit of life 20 wickets won't be a problem. Unlikely though.

The thing is if the pitch has life in it you'd back the England attack to make better use of it the way they have bowled so far.

Australia have to improve so much to just compete never mind win, it can happen but if England get off to a good start again in Perth i can see it being one way traffic again.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, and this is why I find Australia losing everything even less bearable than Australia winning everything. Somehow it makes people want to be even more dismissive of every single opposition player in world cricket in their attempts to back up their whinging about how the selectors/coach/captain/old players/young players are holding Australia back from their rightful place at the top of the cricketing world. Anything less than that and it has be someone's fault - and it can't just be the opposition having better players. Heaven forbid.

You're a good man Cribbage and don't ever let me tell you otherwise

 

[Spark]

day 5- hussey played a pathetic shot (Was finn, but still created pressure). harris left a ball that although was a change in swing, should have been played at, haddin was under pressure. i wouldnt callit unplayable bowling, more just creation of pressure coupled with poor will power by aus. it could have been avoided

I agree with most of the above but credit where it's due - the ball that got Haddin was pretty good. Not outstandingly good, but you won't begrudge Anderson a wicket with that ball.

I think Clarke's ball was better than Ponting's simply because Ponting's was a half-volley that swung. Still unplayable but Clarke's ball was just a bit shorter, so the drive, though enticed by the full length, was more difficult to play. All academic, of course, as they were both much too good for the batsmen at the time, but if we're going to be nitpicking...

 

[BoyBrumby]

YOu've got to know your role.

At seven, you feel like a bits and pieces player.

You just do.

Look at Watson.

Quite so. Gilchrist? What a hack.

Seriously tho, Smith at 6 for me too, yeah. My one concern (were I an Aussie) would be that I wouldn't put the house on the boy making hay if he comes in at (say) 80/4, which isn't beyond the realms of the possible currently.

So, Australia aside, who should be England's third seamer? Most of Australia's success has come after seeing off the better bowlers, then targeting the weak links, however if the third bowler can quick things tight, we always seem to struggle. If England muck up this selection and Finn doesn't step up, I think we can really win this Test, despite England's batting being miles ahead at the moment.

Tremmers IMHO. Will keep it tight a la Broad (has been our most economical bowler at the MCG despite going wicketless) and with his height will be best able to flog out whatever life remains in the WACA deck.

The thing is if the pitch has life in it you'd back the England attack to make better use of it the way they have bowled so far.

Australia have to improve so much to just compete never mind win, it can happen but if England get off to a good start again in Perth i can see it being one way traffic again.

Whilst I (cautiously) agree, I also think that a spicy surface (if such a beast is still able to be bred crimside) is Australia's best chance. Siddle looked an entirely different prospect when Brisbane had some life, but pretty toothless on the heartbreaker at Adelaide.

 

[MW1304]

i love anderson , but he was bowling on a featherbed on day one, and had his first few overs been negotiated, who knows what might have happened. 0-0 gives a batsman less of a heartache than 3-2including a runout

day 5- hussey played a pathetic shot (Was finn, but still created pressure). harris left a ball that although was a change in swing, should have been played at, haddin was under pressure. i wouldnt callit unplayable bowling, more just creation of pressure coupled with poor will power by aus. it could have been avoided

But that is what good bowling on a flat pitch is! Must take wickets with the swinging new ball (I think 2 in the first 3 overs counts as that) then create pressure with the old ball, forcing the mistake. That is pretty much the perfect flat pitch bowling display - to bowl a side out for 245 on one is, quite frankly, a superb effort and anyone who says otherwise is deluded. Bad batting or not, Anderson bowled brilliantly, you cannot simply pile the blame on your batsmen.

Also, is unplayable bowling all you expect from a bowler? Does Anderson have to bowl balls classed as unplayable to be good in your eyes? With a ball that isn't swinging or seaming, on a pitch with no bounce?

 

[vicleggie]

But that is what good bowling on a flat pitch is! Must take wickets with the swinging new ball (I think 2 in the first 3 overs counts as that) then create pressure with the old ball, forcing the mistake. That is pretty much the perfect flat pitch bowling display - to bowl a side out for 245 on one is, quite frankly, a superb effort and anyone who says otherwise is deluded. Bad batting or not, Anderson bowled brilliantly, you cannot simply pile the blame on your batsmen.

Also, is unplayable bowling all you expect from a bowler? Does Anderson have to bowl balls classed as unplayable to be good in your eyes? With a ball that isn't swinging or seaming, on a pitch with no bounce?

il give him the first day- was indeeda beautiful spell. last days effort was nothing special tho. solid test match bowling, and the lower order didnt so much as put up a fight- if they had done for 30 minutes more, it may be 0-0

although i mentioned unplayable, i was more arguing against geraintismyhero saying andersons bowling on the 5th iday wouldve undone anyone- i disagreed.
but yeh brilliant bowling, i dont wanna nitpick and sound like a twerp (maybe i alrady have haha) - if he bowls like that in Perth, even if our top order batsman are willing to dig in, and our tail arent spineless, he will be a handful

 

[Woodster]

Interesting seeing comments on England's attack not being particularly penetrative, well tbf what do you expect on two pitches generally made for batting. These unplayable spells are difficult to bowl when the track's so flat. So when the pitch is like that you have to be exceptionally disciplined and patient, sit in when inevitable partnerships build then when you do strike try and grab a couple of quick ones. Just because Australia have struggled to reach 300 does not mean these wickets are anything other than batters tracks.

I would suggest Anderson has bowled some beautiful spells, the thing is you're not going to see the ball whizzing past the outside edge on a consistent basis, so a very good spell is hitting the right areas and waiting for the batsman to make an error, more so when the batsman is in.

The first two Tests were about discipline, which England displayed in huge amounts both with the ball and the bat and have reaped the rewards. Another thing that is being overlooked is the confidence within the squads and belief. Yes sure if you look at both sides on paper you'd suggest there is little between them, but look at the difference in confidence individually, and also the belief that we believe we are outplaying Australia and that inner belief of genuinely thinking we're going to win from most positions cannot be understated.

 

[Spark]

Well... you mean the last two days of the first test.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, and this is why I find Australia losing everything even less bearable than Australia winning everything. Somehow it makes people want to be even more dismissive of every single opposition player in world cricket in their attempts to back up their whinging about how the selectors/coach/captain/old players/young players are holding Australia back from their rightful place at the top of the cricketing world. Anything less than that and it has be someone's fault - and it can't just be the opposition having better players. Heaven forbid.

Haha so true. England absolutely owned on day one at Adelaide, their bowling and fielding was just at a level Australia have no hopes of matching. They basically have to hope England play less well at Perth because if they don't then Australia's performance isn't even really relevant. They'll just lose.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I have a feeling Bresnan will get the nod. I think Flower is a big fan of his and they'll want him in now to beef up the lower order.

 

[Woodster]

I have a feeling Bresnan will get the nod. I think Flower is a big fan of his and they'll want him in now to beef up the lower order.

If they go with Bresnan, I hope that's because they plan for him to be bowling into the breeze and feel he would be the most effective at doing so. Beefing up the lower order is a bonus but imo shouldn't really be taken into account too much on the basis our top 7 is incredible form and should get enough runs on the board between them. Swann at 8, and either Tremlett or Shahzad is not bad anyway so don't think Bresnan's batting should hold too much sway.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Among a lean field.

I don't think they're that good that we shouldn't have filled our boots, 1st innings, Adelaide.

Yeah, agree with this basically. They're very good, but not outstanding. There's no reason why we should get bowled out for 245 in Adelaide in the first day.

England have bowled much better as a unit than Australia though. Much, much, much better.

Edit: And I should add, Anderson has been a lot better than I thought he would be so far. And Swann played his part in Adelaide by mopping up days 4 and 5. Each bowler is playing their part. Basically the complete opposite to what our bowlers have been doing.

England have been doing to us what we used to do to them a few years back. They heap the pressure on and we almost look rushed and unable to get ourselves prepared and back in the game. By the time we know what's happened, we've had a collapse, or they've piled on 60 runs in 10 overs and we've completely fallen apart. They're a well prepared team.