*Official* First Test at Trent Bridge

[Spark]

50+ overs in the Test for our quicks, back-to-back Tests...

 

[Ruckus]

oh right, i thought he meant form wise. Well fortunately we have some excellent depth, and potentially even better replacements.

 

[Flem274*]

Kinda annoyed from a neutral POV that Watson might be doing just enough to continue being selected. I guess it's all a much of a muchness when the reserve is Khawaja who is also not great and also a **** to boot (is Warner banished for the series?), but it looks like Cowan is going to be the fall guy instead of Watson. He's not a good batsman, he's a very good 5th bowler and it appears he's a terrible influence in the dressing room.

I think Warner, Rogers, Hughes is the best top three Australia can field though. But I can understand not wanting to move Hughes from six immediately after he's scored some runs.

 

[Tangles]

The openers had the best of the batting conditions. So when both made 40+ your entitled to think one of them has to kick on for the team to win. Because all the batsmen coming in later are going to find it harder to get in and score with a softer ball on a slow pitch. You chase scores like this last with the top 4 dominating. It just so happens that the openers both got the best starts so the onus was on them to kick on.

 

[Ruckus]

As Cowan should be though. Even if you take away Watson's bowling etc., say what you want about his inability to convert, but the fact is he is still doing better than Cowan.

 

[Flem274*]

oh right, i thought he meant form wise. Well fortunately we have some excellent depth, and potentially even better replacements.

I'd be careful about thinking like this.

Bird is largely untested against opposition who won't bat like deer in the headlights away from home and Harris is more likely to crock himself walking down the stairs than any of the incumbents.

If Siddle or Patto go down it's a huge loss to Australia.

 

[Spikey]

i mean, rogers chipped a slower ball to midwicket when on 56. in a test match.

 

[Burgey]

Oh dear, look at you. "You've got a hiding coming up in England first fella" - now you've seen a contest and want to have your cake and eat it too. No. The pitch began turning square in the final hour last night and we are 6 down with an impatient keeper and debutant at the crease and nearly half the target still to get. If you lose from here, it's a choke. No getting around it.

It won't necessarily be a choke. Depends how Australia goes about it, if they get there.

 

[Prince EWS]

Be interesting to see what people think of this now. Very typical Watson innings - forms a good opening partnership, dominates and then holes out for 50 odd. Should blame for the batting collapse be mainly attributed to him then?

I don't think so. It would obviously have been good if he converted, but the real problem for me was when the Cowan/Rogers partnership came in. Cowan failed to keep Watson's momentum going, and the innings totally stagnated and never recovered because England's bowlers were able to find rhythm.

If anything I think it's pretty irrelevant that both Watson and Rogers got out around 50. The fact is they saw off the new ball and set the team up with a solid platform, which the other batsmen failed to capitalize on.

I think part of what makes Watson's Watsonness so irritating is the fact that he's been paired with openers who are actually pretty similar to lesser extents. Having two openers who consistently see off the new ball is all well and good but Katich got out around 50 a lot when he batted with Watson as well, which meant the opposition kept getting momentum-changing double strikes around 100. Cowan has had a similar career thus far too. Watson/Katich, Watson/Cowan and Watson/Rogers all seem like excellent combinations in theory based on the complementary natures - Watson is an aggressive, stroke-making right handed batsman strong off the front foot, while the others were all more defensive, dogged lefted batsmen who preferred the back foot. Watson, Katich and Cowan (even though Cowan rarely/never actually opened with Watson) were 50-and-out merchants to varying extents though which meant Australia often found themselves at 100/2 after a good start with two new batsmen at the crease. It's why I've always been keen on Hughes; he has technical issues but when he finds himself comfortable with the conditions and the bowling he goes on to make Test hundreds - he's more "none or a gut full" so I always thought he'd be a better combination with Watson for that reason.

 

[Flem274*]

As Cowan should be though. Even if you take away Watson's bowling etc., say what you want about his inability to convert, but the fact is he is still doing better than Cowan.

Watson is a drag on the team though, so it's hard for me to want him to succeed as a neutral. Even objectively, cricket teams need functioning dressing rooms to succeed.

At the very least he should be demoted to number six and told to bat like a traditional swashbuckling allrounder like he does in ODIs, because he hasn't been much of a test opener for a while now.

 

[Spark]

Gideon Haigh made an interesting point on Offsiders this morning - the fact that Agar was able to come in and do what he did suggests that the coaching/leadership structures in the team are functioning well (for a change)

 

[LongHopCassidy]

50+ overs in the Test for our quicks, back-to-back Tests...

I think Starc's fatigue won't be a problem for Lord's.

If you know what I mean.

 

[Flem274*]

If Warner pulls his head in he could be a very good opener, but then his innings in Hobart could be giving me rose tinted glasses towards his career as a whole. That was a seriously good innings.

 

[Ruckus]

I'd be careful about thinking like this.

Bird is largely untested against opposition who won't bat like deer in the headlights away from home and Harris is more likely to crock himself walking down the stairs than any of the incumbents.

If Siddle or Patto go down it's a huge loss to Australia.

Well given Siddle has shown his form is actually good, I'd probably just retain him, given he's the least likely to break down, and directly substitute Harris for Patto.

 

[Spark]

I think Starc's fatigue won't be a problem for Lord's.

If you know what I mean.

Nah I'll be surprised if he's dropped. Whether he should play on form/class is another issue, but I think he will barring injury.

 

[dermo]

50+ overs in the Test for our quicks, back-to-back Tests...

a regular Pat Howard this ****

 

[LongHopCassidy]

As much as I love Cowan the bloke, if he's sick then he should be given at least one Test to recover. There are two perfectly healthy batsmen who, on the balance of probabilities, will score more than 14 runs in the next Test and not strain the resources of the Nottingham sanitation department.

 

[Flem274*]

Well given Siddle has shown his form is actually good, I'd probably just retain him, given he's the least likely to break down, and directly substitute Harris for Patto.

Yeah and then you have to somehow get Harris through up to 4 tests.

I think he should be viewed as more of a bonus bowler like Bond was for NZ and Shoiab was for Pakistan. When he's fit that's great, but don't rely on it or expect it to last very long.

Having such a bowler in your reserves is especially problematic in some ways. How are Bird and Starc with injuries as a general rule? Bird had an operation recently didn't he?

#dontdieonmenow #anyonebutFaulkner

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah and then you have to somehow get Harris through up to 4 tests.

Yeah because changing the side after the second Test isn't an option...

 

[Flem274*]

Oh and for people who follow Aussie domestix, how much work has Khawaja done on his issues since we last saw him? There has been a lot of talk about Hughes doing the hard yards but nothing on Usman.