*Official* First Test at Trent Bridge

[Riggins]

yeah that was apparently bird's first injury where he's missed a chunk of time ever, no idea about starc.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Is Agar's finger right for him to bowl at Lord's?

 

[Riggins]

khawaja seems to be making more runs. no one seems to have suggested that it's because he worked hard and became a better player though, or that he still doesn't have the same weaknesses full outside off.

 

[Spikey]

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)

hmmm i'll have to watch it, 'cause i dont think so. i mean, henriques and smitteh in india

 

[Ruckus]

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.

Well we are talking about laying down blame for batting collapses here, and I mean given the context of a gettable total, a couple of 50's from any of Clarke, Hughes, Smith, Cowan would have taken us to a pretty comfortable position. So if anyone is to blame here it isn't Watson or Rogers. As you said it would obv be a good thing if either of them managed to push on, but at least they made some runs and did one of their essential jobs as openers by seeing off the new ball. It's been said that it isn't easy to get starts on this wicket, but I also think it probably hasn't been that easy to make big scores on either given Bell was the only one to do it in England's second innings (and he had a fair deal of luck at that too).

 

[Burgey]

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.

O_O

How about we see how he pulls up? He bowled pretty bloody well mate, as they all did. If he's fit he has to play.

 

[Flem274*]

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

#anyonebutFaulkner

And 4 tests is the worst case scenario.

Point is an injury shouldn't be shrugged off by Australia because Siddle and Pattinson are by far and away Australia's best first choice bowlers and one of the reserves is just as good but ridiculously injury prone.

 

[Handsome Harry]

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.

I like your thinking re the recent opening pairings. Someone has to convert 50s in tons when opening. I dunno if it's Hughes though. I think he's highly susceptible to the swinging ball. The problem with him batting at 5 or 6 is he struggles against quality spin. It's a conundrum!

First hour all important tonight. If the Poms bowl as well as they did after tea last night then it'll be tough. Watto and Rogers really got away on the back of average spells from Broad and Swann and a poor spell from Finn. Once they tightened up, the pressure really built. Anderson will just bowl well anyway!

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

He's still the same from what I've seen. Can't really drive, doesn't know where his off stump is. As I've said before I always felt that, while less obvious, his technical issues were worse than Hughes's because you could tie him down and threaten his wicket with the same bowling plan. If you want to get Hughes out then you need to bowl on or outside off but if you don't execute that quite right then he will carve you through the off-side; if you want to tie him down you can bowl at his hip but that won't threaten his wicket. It's very easy to set a plan to Usman that both ties him down and threatens to get him out - full bowling outside off. That hasn't been true with Hughes since he worked on his defence against short bowling after the 2009 Ashes.

 

[uvelocity]

ive been passed out after about lunch but most of what i've seen from starceh has been tripe though. siddle pre-fivefa was pretty innocuous. patto's reverse swing was probably the highlight of the bowling i've seen from australia this test

 

[LongHopCassidy]

#anyonebutFaulkner

And 4 tests is the worst case scenario.

Point is an injury shouldn't be shrugged off by Australia because Siddle and Pattinson are by far and away Australia's best first choice bowlers and one of the reserves is just as good but ridiculously injury prone.

Here's the thing: Harris has been fine in a full season of domestic FC and List A since he recovered from the freak injury - which had nothing to do with his chronic condition - that he suffered at the MCG in 2010. He's not more likely than not to go down, and he knows his own action better than someone like Cummins.

 

[Ruckus]

O_O

How about we see how he pulls up? He bowled pretty bloody well mate, as they all did. If he's fit he has to play.

Hmm I dunno. I too thought he bowled very well, but we do have to somehow manage our bowlers the best we can though this series. I think Harris is about the closest like-for-like sub we could make for Patto anyway, so not sure we'd be losing much.

 

[Ruckus]

I like your thinking re the recent opening pairings. Someone has to convert 50s in tons when opening. I dunno if it's Hughes though. I think he's highly susceptible to the swinging ball. The problem with him batting at 5 or 6 is he struggles against quality spin. It's a conundrum!

First hour all important tonight. If the Poms bowl as well as they did after tea last night then it'll be tough. Watto and Rogers really got away on the back of average spells from Broad and Swann and a poor spell from Finn. Once they tightened up, the pressure really built. Anderson will just bowl well anyway!

That's not mutually exclusive though! You don't think Watto played a part in not letting them settle in?

I don't think Hughes is much of a conundrum. As you said, not ideal against swinging ball and not ideal against spin, so bat him at 4, and move Clarke back to 5 where he should be. Smith would suit 6 really well too.

 

[Flem274*]

He's still the same from what I've seen. Can't really drive, doesn't know where his off stump is. As I've said before I always felt that, while less obvious, his technical issues were worse than Hughes's because you could tie him down and threaten his wicket with the same bowling plan. If you want to get Hughes out then you need to bowl on or outside off but if you don't execute that quite right then he will carve you through the off-side; if you want to tie him down you can bowl at his hip but that won't threaten his wicket. It's very easy to set a plan to Usman that both ties him down and threatens to get him out - full bowling outside off. That hasn't been true with Hughes since he worked on his defence against short bowling after the 2009 Ashes.

Thanks.

I actually think Hughes has improved off of his hip from what I've seen in this test (I missed last nights short stay), but maybe my memory of him previous to this test is coloured.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thanks.

I actually think Hughes has improved off of his hip from what I've seen in this test (I missed last nights short stay), but maybe my memory of him previous to this test is coloured.

Yeah he definitely has. Bowling straight and back of a length is still clearly the easiest way to limit Hughes's run-scoring but if you bowl a pie on his hip he will actually work it for a single now which is encouraging.

 

[Handsome Harry]

Here's the thing: Harris has been fine in a full season of domestic FC and List A since he recovered from the freak injury - which had nothing to do with his chronic condition - that he suffered at the MCG in 2010. He's not more likely than not to go down, and he knows his own action better than someone like Cummins.

Except he only played 3 FC games last season due to injury - and then got injured again.

 

[Handsome Harry]

That's not mutually exclusive though! You don't think Watto played a part in not letting them settle in?

I don't think Hughes is much of a conundrum. As you said, not ideal against swinging ball and not ideal against spin, so bat him at 4, and move Clarke back to 5 where he should be. Smith would suit 6 really well too.

Dunno if I'm prepared to give Watto that much credit

Indeed, Hughes might be worth a crack at 4.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Except he only played 3 FC games last season due to injury - and then got injured again.

Oh. I stand corrected.

He bowled bloody well in the Shield final, so I assumed he'd had a decent amount of match practice.

 

[Handsome Harry]

Oh. I stand corrected.

He bowled bloody well in the Shield final, so I assumed he'd had a decent amount of match practice.

He bowled beautifully when he got back. 19 wickets in the 3 matches.

 

[Prince EWS]

#anyonebutFaulkner

And 4 tests is the worst case scenario.

Point is an injury shouldn't be shrugged off by Australia because Siddle and Pattinson are by far and away Australia's best first choice bowlers and one of the reserves is just as good but ridiculously injury prone.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Pattinson was going to miss multiple consecutive Tests though; just that with back to back Tests and a heavy workload in this one, he's a chance to miss the next one if he doesn't pull up 100%. Harris doesn't have to be fit for four Tests for that problem to be mitigated; just one.

I disagree with your assessment of the bowlers anyway. I really don't think it matters that much at all which three quicks play, despite all the massive debates here about it. I think Australia have five quicks on tour of similar quality so if one is struggling for confidence, form or has a niggle then I wouldn't waste that depth. I'm definitely not in favour of proactive resting/rotation - if a bowler bowls well and then pulls up fine then I'd not leave him out - but if someone ends up with a niggle for one match and is only 95% or something I'd not risk them.